========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:24:03 EDT From: Ric Subject: Daylight Saving Time? (Lots of interesting postings and some good information here but the bottom line is that we still don't know whether or not St. Pete was on Daylight Saving Time in 1937.) *************************************************************************** From Gerry Gallagher Unless St. Pete was one of the cities that elected to keep DST after it was eliminated in 1919 as a law and re-instated in 1942 to accomodate WWII. It would seem by the information obtained on the website below that the city probably did not observe DST in 1937! http://www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/e.html Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Randy Jacobson The US in 1937 was not on Daylight savings time, thank goodness! If it was, I'd have had an even worse time putting all the radio messages in chronological order! ************************************************************************** From Ric It seems that some places in the US did use Daylight Saving Time in 1937. *************************************************************************** From Harry Poole Although it was in effect in a few places before World War II, Daylight Saving Time was not in effect in St. Petersburg, or anywhere in Florida in 1937. LTM Harry, #2300 *************************************************************************** From Ric Source? *************************************************************************** From William Webster-Garman Daylight savings time was instituted in the US as a wartime measure for seven months during 1918 and 1919. It was unpopular with the public, and rescinded as a federal mandate, but continued locally in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and the cities of New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago (and perhaps a few others). Nationwide daylight savings time was imposed by the federal government again in 1942 (this was actually a default, year-round shift forward by one hour), and was again repealed after the war. In England during the second war, they used something more extreme, called "double summer time", 2 hours forward in summer, 1 hour forward in winter. It is probable that St Petersburg FL was NOT using daylight time during the summer of 1937. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Vern >We need to establish whether St. Petersburg, Florida was on Daylight Savings >Time in July 1937. Daylight Savings Time in 1937?! I don't believe such a thing had even been thought of. *************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Ric, I believe there was NO Daylight Savings Time in the U.S. in 1937. The following information came from a history of DST. ************************** In 1918, in order to conserve resources for the war effort, the U.S. Congress placed the country on Daylight Saving Time for the remainder of WW I. It was observed for seven months in 1918 and 1919. The law, however, proved so unpopular that it was later repealed. When America went to war again, Congress reinstated Daylight Saving Time on February 2, 1942. Time in the U.S. was advanced one hour to save energy. It remained advanced one hour forward year-round until September 30, 1945. .............. From 1945 to 1966, there was no U.S. law about Daylight Saving Time. So, states and localities were free to observe Daylight Saving Time or not. .............. By 1966, some 100 million Americans were observing Daylight Saving Time through their own local laws and customs. Congress decided to step in end the confusion and establish one pattern across the country. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S. Code Section 260a) created Daylight Saving Time to begin on the last Sunday of April and to end on the last Sunday of October. Any area that wanted to be exempt from Daylight Saving Time could do so by passing a local ordinance. The law was amended in 1986 to begin Daylight Saving Time on the first Sunday in April. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Nick Murray I found a California Energy Commission website that has some history about daylight saving time: http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html It says that daylight savings time was used during both WW1 and WW2 to conserve energy and resources, but wasn't used widely across the country until 1966. It also suggests that researching local newspapers during April or October for reminders to change the clocks is the best way to determine if daylight saving time was in use. LTM, Nick Murray (#2356CE) *************************************************************************** From Vern I said... >Daylight Savings Time in 1937?! I don't believe such a thing had even >been thought of. Shows how much I know!! Daylight Saving Time was first observed in the U.S. during World War I, then again during World War II. In between, individual states did their own thing. In general, there is a tendency for the more southern states and countries near the equator to stay with Standard Time. (World Almanac) I'll guess that Florida was on Standard Time in 1937. We need to hear from Florida and I expect we already have. My problem was that I came on the scene between the wars. I certainly have no memory of messing around with the clocks twice a year until World War II. So, I know just a little more than I did last night! LTM Who says any day you learn something is well spent day. *************************************************************************** From Jon Watson There's a brief history of daylight savings time at the address below - according to the article, the nutshell version is: No Daylight savings time in 1937. 1784 - First Suggested by Benjamin Franklin. 1883 - Time zones created by the railroads to standardize their schedules 1918 - Daylight Savings Time or Summer Time was first officially implemented during World War One as a fuel Conservation method. 1919 - Daylight savings Time is repealed. From Feb. 9, 1942, to Sept. 30, 1945 (World War Two) clocks were kept an hour advanced in the United States as well as many other countries to conserve fuel. 1966 - The American law by which we turn our clock forward in the spring and back in the fall is known as the Uniform Time Act of 1966. Daylight Savings Time began on the last Sunday in April and ended on the last Sunday in October. The above information was obtained from: http://www.computingcorner.com/holidays/savingstime/daylight.htm ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Warren Lambing $85 is a little steep for my blood, that is the minimum, but I suspect this place can answer if St. Petersburg was on Daylight savings time in July 1937 http://www.sptimes.com/Services/info/default.html I have sent email to there free service hoping they will perhaps give me some source for free (not likely, as far as getting it for free, but always worth trying first). I will let you know if I get a reply. Hope you good success as far as getting an answer from the list. Regards. Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Answers are in abundance. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:38:11 EDT From: Ric Subject: Merry-go-round, off topic Here's a bit of trivia that's just too good not to share. Some of the songs in Betty's notebook (such as "They Can't Take That Away From Me") will be familar to most people while others have faded into obscurity, but there's one song there that virtually everybody knows even though you may not realize that you know it. An instrumental rendering of "The Merry-Go-Rond Broke Down" was adopted by Warner Bros. as one of the credits themes for their Looney Toons series of cartoons. You've heard it a million times but you've probably never known the words, or even that the tune HAD words, until now: *********************************** Oh, the Merry-Go-Round broke down And we went round and round Each time t'would miss, we'd steal a kiss And the Merry-Go-Round went "Um-pah-pah, um-pah-pah Um-pah! Um-pah! Um-pah-pah-pah!' Oh, the Merry-Go-Round broke down And it made the darndest sound, The lights went low, we both said "Oh!" And the Merry-Go-Round went "Um-pah-pah, um-pah-pah Um-pah! Um-pah! Um-pah-pah-pah!' Oh what fun - a wonderful time Finding love for only a dime. Oh, the Merry-Go-Round broke down But you don't see me frown Things turned out fine and now she's mine - Cause the the Merry-Go-Round went "Um-pah-pah, um-pah-pah Um-pah! Um-pah! Um-pah-pah-pah!" Oh, the Merry-Go-Round broke down. ******************************************************* Thanks to William Webster-Garman for making it possible for the Earhart Forum to once more enrich our lives. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:39:37 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Dating the films and songs Following web page lists at least 3 of the films listed http://www.filmsite.org/1937.html At least 5 of the songs appear on the Hit Parade Winners site below: http://nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Andy Black Legion - Humphrey Bogart - 1936 God's Country and the Woman - Beverly Roberts - 1936 Elephant Boy - Sabu Movie & Book - 1937 Swing High, Swing Low - Carol Lombard & Fred MacMurray - 1937 The Great O'Malley - Pat O'Brian - 1937 Maytime - Jeannette McDonald - 1937 A Day At The Races - Maureen O'Sullivan - 1937 A Woman of Glamour - Kent Taylor Movie "Woman of Glamour" released 1937, however, Kent Taylor not in cast/credits. That covers the movie end. Music will take a bit more work, as we don't seem to have the artists associated with the pieces. LTM (Who enjoyed "A Day At The Races" much more than "Flight For Freedom"), Andy ************************************************************************** From Gerry Gallagher Website below has listing for 7 of the 8 movies listed on pg23 of the notebook. 5 are 1937 releases and 2 are 1936 releases. So all fall within the timeframe (nothing later than claimed). One is not listed A WORLD OF GLAMOUR .. Kent Taylor. Will see if I can find that elsewhere. http://www.hollywood.com/maltin/b/blacklegion-1936.htm Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Kerry Tiller I'm sure there is an old movie buff on the forum who can date the flix. Taking a cursory look at what there is of my music library with me here in Japan (unfortunately most of it is in the States) I found a couple of the songs. "They Can't Take That Away from Me" is a Gershwin tune, copyrighted in 1937. (Copyright by Gershwin.) "Johnny One-Note" is a Rodgers and Hart song copyrighted by Chappell in 1937. So far, so good. Ric, could you do me favor and print some of the lyrics Beatty wrote down for "Carelessly"? (a first line will do) I want to make sure it is NOT a song called "Careless" by Quadling, Howard and Jurgens which was copyrighted by Bourne in 1939. In the meantime I'll go surfing in cyber space for the other songs. It would be a real plus if we could get the Hit Parade rankings for the first week of July, 1937. LTM (who is a soprano) Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Ric "Carelessly you gave me your heart and carelessly I broke it, swwetheart." ************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg A quick web search shows that the film "Black Legion" was made in 1936 and released in 1937. The songs listed on page 31 of Betty's notebook, with the exception of "Where Are You" were Hit Parade top-three winners for the year 1937. "Where Are You" may not have made the final top-three category. I'm checking now to see if I can pin anything down to a month. Bob *************************************************************************** From Kerry Tiller An update to my last post: Using Amazon.com's Music Search, I found 1937 release dates for six more of the songs on Betty's list. (I won't take up bandwidth with the details. If anybody really cares who recorded the songs in 1937, E-mail me.) Now I'm trying to find a list of hits specifically for the first week in July, 1937. LTM Kerry Tiller #2350 tiller@surfline.ne.jp *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt Below is some preliminary stuff I looked at. Obviously the films released in 1937 need to be dated. I may be able to get precise info from http://afi.chadwyck.com/ But I don't have a membership. Free trial is available to any organization though, so TIGHAR might like to apply. If we find a 1937 film released after July 1937 in the pages, then the diary can be questioned seriously. So far everything I have seems to be late 1936 / early 1937. Regards, RossD BLACK LEGION Radio Broadcast: - Feb 1937 http://www.allthingsbogart.com/radiodays.htm Movie 1936 release.. http://www.mrshowbiz.go.com/reviews/moviereviews/movies/BlackLegion_1936.html http://www.jpc-film.de/2234203.htm http://www.productdetailsandprices.com/summary/B00003XAMX God's Counttry and the woman - likewise, 1936 release. (No mention of radio) Elephant Boy - released in 1937 - needs dating.. http://www.icast.com/movies/1,4003,1042-33130,00.html Swing High, Swing Low - released in 1937 - needs dating Does the following match anything on Betty's notes for "There's a Lull in my life" ? I'm writing this as I listen to it much as Betty would have done. (1937 - Teddy Wilson and his Orchestra) Female vocalist. Oh, Oh, There's a lull in my life It's just a void, an empty space When you are not in my embrace Oh, There's a lull in my life The moment that you go away There is no night, there is no day The clock stops ticking The world stops turning Everything stops but... Ross Devitt I'm attaching the real media file, but incase you can't receive it here's the URL: http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/redirect/leaf=pagename=/RP/CDN/FIND/album .html/itemid=356208/from=sr-2114280-1 You'll have to join rthe URL to make it work.. Carelessly Teddy Wilson, 1936/37 Appears to be Teddy Wilson Orchestra and Billie on vocals. Billie Holiday 1934-37 How carelessly You gave me your heart And carelessly I broke it sweetheart I'm obviously finding listening to all this 30's Jazz hard to take.. It Looks Like rain: Lionel ferbos with Lars Edegra (June 11 1936) It looks, like rain In cherry blossom lane The sunshine of your smile's no longer there It looks, like rain In cherry blossom lane Your golden voice no longer fills the air The rippling ??? the old mill stream... (Fletcher Henderson's is nothing like this and no mention of cherry blossom lane - so this is probably it) *************************************************************************** From Ric Those lyrics match Betty's notes. *************************************************************************** From Nick Murray I have checked some websites for the film and song titles, and I have the following results: Movies: Black Legion - Humphrey Bogart released 30 December 1936 God's Country and the Woman - Beverly Roberts released 10 January 1937 Elephant Boy - Sabu released 9 April 1937 (in the UK) Swing High, Swing Low - Carol Lombard & Fred MacMurray released 15 March 1937 The Great O'Malley - Pat O'Brian released 1937 Maytime - Jeannette McDonald released 26 March 1937 A Day At The Races - Maureen O'Sullivan released 11 June 1937 A Woman of Glamour - Kent Taylor there was no film by this title in the database I checked, but there is a film from 1937 starring Kent Taylor called "When Love Is Young" which may be the one that Betty saw Songs (I am noting artist, ranking during 1937, and if lyrics are posted): page 29 It Looks Like Rain (on Cherry Blossom Lane) (lyrics written down) Guy Lombardo - Number 1 - lyrics page 31 (numbers may refer to Hit Parade ranking?) 9. Love Bug Will Bite You Jimmy Dorsey - Number 6 - lyrics, Guy Lombardo - Number 10, Pinky Tomlin - Number 9 2. Carelessly Teddy Wilson featuring Billie Holiday - Number 1 - lyrics 7. Where are you Mildred Bailey - Number 5 6. Sweet Laylone Sweet Leilani - Bing Crosby - Number 1 - lyrics 5. There's a lull in my life Teddy Wilson - Number 2 - lyrics 3. Never in a million years Mildred Bailey - Number 8, Bing Crosby with Jimmy Dorsey - Number 2, Glen Gray - Number 7 (Then written below) Merru-go-round broke down The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down, Eddy Duchin - Number 2 - lyrics, Shep Fields - Number 1 - lyrics, Jimmy Lunceford - Number 7 - lyrics, Russ Morgan - Number 1 -lyrics Never in a Million Years Mildred Bailey - Number 8, Bing Crosby with Jimmy Dorsey - Number 2, Glen Gray - Number 7 A sail boat in the Moonlight Billie Holiday - Number 10, Guy Lombardo - Number 1 - lyrics, Dick Robertson - Number 10 page 33 The Love Bug'll Bite You (lyrics written down) Jimmy Dorsey - Number 6 - lyrics, Guy Lombardo - Number 10, Pinky Tomlin - Number 9 page 34 Where Are You (lyrics written down) Mildred Bailey - Number 5 page 35 Carelessly (lyrics written down) Teddy Wilson featuring Billie Holiday - Number 1 - lyrics Just a Quiet Eve not listed page 36 There's a Lull In My Life (lyrics written down) Teddy Wilson - Number 2 - lyrics page 37 A Sail Boat In The Moonlight (lyrics written down) Billie Holiday - Number 10, Guy Lombardo - Number 1 - lyrics, Dick Robertson - Number 10 page 38 They Can't take That Away From Me (lyrics written down) Fred Astaire - Numer 1 - lyrics, Ozzie Nelson - Number 6 page 41 It Looks Like Rain In Cherry (lyrics written down) Shep Fields - Number 6, Guy Lombardo - Number 1 - lyrics page 43 Where Are You? (lyrics written down) Mildred Bailey - Number 5 page 44 Johnny One Note not listed page 46 All God's Children's Got Rythum (sic) (lyrics written down) not listed page 47 Merry-go-round Broke Down (lyrics written down) Eddy Duchin - Number 2 - lyrics, Shep Fields - Number 1 - lyrics, Jimmy Lunceford - Number 7 - lyrics, Russ Morgan - Number 1 -lyrics page 48 You Can't Run Away From Love Tonite (lyrics written down) not listed The movie information was found on The International Movie Database site: http://www.imdb.com/ The songs were found on the Lyrics World Top 40 Hits of 1930-1999 site: http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/main_index/index.html LTM, Nick Murray (#2356CE) *************************************************************************** Ric: Please disregard any postings from me prior to this one. My system went down and I think an incomplete message may have gone out. This one is complete, albeit very long. I have found the following information concerning the films and songs listed in Betty's notebook. I have followed the format of your posting and have detailed the info below each entry, with associated url's from which the data was obtained. Hope this helps. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 23 Black Legion - Humphrey Bogart Released-December 1936----USA http://us.imdb.com/Title?0027367 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0027367 http://www.paweekly.com/PAW/morgue/cover/1997_Nov_21.ARTSIDE2.html Nominated for Academy Award-1937--Best original story ----------------------------------------------------------- God's Country and the Woman - Beverly Roberts Released-January 10,1937----USA http://us.imdb.com/Title?0028941 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0028941 ----------------------------------------------------------- Elephant Boy - Sabu Released: UK--April 9,1937 Denmark April 26,1937 Finland May 9,1937 Sweden July 19,1943 Could not find a release date for the USA. Filmed in the UK. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0028827 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0028827 Venice Film Festival 1937--Won for Best Director; Nominated for Mussolini Cup. --------------------------------------------------------- Swing High, Swing Low - Carol Lombard & Fred MacMurray Released: March 15, 1937----USA http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029626 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0029626 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Great O'Malley - Pat O'Brian Released in Finland July 18, 1937 US distributor-Warner Bros. Could not find USA release date http://us.imdb.com/Title?0028955 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0028955 ----------------------------------------------------------- Maytime - Jeannette McDonald released- March 26,1937----USA http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029222 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0029222 ----------------------------------------------------------- A Day At The Races - Maureen O'Sullivan Released - June 11, 1937----USA http://us.imdb.com/Title?0028772 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0028772 ----------------------------------------------------------- A Woman of Glamour - Kent Taylor *** Probably incorrect title*** A movie with the following title was released in 1937 (Exact release date not found.): Women of Glamour -- released by Columbia Pictures http://www.icast.com/movies/1,4003,1040-122170,00.html http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029794 No Kent Taylor was listed in the credits. A check of the performance credits for Kent Taylor shows no such title. http://us.imdb.com/Name?Taylor,+Kent ----------------------------------------------------------- page 29 It Looks Like Rain (on Cherry Blossom Lane) (lyrics written down) Correct Title is--"It Looks Like Rain IN Cherry Blossom Lane" 1937 Hit Parade Winners: IT LOOKS LIKE RAIN IN CHERRY BLOSSOM LANE (13) Lyrics: Edgar Leslie; Music: Joseph A. Burke http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html It Looks Like Rain In Cherry Blossom Lane--- Guy Lombardo (Lebert Lombardo) http://www.billboard.com/atoz/chart30s.asp 4/14/37 Swing & Sway with Sammy Kaye-IT LOOKS LIKE RAIN IN CHERRY BLOSSOM LANE http://www.hensteeth.com/harmony.html Selected Top Songs of the Era (source: "Billboard's #1 Hits) (week of) 7/03/37: "It Looks Like Rain in Cherry Blossom Lane," Lombardo, Guy http://members.nbci.com/dwightladams/19301939.htm Top 10 Hits of 1937: It Looks Like Rain In Cherry Blossom Lane - Guy Lombardo (#1) http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/1937.html ----------------------------------------------------------- page 31 (numbers may refer to Hit Parade ranking?) 9. Love Bug Will Bite You (exact release date could not be found) From the movie: "Thanks for Listening"- (1937)---(exact release date of movie could not be found) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029649 http://www.jabw.demon.co.uk/adbtz.htm Top 10 Hits of 1937: THE LOVE BUG WILL BITE YOU (09) Pinky Tomlin http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/1937.html 1937 Hit Parade winners: http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ 2. Carelessly 1937 Hit Parade Winners: CARELESSLY (12) Norman Ellis; Nick A. Kenny; Chas. F. Kenny http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html Top 10 Hits of 1937: Carelessly - Teddy Wilson featuring Billie Holiday (#1) http://www.summer.com.br/pfilho/html/top40/1937.html Selected Top Songs of the Era (source: "Billboard's #1 Hits) (week of): 5/15/37 "Carelessly," Wilson, Teddy, featuring Billie Holiday http://members.nbci.com/dwightladams/19301939.htm ----------------------------------------------------------- 7. Where are you From the movie--Top of the Town--Released-April 18, 1937 http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029680 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0029680 "Where Are You"by Jimmy McHugh and Harold Adamson Sung by Gertude Niessen http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0029680 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Sweet Laylone (Appears to be incorrect spelling of title) The following was found: 1937 Hit Parade Winners: SWEET LEILANI (12) Harry Owens http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html Introduced by Bing Crosby in Paramount film: Waikiki Wedding ---Released March 23, 1937---USA http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029742 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0029742 http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0029742 Selected Top Songs of the Era (source: "Billboard's #1 Hits) (week of):4/17/37 "Sweet Leilani," Crosby, Bing http://members.nbci.com/dwightladams/19301939.htm Top 10 Hits of 1937: Sweet Leilani - Bing Crosby (#1) http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/1937.html http://www.billboard.com/atoz/chart30s.asp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. There's a lull in my life 1937 Hit Parade Winners: THERE'S A LULL IN MY LIFE (09) Lyrics: Mack Gordon; Music: Harry Revel http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html Introduced by Alice Faye in 20th Century Fox film: Wake Up And Live -Released August 23, 1937 --USA http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0029744 http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0029744 Top 10 Hits of 1937: There's A Lull In My Life - George Hall (#5) There's A Lull In My Life - Teddy Wilson (#2) http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/1937.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Never in a million years Hit Parade Winners of 1937: NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS (10) Lyrics: Mack Gordon; Music: Harry Revel http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html Buddy Clark's voice was dubbed for Jack Haley in 20th Century Fox film: Wake Up And Live. -released August 23, 1937--USA http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?002974 http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0029744 Top 10 Hits of 1937: Never In A Million Years - Mildred Bailey (#8) Never In A Million Years - Bing Crosby with Jimmy Dorsey (#2) Never In A Million Years - Glen Gray (#7) http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/1937.html Ozzie Nelson and His Orchestra 1937 Never in a Million Years http://www.parabrisas.com/msl_nelsono1.html ---------------------------------------------------------- (Then written below) Merru-go-round broke down Spelling error---correct title is--"The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down" 1937 Hit Parade Winners: THE MERRY-GO-ROUND BROKE DOWN (10) Cliff Friend and Dave Franklin http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html Selected Top Songs of the Era (source: "Billboard's #1 Hits) (week of): 7/03/37 "The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down," Morgan, Russ (week of): 7/17/37 "The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down," Fields, Shep http://members.nbci.com/dwightladams/19301939.htm Top 10 Hits of 1937: The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down - Eddy Duchin (#2) The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down - Shep Fields (#1) The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down - Jimmy Lunceford (#7) The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down - Russ Morgan (#1) http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/1937.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Never in a Million Years --(see prior entry) A sail boat in the Moonlight 1937 Hit Parade Winners: A SAILBOAT IN THE MOONLIGHT (14) John Jacob Loeb and Carmen Lombardo http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html Selected Top Songs of the Era (source: "Billboard's #1 Hits) (week of): 8/07/37 "A Sailboat in the Moonlight," Guy Lombardo http://members.nbci.com/dwightladams/19301939.htm Top 10 Hits of 1937: A Sailboat In the Moonlight - Billie Holiday (#10) A Sailboat In the Moonlight - Guy Lombardo (#1) A Sailboat In the Moonlight - Dick Robertson (#10) http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/1937.html ------------------------------------------------------------ page 33 The Love Bug'll Bite You -------------------------see prior entry (lyrics written down) page 34 Where Are You ------------------------------------see prior entry (lyrics written down) page 35 Carelessly --------------------------------------------see prior entry (lyrics written down) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Just a Quiet Eve ***(Probably titled----"Just a Quiet Evening")*** The following information found for that title: JUST A QUIET EVENING Sung by Ross Alexander and Danced with Ruby Keeler from the movie: Ready,Willing and Able--1937-release date not known http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0029467 http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029467 Nominated for Academy Award(1938) --Best Dance Direction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- page 36 There's a Lull In My Life--------------------------see prior entry (lyrics written down) page 37 A Sail Boat In The Moonlight -------------------see prior entry (lyrics written down) --------------------------------------------------------------------- page 38 They Can't take That Away From Me (lyrics written down) They can't take that away from me--George&Ira Gershwin From the movie: Shall We Dance --released May 7,1937-USA http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0029546 http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029546 http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0029546 Top 10 Hits of 1937: They Can't Take That Away From Me - Fred Astaire (#1) They Can't Take That Away From Me - Ozzie Nelson (#6) http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/1937.html Selected Top Songs of the Era (source: "Billboard's #1 Hits (week of): 5/01/37 "They Can't Take That Away From Me," Astaire, Fred http://members.nbci.com/dwightladams/19301939.htm Academy Award for song : http://www.oscars.org/awards_db/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- page 41 It Looks Like Rain In Cherry ----see prior entry (lyrics written down) page 43 Where Are You? ------------------see prior entry (lyrics written down) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- page 44 Johnny One Note Johnny One Note-- from Rodgers and Hart's BABES IN ARMS. It was the hit of the season when it opened in 1937, running nearly 300 performances, but essentially vanished thereafter. http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/4109/babes.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------ page 46 All God's Children's Got Rythum (sic) (lyrics written down) "All God's Children Got Rhythm" by Bronislaw Kaper and Walter Jurmann and performed by Ivie Anderson, Harpo Marx, and the Crinoline Choir http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0028772 ***From the movie "A Day at the Races"***--See prior entry August 30, 1937: Judy (Garland)Signs with Decca Judy's long-term contract with Decca went into effect on this date. The same day, she recorded "Everybody Sing" (from Broadway Melody of 1938) and "All God's Children Got Rhythm" (from MGM's A Day at the Races. Judy stayed with Decca for a decade until MGM began issuing its own records in 1947). http://www.zianet.com/jjohnson/chrono1.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- page 47 Merry-go-round Broke Down -------see prior entry (lyrics written down) ------------------------------------------------------------- page 48 You Can't Run Away From Love Tonite (lyrics written down) You Can't Run Away From Love Tonight -Duke Ellington--1937 http://www.jpc-music.com/9106661.htm From the Warner Brothers picture: "The Singing Marine"--released June 30,1937-USA http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0029571 http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0029571 http://us.imdb.com/Title?0029571 http://www.harrywarren.org/y.htm#YouCantRunAwayFromLoveTonight http://www.harrywarren.org/y.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LTM (who Loves The Music,Loves The Movies, but really,really, Loves The Mambo), Bill Conover *************************************************************************** From Ric You guys are AWESOME. I've summarized the findings in a separate posting called "Films & songs summary." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:54:37 EDT From: Ric Subject: Films & songs summary Many thanks to all who contributed to the dating of films and songs in Betty's notebook. All the submissions are posted separately under "Dating the films and songs." Here's a summary of the results. Note that songs were often released prior to the film in which they were featured. page 23 Black Legion - Humphrey Bogart - released 30 December 1936 God's Country and the Woman - Beverly Roberts - released 10 January 1937 Elephant Boy - Sabu - a British film released 9 April 1937 in the UK Swing High, Swing Low - Carol Lombard & Fred MacMurray -released 15 March 1937 The Great O'Malley - Pat O'Brian - U.S. release date is unknown. Released in Finland 18 July 1937 so U.S. date is probably several months earlier. Maytime - Jeannette McDonald - released 26 March 1937 A Day At The Races - Maureen O'Sullivan - released 11 June 1937 A Woman of Glamour - Kent Taylor - 1937 (Kent Taylor not in credits. William Webster-Garman says, "This English actor existed, died in the 80s, and is buried nearby in Westwood but I can't find any trace of this film." Nick Murray says, "There is a film from 1937 starring Kent Taylor called "When Love Is Young" which may be the one that Betty saw.") page 29 It Looks Like Rain (on Cherry Blossom Lane) - should be "in Cherry Blossom Lane." Lyrics: Edgar Leslie; Music: Joseph A. Burke First recorded June 11 1936 apparently by Lionel Ferbos with Lars Edegra Recorded April 14, 1937 by Swing & Sway with Sammy Kaye Perhaps significantly, Billboard lists the song as the Number 1 Hit for the week of July 3, 1937 as recodred by Guy Lombardo. Among First Place songs on Hit Parade of 1937 page 31 (numbers may refer to Hit Parade ranking?) 9. Love Bug Will Bite You Pinky Tomlin First recorded April 5, 1937 From the movie: "Thanks for Listening"- (1937)---(exact release date of movie could not be found) Among Second Place songs on Hit Parade of 1937 2. Carelessly Billie Holliday Norman Ellis; Nick A. Kenny; Chas. F. Kenny First recorded April of 1937 Billboard lists the song as Number 1 for the week of May 15, 1937 Among First Place songs on Hit Parade of 1937 7. Where are you Sung by Gertude Niessen Jimmy McHugh and Harold Adamson From the movie--Top of the Town--Released-April 18, 1937 Also recorded by Mildred Bailey 6. Sweet Laylone (LEILANI) Harry Owens Introduced by Bing Crosby in Paramount film: Waikiki Wedding released March 23, 1937 Recorded by Crosby for film Feb. 23, 1937 Among Second Place songs on Hit Parade of 1937 5. There's a lull in my life Lyrics: Mack Gordon; Music: Harry Revel Introduced by Alice Faye in 20th Century Fox film: Wake Up And Live -Released August 23, 1937 --USA Among Third Place songs on Hit Parade of 1937 The song as recorded by at least two other artists: George Hall (#5) Teddy Wilson (#2) 3. Never in a million years Lyrics: Mack Gordon; Music: Harry Revel Buddy Clark's voice was dubbed for Jack Haley in 20th Century Fox film: Wake Up And Live. -released August 23, 1937--USA Among Second Place songs on Hit Parade of 1937 Apparently the song was recorded by at least 4 artists: Mildred Bailey (#8) Bing Crosby with Jimmy Dorsey (#2) Glen Gray (#7) Ozzie Nelson and His Orchestra (Then written below) Merry-go-round broke down (correct title The Merry-Go-Rond Broke Down Cliff Friend and Dave Franklin Among Second Place songs on Hit Parade of 1937 Billboard lists the song among Number 1 Hits for week of July 3, 1837 and July 17, 1937 Recorded by four artists: Eddy Duchin (#2) Shep Fields (#1) Jimmy Lunceford (#7) Russ Morgan (#1) Never in a Million Years (see above) A sail boat in the Moonlight Guy Lombardo John Jacob Loeb and Carmen Lombardo Among First Place songs on Hit Parade of 1937 Billboard Number 1 for week of August 7, 1937 Recorded by three artists: Billie Holiday (#10) Guy Lombardo (#1) Dick Robertson (#10) page 33 The Love Bug'll Bite You (see above) page 34 Where Are You (see above) page 35 Carelessly (see above) Just a Quiet Eve (correct title Just A Quiet Evening) Johnny Mercer song from Warner Bros. film -- Ready, Willing and Able -- 1937-release date not known Sung by Ross Alexander and Danced with Ruby Keeler This song did not make the top ten in 1937 but did get airplay. page 36 There's a Lull In My Life (see above) page 37 A Sail Boat In The Moonlight (see above) page 38 They Can't take That Away From Me words by Ira Gershwin, music by George Gershwin First recorded March 14, 1937 for film "Shall We Dance" Film released May 7, 1937 - USA Interestingly, Billboard shows this song as a Number 1 Hit for the week of May 1, 1937 which predates the release of the film. Recorded by: Fred Astaire (#1) Ozzie Nelson (#6) (lyrics written down) page 41 It Looks Like Rain In Cherry (see above) page 43 Where Are You? (see above) page 44 Johnny One Note from Rodgers and Hart's Broadway play BABES IN ARMS. It was the hit of the season when it opened in 1937, running nearly 300 performances, but essentially vanished thereafter. page 46 All God's Children's Got Rythum (sic) - correst tiitle "All God's Children Got Rhythm" bBronislaw Kaper and Walter Jurmann Performed by Ivie Anderson, Harpo Marx, and the Crinoline Choir in the movie "A Day at the Races" released 11 June 1937. Later recorded by Juldy Garland on 30 August 1937. page 47 Merry-go-round Broke Down (see above) page 48 You Can't Run Away From Love Tonite Duke Ellington From the Warner Brothers picture: "The Singing Marine"--released June 30,1937-USA LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:19:17 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Epoxy and Cement > From John Clauss > > To Marty Moleski > ... The key to using epoxy is to have clean, abraded surfaces and a > moderate amount of clamping force. Should be a straight forward process. Yes, as long as you pack your abrasives, cleaners, and clamps when you hop on board the Naia for the five-day cruise to Niku. ;o) (I love abrasives, solvents, clamps, epoxies, cyanoacrylates, white glue, ambroid, etc., and I plan to date some of the new glues next chance I get.) Love to Mother. Tell her I'm sorry for spilling the maroon dope on her new carpet. :o( Marty ************************************************************************** From Richard Lund Ric wrote: "What we want to avoid is any damage to the tomb itself. I'd say just replace the bolts." At last a topic I do know about and can contribute to. I spent 8 years as a roofer and 3 years as a general contractor's apprentice.We specialized in foundations and roofs.We tried many different epoxies and cements to affix met al to concrete.the problem is over time the epoxies will break down or not stick at all and thus leave the plaque on the ground.If I might suggest using bolts and the jb weld(Randy and Bob are quite right about this product.jb weld is essential a pliable material that when hard is as strong as steel,cost about 8-10 dollars cdn..) you will find it will work quite well.Apply the jb weld to the insides of the bolt holes in the plaque but use the bolts to secure it to the tomb.the jb weld will secure the bolts to the plaque making it impossible to unscrew them.I used this combination many times to secure iron railings to brick on stairways,ramps and walkways in high pedestrian traffic areas,were safety was paramount.jb weld dries fairly fast so you'll need to test fit everything first to ensure everything will fit together.wipe off any overflow of the jb weld right away. It will be inconspicuous and tasteful. I know Gerry is right in not wanting to damage the tomb but you may have to drill the holes out again.they should be made one size larger to ensure that the bolts will secure a strong purchase in the concrete.(if the holes are 3/8 in. size make the them 7/16 in.).If the second smaller plaque is to be affixed the you'll need to drill holes for this as well.The holes will still be inconspicuous and subtle and without damaging the tomb.Regardless of the size they will have to be cleaned out as thoroughly as possible to ensure a secure purchase for the bolts.I might also suggest using stainless steel or galvanized bolts to prevent them from rusting away.Using an insert for the bolts in the holes will also help out here.the expansion type works extremely well,when the threads of the bolts screw into the sleeve it pushes barbs on the outside of the sleeve out into the concrete making it impossible to pull them out again.This means that the same size holes could be used but I suggest making them one size larger to ensure a good clean purchase in the concrete. the other advantage to using this combination to affix the plaque is that it will comply with Gerry's request to maintain the tomb much as it was constructed. Well that's my take on how it should be done,I don't claim to be an expert but my own past experiences has taught me that this does work well.I guess the final choice will rest in Ric and Gerry's hands. oops,forgot to mention ....If you do use the expansion sleeves then you do not need to drill the holes any deeper than the currently are.there is no penetration of the inner wall of tomb. LTM Richard Lund ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know if there even IS an inner wall. The tomb may well be solid. There's nothing in there in any event. The burial in the ground like a conventional grave. The tomb was erected over the grave years later. *************************************************************************** From Tom Robison >>From Paul Chattey >Besides, what reason would they have to pry it off? Why do people knock over tombstones or shoot holes in road signs or spray-paint walls? Some folks have no other mission in life... Where does one buy this J-B Weld? Any hardware, or is it a specialty item? LTM, Tom *************************************************************************** From Tom King Ric wrote: > If we're really concerned about deterring theft we might also consider > putting the disclaimer in English and Tungaru (the language of Kiribati) and > maybe also Tuvaluan or Tokelau. Starts to sound pretty cumbersome. And, I think, sort of beside the point. If we want to deter theft -- and this will be a matter of increasing concern the more people learn about Niku, particularly if we confirm our hypothesis -- then the problem will not just be to deter theft of the plaque, but to deter theft of all kinds of data-rich artifacts and the disturbance of their data-rich contexts. This is a whole lot bigger management problem than that of keeping the plaque in place, but it also presents additional possibilities -- like the distribution of literature and the placement of multi-lingual signs elsewhere on the island. Why didn't we think of consulting stonemasons? Duh. I'll put the question to the National Park Service's National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, which has people who specialize in this kind of thing. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:04:45 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: 281 message & Betty's notebook Ric is correct that FN would need an accurate timepiece/watch to calculate longitude. That being the case, he had one on the trip. From a good noonshot he could calculate both latitude & longitude-latitude from the altitude(Hs) of the sun and longitude from the sun being in its highest position in the sky and then comparing the local time(noon) with GMT and converting the time difference from Greenwich into degrees of longitude. On Betty's notebook, I prefer to wait for the TIGHAR jury's verdict. Unless I woke up in North Korea this morning, one is not guilty until proven innocent. Give her and the notebook a chance to prove themselves. This one needs some serious effort & midnight oil. Maybe legit, maybe not.........I dunno. Godspeed Ric. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:07:14 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Carbon dating the notebook > From Ric > > The only thing tougher than figuring out whether or not an alleged > post-loss message was a hoax is trying to figure wheter or not about half > the postings to this forum are meant as a joke. I read your "Betty" post at least five times before I was confident that you meant it to be taken seriously. You'll have to get an emoticon that means, "Seriously, folks, I'm not joking." :-| Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, I guess it cuts both ways. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:30:38 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Movie release dates Please note that the "official" U.S. release date indicates when the movie was released in a theater within a one [?] mile radius of Hollywood. While many motion pictures "premier" in other cities, their release is not considered "official" until it shows in the Hollywood area. (The Hollywood release may be shortly after an out-of-town release.) Sometimes a movie may have a limited release in large cities only and then be distributed in smaller venues later. Alternatively, some movies may have a limited release in test markets and later be released in major markets if they test well. Source: The Internet Movie Data Base David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:45:44 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Local noon? Ric and Doug Brutlag (and others) said FN could determine his latitude by checking the sun's angle at local high noon. Without a watch how does he determine noon? I know the old put-a-stick-in-the-ground-and-use-it-as-a-sun-dial trick but using that method you won't know it is noon until -- at the minimum -- one minute after noon, which would give you an incorrect answer. So, how do you determine local noon with out a watch and without being at least one minute late? LTM, who REALLY needs maps Dennis O. McGee, #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:47:55 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Merry-go-round, off topic Have you ever thought about getting accredited to award higher education credits for this forum???? How about lower education credits???? ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric I figure I'm doing well just not getting arrested for running this forum. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:49:19 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Something new You said: >I do plan to interview Betty on videotape as soon as we're sure there's >nothing obvious in the document that would indicate that it's a hoax. I would also like to offer my services, if there is anything I can do. I live in the Central Florida area, and can check out anything you would like in the St. Petersburg area. I used to live in Largo (near St. Pete) and still know many people there. If you would like me to, I will be glad to offer you help in researching any part of Betty's story and/or join you when you want to set up a videotaping or personal meeting. For what ever it's worth, my radio experience would support the possibility of fading in and out skip signals received in Florida in 1937. LTM Harry #2300, an ex First Class radiotelephone professional *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Harry. Betty no longer lives in Florida but there is some research in the St. Pete area that would be useful. I'll email you privately with specifics. *************************************************************************** From Marty Joy Did you by any chance, ask "Betty" if she recognized AE's voice on the transmissions? If Betty was a movie/famous person/aviation buff, she certainly would have seen various newsreels of AE and would have been familiar with her voice. Of course if she was listening to a commercial radio hoax, they probably would have imitated it. Just some thoughts. Marty Joy 0724C *************************************************************************** From Ric Newsreel clips that included speaking parts by Earhart were not very common and Earhart's voice was not something Betty was familar with. She is, however, adamant that the extreme emotion in the woman's voice was absolutely genuine. ************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt > Another puzzler is why > Earhart gets talkative only >>after<< they're down. Why nothing, zip, > nada, between 8:43 a.m. and touchdown? Skip (as CBers will recall) fades in and out, the same signal can be heard at different places at different times. I assume it does on the frequency Earhart used as well ?? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Is that true? Can the same signal be heard at different places at different times? ************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt > From Ric > > That's right. Betty has no idea what frequency she was listening on. She > was just tuning along the dial and stopped when she heard something > interesting. A practice I'm sure a lot of us that used to listen to short wave radio have done. I spent hours chasing Radio Australia (international broadcasts), America, Europe, BBC London, and various Pacific island stations on an ancient portable transistor radio that I still have, using a simple telescopic antenna at all times of day and night, from all parts of Australia over the years I was travelling. Often short wave from another country was the ONLY viable reception. Th' WOMBAT (just about to dig out the radio and see if it still works) **Followup** It worked. Mackay, Queensland, Tropical Australia, getting very loud signals on some bands Stations fom Europe, fading in and out, but all readable. BBC London coming in well, even over the interference from my hard drives.. So even a low power receiver on a standard telescopic antenna is picking up signals from all over the world. Bearing in mind that in Betty's day there would not be so much "junk" on the airwaves (remember the internet back around 1990?) she would possibly have a good chance of picking up a signal from the Pacific. We used to talk from Melbourne Australia about 30 years ago, to various parts of the U.S. on 27MHz AM CB with a little less (well, a LOT less) power that Earhart's transmitter. Th' WOMBAT (who is now stuck with Spanish voice and whistles and squeals..) *************************************************************************** From Ken Knapp Hue Miller wrote: > If it turned out to be a home radio, i would discount her account from the > outset, on technical grounds. I would NOT discount the possibility of Betty having received post loss transmissions on a "wooden" home type receiver. I own 25 shortwave receivers, of various make and vintage, including a "wooden" home type (not to mention having once been in the business of repairing them ). With an adequate receiving antenna and the right atmospheric conditions, you'd be amazed at what it is possible to hear on the air with any one of them. Bottom line is this - I would not doubt her story just because of what she was using for a receiver. Atmospheric conditions, antenna, and band congestion have MUCH more bearing on reception than the receiver itself. ************************************************************************** From Judy Dear Don. 'In all of her radio transmissions, AE never used her name only her call sign'......Well her call sign did not seem very effective during her 'running out of gas -floundering about in massive waters looking for land time' and further, she probably was semi-hysterical and perhaps thought using her name might bring understanding and help faster???? Judy who doesn't fly. *************************************************************************** From Bill Moffet As you know I read Randy Jacobson's "Post-Loss Messages" file and also your photocopies of NY Herald Tribune contemporaneous stories. None of them reported AE saying anything like Betty reported, nor was there any report of conversation, etc. with FN. She identified herself as KHAQQ, not by her name. I tend to agree with William Webster-Garman and Herman De Wulf that the on-mic struggle sounds like creative script writing. I suspect she was listening to a short wave harmonic of a local (more or less) broadcast station. To illustrate: a station broadcasting on 1550 kHz (kcs in the "old days") would produce a second harmonic on 3100 kHz - close to 3105. Its fourth harmonic at 6200 kHz might also be heard if the listener were close enough to the transmitter. It'll be interesting to hear the March of Time broadcasts. On the other hand, maybe she did hear something from AE that no one else did - although I think it unlikely. "The 'Radio' Handbook", 1938, by Frank C. Jones and the Technical Staff of "Radio", indicates that a single wire antenna 67 feet long, if fed (connected) 11 feet from its center would work for 40-, 20- and 10-meter operation. Well, 6210 kHz is 48.3 meters, so if the antenna was configured a bit differently - and directionally aligned at a right angle to the transmitter - the receiver might well be able to pick up a "skip" signal on 6210 kHz. Mike E. is far better qualified to comment on this than I. Also one might ask if Betty's father had the expertise to cut and connect the feeder for such frequencies. And why would he do so? She was apparently not interested in Ham radio nor perhaps in listening to distant (foreign) broadcasts, so I suspect the antenna was not tuned at all. While we're at it, somebody might check to see if St. Pete was on Daylight Saving Time in July of '37. If Betty's times, 3:15 - 6:15 PM were EST, then subtracting 6 hours would make it (GMT less 11 hours) 09:15 - 12:15 at Baker. (Howland was Baker plus 0:30 for Navy/USCG time.) It will also be interesting to see if we can figure what day Betty heard the broadcast. LTM (who likes Big Band music) Bill Moffet #2156 *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm puzzled how you can say that none of the other post-loss messages report saying anything like what Betty reported when you don't know what Betty reported. The database of all known post-loss messages, that was to be the ultimate product of the research in which you participated, never got made (no fault of yours, I hasten to add). As a matter of fact, there are some startling similarities between what Betty wrote down and what was later reported by other alleged post-loss message receivers. We really need to take a hard look at the whole post-loss message question. *************************************************************************** From Warren Lambing My two cents, probably worth less then two cents :-). Also more of a reply to other post. Good to remember for the rest of the list, these are analog dials, to tune the station. As far as the neighbors go, who knows what model receiver they had, not all receivers are equal even back then. I play around with old receivers, have listen to some from that era, mostly I listen to shortwave, and have compare them to newer receivers, some the old sets are pretty good receivers, and comparable to the more middle of the road shortwave radios of today. As far as the Neighbor not picking it up, some old receivers will over load with a log wire antenna, some won't. If the house has poor electrical wiring it will cause an old tube set to pick up the static from the wiring, even on shortwave bands, one house could have poor wiring the other may not. The point being it is hard to compare sets, or even analyze why more people didn't hear the transmission, you have to wonder, how many people would be listening on that frequency, or have receivers that could pick a good signal there. Also you could asked, if it was a hoax broadcast, why didn't more people hear it, assuming that it was hoax being transmitted closer to the States, for that matter how many people would have a crystal in there radio to broadcast on that frequency, if there aren't many transmitters out there to broadcast on that frequencies, you have to consider it limits the amount of people who could broadcast the hoax. I am not saying what Betty heard was AE, but it is interesting to see a log surface of a possible post radio message. Regards. Warren Lambing ************************************************************************** From William Webster-Garman Ric wrote, >>It's interesting to me to see how many people - even with minimal information and without ever seeing the content of the alleged transmissions - have already established a position on this question.<< Actually, Ric, your original and enthusiastic post summarized quite a lot of salient detail (the description itself contains 474 words). It does seem likely to me that a Florida adolescent's transcript of a broadcast alluding to a delirious FN fighting with AE ("The man would alternately struggle with Amelia and try to get the microphone away from her or panic and try to get out of the airplane"), or AE dramatically announcing her presence in an agitated voice without her call letters ("This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart.") is most likely the product of a scriptwriter (or perhaps a creative hoaxter). Obviously, knowing that you have Betty's complete notes, anything I may think about the subject must be heavily qualified. But you shouldn't be surprised, after making such a sensationalistic post with all those juicy details, that forum members have enthusiastically responded with their impressions. Is there something in the notebook that you haven't yet revealed that makes you think it might be a record of an actual Earhart post loss transmission? william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric If my posting came across as "sensationalistic" it's only because the events recorded in Betty's notebook are undeniably dramatic. If you think the basic facts I laid out about the nature of the circumstances portrayed by the notes were "juicy", wait until you see the full transcript. It is precisely because the scenes described in the notes are so "sensational" that I'm holding them back until we can make some reasoned judgement about whether they COULD be true, irrespective of their content. *************************************************************************** From Cam Warren Betty's "short-wave" reception: I just knew this would come up! It's highly likely Betty was hearing a second (or higher) harmonic of a powerful nearby standard broadcast station. (As I'm sure was the case with the radio operator in Honolulu and the listener in Montana, et al.) Betty's receiver - It was quite common, during the thirties, for "home" radio receivers to have two or three short-wave bands as an added attraction. My Sears "Silvertone" floor model had such, and (I believe) cost the princely sum of $16.95. Needless to say, it's sensitivity and selectivity left a lot to be desired, and it certainly did NOT have a "CW" switch. Nor did you have the foggiest idea of the precise frequency you'd tuned! Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Vern Ric, I wonder if 15 year old "Betty" noted where on the dial she heard Earhart? **** I read some more before posting. I guess that's now been answered -- she has no idea. But is there anything in the journal? As with all alleged Earhart transmissions, if it was not heard on 3105 kc or 6210 kc, it was not Earhart. (Poor callibration of receiver dials allowed for, of course) I think the chances of an off-frequency transmitter are virtually zero. Incidently, in my opinion, that console radio was very possibly about as good a receiver as was to be had in that time. A guy who strung up a 60-foot antenna probably had a pretty good home radio receiver. In terms of sensitivity and "image" rejection. The fancy communications receivers were little, if any, better. (For radio folks) "Betty's" radio probably had a tuned RF amplifier ahead of the mixer. Late comments having read todays postings... These home radios certainly didn't have BFOs! The antenna wasn't some kind of array. It was just a wire "perhaps 60 feet long." Why didn't all sorts of people hear the same thing? How many were listening to that frequency at that time? I agree, it's not a question of, could it have been heard (yes it could), but is it real? That's the only appropriate question. LTM for sure! *************************************************************************** Don Neumann writes: > Think you've got a phony here, in all of her recorded radio > transmissions AE _never_ used her name, only her call sign. The response to this is obvious. Her call sign was appropriate for normal flight, but if she is grounded somewhere and desperately wants this to be reported by anyone who hears it, if she just uses the call sign she limits her audience to those who recognize it - when her life depends on it and she has one of the most famous names in the world as an alternative. A case could be made for using both name and call sign - but you wouldn't expect a teenager to note both if she heard the name. LTM Phil 2276 *************************************************************************** Ric, Wasn't Daylight Savings Time a necessity for providing more daylight hours for production of war materials during WWII? Since you are the only one on Forum who has actually read 'Betty's' journal, I'm curious about her actual description of...'the transmissions continued to come in, off & on, for about three hours'..., were the transmissions of an on-going, continuous stream of 'conversation', interrupted by the 'fading in & out' of the signal or did each appear to be a _separate_ message, broadcast at regular (or irregular) intervals? How would a three hour timeframe for such broadcasting fit the amount of fuel 'estimated' that the Electra had left in it's tanks upon landing at Gardner, as opposed to the drain on the battery system required to stay 'on-the-air' for that three hour period? Also, since the broadcasts were originating in the Central Pacific during the hours from 8:30 am - 11:45 am (Central Pacific Time), what effect would the 'skip' factor have upon such broadcasts, during such timeframes, in reaching the West Coast of Florida in the late afternoon? Does the 'notebook' provide any _dates_ for any of the _other_ entries 'Betty' recorded? Does the notebook contain _only_ notes & jottings from the...'summer of 1937'...? Perhaps the...'rush-to-judgements'... you attibute to Forum participants in this case is simply due to the fact that this document bears such a close resemblance to much of the material promoted as 'evidence' by the 'splashed & sank' & the 'captured by the Japanese' folks, whose offerings have been routinely discredited by TIGHAR. I'ts difficult to assess the credibility of such 'evidence' when the original source document is not available for examination & only 'bits & pieces' of the content are being presented for discussion purposes. Maybe TIGHAR should declare a moritorium for postings on this subject until further, probative investigation of the document is completed? Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe this is the wrong way to handle this but I'm trying to enlist the forum's help in making a preliminary judgement about the possible validity of the notebook, irrespective of its actual content, before we tackle the content itself, which is admittedly very dramatic. PDF images of the entire notebook will go up on the TIGHAR website a soon as we have the basic questions answered. So far we're doing great, with extremely valuable input form many forum members. Any analogy to the shenanigans of the crashed-and-sank or Japanese-capture theorists escapes me. ************************************************************************** From David Evans Katz <> If these are the times that Betty heard AE & FN down (and presuming that the transmission was real), then they couldn't have made Gardner. That is, there would not have been enough time from their last reported transmission to Itasca (within about 100 miles) and an 8:30 a.m. transmission from a Gardner landfall. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric We have already determined that Betty's notes can not date from July 2nd. *************************************************************************** From Mike Muenich From the mass of material being submitted to the forum it appears that the chronological offerings contained in the notebook will be verified in the near future. I note that Mr. Gillespie has not told us where the AE entries are in the listing; I presume its a test. I also note that some of the the release dates and corresponding pages would be after the AE event and therefore I presume (hope) that the AE event falls in between. Assuming the chronological order is accurate, I offer the following: 1. I understand this lady to be 78 years old and submitting a record that is approximately 63 years old. AE, except for us excentrics, is not a hot topic. Why would she retain the document if it were a hoax perpetrated in 1937 and she couldn't get anyone, including Goener in the 1960's, to buy it then? Is there any chance that the letter from her to Goener could be found in the Nimitz materials or are they so disorganized as to make location impossible short of reviewing all? 2. She doesn't seem to be "pushing" the document, i.e. hasn't sent it to e-bay, Sothbys, the National Enquirer, etc. As I understand it, a contact from a friend produced the contact from TIGHAR. We called her, she didn't call us; neither is she seeking publicity. She does not seem to fit the profile of a person "perpetrating" a hoax. 3. If the document itself, not the chronology, fits the 1937 time frame, i.e. paper, handwriting, ageing, etc., then it would appear that we have a contemporanious document and if there was a hoax, it would have been perpetrated on her, unless an overactive 15 year old imagination created the insert. What's the point if she wasn't going to report it, (her father did) and unless she wanted the publicity. Refer to #2 above, she might have wanted it then, but now? 4. Three hours is a long hoax. I am familiar with Orson Welles and the "War of the Worlds" broadcast, but such a production would take some considerable time to work up and I seriously doubt that any reputable station would have made such a broadcast at the time of AE's disappearance given her popularity and the concern of the nation over her loss. EXTREMELY poor taste. I concede that it might be on any number of morning or afternoon TV productions today, but I doubt that it would have been broadcast then. If it was broadcast and if it souned so accurate and "real life", there should also have been a deluge of calls to the local authorities, ala "War of the Worlds". 5. That leaves an individual. Again, three hours is a long hoax. The perpetrator ought to have known that any number of authorities might be trying to get direction finders locked on to such a transmission, which could lead to him. If the perpetrator was using common or very simple equipment and local to Florida, it seems that more than one person would have listened and there (again) should have been a deluge of calls to the local authorities, ala "War of the Worlds". What's the point of a hoax if its limited to one person and how would you limit it? If the perpetrator was using sophisticated equipment, it would seem the broadcast would have been wider in scope, more susceptable to interception and tracing by the authorities and potential loss of license or other FCC delights. 6. That also leaves a freak skip of a valid series of transmissions. I eagerly await the radio geru's analysis and the full transcript of the transmission(s) with reference to the page(s) of the notebook, hopefully in the proper chronolgy. *************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent points. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:49:57 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Love Bug date In re the song, "Love Bug Will Bite You", it was sung by Ray McKinley and performed by the Jimmy Dorsey Orchestra. I have a recording of it, but, unfortunately, no release date is given. It was probably released in the mid- to late-thirties. I suspect that a 1937 release would be reasonable. It was considered a "novelty" song (along the same lines as the "Hut Sut" song). David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric As noted in the original posting, the song was first recorded by Pinky Tomlin for the movie "Thanks for Listening" on April 5, 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:53:30 EDT From: Ric Subject: B-bya-B-bya-B-That's all folks! That's not all the postings for today (10/2) but's it's all I have time to do and it's more than enough for all of us to digest for one day. More tomorrow. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:51:48 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Re: Daylight time in St. Pete? 1. What is "Daylight Savings Time "? Sorry, for that question. 2. Betty heard a transmission (sporadically) during 3 hours. I guess that even for a sporadic transmission you would drain a lot from the battery. Was this possible without recharging with the generator, meaning that she would have to run the engine (left one?). Does Betty mention anything about hearing an engine runing ? They could have forgotten that detail in a radio dramatization as the show was taking place after landing (or crashing). *************************************************************************** From Ric I trust that your first question has been answered by subsequent postings. Betty has mentioned nothing about hearing an engine running. How much actual transmission time is represented by the fragments that Betty heard over the 3 hour period is not yet clear. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:56:17 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: St. Petersburg Time I don't know why you are asking about daylight-savings time, but if you are examining a reference to a "spring moving time," it may be explained by the article below. This article was printed after 1937 but it was also pre-WWII. --------------------------------------------- [http://members.aol.com/jeff560/am6.html] This article appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on March 29, 1941 Dear Mrs. Jones: Let's be a good sport about one of life's dizzier difficulties you're going to experience today. As on dozens of other Saturdays, you will buzz into the living room, push your radio dial button and whisk back to the kitchen to fluff Saturday night's pie meringue to the dulcet tones of your favorite crooner. But for the sake of all those meringues and custards, Mrs. Jones, let's face it. This morning was spring moving time on the airways. Your push button dial system, if hubby forgot to change it last night, is as useless as yesterday's salad. Because this morning, Mrs. Jones, at exactly 3 a.m., 802 of the nation's 893 standard broadcast stations changed wave lengths. Local stations WTSP, WDAE and WFLA all are affected. This isn't any spring cleaning orgy cooked up in an idle moment by the Federal Communications commission. It will mildly inconvenience thousands of radio set owners. Commission hopefuls beg them to be Polyannas. "Nobody likes moving day," quoth Chairman James Lawrence Fly in an address broadcast last night via NBC. "But the nuisance soon will be over while the benefit - better reception and less interference - will continue to accumulate during the years." --------------------------------------------- I don't know if "spring moving time" for the airways was an annual event that went back as far as 1937. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric We're asking about Daylight Saving Time so that we can accurately determine just when Betty heard what she heard and assess the propagation path from the Central Pacific. The article about "spring moving time" is interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:11:25 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Daylight saving time According to a Daylight Savings Time history website, DST was initiated by Congress in 1918 but later proved so unpopular it was repealed shortly after the war. It wasn't reinstated until February 2nd 1942. There is nothing specific regarding States, except Arizona doesn't recognize it and one of the Eastern States in certain time zones. It doesn't appear St Pete was on DST in 1937 How many responses did you get to this question? :o) Marty 0724C *************************************************************************** From Ric Lots, and we still don't know for sure. *************************************************************************** From Judith Daylight savings time starts the first Sunday of April and ends the last Sunday in October. According to the 1937 calender (www.timeanddate.com/calendar) April 4 would have been the start of DST if St Petersburg used it. I tried to access the St Petersburg Times archives for April 4, 1937, but they want $75.00. Anyone in the newspaper business? Judith *************************************************************************** From Ric Harry Poole has offered to do on-site research in St. Pete. Maybe he could check this out in person. ************************************************************************** From Warren Lambing Here is the reply from the St. Petersburg Times I only live a 20 hour drive from their Library ( but I forgot to mention in the email that I live in Western NY) Maybe someone on the list lives in or near St. Petersburg?. I did find a web site for the St. Petersburg Library and I have sent them email asking for there help, will send a copy of my request for help. Here is the Library web site. http://st-petersburg-library.org/ Regards. Warren From: "Answer Desk" To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 3:48 PM Subject: Re: Daylight Savings Time > Dear Mr. Lambing, > Your questions got a lot of minds working around our office. We have > not been able to find any information about St. Petersburg (or Florida > for that matter) prior to 1942. > However, we think you may be able to view our microfilm from July 1937 > and determine whether or not the city was on DST by looking at the > times for sunrise and sunset listed in the paper. > Try the main branch of St. Petersburg Public library at 3745 9th Ave. N. > Thank you for contacting the Times' Answer Desk. > Suzanne Palmer > Manager > (727) 893-8176 _________________________________ > Subject: Daylight Savings Time > Author: "Warren Lambing" at ~Internet > Date: 10/02/2000 1:00 AM > > I don't know if you can answer this, but perhaps you can direct me to > someone who has the answer to this question. I am trying to find out if St. > Petersburg as a city used Daylight saving time in July 1937? Daylight > savings time was not a national standard then (the good old days :-), but > some cities did use daylight savings time then. Was St. Petersburg among > them? Any ideas? Please any suggestions on who I could contact to get an > answer? > > Thanks in advance for any help. > Warren Lambing *************************************************************************** From Ric This is progress. Warren, if you and Harry Poole want to coordinate efforts on this his email address is hhpoole@SPRYNET.COM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:23:45 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: 3105 kc Propagation in 1937 Last night I heard a Japanese ham (JA3BOA) working U.S. and other Western hemisphere stations for about 2 hours on the 10 meter ham band. Probablity that I would have heard any DX from the Far East on 10 Meters five years ago was near zero. The daytime propagation on 3105 KC in 1937 was terrible to non-existant. Especially with 50 watts AM into a non-directional wire antenna. The daytime propagation on 6210 was OK out to 500 miles or so. There are presently several low power Canadian broadcast stations between 6000 and 6100 kilocycles...running 1000 watts .....hear for yourselves how strong they are during the day. In 1937, 3105 and 6210 were common night / day frequencies used by the airlines and many "general aviation" pilots. So there were many radio transmitters around capable of putting out phony distress signals. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think there's any doubt that hoaxes were possible. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:25:06 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: ...Can't get a null. > From Vern > I keep telling you, Amelia, you gotta switch the AVC off if you expect to > get a null on a moderatly strong signal, what with the noise and all! A > strong signal says you're near the Itasca but if you can't see the ship or > the island that isn't much help, is it? How much did recognizing a "null" depend on AE's aural acuity at the time? If I understand what our radio people are saying, a "null" might not mean "no signal at all" but just the low point of signal strength. Ric has already said that there is no evidence that AE ever operated her DF equipment properly from the air on the last flight. Is it possible (apart from all other switch/antenna/tuning problems) that her hearing just wasn't sensitive enough after 20 hours in the air? Or is a "null" a real obvious thing when you find it? Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:26:25 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: B-24 crash site Sorry Ric. . . I was only kidding on this suggestion also. I forgot to mention one small detail. . . .most of the good stuff is on the bottom of the one hundred foot deep lake. Not only would you have to be a expert hiker, but also a scuba diver. And, both sports are a little difficult at 11,500 feet. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric Fooled again! Man... I am SO gullible. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:32:23 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Monument I imagine metal, especially bronze, is still a rare commodity in the Phoenix group. What indigenous person would not take a plaque made of bronze to further his/hers personal gain. I'm certain life is very hard for these souls. So the question is, not what to anchor the plaque with, but change the plaque's composition entirely. I suggest a granite monument. A simple stone chiseled with the words that your desire. Just a suggestion. ************************************************************************** From Ric Metal is indeed a rare commodity in the Phoenix Group. So are people. The people who (rarely) visit Niku don't come in canoes, they come in big modern ships, and their ability to obtain metal is no different from yours or mine. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:58:25 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: When did Betty hear it? << From Ric Betty's notes span a time period from roughly 3 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. which would be 2000GMT to 2315GMT which, if you use Itasca's local time, makes it between 8:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. in the Central Pacific. >> Ric, if Betty's notes were jotted down real time and began 8:30 Central Pacific time wouldn't that have been a bit early for hoaxes to begin? At 8:43a AE was still broadcasting her last known transmission. No one could have known she was lost at 8:30 because AE didn't know that yet. I recognize that Betty may not have heard or written down all of the transmissions she received so if she did not hear or record the 8:43 transmission that fact would not be fatal. I also recognize I'm commenting without seeing the whole transcript AND that Betty's times may not be set in concrete. Alan #2329. *************************************************************************** From Ric We don't know what day Betty heard what she heard, but we do have a couple of clues. We recently discovered that on a page of sketches a few pages before the Earhart notes "31.05" and "KGMB" were jotted down in the margins (each in a different place). I asked Betty if she had any idea what the significance of those notations might be. She replied (I'm paraphrasing): "I don't know what they mean but I do remember that there were times when it was quiet for so long that I thought I had lost her and I went back and worked on some drawings that I wanted to make better. When she came back on I wrote down something on the page with the drawing before I flipped forward to the notes I had been taking before. This could have happened a couple times." The reference to KGMB is very important. At 0630 GMT on July 4th, KGMB radio in Honolulu (a powerful commercial station) broadcast a request for Earhart to reply on 3105 by turning her transmitter on and off in a series of dashes to indicate whether she was on land or in the water. The exercise was repeated at the same time, 0630 GMT, on July 5th. Responses were heard by several stations. The results were inconclusive but seemed to indicate that the plane was on land. Neither of the broadcasts coincided with the time frame of Betty's notes, so it appears that what she heard was not the KGMB broadcasts or Earhart's possible direct replies. However, whether a hoax or not, whatever Betty heard almost has to have been transmitted sometime after the first KGMB broadcast on July 4th. Because Betty's recollections include her father coming home from work in the middle of the transmissions it seems unlikelu that it would have been a holiday (July 4th), so it seems likely that the event occurred on July 5th or later. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:07:26 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Betty and tides Based on Betty's times, let's presume for a minute, that the local time period from 0830 to 1145 would be the period of lowest tides. Maybe we can even average that to Low Tide at 10:00 AM. Do we have anything from the Itasca's logs that would help corraborate or refute this as the time for the local low tide? That would go a long way toward helping establish the veracity of her records. I seem to recall that we did have some discussion a while back that it would be difficult or impossible to work backwards to try to establish the tides, but I don't recall if there was ever any documentation. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric There are some fairly specific tidal implications in Betty's notes and we're presently trying to see how they match up with the very limited tidal information we have. (Itasca is no help, by the way.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:12:00 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Films and Songs Ric, of the films, God's Country and the Woman was a 1916 film, I found no reference to "A Woman of Glamour" even searching all of Kent Taylor's known films or just the title. All the rest were 1937 films. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric The 1937 "God's Country and the Woman" must have been a remake. It does look like Betty was confused about Kent Taylor being in "A Woman of Glamour". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:14:10 EDT From: John Dipi Subject: Re: Tides and Storms Will anyone be able to find out what the weather was like on kanton for the first two weeks or three I am thinking of the big log onthe beach in the vcinity of the MUSICK MONUMEMT THAT was still there in 1942 MAYBE that same storm washed AEs plane off the reef. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:16:21 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: 281 message (re discussion about finding latitude and longitude) That gave me an idea I've never seen posted: in a crash landing the chronometer would be more vulnerable to water damage than the sextants. Hence it is credible that the longitude would not be available. Only the latitude. In that respect this msg is credible.... BUT it is still strange that the latitude would be spelled as 280 miles instead of "4 degrees 40 minutes"... Or may be for the sake of shortening the Morse transmission? A possibility, given the Morse skills of AE/FN? Also, if I remember correctly, the simple calculation of a "noon latitude" is more likely to come out as "degrees and minutes", rather than so many minutes; requiring an extra conversion to get to "280 miles"... Unlike when calculating a "fix", when the intercept comes out as "so many miles"... Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:24:22 EDT From: Vern Subject: Lost Russian Plane Following the Richard Archbold trail looking for possible reference to that Bendix RA-1 receiver that Donohue claimed was supplied by the U.S. government to both him and Earhart (both were on spy missions), I came across a National Geographic article about a search for a missing russian plane in the arctic. I never did spot a reference to Archbold but his name must have been in there somewhere. This must have been in the mid-1930s. I didn't note the date but continued to wonder about it. Does anyone know how that all turned out? The russians were attempting to fly from Russia over the North Pole to Alaska. Radio contacts indicated that they had made it to the pole, turned a bit to the west and were headed for Alaska. The last contact indicated that they were some distance beyond the pole and gave a location. They were not heard from again. The search expedition thought they should be able to find them but they did not. No airplane found. There was still some hope that they might yet turn up somewhere. Was the plane ever found? Was any of the crew ever found? I think a russian polar flight a short time later did make it to alaska. ************************************************************************** From Ric You're talking about the disappearance of Sigismund Levanevsky "The Russian Lindbergh" on August 13, 1937. Archbold's airplane, the civilian PBY-1 "Guba", participated in the search as did the other Lockheed 10E Special which was actually purchased from the original owner Vanderbilt by the Soviet Union. Despite a massive search, nothing was ever found. (Don't even think it.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:30:43 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: souvenirs and timing Based on your time estimate of Florida time to Howland, Betty's first overheard message from Earhart was about 8:30 AM Howland time. Presumably, she over heard the last transmission at 08:44AM("We are on the line of position..." and would be reflected in her notes.(If her clock were correct) What ,if any, transmission did she hear from KHAQQ between 08:30 to 08:44 (Odd that she recorded all the times and messages, but never put a date on the notebook!) Does her notebook reflect any transmissions from Itasca to KHAQQ during the critical time between 08:30 to around 11:00 ,when the Itasca headed out to find Earhart. Could one hypothectically hear Earhart's 50 watt transmitter at 1000 ft then on land/sea but not Itasca's transmissions on the same frequency?? Does her notebook describe in more subjective terms her voice quality; do her notes have radiospeak language as in the Itasca log. Latitude/Longitude that one would expect if a flyer were down,etc LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Why, I wonder, does everyone seem to assume that Betty heard what she heard on July 2nd? we don't know what day it was but it wasn't the 2nd or the 3rd and probably not the 4th (see my previous posting). Betty's notes include no subjective comments and include no obvious "radiospeak." There are, however, several strings of numbers that - so far at least - don't seem to make any sense. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:40:31 EDT From: Mike E, the Radio Historian Subject: The signal goes round n' round, oh-oh-oh-oh.... A hypothesis for how AE's signals could have been heard in St. Pete (if they were AE's signals): Suppose AE's transmitter was mistuned. Suppose it was radiating a strong second, or even third harmonic... perhaps even stronger than the fundamental? That means the 6210 KHz signal could also be heard on 12420 KHz or even 18630 KHz... both of these freqs were well within the range of many home-type all-wave sets (most tuned up to 20 MHz if they had true all wave coverage, usually meaning three bands -- standard broadcast, "police" 1.5-6 MHz and "short wave" 6-60... yes, in those days, the po-lice were using freqs in the 1.6 and 2.4 mhz regions and the low SW band on many sets was called the "police" band even tho it extended quite a bit further). Freqs in the 12 and 18 MHz bands have excellent daylight skip propagation. A very good reason to think this may be true, is the line about the "rough modulation" or "broad signal" (I forget the exact wording) in the Chater Report regarding AE's transmitter on 6210. These conditions may be indicative of a mistuned xmtr. Joe Gurr, when he lengthened the antenna on NR16020, may have made a critical tuning problem even worse... and the way the rig was coupled into the antenna, with the connection made directly to the power-amplifier output coil, really invited harmonic radiation! And here is another thought (get ready, Bob Brandenburg...) Consider the possibility of some type of strange propagation phenomena in the tropics, on ANY freq. Something like tropical ducting. St. Pete is not that far north of the tropics. Ric alluded to other independent reports of signals being received... what were the locations of reception? Any idea of the freqs? Is it not strange, though... even mystical? That these signals were received by young women, as Ric hinted? I agree with another posting. We should ask Betty what AE books she may have read. Some of this sounds like the stuff in "Flying Blind" by Max Alan Collins, which came out in 1998 or 1999... that guy took every AE story, every conspiracy theory, every Japanese connection, and made some interesting fiction out of it... but his account of McMenamy's reception of signals sounds very Orson Welles-esque. For Janet Whitney: Yes, many communications receivers tuned up to 30 MHz in 1937. Examples are the Hammarlund Super Pro and the National HRO, plus numerous Hallicrafters sets. The typical home receiver with SW bands tuned at least through the 12 MHz (25 meter) and 15 MHz (19 meter) bands and quite a few went up to 20 MHz. LTM (who has big and very efficient ears) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty says she has never read any Earhart book. The first what-happened-to-Amelia books were all Japanese capture/conspiracy and Betty had no interest in them because she "knew" they were wrong. Betty has never been an Earhart fan and so had no interest in the later biographies or in the crashed-and-sank theories, again, because she "knew" that Earhart had come down on an island and the plane had been threatened and probably destroyed by rising water. I'll put up a separate posting about the other women who have reported hearing post-loss signals on the short wave. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:48:28 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Kanawa cutting Ric wrote: >> Well, if ....we're right about the 7 Site being where the bones were found ....then somebody went clear to the SE to cut kanawa in December of 1939.<< Sure, but that's a bit circular, isn't it? The availability of kanawa, and the timing of its cutting, are among the variables we need to consider in determining which site is the place where the bones were found; we can't turn around and use our current hypothesis about where the bones were found as evidence of where the kanawa was cut. LTM Tom *************************************************************************** From Ric Forget the 7 Site. Gallagher says the bones were found on the SE part of the island. He says the tree from which the box was made stood near the where the bones were found. He also says that the tree stood there until a year before December 1940. Is it circular to then conclude that somebody was cutting kanawa on the SE end of the island in December 1939? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:49:43 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan's accident I didn't intend my remark particularly as a "slap" at Goerner, but as an observation on where Don's evidence seemed to be leading. It's hardly a new thing to note that Goerner took an awful lot of heresay evidence as factual. LTM (who says a slap with a kanawa branch hurts!) TK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:38:38 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Radio AVC and DF Checking the literature from the 30's, it was standard operating procedure for aircrew members to turn the DF receiver's automatic volume control off while direction finding, since leaving the AVC on would affect the null the DF loop and the "A" and "N" volume from the radio range antenna (which was usually a wire antenna on the belly of the plane and could also be used for AM broadcast reception.) Presumably there were radio range stations (beacons) near the cities Earhart and Noonan would visit in the U.S.; possibly in foreign countries too. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:39:39 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: St. Petersburg Radio Stations This guy appears to have done some extensive research on the history of radio in the St. Petersburg-Tampa area that may be useful to you: I've only examined one of his pages and in it he lists FCC licensing dates for local stations: "Various articles about Tampa-St. Petersburg early radio (including the first phased-array directional antenna)" Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:01:46 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Page by page description Are the "page" references to pages in the notebook? If so, are the pages numbered or is this your own numbering? Thanks, --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric The pages in the notebook are not numbered. This was originally an 86-page notebook but several pages have been torn out. Betty attributes the missing pages to sketches that she didn't like and descriptions of marching drills from school which were the notebook's original purpose. The sketches in the notebook are all of people, mostly simple line drawing profiles and full face portraits. Here's a breakdown of what is on each page and a Not-Earlier-Than (NET) date for each page (where possible) based upon the results of the film and song survey done by the forum. cover - VASSAR Composition Book back of cover - blank 1 - Betty's name and three sketches 2 - blank 3 through 22 - torn out 23 - list of films. NET June 11, 1937 24 through 26 - torn out 27 & 28 - blank 29 - song "It Looks Like Rain..." NET June 11, 1936 but song is a Number 1 Hit for week of July 3, 1937. 30 - blank 31 - list of songs. NET April 18, 1937 but one song "Merry-Go-Round..." is a Number 1 Hit for week of July 3, 1937. 32 - blank 33 - song "Love Bug Will Bite You" and 11 sketches NET April 5, 1937 34 - song "Where Are You?" NET unknown but film was released April 18, 1937 35 - songs "Carelessly" and "Just a Quiet Evening" and 4 sketches NET April 1937 36 - song "There's a Lull..." and 2 sketches. NET unknown but film was released August 23, 1937 37 - song "A Sailboat.." and 3 sketches 38 - song "They Can't Take That Away..." NET March 14, 1937 39 - 5 sketches 40 - 9 sketches and a boyfriend's name and Betty's name written several times 41 - song " It Looks Like Rain..." and 5 sketches NET June 11, 1936 but song is a Number 1 Hit for week of July 3, 1937. 42 - blank except for words "I no know" and "I no know I'm" (song lyric?) 43 - song, "Where Are You? and 4 sketches 44 - 16 sketches, song title "Johnny One Note" and notations "31.05" and "KGMB" 45 - 9 sketches 46 - song, "All God's Children got Rythm" 47 - song title "Merry-Go-Round..." written twice and crossed out, and 4 sketches 48 - song, "You Can't run Away From Love..." NET unknown. Film released June 30, 1937. This left-hand page faces the first page of Earhart notes and has a notation "Amelia Earhart, July 1937". 49 - Earhart notes. In upper left corner of page is written in darker pencil and a more mature hand " Time I heard Amelia Erheart (sic) call for help. Dad had put up a tall aireal (sic) from house to pole in lot in back of our house for short wave on radio. I always came home from school and listened to short wave and all summer. We lived on (gives address)." 50 - blank (all facing pages in Earhart notes are blank) 51 - Earhart notes 52 - blank 53 - Earhart notes 54 - blank 55 - Earhart notes 56 - blank 57 - Earhart notes 58 - blank 59 - 6 sketches labled Albo Bendino, Delma, Juan, Sid Waters, Dell & Bell, and Tresa 60 - 8 skteches labled Sadie, Dixie, Linkie Skar 61 - 6 skteches 62 - 16 skteches. at top of page is written "Life Depends upon it." 63 - song? "Harbor", lyric " I saw the ... Harbor light. They only told me..." 64 - song title? "Whispers in the Dark" 65- blank 66- blank 67 - 5 sketches and words "Hello George" 68 - 15 sketches and song title "Where Are You? crossed out. 69 - 13 sketches 70 - 8 sketches 71 - 8 sketches 72 - 6 sketches 73 - 5 sketches 74 - 11 sketches labled Dot, Astaka, Lora, Belle 75 - 4 sketches labled Dora, Judy, Meg, Marina 76 - 2 sketches, one labled Doris 77- 6 sketches and the words Doris Kenyon 78 - 8 skteches 79 - 7 sketches (one scribbled over) 80 - 9 sketches 81 - 2 sketches 82 - 5 sketches 83 - 4 sketches 84 - 10 sketches and boyfriend's name 85 - 5 sketches 86 - 12 skwtches and boyfriend's name inside back cover - blank outside back cover - various weights and measures tables ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:04:15 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Original Lockheed Cruise Performance Data for the 10E Earlier this year, we lamented the lack of original Lockheed cruise performance data on the 10E. Through the courtesy of Birch Matthews, I have now had access to Lockheed Report 465: "Flight Tests-10E, Prepared by C.L. Johnson, Date Nov. 16, 1935." This is not the POH or final Operating Instructions (which are in Report No. 466, according to Elgen Long), but the report of the tests that presumably produced the numbers used in the final operating instructions. The Report contains a graphic "Level Cruising Performance" chart dated Nov. 14, 1935, giving curves for speeds at 200, 250, 300, 350, 412, 450, 500, and 550 hp at various altitudes, and includes a temperature correction chart. Since the Forum does not accomodate email attachments, I am sending you a photocopy of that chart via courier, together with a table I prepared interpreting the graph, and giving speeds at sea level, 1000, 5000, 8000 and 10,000 feet for some of those horsepower settings (and for other - interpolated - settings as well). I personally find the table - with numbers - easier to use for quick reference than the graph, which I have tried to read and interpret as accurately as possible, although (as with any interpolation) someone else might see 174 or 176 where I write "175." Birch also furnished me with a set of Lockheed Model 10 (10A) operating instructions, intended for the foreign market (speeds in km, etc.) I am sending you a copy of the graphic "Cruising Chart" from that report, together with another table I have prepared showing speeds at various horsepower settings and altitudes for the 10A. I enclose the 10A data as well as that for the 10E because there is a very interesting anomaly, which I am quite unable to explain, about which more in a minute. What does the 10E data indicate about cruise speeds at Kelly Johnson's settings, and how do those speeds differ from those we estimated in April: 60 gph @ 8,000 - 196 (exactly as estimated) 51 gph @ 8,000 - 189 (5 mph faster than estimated) 43 gph @ 8,000 - 176 (8 mph faster than estimated) 38 gph @10,000 - 173 (16 mph faster than estimated!) The magnitude of the difference at the lower power settings surprises me somewhat, but what surprises me even more is the comparision with the 10A numbers. Note that the charts for both airplanes are for operations at the same gross weight (10,500 pounds). The 10E should have more drag than the 10A because of its larger engines, nacelles and cowls, but otherwise they are nearly the same. What do the charts show for speeds at 5000 feet? 10A 10E 400 hp 205 194 350 hp 195 188 325 hp 189 183 300 hp 181 178 275 hp 175 173 250 hp 167 168 (!) 225 hp 159 163 (!!) 200 hp 151 158 (!!!) I trust everone has noticed that while the data show the 10A as being faster than the 10E at the higher power settings (as we would have expected), the 10 E is faster than the 10A at settings below 250 hp, and the speed advantage increases as the power is reduced still further. I have no idea what to make of this reversal. In any case, I pass this on for whatever it is worth to those who remain interested in the subject. It prompts, of course, some "Second Thoughts on 10 E Performance". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:07:05 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Epoxy and Cement Tom Robison asked: > Where does one buy this J-B Weld? Any hardware, or is it a specialty item? It's a standard item available in any hardware store. Home Depot carries it too. Bob *************************************************************************** From Mart Moleski I found mine in an auto parts store. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:08:31 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Movie release dates St. Peterburg is a fairly large city and I presume had one or more daily papers. If the forum has anybody in that area, a review of the local library or possibly the newspaper archives themselves might show dates in the theater section if the older papers had such an item. That review might also reveal what had been published in the area concerning AE's flight and loss. You will probably need a good story to visit the paper's archives, they usually reserve them for their own use and are not generally available to the public. ************************************************************************** From Ric You couldn't ask for a better story. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:10:13 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Chronological Order I have gotten the impression from several postings submitted that if the release dates of the songs/movies in Betty's notebook are out of chronological sequence with the likely dates of the Earhart-related notations, then that fact alone will be highly relevant to many people in determining whether the notebook is a genuine record of what Betty heard (this is a separate question, of course, from whether what she heard was really from Earhart). I guess I would like to raise a word of caution in this regard: If you think about it for a second, I suspect this notebook is something much less formal than a Franklin dayplanner, and given the use of the notebook as something to record one's hobby, I can think of lots of reasons why many things may not be in sequence (e.g., Betty may have been so startled by the Earhart transmissions that she wanted to record them on a clean page(s), then, as the drama passed, later went back and made other records around these notes; also, the release dates of the songs/movies may not bear a too close relationship to the actual time that Betty chose, for reasons now unknown, to make an entry of them into the notebook. Finally, remember, also, we are talking about 1937 and the country is in what I have been told is the "second depression" of the late 1930s (1937-1939)...we can expect every part of a notebook to be filled before someone will buy another, chronological order be damned). I also would feel pretty silly condemning the Betty notebook based upon notations made out of chronological order, as I have next to me as I type this a favorite notebook of my own that I have been using over the last year to record various professional and personal notes---lots of these notations do not follow a chronological order either. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:11:07 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Local noon? Dennis, the North star will give you latitude and since we are talking scattered islands it wouldn't have to be all that accurate. Keep in mind that the basic question was whether they went SE to the Phoenix group, West toward the Gilberts or NW toward the Marshalls. A general latitude call would answer that. A precise latitude would nearly pinpoint the island unless there were a bunch of islands exactly on the same latitude line. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:12:00 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Old Radio Ric, when I was a child in the middle to late 30s, I listened to a lot of short wave from around the world on my grndpa's Zenith console. It had 5 bands and it was easy to see what general frequency you were on. His antenna was as you would suppose-- a wire from the radio up the side of the house using standoffs and then reaching out to a pole in the garden -- maybe 50 to 70 feet. I see no reason to eliminate Betty's radio for lack of capability on what we know. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:13:02 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Local noon? With a marine sextant, you simply follow one of the sun's limbs (usually lower limb) in the final stage (maybe 30 minutes) of its climb, turning the mircrometer drum until with successive readings the sun reaches its zenith and appears to "hang" in the sky. You can use that final reading as the maximum altitude, or (if you have a watch) you can continue to take readings as the sun begins to "drop" and then plot a curve (the time of max altitude of the curve being meridian passage). Either way, after you apply your corrections, you have the observed altitude at local apparent noon. In the absence of an Almanac FN could easily estimate the corrections well enough for effective emergency use. You will also need the sun's declination to determine lattitude, but this changes slowly, especially when the sun is near one of the solstices (ie, late June/early July). FN could use an average value for the day or even a value that he remembered using sometime in the previous day and not be too far off. Because the celestial triangle resolves to a single line/arc at LAN, you do not need sight reduction tables for determining lattitude at LAN (you just add/subtract a few lines). This could be very handy if all you have is your sextant and a good idea of the sun's declination. Got to run - hope this is clear enough to be helpful. Tom MM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:18:27 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: something new Several commentators seem to have concluded that the notebook is bogus because AE used her name, not her radio call sign or aircraft tail number and that the "drama" of her struggling with FN is some sort of window dressing to gloss up her account. She had been using call signs of one sort or another all morning without much success. Very few people are going to know KHAQQ or November whatever (NR16020) and might not respond to a call, broadcast across the Pacific to anyone who could hear her, for help. If she screams "this is Amelia Earhart", given the publicity surrounding her flight, everyone will know who is calling. About the drama of FN struggling for the mike, we are not talking about a sterile broadcast studio, or even a semi-quiet cockpit where everybody keeps quiet while one person talks. Its tough to remember your intitial objective is to clear the swamp when you are up to your _ _ _ in alligators. I doubt that radio discipline was high on FN's (or AE's for that matter) priority list under the limited circumstances described so far. Remember he's been with her for the past 16 plus hours, presumbably listening to her one way radio conversations, failure to get a DF, and inability to communicate with anyone. AE has just dumped this thing in the ocean, (reef), the water is rising (tide coming in--sharks, not alligators), he's hurt and he's not real confident about AE's capabilities at flying, talking on the radio, chewing gum, or anything else (what plan "B") at this point in time. Am I going to grab for the mike to get control or shout in the background to get my point across--you bet your sweet whatever I am. It's every man (woman) for himself at this point and AE is not telling me what to do anymore. The times of Betty's saga, about 3:00 p.m. to I presume 6:00 p.m. (Mr. Gillespie hasn't shown all his cards yet) seem to fit very well within the range of probable landing times at Niku. I think we can forgive an elderly lady one hour (maybe it was 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.) 63 years ago, assuming Betty's notebook does not specify the times of entry on her "log". It is my memory that TIGHAR had estimated an arrival time between 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. at Niku, depending on her position at last transmission. I seem to remember numerous postings about one year ago on just what time all this occured and how GMT would be calculated at Lae, Howland, and Niku. If Betty is plus/minus one hour, or even two hours, I think it gives her story more credibility than less. Maybe it was even the next day, not the day of the ditching. The post-loss messages (some of which are now believe to be credible) apparently went on for several days. If he's capable of moving or returning to the aircraft, do you think FN is going to let AE handle this on her own? *************************************************************************** From Ric Here's another card for you. Several of Betty's pages of notes have time notations on them. The actual beginning time is not noted but the ending time is, as are several interim times along the way. In other words, the local time of the event is rather well documented. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:19:23 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: epoxy and cement Ric says: "I'd say just replace the bolts." That's the top-of-the-head response I got from Frances Gale, an expert in historic masonry maintenance and repair at the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, too. She suggested inserting sleeves in the existing bolt holes, secured with a type of cement widely used in conservation work (She'll get me the name, etc.), and bolting the new one on. This would, of course, allow somebody to take it off again, but as Gerry points out, that's better than having them rip up the monument. LTM TK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:21:09 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Something new One for Cam or Mike or for someone with a s/wave radio from the 30's. Cam wrote: > Betty's receiver - > > It was quite common, during the thirties, for "home" radio > receivers to have two or three short-wave bands as an added > attraction. My Sears "Silvertone" floor model had such, and > (I believe) cost the princely sum of $16.95. Needless to say, > it's sensitivity and selectivity left a lot to be desired, and > it certainly did NOT have a "CW" switch. Nor did you have the > foggiest idea of the precise frequency you'd tuned! The old s/w radio I dug out of mothballs is a huge early transistor job (about 6 transistors I think) with 3 x SW bands, 1 x MW, 1 x LW and 1 x FM (which used to only pick up TV ststions when I first got it, but now we have FM radio). I originally bought it for remote area (real remote) listening when I was travelling (it has a huge hole in the back that "eats" large torch batteries). My point (yes, finally getting to it) is: 3105kc is smack bang in the middle of SW1 band, just above the top of the blue line for the 90metre amateur band (the line runs from 3000kc to 3500kc). 6210 is about 1/3 along the SW2 band from the left. The blue line for amateur bands says 49 under that area (that line runs about 5700kcor 5800kc to about 6400kc). SW Band 1 is 1.6MHz - 4.5MHz SW Band 2 is 4.5MHz - 12MHz SW Band 3 is 12MHz - 26MHz The Amateur bands marked include 11, 13, 16, 19, 25, 31, 41, 49, 60, 75, 90. These are spread across the SW bands and marked by an underline (the actual location of the lines don't quite match the known amateaur frequencies - but is close enough). (tuning one means turning the knob VERY carefully - but it can be done). While I was messing around with this I did actually tune a couple of amateurs in. These markings are not all that accurate, nor is the tuning dial. For the "old radio" people especially the "radio historian", did the old SW radios cover the same three bands? I seem to recall on an old family valve radio of my grandfather's (from before the 2nd world war) that there was a band switch on that also. If those radios covered the same bands, then someone with one might check whether "our" frequencies appear on the old sets as they do on mine. Right in the middle of where you'd be looking for stations. Th' WOMBAT (with apologies for the length of this post) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:21:43 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Local noon? The sun is directly south at local noon, but this can be difficult to tell in the tropics, when the sun is high in the sky. Dan Postellon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:22:51 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Radio phenomenon Since radio is not my field of expertise, I went to a friend who is an expert in the field, and has been for many years. He tells me of a very rare phenomenon called Long Delayed Echoes which can occur when conditions are favorable in space. Little is know as to exactly what these conditions are, except that the moon is definitely involved. Some people have claimed to have heard their own broadcasts hours later after they were made. Periodically articles appear in radio publications pertaining to this phenomenon. My friend had never personally experienced this, but had known people who had heard their own broadcasts several minutes after they were originally broadcast during heavy sunspot activity. It is much more likely to have a several second delay and a several hour delay is very nearly impossible, according to my "consultant." LTM, MStill, #2332CE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:45:23 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re; something new I have reviewed again the limited information from Betty's notebook which you have made available and also tried to compare that information with the summary of films and songs and have the following comments. First, I note that the pages are not all accounted for. You progress from Page 23 to 29 to 31 to 33 to 34 to 35 to 36 to 37 to 38 to 41 to 43 to 46 to 47. Are the missing pages lyrics, odd information, comments? Are the pages you identified the only pages with references that can be tied to a date or event? How long is the AE material by page count and where does it fit in the range of pages you have provided? Is that consistent with other events she recorded as to the detail of information provided. You noted that she wrote lyrics to songs--either the songs were slower than today, she transcribed well, or she went back and completed lyrics as songs were replayed through the week, month--she only had one shot at the AE transmission and you note she caught only bits and pieces. Second, the summary seems to stop, depending on how you read some of the entries, around August 23rd. Item 5, page 31 refers to "There's a Lull in my Life", which could have been released as a song prior to release of the movie, (St. Petersburg or Hollywood?) on August 23rd; same as Item 3, page 31. I am somewhat troubled by the fact that the entry on page 38, Gershwin's "They Can't Take That Away From Me" ties to dates (three) between March 14th, 1937 and May 7th, 1937 while entries (Items 3 and 5) on a prior page (page 31) postdate (August 23rd) the later paged entry. I understand she could have flipped back and forth to record lyrics, Hit Parade results, etc to keep them in context, but it does create a problem with a strict chronological order. This would have less impact if she followed the same practice for the remainder of 1937. Third, is this her only notebook? The more she kept, especially if there are more notebooks before and after, the more credible the process would seem. If this is the only notebook, why did she keep this one, (obvious answer--this had AE's material in it) as opposed to keeping others? Similarly, did she record in more than one notebook and just save this one, or is this the only notebook she recorded in? Fourth, are there more pages after page 48 and what are the events listed there than can be verified? Again, if this notebook covers the dates, beginning around December 1936/January 1937 (page 23, beginning of movie list) and ending around August 23rd (see above) it would be less credible than if the dates (entries) continued into 1938 and would also provide a better context for the AE entry. Fifth, are the pages hand numbered by her, a number count by page by you, or machine paged with some form of printed (scripted) number. Sixth, is the notebook bound and if so how, spiral, actual glued binding, three-ring, etc? What is the size of the paper, type of cover? Is the type of binding/cover consistent with the period? Is it tamper resistent, i.e. can pages be removed or inserted without appearance changes or visual evidence? Seventh, is the document capable of being scanned onto the Web site? When do you think you might be able to post the text? *************************************************************************** From Ric Whew... lots pf questions... but good ones. I think my recent reply to Chris Kennedy (another lawyer) will answer your questions in paragraphs one, two and five. Para. Three Betty routinely kept notebooks, one at a time, but this is the only one she has saved (as you note, for the obvious reason). Para. Four As you can see from my reply to Chris, there isn't much we can hope to date after the Earhart entries. Para. Six The cover is heavy shiny paper and measures 8 3/8 inches by 6 5/8 inches. The notebook has a sewn binding. Pages can not be removed without it being obvious and pages can not be added at all. The art deco style of the cover, the yellowing of the paper, and the tables printed on the back (for example: english money in Guineas, Pounds, Shillings, Pence and Farthings) are entirely consistent with the purported period. Para. Seven The forum's response to the need for basic qualifying research has been outstanding and I very much appreciate everyone's patience. I expect to be able to post scans of the actual pages on the TIGHAR website later this week. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:46:31 EDT From: Judith Subject: Re: Tides and Storms Bad weather in the Phoenix IS area July, 1937 reminds me of what 'Betty' said the 'upset woman said.....the water is rising'. Maybe AE was fearful of the rising tides as opposed to floating around the ocean with an empty tank plane. PS: If you could use a good 1937 calendar.....http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar. Judith ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:47:15 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Epoxy and Cement JB Weld can be found at any good auto parts store, right next to Mystery Marvel Oil (!?!). Ask a counterman for it, if you can't find it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:49:40 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Merry-go-round, off topic > An instrumental rendering of "The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down" was adopted by > Warner Bros. as one of the credits themes for their Looney Toons series of > cartoons. Didn't this song / tune also figure prominently in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? LTM - Bill #2229 ************************************************************************** From Ric Dunno. Didn't see it. Didn't that star Cameron Diaz? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:51:33 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Dating the films and songs Shouldn't that be "There's No Null in my Life"? Sorry, couldn't resist. Back to lurking... Tim Smith 1142CE ************************************************************************* From Ric (groan) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:03:44 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's notebook/ Authentication of I've seen some great input re this authentication exercise, but as someone mentioned it's really shooting in the dark without the entire notebook text, the results of her interview with you, and all other pertinent details of the circumstances of its late arrival to the Earhart mystery. For instance, has she shown this notebook to others(who can confirm her notes) some 60 years ago? Or just recently.Did she tell her teacher,her fellow classmates,neighbors,mother, friends,etc in July 1937 that would corroborate the Earhat 1937 broadcast. In a similiar vein, if one reads at face value Noonan's alleged printed message in the bottle document (see the internet) one can see how complex,partially accurate and believable, a dramatic description of a sinking Electra with Amelia and Fred can be and the time and effort it would take to create what appears to be now a classic hoax. . . My biggest problem with the story, is if she and her father heard the tragic end of Earhart's life, that in spite of the alleged contact with the Coast Guard there, her father wouldn't have contacted the local Press with perhaps the biggest story of the young 20th Century. Her disappearance was in all the newspapers! Or the Police. Surely then and now Betty and her father were convinced the transmission had veracity or other wise why contact Goerner in the 1960's. And why would the sagacious Goerner dismiss it out of hand? He certainly accepted less reliable reports of Amelia. The March of Times broadcast was on 8 Jul 37,very soon after the 2 July disappearance and featured a simulated conversation with the Itasca. .. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric The Noonan message-in-the-bottle hoax is not a bad model. Like Betty's notes it purports to be a contempraneous document and portrays dramatic and emotional events. The bottle message turned out to be a crude and transparent hoax that was exposed by its own content. Perhaps Betty's notes will prove to be the same. As I've said, the whole thing will go up on the website later this week. I can't argue about what Betty's father would have done. As for why the sagacious Goerner would dismiss it out of hand I can only comment that in my own dealings with the late lamented gentleman I found his sagacity wanting. Betty's notes do not describe a conversation with Itasca. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:07:04 EDT From: Brian Subject: betty notes While reading all these posts...I was wondering. Tighar has therorized she may have landed on Niku on the coral bed on low tide which made a make shift landing site. Inorder, to send the the post signals she would have to be some where out of the water with the engine running. Can Tighar theorize the icoming tides in relation to the engines running and would the make shift landing strip have torn up her tires??? Just curious... "chaucito" Brian *************************************************************************** From Ric Clearly, the tide would have to be low for the engines to be run. That's about all we can say. Whether a landing on the reef flat would result in flat tires depends upon how tough the tires were. I can't answer that. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:43:50 EDT From: Ric Subject: Plaque Postings Team members Van Hunn and John Clauss have graciously agreed to handle the affixing of the replacement and commemorative plaques to Gallagher's tomb. In the interest of reducing forum volume (which is setting new records daily) I'll be forwarding suggestions about bolts, epoxy, cement, and chewing gum directly to those gentleman rather than posting them to the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:59:26 EDT From: Vern Subject: Betty's Notebook One thing at a time... I think that when the dust settles we will have to concede that Betty could have heard a transmission from Amelia Earhart with the plane on land, or reef flat, in the Pacific (where but the Phoenix Islands?) and that she may have been the only person to hear it. Serendipity does happen. Not often but it does happen. The "skip" phenomenon is highly unpredictable thing. A signal may come in like the transmitter was right next door in one locality and not be heard at all only a few miles away. That's not to say it will be heard in only one spot but it will be a pretty here and there sort of thing. It is very unusual for a particular skip path to hold up, although fading in and out, as long as Betty alleges. Betty listened to the signal for about 3 hours. There's no way to know how long it had been there before she tuned it in. Although that's a long time for the aircraft batteries to have held up (we have to assume engine running), it's not a long period of time for someone else who just happened to be in the right local to have also stumbled upon that signal in the short-wave bands. How many people does one suppose were in the right place to hear that skip signal and just happened to be tuning through the short-wave bands in the period of time the signal was skipping in for them? All those in the Pacific who may have been hoping to hear something, and knew what frequencies to expect, were probably in the dead zone for the signal. Remember Bob Brandenberg's "high angle radiation." Being on the ground does not help this situation -- maybe a little worse. Fine for skip but not at all good for local reception. If it was Amelia, she had no idea how very unlikely it was that anyone at all would hear her. I can believe that it may have been Amelia and that only one person in the whole world heard her during the possibly short time she had to try to be heard. Now, more than 60 years later we may have the only evidence of her last effort to communicate. Maybe we just got serendipity! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:10:30 EDT From: Ric Subject: Others who heard AE? On two other occasions, over the years, I have been approached by elderly women who think they heard Amelia Earhart on the short wave. Here's a summary of each story. In a letter to me dated March 21, 1991, Thelma Lovelace of Carleton Place, Ontario, Canada wrote: "On the seventh day of July 1937, early morning - before eight A.M. as my husband had to be at work at eight o'clock, I was listening to short-wave radio, DeForest Crosley - cabinet model; while my husband was getting ready for work. "I had the radio on "short wave" as there was a program of Japanese music that I got every morning. As I passed back and forth across the dial near the station (where) I usually got the program, I picked up this voice, loud and clear - the message was "Can you read me? Can you read me? This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart. Please come in." Then she gave her position. When she gave it a second time I picked up a book and jotted down the numbers, latitude? - longitude. She continued. "we have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can't hold on much longer." "I rushed upstairs to tell my husband and asked him if I shouldn't get in touch with someone. His reply, " It's nearly a week since she's been missing. What you heard was no doubt a play, some theater group." "But," I said, "it was English spoken. I've never heard English spoken on that station." I want back downstairs. Silence. I went back and forth over the area. Very faintly heard her voice once and then all was quiet and later only static." At the time, Mrs. Lovelace was living in St. Stephen, New Brunswick which is just across the river from Calais, Maine (far northeastern Maine). She has since looked for the book in which she wrote down the position but can't find it. In a letter to me postmarked October 11, 1990, Mabel Dunklee of Corinth, VT wrote: "On the first night of Amelia Earhart's disappearance I heard her SOS loud and clear, not on the frequency but on the one President Roosevelt said she might use. Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. Small, uninhabited. The plane was partially on land, part in water. She gave the latitude and longitude of her location. I listened to her for 30-45 minutes. After waking my family to listen - two sons and my husband (all three now deceased) and I had called our local paper to let them listen to her message also when one member of our family reminded me that our President had asked that no one give out any information if they heard anything, as it might endanger her life. "I heard her message around 2 A.M. daylight saving time from my home in Amarillo, Texas. She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan. "My family and myself decided not to discuss this with anyone. The government of the USA was supposed to take care of everything, so did not even listen for any later messages from her. "I'm sorry I can no longer remember the latitude and longitude of the island. With that we had no trouble locating on map next day. I had it all written down once but over the years, lots of moves, and a second marriage it has been lost." Of course, President Roosevelt never made any announcement about Amelia Earhart, but what's interesting about these stories is that - for all their differences in date, time and location - they seem to describe similar situations; water in the plane, Noonan injured, coordinates sent, urgent call for help - exactly the situation Betty describes. Of course, all of those factors (except for the "Noonan injured" bit) might be considered to be no brainers for any description of Earhart's situation. Still, it is apparent that Betty's experience was hardly unique. What IS unique in Betty's case is the existence of a transcription. LTM, Ric I ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:15:43 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: dating the notebook ...'Does the 'notebook' provide any _dates_ for any of the _other_ entries 'Betty' recorded? Does the notebook contain _only_ notes & jottings from the...'summer of 1937'?... As previously posted, does the 'notebook' contain any _specific_ dating of any of the _other_ entries recorded in the 'notebook' or do such entries appear to have been recorded in a cummulative manner, as opposed to any random entry of individual observations, to provide a basis for determining any consecutive order of such entries? Maybe I'm just being dense, but I'm uncertain as to what you are implying by the statement: ...'We have already determined that Betty's notes can not date from July 2nd.'... ...when your original posting on 9/29 suggested the exact date of that...'afternoon in July'... was _not_ known. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric As I explained in an earlier posting, the key to establishing a not-earlier-than date for the notebook entries is the notation "KGMB" on page 44. Betty didn't remember that it was there and we didn't notice it until sharp-eyed Pat was scanning in the pages of the notebook. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:20:45 EDT From: Ric Subject: A poem A poem, with apologies to William Blake, by Holly Gillespie (my daughter) and Christopher Ansaldo (her boyfriend). Tighar, Tighar, burning bright, What happened on that dreadful flight? What immortal plan or guide, Could destroy my fateful ride? In what distant deeps or skies, Burnt the plane of my demise? On what wings dared I aspire To fill my destiny's desire? On what map, on what chart, Remain my final engine part? And when that part, you do not see, What theories of conspiracy! What the fuck, where's my plane, On what distant island chain? What the button, what the sole? Dare decay and time take toll. When Tighar team throws down their cash, To find my fateful airplane crash, Will they smile, my fate to see? Did they that made my plane make thee? Tighar, Tighar, burning bright, What happened on that dreadful flight? What immortal plan or guide, Could destroy my fateful ride? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:23:02 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: local noon >....FN could determine his >latitude by checking the sun's angle at local high noon. Without a watch >how does he determine noon? I know the old >put-a-stick-in-the-ground-and-use-it-as-a-sun-dial trick but using that >method you won't know it is noon until -- at the minimum -- one minute >after noon, which would give you an incorrect answer. > So, how do you determine local noon without a watch and without >being at least one minute late? > The Sun's angular height when it culminates at local noon would be useful. The Sun's declination was provided in the Nautical Almanac. Subtracting the Sun's observed height from 90 degrees would tell how far south the observer was from the Sun's subpoint. Knowing the exact time of the culmination is not necessary for the latitude computation. The declination changes but negligibly during that time span of observation. Knowing the exact time of culmination would, however, be useful for a determination of longitude. Since the height of the Sun changes so little in the minute before and after culmination, getting an idea of the time when it peaked is easier if a height is noted some time before when it is rising, and noting the time after when it is descending through that height. Midway between would be the time of culmination; the Nautical Almanac gave the Sun's coordinates at, I think, hourly intervals. Also, for the longitude computation unless the plane were tracking along True East or West, the motion of the plane would have to be taken into account. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:25:29 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Spring moving time in St. Pete Spring moving time refers to an event when, indeed, many radio stations changed frequencies/wavelengths. This was done a number of times between the 20s and early 50s, I believe, but was certainly not an annual or semiannual event. These events represented a realignment of frequency allocations for a variety of technical reasons, mostly for purposes of interference reduction. By spreading out the freq assignments geographically, certain stations could be allowed a power increase to cover their local service areas more effectively and one way of doing this was to have stations shift their freqs. This also allowed room in the band for more local stations, particularly in the growth-years of AM radio during the 30s. Prior to this time the broadcast band was the province of stations in larger metro areas. People half a continent away would listen to broadcasts from the big-name bands live from locations in New York, Chicago et al.... then came the networks, and local affiliates. Many of the large metro stations became "clear channel" meaning nobody else within a few thousand miles could be assigned that freq... examples are WLW Cincinnati, WOR Newark, and the network flagship stations like WNBC, WCBS, and much later WABC in New York. Other stations in medium size metro markets became regional clear channels, such as WPTF Raleigh NC and WRVA Richmond. Spring moving time was limited to the AM band, and was not a frequent practice. Spring moving time is not related to DST. LTM (who likes those newfangled digital dials) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:35:37 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Re: When did Betty hear it? Will someone who has access to freq allocations for 1937 (I don't at the moment) check to see if KGMB may also have had a short wave frequency? I don't think so but am not at all certain of that. Could it be that what Betty was listening to (or maybe heard at a later time) was a SW broadcast from KGMB that made reference to AE? That "31.05" is indeed interesting! Could it be a reference to 31.05 meters, which would indicate a wavelength in the 9 MHz region? AE's transmitter could, potentially, have been emitting a harmonic that would have appeared at 9315 KHz... that is a wavelength of 32.2 meters. Many old radios had dials calibrated in frequency AND wavelength, but "31.05" seems way too precise to have been read from such a dial. It's conceivable that a signal on 9315 KHz could make it halfway around the globe if conditions were right. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric My speculation on the "31.05" is that it was simply Betty's way of transcribing what she heard - "thirtyone oh five" or even "thirtyone point oh five" as opposed to "three one oh five" or "three thousand one hundred and five." The fact that 3105 was one of AE's three frequencies and was, in fact, the frequency KGMB asked her to reply on seems like too much of a coincidence for the 3105 to have some other significance. It's not hard to imagine earhart saying something like, "Amelia Earhart calling KGMB. We replied on 3105 as you requested. did you hear us?" and Betty only getting "KGMB" and "31.05". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:39:57 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: 281 message > From Christian D > BUT it is still strange that the latitude would be spelled as 280 miles > instead of "4 degrees 40 minutes"... If Betty's notes prove to be a record of the real thing then, reading in to what Ric has given us so far, it appears that Noonan was injured, perhaps seriously, during the landing. If this is true, then whatever position information Earhart had may have been calculated by Noonan prior to the landing. Note that I'm not commenting on the authenticity of the 281 message. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric As you'll see, one of the strange things about Betty's notes is that the numbers she wrote down as being said by Earhart really don't seem to make much sense. But, as Frank points out, if Noonan was incapacitated Earhart would be forced to clean whatever information she could from the notations he made before the landing. She could be reading numbers off his charts in desperation, hoping that they would make sense to somebody. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:42:52 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Betty's/AE's numbers > From Ric > There are, however, several strings of numbers that - so far > at least - don't seem to make any sense. If the strings of numbers are in her notes as having been received from Earhart then I suggest sending them to the navigators in the forum. If Noonan was injured she may have been just reading anything that looked appropriate from his notes without knowing what it meant. Note that I am not saying that I believe Betty's notes to be an authentic record of the actual event, nor am I saying that I believe Noonan was injured. I'm just working on speculation. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric We're echoing each other Frank. Great minds..... I agree. I'll post the numbers in a separate posting. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:11:07 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Kanawa cutting Ric asks: >Is it circular to then conclude that somebody was cutting kanawa on the SE >end of the island in December 1939? No, but this brings us back to what he meant by the SE end. Recall that you first came up with a plausible argument for Aukaraime South being what he intended. I then came up with a plausible argument for Kanawa Point, and then wondered about the 1996 water catcher site which triggered your further thinking on the subject and led you to the much more fully define and support the Seven Site as the most likely location. I continue to agree that the Seven Site is our best bet, but I think it's a mistake to be closed to other possibilities. Clearly someone had to be cutting kanawa on the SE end in December 1939 (more or less), but that doesn't necessarily mean they were doing it close to the Seven Site. TK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:21:33 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Kanawa cutting Is there not a possibility that the "kanawa" tree in question was not cut down. There is always the possibility that the tree was felled by storms. Unless I am mistaken Gerald only advises that " ... 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.". Is it possible (if the tree was downed by storms) that pieces, or all of the tree was taken back to the village? ... could even be over a period of time! Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************** From Ric Possible, yes. For what it's worth, we've never seen evidence of storm damage to trees on the lagoon shore, especially at the far end of the island. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:26:20 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's notes/ Authentication of (cont) Without the full text and details of "Betty"s notebook posted,I can't help but make presumtions of when she first heard Earhart/Noonan. It seems logical that if Earhart finally went down sometime around noon,2 July, give or take an hour, on land or sea, that if she made any transmissions, it would have been as soon as possible.She wanted to alert her rescuers pronto. Antennae condition and battery power,etc would be of concern. Thus I would suspect the first transmissions began on 2 Jul just after her landing and if she could retain power she may have then intermittently transmitted for days. But those clues of what was happening,when, and the circumstances would be contained in Betty's notes. Anxiously waiting for Tighar's transmission. For those forum members not familiar with the Wyoming reception, a 12 year old boy at Rock Springs,Wy reported hearing a faint voice saying "Amelia Earhart calling..ship on reef south of equator." He heard it at 8:ooam Sunday ( 4:30am Honolulu time )on 5 July 37. He couldn't hear call letters or other "figures". LTM, Ron Bright (who hopes AE signed off with "love to mother") ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:27:39 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Lost Russian Plane No trace of Levinevsky's plane or crew was ever found. Various people have been looking for it since, with no positive results. Recent searches just off the northern coast of Alaska in 1999 and 2000 were equally unproductive. However, these were poorly conceived and poorly executed. A couple of years ago, an "anomaly" was noted on some side-scan sonar surveys of a potential oil exploration area (can't say where, it is confidential oil company data). The first privately funded search expedition forgot to hit the "record" button on their side-scan sonar. They returned with, ta-da, no data. A second trip the following spring didn't see anything but they weren't sure they were in the same area. More looking may follow. I'll try to find out what, if anything, is going on. Don't worry, guys, I've tried to get Ric interested in this one, but we want to finish the AE project first. Tim Smith 1142CE Formerly with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:28:41 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: 10E performance Oscar Boswell said; trust everyone has noticed that while the data show the 10A as being faster than the 10E at the higher power settings (as we would have expected), the 10 E is faster than the 10A at settings below 250 hp, and the speed advantage increases as the power is reduced still further. I have no idea what to make of this reversal. Didn't the new NACA cowls/rings actually produce a vacuum at certain forward speeds, thus increasing the thrust a bit? I seem to remember the explanation being that you got thrust from the props and the vacuum in the front of the cowl/rings allowed the aircraft to be "pulled" forward slightly. I could be wrong, as the CRS events are becoming more frequent! LTM, just approaching CRS age Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:24:10 EDT From: Bob Bruce Subject: Betty's Notes Just wondering if there is any reference in the notes to the Norwich City shipwreck (or any other feature such as the lagoon). LTM Bob ************************************************************************** From Ric No. There are no references to anything outside the airplane except concern about rising water. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:31:07 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Lost Russian Plane The 10E in question was actually Dick Merrill's "Daily Express," which had been purchased by Merrill's backer Ben Smith from Harold S. Vanderbilt, and was then sold by Smith to the Russians after the Merrill-Lambie Atlantic flight (in violation of Merrill's understanding that he was to receive the plane). ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for that clarification. (I'll bet Dick was pissed.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:55:40 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: notebook I note from your response to Chris Kennedy that the cover of the notebook is a "VASSAR Composition Book". Is this "VASSAR" as in the college/university name? If so you might be able to verify the notebook as to its age through the school. I am given to understand that this type of book(s), in the era of the racoon coat, were commonly handed out to students for their school work. School libraries, alumni associations, or in some cases historical groups can sometimes produce "examples" of such document/books and verify the date or range of dates they might have been used or distributed. This won't confirm the dates of Betty's entries, but if the book wasn't distributed until say 1939, you know the notes are not contemporanious. Since Betty was 15 at the time of the entries, how did she come to have a VASSAR notebook? Isn't Vassar in the Northeast and we know she was in high school from the information you have already released. I agree with your comment, that during the depression, everything was used, totally used, but you would think someone else would have used this book before it traveled as far as Florida. *************************************************************************** From Ric There's no indication that the name VASSAR on the cover of the notebook implies any connection with the women's college. As best Betty can recall, notebooks were distributed to students by a "Capt. Turner", who was on the faculty of South Side Junior High School in St. Pete, for the purpose of noting down the marching drills he had the students perform. Betty didn't care for the marching and at least some of the torn out pages are probably evidence of that. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:56:37 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Re: Lost Russian Plane Here is a short article concening Levanevsky's plane research conducted during the 1999-2000 winter. The seekers intended to go back in April 2000. Since the article wasn't updated, i guess it was a failure... http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF14/1456.html LTM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:12:50 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Another LTM? As part of my first post I raised the concept of a Long Term Monitor (LTM) for measureing water level and making a tide table. There will probably be an expedition (NIKU IIII) to Nikumaroro in the summer of 2001. Suppose we placed solar-powered instrumentation to acquire the raw data for a set of harmonic constants. Expeditions are short, most likely less than twenty days on the island. Therefore the instrumentation would have to operate unattended for some time and then be recovered by a future expedition. Unless NIKU IIII hits the jackpot, following current practice it will take three years before another full-scale expedition arrives and 18 months before a "preparation" team visits. Clearly such a monitor would have to be solar-powered and reliable. 18 months to the next service oportunity in an environment like I picture (on the shore at the potential landing area on the reef flat with wind, storms, salt spray) is a world-class instrumentation challenge. I can see two parts to the instrumentation: Sensors Storage and Communications My active fantasy capability pictures about two cubic feet with external solar panels, cable-connected sensors, and antennas. Upon going to the trouble of making and placing (and servicing and recovering) instrumentation, could we get more benefits from an "LTM" instrument (without making it too large and complicated to deliver)? In other words, can we make such an investment pay off enough to justify the attempt? As part of my active fantasy life, I can picture add-ons to a Long Term Monitor (LTM) stystem: 1. multiple water-level sensors giving wave height and propagation direction and storm surge height (intermittent high-sample-rate data) 2. 3105 and 6210kHz transmitters to send intermittent test patterns (signal propagation seems an ongoing issue in assessment of alledged post-landing radio transmissions. Experiments, anyone?) 3. Single frame pictures of the reef area or from the "castaway's camp" sent by digital packet radio and displayed on the TIGHAR website. 4. Temperature, humidity, wind speed, and wind direction 5. Maybe even satellite data links using some of the US Government channels made available to research organizations. This could give near-real-time data posting on the web page. Are there other potentially useful things we might add? So let's do some reality testing. 1. Is the data worth the time, trouble, and effort? 2. Can we actually do it? Build, buy, or borrow the data-logging and communication core Obtain USG satellite acess or packet radio frequencies Obtain local government approval for operation Add/provide solar-power capability Add sensors Test, calibrate, and validate sensors, system, and data-processing Deploy and install Operate remotely Process and analyze the data Service, repair, and recover 3. Is the data worth the time, trouble, and effort? LTM (about the "LTM" concept) John Pratt (no number yet) *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't imagine anything smaller than the Norwich City that could survive a storm on that reef. It's a fascinating concept but, I'm afraid, far, far beyond our capabilities. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:13:35 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Movie release dates Many local libraries have microfiche copies of local newspapers going back into the 30s and even the 20s. I've used that kind of resource several times over the years. Perhaps the public library in St Petersburg could be of help? william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:14:26 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re spring moving time > The article about "spring moving time" is interesting. We had something similar here about 10 years ago when all the Televisions stations changed frequencies (at once) and then a year ago when the broadcast radio changed from AM to FM. Spring Moving Time may have had to do with a similar re-allocation of the airwaves perhaps.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:17:21 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Betty's song lyrics Just as a matter of interest, how complete are the lyrics? I had the advantage of being able to replay bits and as you can see from my notes, I still couldn't get some of the words. If Betty was listening as the songs were played, the notes should show signs of spaces where a word was uncertain, followed by a later re-writing of that bit. To get the whole of a song would take quite a few "listenings" over a period of time. Even on a gramophone, it is difficult to copy down the words of a song, and with the advantage of a tape or CD and a pause button... Well, you have the note book, you'll see what I mean! I only tried it with the songs I posted and it took quite a few attempts to get that much. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Betty's lyrics are partial and often show signs of multiple entries. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:20:25 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Betty and tides > From Ric > > There are some fairly specific tidal implications in Betty's notes and we're > presently trying to see how they match up with the very limited tidal > information we have. (Itasca is no help, by the way.) Does Itasca give details of what times equipment was taken ashore and retrieved on various days? It is just possible (from my extensive experience of loading and unloading passengers and goods on tropical islands with coral beaches - and no, this time I'm not joking) that the times coincided with high tide, and for very good reason given the general shoreline of Howland. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess it might be possible to make some reasoned guesses about high tide at Howland that way but they'd be guesses and wouldn't be much help in determining what was going on at Gardner 350 miles away. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:21:59 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Films and Songs Women of Glamour > The 1937 "God's Country and the Woman" must have been a remake. It does look > like Betty was confused about Kent Taylor being in "A Woman of Glamour". I have found 2095 titles for movies dating 1937! (I assume everyone else has the list by now) The closest seems to be: Women of Glamour (1937) Directed by Gordon Wiles (I) Writing credits Milton Herbert Gropper (story) Mary C. McCall Jr. Credited cast overview: Virginia Bruce .... Gloria Hudson Leona Maricle .... Carol Coulter Melvyn Douglas .... Richard 'Dick' Stark Reginald Denny .... Frederick Eagan Pert Kelton .... Nan LaRoque Stanley Mack .... Waiter rest of cast listed alphabetically Maurice Cass .... Caldwell Mary Forbes (I) .... Mrs. Stark Thurston Hall .... Mr. Stark Miki Morita (I) .... Kito Clarissa Selwynne .... Woman John Graham Spacey .... Winkler Full Cast and Crew for Women of Glamour (1937) Directed by Gordon Wiles (I) Writing credits Milton Herbert Gropper (story) Mary C. McCall Jr. Lynn Starling Cast (in credits order) Virginia Bruce .... Gloria Hudson Leona Maricle .... Carol Coulter Melvyn Douglas .... Richard 'Dick' Stark Reginald Denny .... Frederick Eagan Pert Kelton .... Nan LaRoque Stanley Mack .... Waiter rest of cast listed alphabetically Maurice Cass .... Caldwell Bess Flowers (uncredited) Mary Forbes (I) .... Mrs. Stark Thurston Hall .... Mr. Stark Miki Morita (I) .... Kito Clarissa Selwynne .... Woman John Graham Spacey .... Winkler Original music by Howard Jackson (I) Cinematography by Henry Freulich J. Peverell Marley Film Editing by Otto Meyer (I) Costume Design by Robert Kalloch Runtime: USA:68 Country: USA Language: English Color: Black and White Sound Mix: Mono Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:23:27 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The signal goes round n' round, oh-oh-oh-oh.... From > From Mike Everette: > > And here is another thought (get ready, Bob Brandenburg...) > > Consider the possibility of some type of strange propagation phenomena in > the tropics, on ANY freq. Something like tropical ducting. St. Pete is not > that far north of the tropics. OK, Mike, here goes. For the other forumites, what follows is from an off-forum exchange Mike and I had a couple of days ago. There is a type of anomalous ionospheric propagation called chordal hops, in which the signal refracts in successive hops along the bottom of the F2 layer, essentially following chords between arc segments of a tilted ionosphere. The signal refracts to earth on the final hop after leaving the tilted region. This phenomenon is associated with a known permanent equatorial ionospheric anomaly, but only occurs during periods of significant geomagnetic storm activity. I checked the geomagnetic activity index values for the post-loss signal period, and things were pretty quiet. So it's a safe bet that Betty didn't hear AE via chordal hops. LTM, who always thought chordal hops were musical devices. Bob #2286. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:24:21 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Films As I indicated in my posting of October 1, God's Country and the Woman was released on January 10, 1937. It was either a remake of the 1916 film or merely another film of the same title. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:25:44 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Dating I may have missed something, but how do you know that it wasn't July 2 or 3? David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Because of the reference to KGMB ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:27:37 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Page by page description Interesting. Obviously the inconsistency is that for the first half or more of the book, most of the backs of the pages are blank (i.e. the "even" pages). Around the middle of the book, she suddenly starts using both sides of the page, which may look a little suspicious. In reality though it is entirely consistent with a right handed person using a bound notebook. In a bound notebook I used to write only on the "odd" pages so the notebook was easier to support. (The backs of the pages were too hard to write on because of the thickness of the spine and the uncomfortable ridge it made under my wrist). Thinking about it, I still do. I just checked my books of verse and journals from 30 years ago. Lots of blank pages on the left, and some fileld in later (out of time sequence) when I was runing out of space and wanted to keep the topic in the same book! As you get to the middle of the book, you suddenly realise that there is now enough support to write on the facing pages. This used to dawn on me about half way through the book. By this time I'd passed the best point to do it and began doubling the book over to write on the "odd" pages which now began to have as little support as the even pages at the beginning. Is Betty Right Handed? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I dunno. I'll ask. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:29:00 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: something new This is sort of "off topic" and sort of not. Back in the 70's I was doing a lot of travelling all over Australia. I had a "road atlas" that accompanied me everywhere. I had it in my hand a few weeks ago, but I think I finally threw it out as part of a cleanup. One of the many things scribbled along with a heap of other notes on the inside cover and first pages was the text of a faint CB radio distress message I picked up, along with the date and time. I belonged at the time to a "Citizen Radio Emergency Response Team" in another state, and had also been in the Rural Fire Brigade and the Royal Australian Air Force as a radio tech, so I was right into radio. I passed the message along to the police, and it resulted in the rescue of someone in an entirely different state. It could have been a hoax, and knowing CB radio I expected it to be. I wonder what might have happened if a freak signal hadn't come in over more than a thousand miles on CB? Or if I'd ignored it, as I possibly might today? I kept that book as a souvenir for years because of that incident, along with a more recent letter of thanks and newspaper articles relating to searches and rescues I've been involved in. Pity it's missing now.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:31:21 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Tides and Storms We should be able to get the times of the tides for Niku in 1937! Find a nautical almanac. Find the moon rise and set times for that location. Find the phases of the moon. The phases will tell you roughly what type of tide (large or small) it was. Several of our "Celestial Choir" should be up to the task.... (Is the Choir still performing?) Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric This is the deadest of horses. It's been flogged and flogged. It can't be done without information that is just not avaialble. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:35:10 EDT From: Joe Subject: Betty's memories Please dont take this the wrong way...as I know you dont believe in the supernatural etc...but is there a chance Betty could be put under hypnosis and returned to that day in 1937? Joe W3HNK ************************************************************************** From Ric Hypnosis is a known phenomenon but it's not a reliable way of retrieving memories. I'll interview Betty with her notebook in hand and we'll talk about the old days and she can show me photos from her childhood and we'll take it slow and that will stand the best chance of bringing out whatever is there --- and it will still be anecdotal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:37:07 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Another post-loss message Concerning timing of post-loss messages, a year or two ago, I posted the post-loss message supposedly heard in El Paso by a local dentist. I found the reference in the July 7, 1937 local paper. I was able to get in touch with the doctor's son who , quite naturally, supported the veracity of his father's claim. The doctor lived in the country without electrical interference nearby and was an amateur radio operator. His statement:'I heard a woman's voice on Miss Earhart's frequency of 3105 Kc. The signals were not strong enough to read. They were half a minute at a time over a period of ten minutes.' He said that before he heard the voice, he got a carrier wave message that AE was on land. The carrier signals were heard between 8:30 and 8:40 P.M., July 6 and the woman's voice was heard near midnight of the 6th. Naturally, he could have heard a hoax call, but at least I was able to independently verify the good reputation of the dentist in 1937. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:46:02 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Betty's notebook This is purely an informal personal thought, and surely you must have think about it already, nevertheless I send it for what it is worth. If AE and FN did land where the present Tyghar hypothesis puts them (not far from a wrecked cargo ship) we can speculate that when they try to send radio messages, they would try to give as many informations as possible concerning their landing place. An obvious information is the wrecked ship. A big one, on not so many possible islands in this general region. Speak of a could information to transmit ! If there is no word about it in the notes, it doesn't mean anything (reception or tansmission or both were intermittent). However if the voice Betty heart talked about a wreck, that would be a real shock. Because if it is a hoax it would really be an unfortunate coincidence. If there is any hint about the cargo ship in the notes, I would really think of postponing the publication of the notebook untill you are really sure about it. It would really be an embarassment if it appears later that Betty did not hear AE after all. And saying that I am as curious as anybody to read the notes, but the more there are really some hot things in them the more I think there is no hurry to publish. *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no mention of the shipwreck in Betty's notes. We can certainly publish the notebook on the TIGHAR website (Betty has given her permission) as a historical document without making any judgements about it. My only reason for not putting the whole thing up sooner was to get the apparent context verified (through the dating of films and songs) before we tackled the alleged Earhart notes themselves. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:50:51 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: Cockpit resource management in NR 16020 Greetings Ric, I hate to raise a mundane subject when everyone is concentrating on a potentially momentous find, but this has been bothering me for a while. Frequently on the forum I see statements regarding the use of the Electra's Direction Finding Set. Statements like,for example,"Amelia could not get a null"or"Amelia forgot to switch off the AVC" I believe that it was not Amelia who was handling the D/F set,but Fred ! Please consider the following points: 1.The D/F set was part of the aircraft's navigational equipment just like the Pioneer octant,Fred's "preventer" or the rudimentary drift sight. 2.Fred was experienced in the use of D/F.He would first have encountered it in his time at sea.It would almost certainly have been installed in the Pan Am flying-boats. 3.Fred was licensed to operate the D/F radio.He had taken,and passed, the Radio Navigation Test. Amelia had not. 4.The positioning of the D/F loop on the fuselage of the Electra indicates to me that the loop was intended to be operated by the occupant of the right hand seat.If you look at the head-on view of the aircraft drawing on the web site you will see that the D/F loop is off-set slightly to the right of the center line.It probably could not be on the c/l as there would have been a stringer or similar structural member there.It had to go on one side or the other and they chose to install it closer to the co-pilot's seat than to the captain's.I am assuming here that the rotating handle was directly below the loop. All of the above raises the question:How could it be that a top professional like Fred Noonan,arguably the best in his field,could not get a usable bearing on the Itasca's "beacon"? In my belief the answer to that is the missing belly antenna.You can't take a bearing on a station unless you can tune your D/F receiver,and you can't tune your receiver if you can't receive the signal ! LTM Raymond Brown. *************************************************************************** From Ric Noonan had passed the Radio Navigation test? I guess I missed that. Where did that come from? The loop is offset to the right so that it doesn't interfere with the cockpit hatch. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:51:23 EDT From: Ric Subject: DST in St. Pete Warren Lambing got this reply from the St. Petersburg Library to his question about articles concerning Daylight Saving time. > Dear Mr. Lambing: > I checked our St. Pete Times Index and came up with the following items > concerning DST in the 1930s: >"St. Pete Won't Change Clocks"(4-23-32); >St. Pete Merchants Eye Summer Hours"(4-25-32); >"Realtors Favor DST"(4-25-32); and >"Merchants Reject DST"(4-294 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:52:37 EDT From: Vern Subject: Newspaper archives >You will probably need a good story to visit the paper's archives, they usually >reserve them for their own use and are not generally available to the public. >************************************************************************** >From Ric > >You couldn't ask for a better story. Is it a story that should be exposed to the media at this point? Maybe they would not get very excited by an Earhart story at this time, but it might be risky. *************************************************************************** From Ric We still have waaaay too many unaswered questions to get the media involved at this point, and besides, this is not exactly a slow news time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:54:14 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: A Phenomenon Not New Distress broadcast heard over 3 hour span? What hogwash, but it doesn't really surprise me that much, the eagerness of some in looking for any miracle that could account for this. Daylight hours from sending site, to Florida, on low HF freqs? 3 hours of copyable, stable reception, while sending site transitions from morning to full daylight? 50 watt AM power transmitter (25 watts maximum audio on a 50 watt carrier). CB skip conditions are NOT directly comparable to low HF! Home radio- (unless we learn better) is NOT a dx machine, and i can explain why not, compared to a "black metal box" communications receiver of the era, even in 1937, as can a number of readers of this group. Radio Australia and other international broadcasters routinely use 100,000 watts or more, and use directional antennas to focus the power in one target target direction- effectively magnifying even that starting power- so you will have a hard time comparing a 50w signal with a poorly effective (low horizontal) antenna. "If it was a hoax, why didn't more people hear it?" - that depends on hoaxer's transmit conditions. Not everyone will report a hoax,anyway. There was no shortage of ham-type transmitters able to cover 3.1 or 6.2 MHz. If the transmitter didn't already tune to these frequencies, some simple temporary changes could be effected in no more than one or two hours. "The will to believe, in the face of all contrary liklihood". "Longing for a good story". ( maybe they are the same thing.) Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, I guess we know where Hue stands on this one. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:54:45 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: The signal goes round n' round, oh-oh-oh-oh.... > From Mike E, the Radio Historian #2194: > Suppose AE's transmitter was mistuned. Suppose it was radiating a strong > second, or even third harmonic... perhaps even stronger than the > fundamental? Mike, how is the 2x or 3x harmonic stronger than the fundamental? > Freqs in the 12 and 18 MHz bands have excellent daylight skip propagation. This is true, and for my money,this is the ONLY possible path to Betty's home. (Mike, 18 MHz would be a little high, wouldn't it, for the morning to noon time span in the Pacific?) > A very good reason to think this may be true, is the line about the "rough > modulation" or "broad signal" (I forget the exact wording) in the Chater > Report regarding AE's transmitter on 6210. These conditions may be > indicative of a mistuned xmtr. Joe Gurr, when he lengthened the antenna on > NR16020, may have made a critical tuning problem even worse... and the way > the rig was coupled into the antenna, with the connection made directly to > the power-amplifier output coil, really invited harmonic radiation! --Mike, the original was "rough signal". I looked at the WE13 schematic and you are quite correct, this is the super-harmonic generator type of circuit that was certainly obsolescent by the start of WW2 - i mean in new designs. I doubt that the FCC would have permitted such a set to be used anytime after WW2. I think that such a simple circuit was frowned on in ham radio even back then, is that right, Mike? It might help to know what the exact length of the plane's antenna was. You are looking at a harmonic power of substantially down from 50watts, and the antenna would have to be near-resonant at somewhere close to 12 or 18 MHz [ near 1/2 wave for voltage-feed, hi-Z ], for this explanation to work, i am thinking. My quick guesstimations on this say, 17 meter band, 1/2 wave antenna ~ 28 feet long. > Is it not strange, though... even mystical? That these signals were > received by young women, as Ric hinted? Uh-oh. --Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:55:28 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: ...Can't get a null. > Is it possible (apart from all other switch/antenna/tuning > problems) that her hearing just wasn't sensitive enough after > 20 hours in the air? Or is a "null" a real obvious thing > when you find it? > > Marty Let me dismiss that idea. (Altho not to discourage hypothesizing) The "null" is like the difference between hearing it and not being able to hear it at all. Hearing would have to be totally gone. I think in a crisis situation, no matter how tired, your skills could temporarily at least but called into full play. It does seem quite likely to me, as the other poster suggested, she may simply have forgotten. There was a lot to remember, a lot to pay attention to, and a lot going on. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart did not say that she couldn't get a null. she said "unable to get a minimum". Is there a difference? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:55:56 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: 3105 kc Propagation in 1937 > From Janet Whitney > The daytime propagation on 3105 KC in 1937 was terrible to non-existant. > Especially with 50 watts AM into a non-directional wire antenna. The daytime > propagation on 6210 was OK out to 500 miles or so. There are presently > several low power Canadian broadcast stations between 6000 and 6100 > kilocycles...running 1000 watts .....hear for yourselves how strong they are > during the day. > > In 1937, 3105 and 6210 were common night / day frequencies used by the > airlines and many "general aviation" pilots. So there were many radio > transmitters around capable of putting out phony distress signals. Thanks Janet Point well made, I am about 100 miles from the Toronto stations you mention, and I have a hard time hearing them with the noise. For the record my instinct's make me believe that this is a hoax, however from doing other forms of research, I have found that many times you hit dead ends when you look at something with a preconceived idea, so I am open to the possibility it is not a hoax, nevertheless it is very questionable. I do suspect that 6210, at nighttime would be a possibility. I live in Western NY and although this is not a comparison, I am able to pick -up Radio Australian like a local AM station on 9580 from 1100-1300 GMT and I have pick them up in the 49 meter band at the same time, which equals 7 am to 9 am local time, and in the early part of August last year I kept a readable signal close to 12 PM (well into the daylight), granted they are putting out 500,000 watts compared to the 50 watts AE had (but the target is the Pacific). I can't help to wonder what time Betty heard this and if how close Niku and St. Petersburg is to the equator play a factor? But I agree with you in that it probably is a hoax transmission, it would however be nice to have conclusive evidence to prove it is a hoax. Regards. Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:56:34 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Old Radio > From Alan Caldwell > >> Ric, when I was a child in the middle to late 30s, I listened to a lot of short wave from around the world on my grndpa's Zenith console. It had 5 bands and it was easy to see what general frequency you were on. His antenna was as you would suppose-- a wire from the radio up the side of the house using standoffs and then reaching out to a pole in the garden -- maybe 50 to 70 feet. I see no reason to eliminate Betty's radio for lack of capability on what we know.<< DId you hear a lot of civilian airplanes running their transmitters from the airfield runway, from Europe or the Pacific islands? Oh, you copied CW on your Zenith? I see, that explains it, since CW really punches thru. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:57:19 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio AVC and DF Janet, you are correct in re turning off the AVC. I didn't fly in the 30s but started in the 50s. That was the SOP. I never flew a plane with a belly wire antenna but I'm sure planes prior may have had them. You might research to find support for your assumption about rdf stations existing in 1937. Not of great importance but interesting none the less. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:57:52 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio AVC and DF > From Janet Whitney > > Checking the literature from the 30's, it was standard operating procedure > for aircrew members to turn the DF receiver's automatic volume control off > while direction finding SOP does not always apply under combat conditions. Have you ever been in a really stressful situation, with a mental checklist of things to remember? > Presumably there were radio range stations (beacons) near the cities Earhart > and Noonan would visit in the U.S.; possibly in foreign countries too. We can verify that from the lists. The impression i get from my reading, however, is that this system was not used overseas, or at best very little used. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:58:22 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: When did Betty hear it? I realize you are not necessarily supporting this supposed communication, just citing it. Of course, it's obviously questionable whether AE just happened to be sitting in her plane at those times, and happened to be listening to KGMB. Reminds me of something that happened in Seattle around 1961. KJR, on of the AM rockers in that era of AM Rock powerhouses, had this publicity stunt where they sent a message of greetings to the extraterrestials, and then turned off their transmitter for 60 seconds to clear for any replies from outer space, flying saucers, etc. A couple of Seattle high school science types had a powerful Tesla coil device and they promptly retuned it to KJR's frequency, 950 kHz, and connected it to a long aerial. Then next time KJR sent out its special message, there was a buzzing, raspy Morse code reply. The "message" was the number for pi, 3.1416...., because the two youngsters thought that would be kind of a universal understood figure. When KJR came back on, the announcer said in an excited voice, "The switchboards are lighting up!" (KJR later held a picnic for listeners and any extra- terrestials who cared to show up - none did. But apparently many KJR listeners in the Seattle area did hear the "extraterrestials' reply". ) Well, maybe this anecdote better have a point. The point is, when you do a broadcast like this, or KGMB's, that's a tempting invitation to hoaxers. "Hoax springs eternal". Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:01:08 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Chronological Order I quite agree with Chris regarding the insignificance of the chronological order of Betty's notebook. Keeping a journal myself, I occasionaly skip pages. When hit with an inspiring thought or idea, I tend to open to the first page and start writing. Remember too -- she was a teenager at the time and they often think out of sequence or logical order compared to adults. I find this all wonderfully intriguing. LTM (who keep a diary herself), Barb Norris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:02:35 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: 10E performance -- clarification Here is what I MEANT to say. Oscar Boswell said: Trust everyone has noticed that while the data show the 10A as being faster than the 10E at the higher power settings (as we would have expected), the 10 E is faster than the 10A at settings below 250 hp, and the speed advantage increases as the power is reduced still further. I have no idea what to make of this reversal. Didn't NACA develop cowls/rings in the early 1930s that actually produced a vacuum at certain forward speeds, thus increasing the thrust a bit? I seem to remember the explanation being that you got thrust from the props and the vacuum in the front of the cowl/rings allowed the aircraft to be "pulled" forward slightly. I'd be surprised if Lockheed didn't at least know of this early NACA work. Whether or not they incorporated it into the 10-series is a different question. If Lockheed did use it one the 10-series could this account for the increased speed of the 10E over the 10A at lower speeds? I could be wrong, as the CRS events are becoming more frequent! LTM, just approaching CRS age Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:10:47 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Re: Page by page description The following was found concerning some of the new entries supplied: 63 - song? "Harbor", lyric " I saw the ... Harbor light. They only told me..." Lyrics - Harbor Lights http://members.aol.com/kkcowgirl/mrharbor.htm I saw the harbor lights They only told me we were parting The same old harbor lights That once brought you to me I watched the harbor lights How could I help it, tears were falling Some other harbor lights Will steal your love from me I longed to hold you close And kiss you just once more But you were on the ship And I was on the shore Now I'll know lonely nights For all the while my heart is whispering Some other harbor lights Will steal your love from me Some other harbor lights Will steal your love from me HARBOR LIGHTS (29) Lyrics: Jimmy Kennedy; Music: Hugh Williams (Will Grosz) 1937 HIT PARADE WINNERS http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html top 40 hits of 1937 http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/ Harbor Lights - Frances Lanford (#6) Harbor Lights - Claude Thornhill (#7) There is currently a piece of sheet music for the song on auction at Ebay--it shows the 1937 publication date http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=455634146 64 - song title? "Whispers in the Dark" This is both the title of a film and of a song From the movie Artists and Models Released: 13 Aug. 1937 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0028587 http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0028587 Whispers in the Dark" by Frederick Hollander and Leo Robin Sung by Connie Boswell Film: Whispers in the Dark Animation Released: 24 September 1937 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0029767 It includes the song: "WHISPERS IN THE DARK" Written by Frederick Hollander Lyrics by Leo Robin Sung by June Robbins with Gus Arnheim's band http://us.imdb.com/Soundtracks?0029767 7- 6 sketches and the words Doris Kenyon The internet movie database provides the following on Doris Kenyon: Date of birth (location) 5 September 1897, Syracuse, New York, USA Date of death (details) 1 September 1979, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, USA. (cardiac arrest) Bio: The daughter of a poet, she made her stage and screen debuts in 1915. She was often cast as a pleasnt heroine in many silent films. She costarred with popular silent actors like Rudolph Valentino and future husband Milton Sims. Due to her stage expierence she made a smooth transition to sound. She could still be seen on televison in the mid sixties. http://us.imdb.com/Name?Kenyon,+Doris she appears to have been in the waning stages of her movie career in 1937 as she only appeared in 2 others in the 30's before an appearence in 1990. She was in no films released in 1937. The only two movies that bracket the year are as follows: Along Came Love (1936) Paramount Pictures [us] http://us.imdb.com/Title?0027279 Girls School Released: Denmark 26 January 1939 http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0030184 http://us.imdb.com/Title?0030184 The other entries in question are a bit obscure, but I will keep hunting around for anything that might fit I have also sent an e-mail to the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce seeking any assistance they can render on the Day Light Saving issue. And as an alum of FSU , I have made an inquiry to their research librarian in hopes that something might turn up there. LTM, Bill Conover ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bill. Excellent work. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:26:28 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: Others who heard AE? Ric wrote: > On two other occasions, over the years, I have been approached by elderly > women who think they heard Amelia Earhart on the short wave. Here's a > summary of each story. What did you think of these? What came out of interviews? > I listened to her for > 30-45 minutes. After waking my family to listen - two sons and my husband > (all three now deceased) and I had called our local paper to let them listen > to her message also when one member of our family reminded me that our > President had asked that no one give out any information if they heard > anything, as it might endanger her life. What does this "endanger her life" thing mean? > Of course, President Roosevelt never made any announcement about Amelia > Earhart, I wonder, then, where someone got the idea that there had been a Presidential comment on the matter. Is such a statement in one of the books about the event? Speaking of oddnesses, my interest in the AE/FN thing was triggered by my father. One day, when I was about ten, he told me the story of the flight and that she'd crashed on an island somewhere. I have no idea why he told me that -- his only involvement in aviation was as a shipping clerk in Florida during WW2, signing for damaged engines -- and he never said anything about it since. I've asked, and he doesn't recall telling me anything about it. Oh, well. LTM (who listens to everyone) Michael Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric We thought these accounts were interesting but without some kind of written contemporaneous verification they're just stories, anecdotes, recollections that have (in the case of the alleged presidential admonitions) been obviously distorted. All we could do was to ask the women to write down their stories in a letter so that we could keep them on file in case they might later fit a pattern or prove useful in some way. I'm glad we did. It's not terribly surprising that your father would describe Earhart's fate that way. The newspapers at the time were full of stories about how she must be down on an island somewhere. There was one illustration published that showed a drawing of the Electra on a tropical beach, its left landing gear collapsed but its right engine running to power the distress calls. Another article described the Phoenix Islands under the headline "Life Where Amelia Earhart's Lost Isn't Much fun - But It's Possible" and described Gardner as having "birds, birds' eggs, rats, and crabs." It was only after the search failed that the Navy and Coast Guard began pushing the crashed-at-sea solution to the mystery, and of course it was much later that the conspiracy theories emerged. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:37:58 EDT From: Pete Subject: The London Possibility Ever since I read "Amelias Bones and Shoes?" I've been wondering something: IF the bones recovered on Nikumaroro were sent to London after Dr. Hoodless examined them, who in London would have been the receiver? If the good Doctor was taken at his word, and the bones accepted as those of a Polynesian male, might they have been donated to a Medical School, or something like the Natural History Museum in New York? I'm not sure how meticulous the records on the London side of the Commission were kept. I would hope that with Britain realizing War was coming to the Empire, and still competing for funding during the Depression, somebody would have recorded the arrival of that special wooden box and noted the final disposition. We can only hope The Blitz had no effect on the box and contents. If the messages to Tarawa relaying suspicion that the bones were indeed Amelia's had been passed on to London, it's possible that another government agency took custody of the bones. MI-6, MOD, even the Foreign Ministry if the intention was to return the bones to the US after the War. The part I don't like is if the bones had been destroyed during an air raid, Britain would have had no reason to inform the US they ever had them. Some institution in London may have a box of "polynesian male" bones in the basement that arrived in 1940. I don't think it is customary to ship bones halfway around the world everytime a coconut plantation is started on an island, if the bones went to London, somebody recorded it. If the official on Fiji was as meticulous as I hear, then some point of contact must have been written down. Even a ship's name could lead to a manifest showing "human remains" or "anthropological specimens". If there's a cemetary near where Dr. Hoodless performed the examination, I'd be looking for a John Doe headstone. Probably not the best of First Posts, but at least I think I spelled everything right :) My best to everyone! Pete ************************************************************************** From Ric Hoodless did not find the bones to be those of a Polynesian male (that was Isaac in Tarawa). Hoodless said they were European or mixed race. There's no indication in the WPHC file that anyone in London was ever notified about the whole bone thing, much less that the bones got shipped there. At the time the bones were being evaluated in Fiji (April 1941) Britain had been at war for 2 years and was very much on the ropes. I think the possibilty that the bones were shipped to London are remote. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:02:38 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Why didn't more hear AE? An explanation of why the alleged signals from AE were not more widely heard.... The freqs she was using were 3105 and 6210. No doubt many people, including the USCG, Navy, etc etc were listening there. But, if these primary freqs were not getting out so well but HARMONICS were being radiated, those harmonics might not be on freqs where anyone had any reason to be listening, except someone just casually tuning around... ie., the average short wave listener or ham. Someone had to have a reason to be listening on the harmonic freqs... or, just happen to tune across them and hear something. It would not be surprising to discover that none of the "officialdom" involved in the search even considered the possibility of harmonics, or listening thereon. I can assure you: there was EVERY possibility, given the transmitter and antenna she was using. Remember that in commercial radio services and government communications, specific freqs are guarded and there is not often a need to do general tuning. Also, if these were harmonics being propagated via skip (as seems likely and logical, and possible and probable), one had to be in the right place to pick the signal up, as well as listening on the correct frequency. Sort of like a tree falling in the forest when no one is there. Does it make a sound? LTM (who can hear a gnat sneeze in Outer Mongolia) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric And if the harmonic happens to be a frequency that is not being used by anybody, the ONLY way someone hear it is if they happened across it by accident. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:07:45 EDT From: Pete Subject: Ducting I'm sure many others did hear AE. I'm not sure what that "skip" thing is all about, but maybe this can help: I was an Operations Specialist in the Navy, at the time this happened I was part of the Detection and Tracking Module of USS Forrestal's Combat Direction Center. At that time in the Watch rotation, I was Track Supervisor, and part of my job was to maintain data-link comms with the ships of the Battle Group. Hundreds of miles West of Gibraltar, I was unable to establish any VHF communications with an escort ship less than 50 miles away, but had perfect comms on that freq with a shore station I was told was in Sicily. The Senior Second-class Petty Officer I was on watch with told me that was known as "ducting". Sometimes atmospheric conditions are just right, and a VHF signal goes through the stratosphere like it's in a waveguide, ending up hundreds of miles further than normal reception range should be while at the same time nearby units are unable to receive. I'm sure more folks than Betty heard AE, they just didn't believe it. Any good Navy Radioman (RM) could explain ducting better than I have, and sometimes the unclassified Rate Training Manuals turn up in libraries. Even RM's sometimes get Recruiting Duty, try the local station? Somewhere in the old archives may be the Radio Watch Log of a Navy ship where an RM logged those transmissions, then wrote it off as a hoax. Just don't give up! In hundreds of miles of water, part of the IJN Kaga was found that was blown off during the Battle of Midway. Just two AA guntubs and a piece of catwalk between, but hey, found is found. Take Care! Pete ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:34:57 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Betty's notes/ Authentication of (cont) Regardiing the Wyoming message, she could have been referring to her [air] ship, or - maybe the Norwich City... Hmmm ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, I've wondered about that "ship on reef south of equator." You don't know what island you're on but it has a distinguishing feature. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:36:43 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: What Betty heard One thing strikes me as paradoxical, or at least heading that way. On the one hand, it seems Earhart (or a hoaxer or professional actor taking her role) is reporting coordinates for their location, but on the other she discloses that the navigator who would be her means of establishing those coordinates is very seriously hurt. So the position would need to have been determined before the supposed crash-landing, because he wouldn't have been in a fit state to do it afterwards and she would have lacked the expertise. It's very hard to imagine Noonan plotting a course for Gardner and not telling her the name of the destination and confirming this when they got there. But by the same token as (IMHO) she would have been better off after crashing if announcing herself by name and callsign or just name than she would using her callsign alone, if she knows before they land which island it is, she is better off if she reports the name of the island and coordinates, or just the name, than if she just gives the coordinates. I know, lots of "would haves" = guesses... LTM, Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:39:25 EDT From: Pete Subject: Re: Another LTM? Maybe Tighar doesn't need to put the expense up at all. The National Weather Service operates ocean buoys that do all of your wish list except for the test transmissions on those two freqs. If I remember right, the IGS has equipment just like those bouys. How about either smooth talking the Weather or Geological Survey bouys into a long term loan (promise to share tide data), or get the plans and schematics. Motorola has quite a constellation of commsats up there for cell phones globally, if Uncle Sam or the IGS boys won't bite. now the part where the Electronics Student gets to make good: A great deal of solar cells wouldn't be needed. I can tell you how to take a 75 cent chip and two resistors and turn 100 millivolts into a full volt. Adjust the resistor values and get any voltage gain you want. Another chip like that, a few more resistors (49 cents for 10 here in JAX), and walla, a current booster to run motors or dare I say it?....A radio transmitter, AM type My military experience let me use a satellite antenna that was no higher than two feet. Calling Florida by satellite from a parking lot on a Brazilian Air Force Base was quite fun. Find a clear uplink and downlink freq, then bounce off any equatorial satellite nearby. Wanna go further? Look up Ben Gurion University in Isael sometime. The guys there built a power station that generates several kilowatts with NO moving parts, all it takes is generating steam. (two wires in water, pass current, water boils) A small unit like that would provide more than enough power. Anchor the LTM in the lagoon like a Weather Service bouy at sea. Regards, Pete ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:40:21 EDT From: Brian Subject: Fm RADiO I grew up on the dying edge of tube set radios in the 60's. If F.M wasnt popular until the late 60's early 70's...who was using it??? and what was it used for??? Just curious... "Chaucito" Brian P.S... I Loved your dughter's poem...real groan-er. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:43:31 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: 12,000 Feet In appendix A: Radio Communications (page 336) of Mary Lovell's "The Sound of Wings," the author lists a 6:00 pm (Lae time) communication received by Harry Balfour from Amelia indicating "on course for Howland Island at 12,000 feet." I see only three radio messages cited in Eric Chater's letter. Is there another source confirming the "12,000 feet" message? ************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I know of. Mary's information about the disappearance came almost exclusively from Elgen Long. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:45:22 EDT From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Betty's Neighbor's failure to here Back in my short brush with ham radio I seem to recall learning that the reception on a simple wire antenna is dependent upon the direction of the incoming signal. In other words, an antenna oriented north-south would hear a signal from the east or west much better than a signal coming off the end, from the south or north. So the neighbor, with an antenna oriented differently than Betty's might not be able to hear the same signal. So to the folks on the forum that know much more about this than I, could this be a reasonable explanation as to why Betty's neighbor didn't hear the same signal? Jerry W. Ellis # 2113 ************************************************************************** From Ric Betty's antenna was also much longer than the neighbor's. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:47:57 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: NACA Cowl For Dennis McGee: The NACA cowl was developed by NACA engineer Fred Weick in 1928. The work was accomplished at the NACA Langley Propeller Research Tunnel. It was entirely based upon experimental data. There was no accompanying analysis (this came later) to gain understanding of why the cowling proved so successful. Weick was awarded the Collier Trophy in 1929 for his work. The Navy asked NACA to investigate cowlings for radial-cooled engines in June 1926, but no test program was forthcoming. A May 1927 conference between NACA and American aircraft manufacturers, however, spurred NACA into action. Work commenced the following year. Coincidentally, the Navy made a decision to use only air-cooled engines in the future. Weick's wind tunnel results were dramatic. Drag reductions up to 60 percent were achieved relative to the uncowled engine. The results were so encouraging that a flight test quickly followed using a borrowed Air Corps AT-5A. A cowling was shaped and fitted to the Curtiss airplane. The ensuing flight tests conclusively demonstrated the benefit of a properly designed cowling. Without the cowl, the AT-5A had a sea level speed of 118 mph. With the cowl in place and using the same engine power setting, speed increased to 137 mph. This amounted to a 16 percent increase with no increase in power. The cowling increased speed due to drag reduction. There was no speed contribution due to thrust augmentation. In fact, a design objective was to bleed cooling air exiting the aft end of the cowl back into the air stream at the same velocity as the free stream air. You may be thinking of the belly scoop on a P-51 Mustang. In this design ambient air entering the scoop intake becomes heated as it passes through the engine radiator. Heated air is then accelerated through a converging nozzle section providing a measure of thrust. The magnitude of thrust generated under certain operating conditions is sufficient to partially offset the drag component contributed by the belly scoop. The only other thrust augmentation device I can think of relates to the exhaust nozzle designs used on liquid-cooled engine installations. The 10E Wasp engine has somewhat larger overall dimensions than the Wasp Jr used in the 10A Electra (data from P&W Operators Handbook): Diameter Length Area % Incr. Wasp 51.81 in 43.00 in 14.68 sq ft Wasp Jr 46.13 in 42.44 in 11.61 sq ft 26.4% I am sure this is much more than you ever cared to know about the subject. Regards, Birch Matthews ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:52:18 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's notebook/ Authentication of Hoax smoax. I think there is the 4th possibility that seems to fit this scenario.I think Betty heard what she heard and wrote what she wrote. More than likely she was hearing a recreation of events broadcast from a US radio station with an actress,etc to dramatize this momentous event. I 'm in contact with an Radio Broadcast Historian from a major east coast college,an expert in the field. Notwithstanding the possibility of her signal reaching Florida, the late date (5 July or later) suggests, in her opinion, what a lot of 1937 radio stations were doing. Example the March of Time broadcast of 8 Jul. No tapes then and transcribing the show was costly, so re-creation was "very commonly used". Lots of radio stations, she said, imitated the March of Time type broadcasts in the 30's. Some stations also broadcast in shortwave. She opined that in view of Amelia's popularlity and appearance on many networks,radio stations were probably falling over themselves to describe perhaps those last moments by re-creation. This is a guess without the "rest of the story" but something that may be further researched to confirm that Betty heard exactly what she wrote, but that it was not Amelia's radio transmitter. So just another avenue to consider when researching the radio stations and their broadcasts in the Florida area. Whatever happened to forum member Marty Moleski's research finding the March of Times broadcast of "Features Story of Disappearance of Amelia Earhart" broadcast on 8 Jul 37,apparently he is in contact with the distributor. The professor I talked with is also attempting to find the March of Times broadcast from collector friends. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric A three hour commercial recreation without commercials? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:55:17 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Newspaper Article of Minor Relevance I searched my one-horse-town's newspaper again from the first issue in June to the last in August and found only one article about Earhart. I find it interesting that this newspaper's only article is more one of criticism than of compassion, but the author's intent shows through the strategic use of words. ----------------------------------- The Hemet News Friday, August 6, 1937 SKY ADVENTURE --Hollywood Citizen-News-- The Navy's fruitless search for Amelia Earhart and her flying companion, Fred Noonan, has been terminated. The effort cost the people of the United States $4,000,000 at least, according to estimates, and has left in its wake a storm of criticism. There is genuine sadness at the passing of a gallant woman and her equally gallant navigator. But there is justifiable indignation over the fact that this was for several reasons an unnecessary tragedy. The Department of Commerce is criticized for issuing Miss Earhart a license in the first place for what has been described as a "stunt". Colonel Lindbergh defended Miss Earhart's flight as a scientific venture, but he was almost the only one to take this attitude. Most experts agreed that the flight contributed nothing new to the knowledge already gathered on aeronautical conditions in the South Pacific. The most serious criticism of Miss Earhart arose from her failure to include radio equipment that would have enabled her to communicate with the Coast Guard cutter Itasca and for that vessel to use its radio direction finder to take a bearing. The tragic adventure undoubtedly brings to a close an era of adventure flying. The Department of Commerce probably will be restrained by law from issuing licenses for non-commercial flights of this character -- if it has not already determined to cease its present policy on issuing licenses. Aviation is now a business, the same as any other. There are countless advances to be made, but henceforth they must be made under strict supervision. ----------------------------------- Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:56:39 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Noise at Low HF Radio Frequencies Most of the of automobiles and trucks before WW II were not equipped with AM radios, so the engine electrical systems were not shielded. There were still many Model T's with spark coils being driven (this was the Depression, after all). There was a lot of atmospheric noise in the tropics from lightning. I spent a week in Sarasota last summer and there was a thunderstorm almost every afternoon. There must have been thunderstorms in the equatorial areas that Earhart and Noonan flew through. Perhaps the Electra was even hit by lightning between Lae and Howland. I understand that static is pretty severe on the 75 Meter ham band in the summer. I really don't see how Earhart's 50 watts AM could have gotten through the D-layer, given the daytime propagation conditions in the summer of 1937, much less 1/2 way around the world. To use an analogy, the difference between 3105 kilocycle and 27000 (CB) kilocycle daytime progagation in 1937 and 2000 is like letting a grape and a golf ball roll off a table onto a hardwood floor and then comparing how far each bounces. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:02:31 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: 3105 kc Propagation in 1937 A comment on the noise floor. The modern day use of various pieces of emissive power equipment, things like large motor drivers, fluorescent lighting, and switching power supplies has raised the noise floor of the low MHz bands because of the legal noise emission of these devices. Today's noise floor is not the same as that of 1940. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:08:41 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Transmitter Question I know I should run for cover (the days of the old wild west Earhart forum are back :-), but I can't resist this question. Mind you I won't be able to see the answer, Due a death in my family, until Saturday, and won't be able to reply until Monday (probably won't want to reply anyhow). Anyhow here goes. I am assuming the transmitter has a ground wire running to the plane, if the plane is on the reef, water is at least below the belly and for that matter the belly antenna. What effect would the water have on the grounding of the Transmitter if any, and would it effect the belly antenna, being just above water? Well at I am at it, and sorry if I missed this, but since I have not seen posted when Betty heard this, am I to assume she heard at night time, so that Earhart was transmitting during the day, or did Betty here it early morning (most likely time to pick up an unavailable signal from that part of the world), which would put Earhart transmitting at night or after midnight, but still in the dark? In plain words what is the time difference between Niku and St. Petersburg and where would the sun be for both of them? And is 3105 the confirm frequency Betty heard the transmission on? Regards to the list (while I hide behind the computer after I get the answers :-) Warren Lambing *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty heard what she heard between roughly 3 p.m. and 6:15 p.m. on a day that was probably July 5th or after, but probably not later than July 9th. Assuming that St. Pete was not on DST, the time of day in the Central Pacific was 8:30 a.m to 11:45 a.m. I can't answer your question about a grounding wire. I think we've established quite convincingly that the belly antenna was gone. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:12:23 EDT From: Judith Subject: Re: When did Betty hear it? -"Because Betty's father came home from work, it seems unlikely that they (transmissions) occurred on July 4"....excuse me, but many of us have had to work many many July 4ths. I did as a nurse, sales clerks do, ward clerks do, cab drivers/bus drivers do, etc etc. What kind of work was Betty' dad in? Your statement doesn't stand for many of us in the labor force so as to speak Ric. Judith ************************************************************************** From Ric Betty's father worked for the power company and also did some freelance handyman jobs on Saturdays. Betty is quite sure that he did not normally work on Sundays or holidays. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:18:56 EDT From: Judith Subject: Re: betty notes In the Lambrecht Report (documents of the week page-TIGHAR, paragraph 14), Lt. Lambrecht sent out from the Colorado on reconnaissance for AE and FN states, "Given a chance, it is believed that Mrs Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon (Gardner Island) and swam or waded ashore. In fact, in any of these islands it is not hard to believe that a forced landing could have been accomplished with no more damage than a barrier crash or good wetting." Judy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:20:21 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: Tides Last year I got a copy from Randy of the tide calculations he had done by an expert in 1992: the low tide on the 5th would have been around 2200GMT, which seems to fit. One can argue about the accuracy of the exact time and height of the tide, given those calculations had been extrapolated, but I think the approx time of the tide max and min has got to be rather close: the moon was by far the biggest component of the tides at Kanton, and that can be very accurately calculated for 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:48:53 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Betty's intercept One of the biggest arguments re Betty's interception is the time span she indicates, and of course, the possibility she may have heard some repeat of the March of Time broadcast (or some clown's "playful" cloning of same). However, in defense of Betty hearing the message(s) when nobody in the Pacific area did, brings to mind a similar situation. When the Italian north-polar dirigible expedition (1929?) crashed on the icecap, the surviving crew DID have an emergency radio transmitter, which they quickly put to use. None of the would-be rescuers based in Spitzbergen heard it, nor any ships at sea nor aircraft either, but eventually the weak signal WAS received up by a Russian ham (in Siberia, I think), and a rescue of General Nobile and the crew was soon effected. (The saga eventually was recreated in the excellent movie "The Red Tent", starring Sean Connery). Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:33:16 EDT From: Vern Subject: Radio signal propagation It might be interesting to examine actual observed radio signal propagation via skip at about the time AE and FN were in the Pacific -- maybe in the Phoenix Islands. There is a record of some actual communication accomplished in approximately the frequency range they would have used -- 7000 kc which is just a little above their 6210 kc. Some of this communication was with very low power such as 25 Watts, or less. I don't know that there is much of a record for 3500 kc near their 3105 kc, There may be some. QST, the journal of the American Amateur Radio League (ARRL), contains a section of, so called, "DX" contacts by Hams all over the world. Most involve higher frequencies but some are in the 40 meter band (7000 kc). There may not be much on contacts made in the 80 meter band (3500 kc). Of course, many of these DX contacts were CW. That's quite a different thing from an intelligible phone (voice) contact. Just by coincidence.... A hurried look at a couple of issues of QST for 1937 turned up one contact on 40 meters between a California station and a Ham in the British Phoenix Islands. At least one of the transmitters was running only 25 Watts. Antennas used are unknown. I suspect that a lot of interesting, documented "skip" contacts could be found in QST magazines, especially for years near the peak of the 11.3 (average) year solar activity cycle as was the case in 1937. I'm not going to have much time to spend at the library going through QST back issues. If anyone would care to to check some of this you will need to have the station call prefixes for places all over the world and the prefixes for the U.S. call areas. Locations are not stated otherwise. I think there were some changes in U.S. call areas some time after wwII. *************************************************************************** From Ric A HAM in the Phoenix Islands in 1937? Had to be Jones on Hull or, if later in the year, one of the two Brits stationed on Canton. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:34:55 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Newspaper archives What I was getting at was that it might not be wise to try to gain access to newspaper archives with this story. It might open the flood gates to a lot of media attention that is definitely NOT wanted right now. ************************************************************************** From Ric Ah, yes. Sorry. I totally agree. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:36:04 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: ...Can't get a null. > From Ric > > Earhart did not say that she couldn't get a null. she said "unable >to get a minimum". Is there a difference? I guess "null" you could say would just be greater minimum. Like if you didn't get a null, where the volume of the station went totally away or way,way down, you would at least, carefully, try to determine if the volume went down noticeably at all, somewhere in the rotation of the DF loop. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:43:37 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Others who heard AE? > From Ric > In a letter to me dated March 21, 1991, Thelma Lovelace of Carleton Place, > Ontario, Canada wrote: > > "On the seventh day of July 1937, early morning - before eight A.M. as my > husband had to be at work at eight o'clock, I was listening to short-wave > radio, DeForest Crosley - cabinet model; while my husband was getting ready > for work. > I had the radio on "short wave" as there was a program of Japanese music that > I got every morning. As I passed back and forth across the dial near the > station (where) I usually got the program, I picked up this voice, loud and > clear - --And note this also: In eastern Canada, she tunes across where she usually hears the Japanese music program, and the Earhart signal is "loud & clear". It's not a stretch to feel from this, the Earhart signal is on a level approximately comparable to the strength of a broadcast signal. Even back then, the other broadcast signal she mentions, which possibly came from NHK Tokyo, would have had a power of maybe 20,000 watts, and a very good, optimum, antenna. Contrast this to the Earhart distress signal, 1/1000x down by power level from this, before her poor, in efficiency terms, simple horizontal antenna low to the ground. The NHK antenna was no doubt a "gain device", adding yet to the effective broadcast power. So how far down did the planes antenna lower this comparison of power levels? Was the "AE signal" 0.0001 as strong, or maybe even less? Now radios have this thing called AVC, Automatic Volume Control, sounds like a big deal but no synchros or pushrods, just some simple negative feedback which kicks in when a signal is really strong, to keep it from blowing out your eardrums. Even if the radio's AVC was operating, i don't think it could deliver a roughly comparable loudness level at this 40-60 dB level difference. ( Mike, opinion via email?) Also interesting is that (presumably) the signal was from the Orient. A summer morning around 0800. From my experience, which you can duplicate, i believe, 3105 is gone by then, 6 MHz is mostly washed out except for the remnants of really strong signals, 9.5 is still there but going out, and 12 MHz is working pretty good and so may be 15 MHz. (These are the approximate frequency areas that international broadcasters such as the oriental station above, used. ) By this verbosity i only want to point out that the time and month of this regular broadcast pretty narrows the frequency range she was lissening in. ( Actually, if i can get organized, i may be able to look up the station and the frequency, from the music program clue, and the date.) Also, i want to point out, this is hardly the kind of listener who late at night turns the volume way up and presses her head against the speaker to hear a weak station all the way from Nibi-Nibi. Ric, this is quite an interesting account and linked with all the others, may provide some strong clues as to the origin or kind, of that crash signal. > "the message was "Can you read me? Can you read me? This is Amelia > Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart. Please come in." --Again, the question of call signs. > "But," I said, "it > was English spoken. I've never heard English spoken on that station." --Maybe another clue as to station, this sounds like a broadcast to ethnics overseas - not an uncommon type of broadcast. > I want back downstairs. Silence. I went back and forth over the area. Very > faintly heard her voice once and then all was quiet and later only static." --Band conditions changing, favoring more high frequencies, and this one going out? AE's batteries failing? Clever segue by a hoaxer? > In a letter to me postmarked October 11, 1990, Mabel Dunklee of Corinth, VT > wrote: > After waking my family to listen - two sons and my husband > (all three now deceased) and I had called our local paper to let them listen > to her message --Hmmm....the paper didn't do anything with this? > also when one member of our family reminded me that our > President had asked that no one give out any information if they heard > anything, as it might endanger her life. --What's this about the Pres, anyone? > I heard her message around 2 A.M. daylight saving time from my home in > Amarillo, Texas. She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously > injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as > serious as Mr. Noonan. > My family and myself decided not to discuss this with anyone. The government > of the USA was supposed to take care of everything, so did not even listen > for any later messages from her. --The last 2 sentences give some insight into an attitude and belief that really surprises me. This is an insight into the real life of the times that recitation of just the facts doesn't reveal. --BTW, my super-duper new conspiracy theory (not yet assigned a number) is that Radio Japan put on this play and broadcast it. Why? To throw searchers off the track? To spite the government that sponsored her, by revelling in its helplessness to recover her, since she was now securely in Japanese custody? Stay tuned. (Been done before. After the Hungarian rebellion of 1956 had been crushed by the Russian forces, broadcasts continued for a few days, imploring Western countries for help. These broadcasts were by Russian forces, for some devious purpose still not understood.) Also, maybe we had this information already, but here goes: "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington D.C. Jan. 1, 1939 LIST OF RADIO STATIONS, ALPHABETICALLY BY CALL LETTERS" KGMB Honolulu B'casting Co. Ltd. 1 kw 1320 U [unlimited time] 1000 watts, friends, to Florida, or Eastern Canada, would be called a "real good long distance catch" even in those days with less stations on the same frequency. 1000 watts to Niku would not be a powerhouse but would make the trip, as it's over a *much* better path, seawater. The gov't list shows 7 stations in the USA on the same channel in 1939, none larger than 1 kw, the nearest in state of LA. --Happy Listening, Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:46:16 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Betty's notes/ Authentication of (cont) The Wyoming boy who heard the purported AE broadcast was later interviewed, and it was found that he had listened to approx. 16000kHz, and it was some sort of radio broadcasted "theater". Definitely not AE. ************************************************************************* From Ric Got a source on that? Is it on the CD? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:48:21 EDT From: Bill Connover Subject: Re: Page by page description As a continuation of my message from yesterday, I have located the following additional information concerning the notebook entries. As posted: 42 - blank except for words "I no know" and "I no know I'm" (song lyric?) The following is probably what the above entry refers to: 1937 Lucky Strike Hit Parade Winners Second Place Song I KNOW NOW (08) Lyrics: Al Dubin; Music: Harry Warren Introduced by Doris Weston in Warner Bros. film: The Singing Marine (30 June 1937) http://www.nfo.net/.HITS/1937.html#1937TOP http://www.icast.com/movies/1,4003,1042-99376,00.html I Know Now - Guy Lombardo (#2) http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/top40/index.html First two lines of song: I know now, you're the only one I know now, I'm the lonely one ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Update: Re: Johnny One Note Babes In Arms -Opened on Broadway on 14 April 1937 and ran 289 performances. http://www.musicals101.com/alph1.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LTM, Bill Conover *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bill. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:49:59 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: chronology Could we assume that most, if not all of 'Betty's' entries regarding reference to movies seen & songs heard, were made prior to or during July 1937, since the notebook provides no reliable dating of such entries? The fact that a motion picture may have been _released_ or a song _performed_ prior to or during July 1937, does not necessarily mean that it was shown or played in St. Petersburg prior to or during that month. In the 'olden' days, released films didn't always reach outlying theatres until weeks or even months after the original release date (except for specially selected 'preview' sites). Newspaper archives might be able to provide evidence of just what motion pictures may have been playing in St. Pete for the month of July , however documenting when she heard certain songs would be almost impossible, since her radio band would have given her access to radio stations & programs all over the country. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:50:53 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Re: 10E performance -- clarification For Dennis McGee: Lockheed was well aware of the NACA cowl developments. It was used on the wooden Lockheeds beginning around 1928 and soon became standard on the Vega, Sirius and so forth. The apparent speed differences between the 10A and 10E, if they are real, are due to other factors. Both aircraft used NACA-type cowls. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:51:51 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: The London Possibility Ric wrote: << I think the possibilty that the bones were shipped to London are remote. >> If they were sent anywhere beyond Fiji, it's most likely they went to Tarawa when the assets of the WPHC were distributed, but Foua Tofinga, who was involved in much of this distribution, says he doesn't recall any such thing. Checking out this possibility is one of the many things we'd like to do in Tarawa, however. LTM TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:53:10 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The London Possibility I agree with Ric that the British had other things to worry about in 1941 than sending any bones around the world to London. If they did send them anywhere they certainly would have gone to nearby Australia, the only place from where ships sailed for the UK. Most sailed to Africa in 1941 as part of the build up of a fighting force to stop the Germans in Libya. There were convoys sailing to Britain from points in Africa however/ All of them sailed around South Africa since the Mediterranean was unsafe at the time. Only oil and war equipment (including airplanes) were rushed through the Mediterranean from Gibraltar to islands like Malta under heavy air cover and even then losses were appalling. So it's a safe bet that IF the bones were sent to the UK they would have sailed with a convoy around South Africa and most probably to Liverpool, certainly not to London which was under fire (bombing by the Luftwaffe). One place where they could eventually and possibly have turned up could be the Natural Science Museum in London which I believe is in Cromwell Road, where all the London museums are located. But I'm sure this would not have been a priority during the war and the bones would most probably have been stored somewhere else, probably at a university like Cambridge or Oxford. Anyway, this is pure speculation. In my opinion the bones most probably never left Fiji. But if any of our British forumites want to explore their country, why discourage them ? _________ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:54:02 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Fm RADiO Who used FM ? The Germans did. Being forbidden any radio broadcasts on normal radio frequencies after WW II (remember WW II propaganda broadcasts by the "Deutschlandfunk" ?) they turned the Allied interdiction to their advantage. Using the FM loophole (FM was not yet considered normal frequency) they turned FM into Germany's post war radio system around 1950. They were quite succesful too. Everybody uses it now. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:55:06 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Fm RADiO Brian One last post before I hit the road. FM radio was developed in the 30's, however RCA was geared towards AM radios and AM broadcasting, and fought the development of FM. The argument over AM and FM ended (FM being less affected by interference), when the FCC pick FM for the audio part of the U.S. television broadcast, I believe in the 50's however there are lot of stations broadcasting FM in the 40's. As a side note I have yet to hear a tube set that can perform well as far as picking up FM, most of the tubes I have listen to are very poor FM receivers. A quick search on the web brought up this page for Radio history, with some interesting pages on FM radio History http://members.aol.com/jeff560/jeff.html Regards Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:59:56 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Betty's notebook/ Authentication of A three hour radio transmission from Earhart without a estimate of island description,location,latitude,longitude and area to be searched. A Coast Guard station justs gaffs off a legit signal first week of Jul 37. Whoaa. Ron ************************************************************************** From Ric You have trouble believing that somebody with the evening duty at a St. Petersburg, Florida Coast Guard station would gaff off a local guy who claims his 15 year old daughter just heard Amelia Earhart on their home radio? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:03:14 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Post loss messages You maintain that the message Betty heard couldn't have been received on July 2 because of the KGMB message. Consider this also: The earliest she could have heard it would have been the 5th or possible the 6th because AE couldn't have reached Gardner in time to transmit on the 2nd at the time Betty heard it. Saturday the 3rd and Sunday the 4th are out because Betty said her father was at work. (Assuming a normal 5 day work week here) I don't know if a "three day weekend" was common in 1937 but that would eliminate Monday the 6th as well. If Betty doesn't remember and/or didn't note the date, why not ask here if she can associate it with something else, for example: "The day after the big 4th of July fireworks display." As with other forum members, it bothers me that no mention of the Norwich City is made. This would seem to indicate that: A. The message was a hoax B. AE didn't land on Gardner, or, C. She didn't land on Gardner where we think she landed. But--wait a minute. Didn't the 12 year old boy in Wyoming say he heard something about "Ship on reef south of equator" ?? Was this "ship" as in "cargo ship" or ship as in "airplane"? One more observation. What Betty said about the " Extreme emotion being absolutely genuine, in the woman's voice" makes a lot of sense. She has been on this tropical paradise with an injured FN for four or five days. He can't help her with any of the survival tasks, and now a storm (wasn't there a storm in the area about that time?) is about to wash the Lockheed into the ocean. Realizing their days are probably numbered, she abandons all radio procedure and just starts yelling for help. BTW, four or five days of normal tidal cycle wouldn't threaten the airplane? It appears I rambled a bit--sorry Marty 0724C ************************************************************************** From Ric No storm, but very possibly some big waves which would be just as bad. Normal tidal cycles without strong surf should not threaten the airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:25:32 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Another LTM? Pete writes: >>A great deal of solar cells wouldn't be needed. I can tell you how to take a 75 cent chip and two resistors and turn 100 millivolts into a full volt. Adjust the resistor values and get any voltage gain you want. Another chip like that, a few more resistors (49 cents for 10 here in JAX), and walla, a current booster to run motors or dare I say it?....A radio transmitter, AM type << I don't think so! Sounds like the greatest thing since perpetual motion, and about as valid. Boost voltage maybe, but "current booster" ain't gonna happen. Is Pete offering stock in this scheme? (DON'T BUY ANY!) Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Fair warning boys. We're not going to debate this on the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:26:21 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Fm RADiO Att: Brian - FM radio, invented by Major Armstrong, has been around a long time. The first commercial stations, operating in the 45 MC band, went on the air in the late thirties. (K45LA was the first I heard.) RCA (Sarnoff) considered it a threat to their AM networks and wanted to promote TV (which used lower quality FM for audio) and lobbied the government to shift FM to the 100 MC band post- WW2, which reduced the coverage range, and left 45 MC for TV channel 1. (Later given to mobile radio services). Cam Warren (ex KRCW-FM) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:36:28 EDT From: Dean Alexander Subject: Re: Betty's notebook/ Authentication of Ron Bright wrote: <> I keep seeing this "march of time" reference and am not sure what it is. If what Betty heard was around the 5th of July and if I get the gist of some of what Betty heard(from the few scraps that Ric has told us) wouldn't it be in VERY bad taste to air a "recreation" of this nature when the world still was unsure of Amelia's fate? I highly doubt it was a recreation aired at this point in the search. Also, one of the things I admire is keeping an open mind( Tighar seems to me to keep an open mind). If one shuts the door on possibilities without doing as much research as is prudent then one is limiting themselves(or their search). This appears to be what Goerner did if he did, in fact, respond as Betty alledged. I also was a dxer in my youth and worked with a 1937 receiver(which I still have) and while I was never a ham spent many hundreds of hours listening.I have seen many strange things in regard to reception-- I received Qsl cards from places that were impossible to get with my equipment. While I reserve comment on whether or not Betty's story is the real thing, I think it is possible from personal experience to receive signals that "experts" say are impossible to receive. My antenna was an 80? foot copper wire. *************************************************************************** From Ric The March Of Time was a popular radio show that did recreations of current events. They apparently did two shows about Earhart; one on July 8th and another on the 15th. Supposedly at least one of the shows was an imagined radio conversation between Earhart and the Itasca. The format was apparently what we now call "docudrama" with musical cues to indicate who was speaking. (And no, Betty didn't hear any musical cues) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:37:17 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Another LTM? Motorola's cell phone satellite constellation called Iridium is dead. The satellites were allowed to reenter the atmosphere beginning back in April. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:42:18 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Report from St. Pete I made the trip to St. Pete and collected some information. Please post any of this you want on the forum. Some of it may not be of interest. 1) Contact with the Coast Guard. I met with Chris Noble, Coast Guard Administrative Office, 600 8th Ave.SE. They keep no old records at this facility. He referred me to the Coast Guard Historian, Dr. Robert Browning, who can be reached at 202-267-2596. He says that Dr. Browning is very helpful and would have access to all information relative to Amelia Earhart, including contacts made to the Coast Guard by civilians. 2) Daylight Savings Time question. The St. Petersburg Times for July 3, 1937 listed sun rise at 5:38 a.m. and Sunset at 7:30 p.m. The Official US tables for sunrise and sunset in all parts of the US, shows the official sun rise for The St. Petersburg area as 5:38 am and the official sun set for that area as 7:30 pm using Eastern Standard Time. It also notes that if you use Daylight Savings time, you must add an hour to these times. Result - It was Standard Time. 3) Photograph of "Betty's" house. The house is still standing and in very good condition, with recent paint. I do not consider the area run down at all, and looks as good as the area I live in. The current residents were not at home, so I did not feel it appropriate to wander through the back yard. The house is about 40 feet wide, with a detached 10 foot garage to the right and set back. There is a utility pole right behind the house, and a second one about 50 feet to the right, directly behind the neighbor's house. Of course I have no idea whether the poles were in the same position 60+ years ago. If the antenna ran from the back door to the current pole position, it would be about 50 to 55 feet long. I have pictures of the front of the house, and will send you one as an attachment to a later post, but don't think it will help. 4) I located Betty's official name (no, it's not Elizabeth), the addresses the family moved to and the name of her mother and two sisters. It is also interesting to note that someone else has been plowing the same information years ago, as I found the name of Betty written on top of her actual name, and the names of her neighbors in 1937 and an indication that some have been checked. I can send you these names if you like. 5) What was published in the paper during early July, 1937. I found this interesting, as there was a lot of discussion of radio signals supposedly picked up from Amelia in this paper. In formation which was NOT included in my own Florida paper at the same time. I will summarize a lot of this as soon as I can organize it, probably tomorrow. 6) I found this assignment intriguing, and hope that all I have collected (much more than in this e-mail) will be of some help. I believe that I would have to summarize that Betty's notebook appears not to be a fake, but whether the broadcast came from Amelia or some-one else can only be determined by learning the actual contact of her notebook and studying the contents. I think we must settle on the day of the actual broadcast that she picked up. I know you believe that it can be dated based upon the Hawaiian radio station signal, but I would need to understand the context that call letters were seen in the notebook. Perhaps you can tell me, or the forum, the exact quote and its context. I'm willing to make a second trip over there if it appears to be worth while. I will follow this e-mail with more information from the St. Pete papers. That will be a long e-mail. LTM, Harry #2300 ************************************************************************** From Ric That's great information Harry. The DST is conclusivley answered. Someone else checking up on Betty and her neighbors? I wonder if Goerner did more checking than we know. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:44:06 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Betty's notebook/ Authentication of > From Ron Bright > ... Whatever happened to forum member Marty Moleski's research finding the > March of Times broadcast of "Features Story of Disappearance of Amelia > Earhart" broadcast on 8 Jul 37,apparently he is in contact with the > distributor. I'm waiting (and hoping) that Ron Staley will come through with something for us. I found his name and number through internet searches, so he's not a friend of mine. We had a lovely conversation last week, but I haven't heard anything from him since. He only had excerpts, but he knows someone who has complete "air checks" of both the July 8 and the July 15 programs. He says the two programs were only 30 minutes each. This makes me feel quite confident that Betty wasn't listening to March of Time (whatever else she may have heard). If I don't hear from him in a few days, I'll try sending him a letter with some TIGHAR material. If someone in California would like to try working with him, I could try to track down his address. The area code is 818. While waiting, I also called CBS in New York city. I got two numbers from them, but neither one could (or would) help. The CBS audience service won't do a search except for someone who wants to pay for broadcast use of the materials. The Museum of TV and Radio in NYC checked their holdings (theoretically, anyway) and called me back to say that they did not have tapes or transcripts. But then they faxed me a list of movie archives, which makes me wonder whether they misunderstood my request--"March of Time" is much more famous for its newsreels, I believe. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:45:39 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: Cockpit resource management # 2 Thanks for your reply to my posting about the use of the D/F equipment. Fred's Radio Navigation Test is an assumption based on the fact that he was a top air navigator.I assume therefore that he had all the ratings available at the time,and then some. Another reason is the waiving of the test in the case of Amelia.Why insist on Amelia taking the test when Fred had already done so ? Your point about the need for the hatch to clear the D/F loop is taken.I feel that may not be the only reason for installing the loop where they did. All in all,I hold to my belief that the radio Direction Finding gear was part of the Electra's navigation equipment and therefore operating it was the task of the specialist navigator and not that of the pilot. Best of luck with the unfolding of the "Betty" notebook story. It has certainly been intriguing so far. LTM [ Who will always agree to disagree.] Raymond Brown. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:46:01 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Betty's antenna In looking at the geographical orientation of Betty's house in St. Petersburg, I noted that the antenna wire was slightly tilted to the West, but almost due North to South. That would maximize the pickup from slightly South of West, the direction that Amelia's transmission would have approximately come from. LTM, Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:56:00 EDT From: Ric Subject: Notebook is up My thanks to the forum for your patience and excellent research. The complete Earhart notes from Betty's notebook plus some other sample pages are now up on TIGHAR website at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html Love to Mother - big time Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:53:27 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: Off topic....... Let's spare a moment today to think of Clyde Pangborn and Hugh Herndon who, according to the "Today in History" column in my local morning paper ,completed the first non-stop flight across the Pacific Ocean on the 5th of October,1931. Forty-one hours from Japan to the USA. Now thats what I call a real Trans-Pacific flight ! LTM Raymond Brown. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:12:28 EDT From: Renaud Subject: landing hypothesis on Niku Marty wrote: "As with other forum members, it bothers me that no mention of the Norwich City is made. This would seem to indicate that: A. The message was a hoax B. AE didn't land on Gardner, or, C. She didn't land on Gardner where we think she landed." I may add another "point": AE might have landed on Gardner without having spotted the NC wreck at all... I know it seems unlikely, unless you are assuming that Gardner is quite a large island, that the Electra arrived at low level ( 1000 or 2000 feet ) and that she might have been urged to land directly upon arrival... I know stories of pilots who landed in the wrong runway ( Left 23 instead of Right 23 for example ) only because they were concentrating on a difficult landing ( bad weather, side wind, etc... ). So consider the stress and the panic generated by this moment, you may "skip" the wreck or perceive it as a big rock... May AE have landed otherwhere on Niku than on the coral strip alongside the Norwich City ? Ric, you have walked over Niku many times. You probably know what the coast is looking like at low tide. Is there another area where the Electra could have landed or crash-landed ? Well... as always, just a novice thought... LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric There are many places on the reef flat where a landing could be made - some much better than north of the Norwich City - and where the shipwreck is not at all visible. We have at least one known example of someone who arrived at Niku by plane (PBY) and apparently never noticed the shipwreck. The commanding officer of the Coast Guard LORAN station swore to me that there was no shipwreck on Gardner Island. However, all of our evidence points to a landing near the Norwich City and it is inconceivable that someone, no matter how upset, could land there and not see the shipwreck. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:15:50 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Dismissal of Wyoming message Yes, it is on the CD. The Coast Guard checked it out with the details described (frequency) and dismissed it as a hoax. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. I'll dig it out and look at it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:27:17 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Pirate Radio Drama "Betty's" notes makes it seem that what "Betty" heard on her father's shortwave would be similar in content to many pirate radio broadcasts one can hear at night on 6955 kilohertz in the U.S. and parts of Canada. Of course, there weren't tape players and sound effects and mixing boards available at Radio Shack in 1937. The FCC did not get serious about DFing until WWII, when hams and others had to turn in their equipment. I think we should also note that 1937 was a very serious Depression year and many people in the United States were out-and-out socalists and communists. There appears to have been significant resentment about the money that was spent by the U.S. Government on search & rescue operations to find Earhart & Noonan. There was also significant general resentment by the have-nots directed at the haves. This hostility was sometimes encouraged by FDR and his New Dealers. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric If what Betty heard was a pirate radio broadcast (possibly even a commonist plot!), why weren't hundreds of others also fooled? The War of the Worlds radio play was broadcast on Halloween and included disclaimers but so many people were taken in that it was a major news event. The resentful Depression-era socialists who concocted this elaborate scheme seem to have targeted just a handful of kids and young women. Where's Joe McCarthy when we need him? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:36:07 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Notebook Ok, here we go. My opinion, this does not appear to be a 15 year old child's imagination. I truly believe she wrote down what she heard. Was this Amelia and Fred or a radio play? Don't know. Who is Bob, who is Marie, who is Bud? Is Amelia delirious when she says, "get the suitcase in my closet"? If Fred was hurt, why would he be inside the plane? It must be 200 degrees in there. Why is she constantly saying New York? I thought she lived in California during the world flight attempt. If the water was knee deep, and I presume she was in the cockpit while working the radio, would not the aircraft be moving out to sea because of the tide? *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't answer your questions except with guesses and speculation. I think one thing that is very probable is that some of the words that are written down are cases of "sounds like". Where something makes no sense at all (whether it's a play, a hoax or the real thing) we need to try to think of what it may have been that WOULD make sense. She does not say that the water is knee deep in the cockpit. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:37:57 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Other Letters??? All _three_ radio intercepts seem to include specific mention of FN being seriously injured, a theme similar to at least two other AE stories, the residents on Jaliut/Mili Atolls (who claimed to have actually_seen_ AE, the seriously injured FN & the plane the Japanese supposedly recovered) in the Marshalls & the supposedly deranged ex-seaman who tried to extort money from GPP & wound up in a mental institute for his troubles. Seems strange that Ms. Dunklee, who claimed to have actually traced the longitude & latitude she allegedly heard (but couldn't remember later) on the broadcast, would not have been able to at least recall where _on the map_ she found that location. Since both ladies in these two letters referenced longitude/latitude numbers, were there any (legitimate) broadcasts made by governmental or civilian radio stations that ever highlighted any specific longitude/latitude coordinates in connection with the AE/FN disappearance at the time the search was being commenced? Curious that Ms. Lovelace claimed that she was actually listening to a short wave music program on an unidentified Japanese radio station... could our 'Staff' of radio experts comment on the _possibility/probability_ of a broadcast signal originating in the Central Pacific, 'piggybacking' on another, stronger radio signal coming from the Japanese homelands or the mandates, all the way to the NE USA? While the first two letters provided no corroberating documentation, the fact that 'Betty's' notebook still exists, obviously warrants continued research & investigation on establishing whether it is truly a contemporaneous document. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:46:51 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Marie? Marie? Could he have been saying "Mary Bea"? David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Tempting, isn't it? It's common to lose hard consonant sounds in HF transmissions. In the only letter we have from Fred to his new wife he addresses her as "Bee Dear" but that, of course, does not mean that he did not also call her by her everyday name. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:00:42 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Comments on Betty's Notes I expect that by the time you get to this message my comments will all have already been made by someone else. Please delete as necessary. I'm sure everyone's noticed the possible significance of the "58" and "338" at the top of page (2) but it won't hurt to comment anyway. Has Betty commented on them? If she missed the first digit of the first number sequence, and if it was a one, then those numbers are only one degree off from Noonan's initial LOP. In some applications the first digit of a longitude is not used if the longitude is greater than 100 degrees, similar to how pilots identify a VHF frequency. Obviously I don't know if Noonan did this in his notes. On page (3), near the lower right corner, the sequence "{S 309' 165"E}" isn't in your transcription and I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly. Do I have the characters correct? Has someone already checked if W40K (page(1)) was an assigned callsign in 1937? I don't have a comfortable feeling with this event, it smells of drama. Betty claims that Earhart said a "few cuss words," I think that might rule out a licensed station dramatizing the event (assuming the FCC did not allow cussing even in 1937). So that leaves either the real thing or a hoax. If it is a hoax then I would expect Bud and Bob (spoken by Noonan) to be people we would know about. Bob may have only been a delirious reference to the motion of the aircraft, but are those names otherwise significant? I assume Marie is Noonan's wife Mary, and George is George Putnam. Does Mike, the radio historian, have any comment on the keying of the transmitter? Hers didn't have a momentary contact switch like most do today? If they had to hold the key in the transmit position then I would expect it to have cut out while they were moving around or struggling, but Betty's notes make it look like they didn't drop key. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric To my knowledge you are the first to notice the possible significance of "58" and "338". Interesting. Betty knows only that AE said them. The notation "{S 309' 165"E}" seems to be a later attempt by someone (Betty herself?) to interpret the numbers to the left. I haven't been able to find a W40K or WOJ in the 1937 Berne List. I've been through the shore stations but haven't yet gotten through all the ship stations. Interesting point about the cuss words. I asked Betty is she could remember exactly what they were. She was a bit embarrassed by the question (she's not the sort of lady who repeats cuss words to strangers) but she did say that she remembered Amelia saying, "Son of a BITCH!" the way you would if you were extemely frustrated with something. Incidentally, not many people knew then (or know now) that Earhart was known to her contemporaries to have sharp temper and a sharper tongue. She could swear like trooper. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:03:05 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Old Radio << DId you hear a lot of civilian airplanes running their transmitters from the airfield runway, from Europe or the Pacific islands? Oh, you copied CW on your Zenith? I see, that explains it, since CW really punches thru. Hue Miller >> Hue, I suggest you reread my post or have someone translate it for you. Point out to me where I mentioned CW or anything else you whined about. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric Gentlemen, gentlemen - if Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman can do it, so can we. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:07:03 EDT From: Judith Subject: Re: Radio phenomenon Just for clarification relative to Betty's notes.....we can guess who Amelia is referring to when she calls out "George", but who is Bob and Marie to either AE or FN? Was Fred married or did he have a friend named Marie? And what is the significance of NY to either AE or FN....can you guess or do you know? Judith *************************************************************************** From Ric Fred's new wife's name was Mary Bea. Bob doesn't ring any bells. It's possible that what Betty heard as "New York" was really something else but the closest we've been able to come is "NRUI" (Itasca's call sign) and that isn't very close. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:10:33 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Notebook is up First, has Betty been played a recording of AE's voice and asked to compare it to her memory of the voice she heard on her father's radio? I think we're close to the point at which we can eliminate the notebook itself as a hoax. It is extremely likely that Betty heard something similar to what she transcribed. However, I haven't seen anything on the posted pages that uniquely describes Gardner Island, reasonably corresponds with its known coordinates, or demonstrates real familiarity with the Electra. I have serious problems reconciling the following entries with reality: 1) The numerous references to "Marie" (indicating the pronunciation "muh-REE"). Noonan's new bride was named Mary. The press was (and still is) notorious for getting little details like this wrong. The mispronunciation of his wife's name indicates the possibility of a hoax based on available news reports (or a hoaxter's pronunciation error). Perhaps Betty could be asked about it, however-- maybe she heard "Mary" and wrote "Marie". 2) The phrase "take it away Howland" is very suspicious. "Take it away" is an old dramatic expression used by on-air broadcast personalities introducing network feeds and programming. I've never heard this expression used in connection with 2-way radio communications. This could be a glaring error of detail made by a hoaxter who has listened to lots of network entertainment programs. 3) "We can't bail out" sounds more to me like exposition material inserted to heighten the drama of a creative broadcast (hoax). Not a major point, but the phrase makes me uncomfortable. 4) The numbers at the bottom of page 53 don't correspond with anything that I can (however graspingly) recognize as coordinates for any location in the Phoenix Group, Earhart's call sign, or the Electra's registration number. 5) The phrase, "George... get the suitcase in my closet" sounds intriguing and personal but actually contains zero unique information. This is typical of an invented dramatic device designed to simulate a sensation of credibility. 6) I have a big problem with the spoken words "SOS" (the Morse code distress signal, which was typically used in code, not speech transmission). I would have less of a problem, for example, if the notebook recorded the word "Mayday". Although my mind is still open, the gathering of these unwieldy bits of content in such a short transcript doesn't inspire much confidence in me that Betty (and apparently others) heard anything other than a hoax on shortwave. The extended time of the incident and the lack of any musical cues do indicate that this probably wasn't a radio drama. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:13:34 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: Re: Tides For what it's worth, I spent 3 years in Micronesia (1970-72), and was asked to provide info. on tides, etc. in connection with a plan to introduce ro-ro (roll-on, roll-off) vessels to the area. It never came to fruition, but the idea was to have these ships "back up" to the wharf and lower the upper stern section of the vessel, which would act as a ramp to enable forklifts to drive onto the ship and take out palletized cargo. Thus, tides were a very important factor which the top brass in Saipan wanted to know. Tides of 6-8 feet obviously would hinder the cargo discharge operation with the ship rising and falling such great highs and lows. However, I was surprised to learn that the annual rise and fall of tides at Truk (admittedly a lagoon) had a range of just 18-24 inches per tide -- virtually no variables, unless of course there was an occasional typhoon. I traveled throughout Micronesia and visited many small islands and islets, both inside lagoons and on the outer reef, and gleaned the same info. everywhere I went. We all learned in school about the extreme rise and fall of tides in various places across the world, in particular, the Bay of Fundy, where the greatest recorded is said to be 70 feet. Islands in the Pacific, however, are mostly low-lying atolls with just a few feet of elevation, which have existed for eons, otherwise they would have been washed away if the tides had been any higher. If Amelia had landed on a reef, even on the outer reef, tidal water would have been no problem, unless some typhoon had happened to drop by. If she had been on the edge of that reef and in danger of slipping off, that would have been a horse of a different color. Regards, Bob Sarnia. *************************************************************************** From Ric As you may recall, we've been the island in question a number of times. The tidal range is roughly four and a half feet. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:19:43 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Tidal trends.. >From John Pratt > >As part of my first post I raised the concept of a Long Term Monitor (LTM) >for measureing water level and making a tide table. > >There will probably be an expedition (NIKU IIII) to Nikumaroro in the >summer of 2001. >Suppose we placed solar-powered instrumentation to acquire the raw data for >a set of harmonic constants. The University of Hawaii already has a PV powered tide gauge on nearby Kanton, with near real time satellite data transmission. If I remember correctly, tidal data for Kanton is generally applicable for the Phoenix Islands. See: Kanton real time tides...] http:// ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/uhslc/rsld/kant.htm Also: for what I know, the nearest (in time and location) tidal data available is from Kanton, for 1949-50, and then from 1986 -on. >Find the phases of the moon. > >The phases will tell you roughly what type of tide (large or small) it was. >Several of our "Celestial Choir" should be up to the task.... (Is the Choir >still performing?) > >Th' WOMBAT >*************************************************************************** >From Ric > >This is the deadest of horses. It's been flogged and flogged. It can't be >done without information that is just not avaialble. With all due respect, Ric, we are not talking about the EXACT tide height, here, but only the moon phases and how that relates directly to the general tidal amplitude of neap and spring tides. And this is quite relevant, if AE had arrived on the reef flat at the time of neap tides and after the next few days, the tide twice daily high's had increased, and possibly dismantled the plane. A higher high tide enabling more swells to roll accross the reef... Also the duration, when twice a day, the water was low enough for running an engine, would have been reduced with each new day closer to spring... Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:25:02 EDT From: Mary Jane Subject: Re: Notebook is up Pretty amazing! What is the possibility that on pg. 53 of the notebook- last line -is a telephone number (8983638)? Mary Jane ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. A seven digit phone number in 1937? It would have to be in a big city. On the other hand, transmitting a phone number might make a lot of sense. "If you can hear me please call 8983638 and tell them I'm still alive." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:26:20 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The London Possibility > I think the possibility that the bones were shipped to London are remote. I think the possibility that the bones were shipped to Sydney are remote too (lack of documentation) but given the close ties between Sydney and the Colonial Administration it's another (albeit unlikely) possibility. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:27:08 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: What Betty heard > It's very hard to imagine Noonan plotting a course for Gardner and not > telling her the name of the destination and confirming this when they got > there. Of course Noonan may have been plotting for the Phoenix "group" not being absolutely sure which one they would be able to land on. By the time they attempted a landing they may have had other things on their minds. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:29:58 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Why didn't more hear AE? I see that 2 of the reported intercepts with similar content occurred during the daytime, one approx. 0630-0730 and one 1500-1800. To reach long distance during the daytime, these times, the only frequencies in common would have to be somewhere in the 12-20 MHz range (upper limit set by home radio typical upper limit.) There is no way that some speculative radio propagation miracle would allow AE's standard 2 HF channels to achieve this range in daylight, let alone night. IF these are authentic transmissions they would have to be from harmonics of the 3105, and 6210, i.e. multiples 2x 3x 4x 5x of whatever channel she was using. It is true as Mike points out that the WE13C used a fairly primitive circuit which generated harmonics and didn't screen them out from the antenna. However, before there's a headlong rush to that hypothesis, remember that output power decreases drastically as with the increase in order of the harmonic, for example, worst case (or best case, if you want harmonics ) you might achieve 20 watts on 2x, 6 watts on 3x, and so on down. These are just examples but not totally unrealistic, i don't think. Also, there is the question of whether the length of the antenna favors or diminishes a particular harmonic, this is something that has to be taken into account as the frequency is raised, for a fixed length antenna. What i am saying is: the harmonic theory may be attractive but it's not an easy solution to this. Also to be explained is how the low radiated power on a harmonic achieved the good signal level reported by the lady in Maine, who was tuning around for a favorite program, not straining for some weak signal. To address something else, hams who were trying for long distance with low power, would assuredly not use a low horizontal antenna, which would ruin their chances of success. I mean the post on transpacific ham contacts on the lower ham bands. They also would not use AM voice for trying for long distance on the lower bands ( 1.8 - 7 MHz). These 2 reports do not sound like authentic AE receptions to me. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:31:39 EDT From: Pete Subject: A possibility Mike Everette, your Historian talents are greatly needed! By chance, a cousin of mine that works on the transmitters for commercial radio stations was in town today. I don't learn communication in school for another 2 quarters, but talking with him about propagation I learned something new tonight. Transmitters towers toaday are filtered to remove harmonics, but still are capable or re-radiating signals, even on FM, and even when not transmitting. I know I'm the new guy, but everyone please think about this scenario. AE is transmitting from Niku on one of the harmonic frequencies. Skipping (I asked about how that happens tonight Rick :) ) or ducting occurs because of the atmospheric conditions in the area. The signal reaches another transmitter site that that is either down or set to operate at or near one of those harmonic freqs. Re-radiation of the signal occurs because in 1937 the filters used today to remove such stray signals are not in place. AE's calls are now re-radiated from another site with the transmit power from that site. I've just learned that the radial wires of current transmit sites are adjusted by current at different times of the day to modify the way the signal pattern is shaped in order to send the signal to the wanted broadcast area so that the "clear channel" transmitters are not interfered (spell) with. Now say that the site AE's signal hits acts like a Near Vertical Incidence (NVI) antenna and pushes that signal with the site's own transmit power to bounce off the stratosphere. (sidenote: Janet, the books I have left from the Navy don't delineate the atmospheric levels, I vaguely remember the D layer) Mike E, do you have any records that show transmitter sites that would have been operating near AE's freq or one of the harmonics? I know it will be hard to do, it could have been a military site from Chile to California that re-radiated the signal. It is a possibility, the calls could have been pushed as far as St. Pete. I know it's reaching, but consider that Einstein's formula E=mc2 (squared) taken for granted in 2000 was not something every kid learned in 1937. Thank you all for letting me bend your ear! Pete ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:35:08 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Notebook is up Has everybody else noticed the similarity of "158mi" and later "58 338" to our notorious L.O.P. ?? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric No, only the best and the brightest (among whom I am not). What is intriguing about that possibility is that it is just a smidgeon off what was published in the newspapers. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:38:38 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Marie? Well I suppose that you are already under a deluge of postings on the forum since the publication. Interesting that the word "Marie" comes back several times, apparently when the man is speaking. Marie is the french name for Mary. FN was maried at that time with Mary Beatrice Martinelli. Proves nothing but interesting. How was "Marie" pronounced ? Is Betty familiar with french spelling ? Why did she wright Marie and not Mary ? (because of the prononciation ? the accent ?) Who could be Bob ? *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty was just writng down the closest word she knew to what she heard. The name Marie (as distinct from Mary) was not uncommon in the United States. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:42:31 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: The Notebook Wow...! This is like finding the fragments of a first century Gospel... or pottery shards. Why oh why could cassette tape recorders not have been invented in 1937!? As for authenticity, either it is or it ain't.... but there is the eerie feeling that we may be actually getting a glimpse back in time with this. Or it's a real clever hoax... but look at what IS there! So much stuff makes sense, given what we do know. That is exciting! But does TOO much fit too neatly? It raises the question... has someone been reading our mail, and constructed this to trip us up? Evidence that someone has been there before may be a tip-off that we need to be careful. Any idea who that person was or when? Do the access records give any clues? LTM (who always has eyes in the back of her head) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric Harry? What do you think? Any way to know who else was poking around into Betty's background and when? Perhaps Goerner did more checking than he let on. As far as this being a very current hoax I'd have to say that if it is it's one for the record books. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:53:42 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Notebook is up My first impressions, for what they are worth: 1) These fragmentary messages were not the imagination of a 15 year old girl. 2) With the content of the notes, they were most likely not the result of a radio play. (no plot, no music, no advertisements, no continuity) 3) For the same reasons, they were not the result of an elabarate hoax. 4) It will take some effort to understand the meanings in these notes. Specific comments: 1) Amelia Earhart, as published in the St. Petersburg Times, is never referred to as Amelia Putnam, but could have been said by Amelia if she was trying to reach her husband. 2) Does Betty believe that the voice said NY, NY (as in letters) or did it say New York, and she wrote down NY. It is possible that NY does not refer to New York, but could be misunderstood for the start of another sequence, like her airplane number (NR). 3) There is no menton of a Marie in any St. Pete times article. The name of Marie, intermixed with NY, NY seems to indicate a connection. Note that it is said by Amelia initially and by a man later. Since they both said it, it needs explination. 4) The numbers 4:30 and 5:10 could refer to times, could refer to longitude, or refer to course bearing or ???. 5) If the Sequence "George ... get the suitcase in my closet .. Calif(ornia): is a message to her husband, it seems as she may also be delierious. 6) We need to compare these fragmentary notes to other post crash radio messages picked up, some may be valid. In particular,a message picked up by Arthur Monsen in San Diego should be compared. He reported Must hurry, Can't hold, and East Howland. If I had access to these messages, I would try to compare them. 7) We need to understand some of the many number sequences, such as 2E MJ 2B; Z 38 Z 13 8983638; 3. 30 500 Z; 3Q rd 36. Some of these may be writen as numbers and letters, but may actually be misunderstood words. I am reviewing all my notes from the St. Petersburg Times to see if any of these are mentioned or offer any context. I think we all have enough information to sink our teeth into. However, I must respectfully disagree with Ric on the date of "Betty's" reception. The notation of KGMB on page 44 was not necessarily written on the same date as the information noted on pages 49 to 57. And her father, who worked as a meter reader for Florida Power could have been working on Saturday, July 2, as many people worked on Saturday in 1937. I also wonder if any of her sisters are still alive, and if they can offer anything. LTM Harry #2300 *************************************************************************** From Ric >>Does Betty believe that the voice said NY, NY (as in letters) or did it say New York, and she wrote down NY?<< Not letters. Words that sounded like New York. >>Note that it is said by Amelia initially and by a man later.<< No. Betty is quite sure that only the man said "Marie." >>The numbers 4:30 and 5:10 could refer to times,...<< Betty says they are her notation of the start and end times for that page. >>If the Sequence "George ... get the suitcase in my closet .. Calif(ornia): is a message to her husband, it seems as she may also be delierious.<< Just because it doesn't make sense to us doesn't make her delirious. >> The notation of KGMB on page 44 was not necessarily written on the same date as the information noted on pages 49 to 57.<< Betty is very sure that she only heard Amelia on this one occasion. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:07:57 EDT From: Jim McClure Subject: N. Y. Could Betty's notes of "N.Y." (New York) been a misunderstanding of "Norwich City?" Said quickly, the phrase "New York City" sounds a bit like "Norwich City," and someone who'd never heard of the latter might miswrite it. Of course that would beg the question of how (and whether) Amelia would have known the wreck was the Norwich City. It would be the type of landmark one might want to repeat in a call for help. Just a thought... Jim McClure *************************************************************************** From Ric I getting fairly immune to the hair standing up on the back of my neck but you just got me with that one. We know from later accounts that the name of the ship was still very legible on it's side. You're on an island but you don't know what island. Your navigator is a basket case and you can't make sense of his charts but you read off the numbers anyway. The islands only identifying featuring is the ship on the reef and you can read its name. Say that name. Say it over and over and over. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:20:50 EDT From: Jim Subject: Radio Theater Just an off-the-cuff observation, but the text in Betty's notes seems quite disjointed and confused to be radio theater. I realize that she wasn't getting all the words down, but real life is usually more interesting than theater-- in plays and dramatic recreations, wording is usually more stilted and hackneyed than in real life. (Watch any soap opera, not that I do!) The words that Betty has transcribed seem confused, like they might be if someone were really in trouble. Also, there are a lot of odd numbers that one would not expect to see in an entertainment broadcast. (For example, the "Z 38 Z 13 8983638," etc.) In my opinion, if numbers were going to be thrown in for dramatic effect, they would be simpler, more obvious ones. Jim McClure ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:23:25 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Radio signal propagation I have a document, from 1937, sent to the Navy from a gentleman who monitored the Itasca transmissions on 3105 kHz received at New York. Signals over that time were quite good, but the Itasca had a lot of power and were using primarily CW, which enhances reception/readability. I can provide a copy of that document, which provides a graph of readability over about a 10 day interval. ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. Please do. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:56:59 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: The notebook Did Harry Poole make any reference to whether there were any listings in the local St. Pete newspaper regarding motion pictures that were featured in the local cinemas? Web site document: Do we have any clue as to the references to... Marie ... or ... NY NY NY ... , were these names spoken by AE or FN ? (Can't recall, what was FN's wife's first name?) Do any of the several numerical/letter sequences recorded in the notebook relate to any possible, Central Pacific, navigational reference points? Does seems strange that AE would use her husband's name to ID herself in such a situation, since her maiden name had a far greater recognition factor worldwide. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to view the source document on the website, unfortunately, due to the sparsity of any word-for-word transcription & the fragmentation of her recording of the event, we still have to rely very heavily upon what a 78 year old 'Betty' can recall about the incident, in order to try & reconstruct & possibly confirm the legitimacy of her claims. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Harry will have to answer your question about movies. Your other questions have, I think, been addressed in recent postings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:58:04 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Marie? David Evans Katz wrote, >Marie? Could he have been saying "Mary Bea"? The transcript shows that the "Fred" personna said "Marie" at least 6 times. It's a stretch for me to believe that a "B" consonant would have vanished from every mention of her name, scattered throughout the broadcast, especially when so many other "B" sounds were clearly recognized by Betty. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:00:02 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Pirate Radio Drama In addition to those with socialist and communist sympathies, there were various fascist groups active in the U.S. in 1937 (German-American Bund, for example). There was a LOT of resentment between the haves and have-nots in 1937. The Depression had been going on for 7 years and the New Deal for 4 years and peoples' lives were pretty miserable. This was the year of the sit-down strikes in Detroit and the year John Steinbeck lived with migrants to collect material for "The Grapes of Wrath." Pirate radio groups have been active on 6955 kilohertz (and formerly 7415 kilohertz) for many years. Most of them use ham equipment. Depending on the propagation, the signals can be quite strong. The content of pirate shows often consists of imitations of celebrities. Some pirate shows go on for hours...not recently, though, the FCC has stepped up enforcement. If "Betty" heard a pirate radio drama during the day, the source may have been a station in Miami (225 miles away) or Jacksonville (200 miles away). Why would hams or those using commercial radio equipment be expected to hear pirate radio broadcasts? They were on their own frequencies. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:04:58 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: N. Y. <> Did Betty hear "N-Y" or the words "New York"? Remember your response to my earlier question about "Marie"/Mary Bea? <> If it's common to lose some hard consonant sounds in HF transmission, why not "N--I" with her losing the consonant sound of the "R" (I know -- "R" is not as hard as "B") and picking up the tail-end sound of the "U", the result sounding like "N-Y"? Of course, all of this is moot if Betty heard "New York" as opposed to "N-Y". David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric I just talked to Betty about this. The truth is, at this point, she really doesn't remember whether she heard the letters NY or the words New York or a longer phrase (such as New York City) that she simply abbreviated as N.Y. the only clue we have in the notebook itself is her notation on the last page "or something that sounded like New York" which was clearly made at some ater time. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:05:57 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: off-topic FM There were approximately 50 experimental FM broadcast stations in the US in 1939, more than 150 by 1942, and by 1950, I believe, there were over 700 FM broadcast stations licensed (both commercial and non-commercial). Most were in terrible financial shape through the mid 60s. Many were "sister stations" of successful AM operations, in these cases usually simulcasting part or all of the content. The number of receivers among the public very slowly increased, stereo subcarrier technology was firmly established by the mid-1960s, new FCC rules requiring a minimization of simulcasts spurred "album oriented" playlists and experimentation in the late 1960s, and the addition of FM stereo capability in the factory-installed radios of new cars in the late 60s and early 70s all contributed to a very gradual shift of music programming from AM to FM, which gathered momentum in the 70s and was essentially complete in most major markets by the late 1980s. william 2243 (ex KSAM AM & FM) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:10:13 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Notebook > From Ric > Where something makes no sense at all (whether it's > a play, a hoax or the real thing) we need to try to > think of what it may have been that WOULD make sense. OK, you asked for it. In case it is not clear, the following is nothing more than speculation. Page (1) Line 5 (ruled lines): "Here put your ear to it" EA telling FN to put his ear close to the speaker. Lines 10 & 11: "Speak" "Uncle" (EA) (FN) FN doesn't believe the radio is working. He's had his "ear to it" and can't hear a thing. Line 16: "I can feel it" It's dark so they cannot see the water, but they can feel it. Page (2) Line 8: "Here I come - oh" "Here IT comes -- oh ?#*!" A large wave approaches and hits. Even after sunset it will be lighter outside than it is in the cabin. Page (3) Line 4, 5, 6: "Where are you ..." Waters knee deep -- let me out" "Where are you going" (AE) (FN) (AE) More support for it being after sunset. If it were daylight they would comment on the water depth but the exact depth would not need to be stated, as it is several times. If this is a hoax then it would need to be stated for the listeners. EA asks twice here where he is going. Apparently she sees no place to go. Either she doesn't see land or it is beyond a dangerous stretch of water. Line 14: "Hello Bud" (FN) FN has the mic again, still doesn't believe it is working. Page (4) Line 6: "Get the suitcase in my closet" This would make sense if she didn't really believe the radio was working either. I've seen this happen several times where people say anything that comes to mind into a mic, not knowing that it's really working. Line 13: "Watch that battery" Was there a gauge? This would be a good thing to throw into a hoax to try and account for excessive transmission time. Page (5) Line 8: "Knee deep over" I don't think "over" is the radiotelephone proword. There are no other recorded prowords. The statement indicates that the aircraft is not level and the water is deeper on one side. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric At the time Betty hears these transmissions it is between 8:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. in the Central Pacific. It is not dark. The Model 10E came with an ammeter/voltage meter as standard equipment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:11:21 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Notebook is up Re the references to "158mi" and "58 338", Ric wrote, "What is intriguing... it is just a smidgeon off what was published in the newspapers" Kudos to those who spotted this. Unfortunately, it's another example that Betty heard nothing that diverged much from what was already being published in news reports. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:12:12 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: 44 N.E. I noticed that in the upper right corner of the first page of the notebook on the website (opposite "158 mi.") appears the notation "44 N.E." This isn't in the transcription on the webpage, and I wonder if its placement opposite "158 mi." triggers any thoughts? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:32:53 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: The Note Book This notebook thing is very interesting, and I know you, and others, would genuinely like to find out if it's real. So let me ask a question. Regardless of the contents of the note, how could the Electra's radio still be working if the water is a foot high in the cockpit. The radio was under the seat, wasn't it? And the batteries were under the cockpit. I don't think this lady, in any way, is trying to fool us or create a hoax! I think she actually heard what she wrote down. I just wonder how logical it is to be able to transmit from an airplane that's half submerged? I think that, in itself, is a key point! Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric The notes do not say where the water is knee deep. The transmitter is mounted on the cabin floor just behind the last fuel tank (the photo of AE on the main Earhart Project page of the website shows her sitting on the transmitter). The dynamotor is under the pilot's seat and the receiver is under copilot's seat. The main battery is under the floor just aft of the cockpit. There is (or was for the first attempt) a second auxillary battery on the cabin floor just aft of the transmitter. If the airplane is sitting on it's gear on the reef at Gardner Island the tide can come in and go out (if the sea is relatively calm) and the water should not disable any of the components. A swell that generated significant surf, however, would be a different matter. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:34:27 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Phone number? > From Ric > > Interesting. A seven digit phone number in 1937? It would have to be in a > big city. On the other hand, transmitting a phone number might make a lot of > sense. "If you can hear me please call 8983638 and tell them I'm still > alive." Mary Jane could be on to something. Although seven digit phone numbers were not in use in 1937 - - exchanges had names like "Rosemont", "Clarendon", etc. - - Betty could have heard a phone number with an exchange name that was phonetically similar to "eight five eight" and, not recognixing it as a phone number, wrote down the numerals she thought she heard. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:35:33 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Notebook Something to keep in mind is that Betty says that the two voices were often speaking at the same time. Two people can speak at the same time, yet someone transcribing the two voices can't record the two at the same time. The notes need to be read as if all this was being heard at the same time, and in this regard, can the Noonan experts tell us whether Noonan had an "Uncle Bob" or an uncle with a similar name? Did Earhart. This is the impression I get as to how these two words fit together when reading the first page. Even if this is a phoney broadcast, all this was meant to fit together somehow. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:37:05 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Phone number? 8983638 is probably not a telephone number. In 1937 (and right up until the mid 1960's, in fact), virtually every telephone number in America used "named" telephone exchanges (even in small towns) in which the first two or three letters represented numbers on the telephone dial. For example, "BEnsonhurst 6-2775" would represent a telephone number in the Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn; BEacon 2-1234 would have been a telephone number in the Beacon Hill section of Boston. It wasn't until direct long-distance dialing became universal with the advent of area codes that the telephone companies began dropping "named" telephone exchanges. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:41:30 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: 158/338? What would be the navigational impact (on AE) of an LOP of 158/338 versus 157/337? David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric None. No pilot (or 1937 autopilot) can fly an airplane to a one degree heading tolerance. However, for 158 or 338 to be a reference to an LOP they would have needed to change it sometime after Earhart's 2013GMT transmission to Itasca "we are on the line 157 337". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:44:57 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: N.Y./Re-creation? The idea that this could be a recording of "Norwich City" is fascinating. Say "Norwich City" three times quickly and see how much it could sound like "New York City" (does Betty remember a "city" sound). If true, this could NOT have been part of any hoax or dramatisation. We need to document that the name would have been visible, and while I believe there is testimony to that fact, I think several of the New Zealand photos show the name on the ship. If it was there for the New Zealanders, it was there for Earhart. Incidentally, I visited a shipwreck ashore at Punta Arenas, Chile (on the Straits of Magellan), several years ago. The name of the sailing vessel, "Lord Lonsdale", was still visible on the bow even though it had been dragged up ashore decades earlier. Maybe we should think about "re-creating" the broadcast. By that, perhaps Ric and Pat could, using Betty's cues as to who was speaking, play Earhart and Noonan (not too literally) and record the result. Hearing live what Betty heard live may make much which is now unintelligible make sense. ---Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric My first reaction is, "Nah. Too hokey." but I see your point about the possible usefullness of hearing the sound versus seeing the words. We'll have to think about that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:52:17 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: No Subject From > 3) "We can't bail out" sounds more to me like exposition material inserted > to heighten the drama of a creative broadcast (hoax). Not a major point, > but the phrase makes me uncomfortable. My initial thought was that it meant bail as in bail out a boat, which would make sense. LTM, Phil 2276 ************************************************************************** From Ric Knee deep water on the reef would not directly threaten the airplane. High tide on the reef at Gardner (4 feet) would mean that someone looking out through the window in the cabin door would be standing in 18 inches of water. That's knee deep on a six foot man (Noonan stood 6 ft and one quarter inch). The transmitter would be threatened but not yet disabled. The airplane is not watertight but the closed cabin and the bulkheads in the tail might retard the rise of water somewhat. The cabin windows do not open. There is no practical way to "bail out" the water. This hoaxer, playwright, or pirate broadcaster has really done his homework. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:06:15 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Phone number? > From Bob Brandenburg > Betty could have heard a phone number with an > exchange name that was phonetically similar to > "eight five eight" and, not recognixing it as a > phone number, wrote down the numerals she thought > she heard. You have an unusual accent (some kind of smiley face thing here that indicates an attempt at humor). There is also a similarity with those numbers and other numbers in the document: 858 3638 158 3 38 Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:10:13 EDT From: Ric Subject: California? Try this one on. "George .... get the suitcase in my closet.....California." Does this make any sense? There is clearly something in the suitcase in her closet that she wants George to have (what that might be is open to speculation), but why say "California"? I'll tell you why. Because the Putnam's have two houses, one in New York and one in California. (GP didn't sell the house in Rye, NY until well after Earhart's death.) Amelia has to specify which house she means. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:06:43 EDT From: Randy Huser Subject: Re: Notebook is up Maybe an alternative flight plan was in the suitcase in the closet. Randy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:08:05 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Pirate Radio Drama >From Janet Whitney >...Pirate radio groups have been active on 6955 kilohertz (and formerly 7415 >kilohertz) for many years. Most of them use ham equipment. Depending on the >propagation, the signals can be quite strong. >...If "Betty" heard a pirate radio drama during the day, the source may have >been a station in Miami (225 miles away) or Jacksonville (200 miles away). Ric: If these were local "pirate" stations, wouldn't Betty, with such a big antenna, have heard a stronger signal with little or no fading? Same seems to go with any other "ham" who just wanted to pull off a hoax - signal should be much stronger, no fading or loss of signal. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:19:29 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: N. Y. > Legible in its entirety? And in every place on the hull where it was visible? If it was just legible enough in one instance to define it as an eleven-character name beginning with "N" and ending "City", an American filling in the blanks wouldn't initially guess "Norwich". Did ships carry their names on the side in giant lettering in the twenties? LTM Phil 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric It's a bit of a puzzlement. I've looked, but so far have not been able find, the reference I recall to the name of the Norwich City being legible when the first colonists arrived. Some time ago Janet Powell was kind enough to send a photo of the ship in happier days. It's very apparent from the photo that the name was painted in white letters on the side of the black bow just below the gunwale and just aft of the anchor. One would presume that it was painted in similar fashion of the starboard side. However, in the photos taken by the New Zealand survey party in 1938/9 no name is visible in that location. As for a name on the stern, her back was broken and the fantail was awash even at low tide so a name on the stern, if it was there, would not have been visible. Without a direct reference to a visible name, the best evidence that one was present is the fact that everybody who comes to the island in the early days (Maude, Bevington, the Kiwis, etc.) all seem to know the name of the ship although they know little or nothing else about it. I'll keep looking. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:22:04 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Marie >David Evans Katz wrote, > >Marie? Could he have been saying "Mary Bea"? >especially when so many other "B" sounds were clearly recognized by Betty. >william 2243 Did the man (Noonan?) use the 'B' sounds or only the woman? Head injuries frequently cause the injured to slur words as well as speak "nonsense". Having had a skull fracture myself, I can attest to such things. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Only the man said "Marie." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:23:51 EDT From: Kris Tague Subject: Fiji bones One of the things on the "to do" list in Fiji is to check burial records for churches and public cemeteries. I asked Dr. Hoodless's daughter about her parents religious affiliation thinking that their parish might be a potential burial site for the bones. Margaret got a good laugh out of that one...she said that her parents were not religious at all but that they sent her to church for a while by herself. I'll see if I can find the reference and copy it to the forum in more detail. The burials at public cemeteries in the Suva area are done by prisoners. So it is actually the prison authorities that will have the burial records and any information on unidentified burials which were buried with a numbering system. If we can swing a Fiji research trip this spring then this item is on the list. Just one off subject note on the Nobile expedition - the great explorer Roald Amundsen (South Pole, Northwest Passage etc.) was lost while conducting an air search for Nobile with whom he had recently been competitive over Arctic air records. Very ironic - quite an amazing man. Kris Tague ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:53:04 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Norwich City: Further on the Norwich City Ric, Something I have been thinking about for some time....Lets assume ... AE and FN crash land on the reef near the Norwich City and the plane is precariously lying on coral, and the tide is rising giving all indications that staying with the plane may not be a safe option, FN is injured and condition deteriorating, getting him out of the heat/sun and into an area protected from the elements would be of immediate importance. AE sees this wrecked hull of the Norwich City, what better place, initially, would there be to take cover, try to protect her injured navigator from the elements and a place where she could gather her thoughts and keep the wreckage of her Electra in sight, in the event that anything can be salvaged from it after the tides rise then fall again. Taking further into account... here is a woman on an island she knows nothing about with an injured colleague facing her first night on this island. Would she not elect to use any available covered space such as would undoubtedly be available on the Norwich City? Question: In your trips to Niku has any exploration been done on the Norwich City for possible remains (most likely FN), possible salvaged bits and pieces from the plane that she could have brought onto the Norwich City, messages that could have been written on the walls (bulkheads) of the ship, signs of life after the wreckage of the Norwich City? ... etc. etc. Being a maritme legal practitioner, I have had extensive working knowledge of ships, wrecks, and investigation of wrecks... one thing that rings true on almost any survival situation is that the survivors cling to, or stay extremely close to those things that are familiar to them. In the above scenario ... AE and FN may have lost the Electra very soon after crash landing. It is probably quite reasonable to assume that the Norwich City offered them a more familiar option than expolring around an unknown island with a badly injured FN. Further, she would want to (by survival instincts) stay as close to the downed plane for as long as she held hope that someone was out looking for her and/or she had transmitted coordinates that indicated where the plane came down! The Norwich City has been playing on my mind since I first read through the information regarding Gardner Island. It is not only a landmark but a possible shelter (albeit for a limited time). Chances are if FN died of his injuries, his remains may be on the NC. AE most likely would have travelled farther and farther afield in search of food and with growing confidence that danges didn't exist away from her initial comfort zone ( near the downed wreckage of the Electra and the NC). Which would explain the "bones" believed to be AE's found so far from the crash site and the NC. Another interesting point that was brought up in the interview with Emily Sikulu and other native Gilbertise that " they were fobidden to go into the area of the ship and on a couple of occassion gave the area of bones being found around the NC. Could it be that, in addition to the bones of those who died from the NC ... that the Elders may have found Noonans remains as well? Thus "TABOO". Again, it may be the "salt water investigator" in me, but the Norwich City is a HUGE question mark to me simply because of the aforementioned AND the possibility and even probability that it could have been used in the early days of the castaway period for shelter ... and maybe even the place that FN succumed to his injuries. It all comes down to ... how extensive a search has been made on the NC. Taking into account that ships are a maze of newks and crannies that do not easily surrender their treasures ... in tis instance the treasure is evidence of AE and FN. Something to think about at least! Gerry *************************************************************************** From Ric Your speculation about Earhart and Noonan's possible use of the Norwich City makes sense. Bear in mind, however, that the ship was a burned out hulk that would provide shelter but little else. The crabs and rats (and who knows what other imagined threats) on the island may have prompted them to spend nights aboard the shipwreck and Noonan may conceivably have died there. Today the Norwich City is just a scattering of rusted debris that has been swept by storms for many decades. It's worth a close look at the scatter to see if, by an chance, some large steel aircraft component (a landing gear leg?) may have become so thoroughly jammed in the debris to still be there, but even that is a very long shot. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:56:12 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Betty's Notes More speculation. OK, it's not dark. Betty's notes also seem to indicate that they may have only been at their present location for a very short while. Page (2) Line 6: "I need air" This is not something that is likely to have just become a need and not have been one for the past few days, unless something has recently changed. It seems to indicate that they have only been cooped up in the cabin for a short while. Page (3) Line 5: "Waters knee deep -- let me out" Could be explained by things we've already discussed, but could also be explained by them having only recently arrived at their current location. Page (4) Line 13: "Watch that battery" From discussion in this forum I take it that they would've needed the engine running to get more than a few minutes of transmission out of the battery. We have more than a few minutes in Betty's notes. There are other explanations for why they may be running their engine several days after July second, but it could also be that it is running because they had just been airborne. Page (3) Line 6: "Where are you going" OK it isn't dark, and it doesn't seem reasonable that they would attempt to relocate in the dark. Circumstances could have made it necessary but I think it likely that they know there's land nearby. If they had been in this location for several days, in the aircraft, they have had ample opportunity to discuss what to do about the land. If their current location is new then "Where are you going" is more appropriate. But it could also have been rhetorical and intended to mean "don't go anywhere." We have a possible burst of communication several days after their disappearance. Three hours of intermittent transmission indicates that they haven't used much, if any, of their fuel for communication on any of the preceding days. Why the sudden burst? The water is rising is one answer. But why so much fuel remaining? Why not several hours of communication each day? Maybe they wanted to conserve the fuel, either for cooking or for a flight to another island. I am stretching it a bit but I think I'm still in the realm of possibility. Another thing to consider. Betty does not seem to recall hearing engine noise, which does not mean it wasn't there, it only means that she does not recall it. If there was no engine noise, maybe they would run the engine to charge the battery then shut it down so that they could hear the radio. This could account for some of the long gaps in reception. "'Watch the battery,' when it gets too low we'll recharge it." Or, a lack of engine noise could be because they were in a sound studio ("they" not being AE&FN in this case). I suppose we may never know. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:01:39 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: The number 8983638 The number on p. 53 in Betty's notebook , "8983638" is not likely a telephone no. designated as such in the 1930's. Many large cities still used four-digit numbers even through the forties. Many larger cities used 5-digit nos. The largest, eg. New York City, used names for the exchanges preceding the 5-digit number, e.g., "Pennsylvania" in Pennsylvania 6-5000, the number of the Statler Hotel in New York well into the mid-fifites. Exchanges were obviously dialed (e.g., 73 for "PE") before the number but names, not numbers, would always be stated to a live operator, the latter being required in L.D. calls. Sometimes two words were the exchange, e.g., "Murray Hill", a common one in New York City. There was no direct dialing in those days. Bob (no. 2021) ************************************************************************** From Mike Muenich I do remember the use of phone exchanges, my father's office was WEstmore3-0432 well into the 1950's, but our phone used numbers as well. When I dialed, I dialed 932-0432 and if I wrote the number I used the digital version. I never listed or used the "exchange" language. Did any of the participants, Putnam, possibly Manning, or other contacts have such a number? ************************************************************************** From Ric Mike makes a good point. If we can find out, for example, Putnam's phone number in July 1937 and if, by any chance, the digits match 8983638 it would be hard to think that it was just a coincidence. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:09:29 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: 158/338? > From David Evans Katz > What would be the navigational impact (on AE) of an > LOP of 158/338 versus 157/337? Some of the navigation wizards were discussing how the LOP would drift as they were flying ... I'll say south, and that Noonan would likely have recalculated a new LOP periodically. What I don't know, and why I didn't mention it before, is whether the drift would be lateral and maintain a steady bearing, or radial and change bearings. And if the latter, which direction it would change. I've been waiting for one of those wizards to comment. Frank Westlake **************************************************************************\ From Ric I'm not a navigation wizard but I can tell you that the angle of LOP changes as the sun moves across the sky. Trouble is, it moves the wrong way. In other words, an observation taken after the sunrise LOP of 157/337 would yield an LOP of, for example, 150/330. The numbers go down, not up. The other problem is that 1 degree is way to small an increment to be of any use. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:44:24 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: phone number? I don't know of seven digit telephone numbers in 1937, but does the number make any sense ? Does anyone recognize some 1937 area code in there, something like 898... ? Maybe a number to be dialed overseas ? *************************************************************************** From Ric There were no "area codes" in 1937 and any "long distance" call had to go through an operator. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:47:22 EDT From: Ed Subject: Re: N.Y./Re-creation? Chris's idea may have some interesting opportunities associated with it. For the next expedition, why not reconfigure to the best Tighar's ability their radio and transmitter with a mis-tuned transmitter, with 50 or so watts. Request permission from the owners of Betty's home to put a similar type receiver there and try to rebroadcast at the same times? Even with new gear and mis;tuned equipment it may be worthwhile to see if its possible ven though all of the conditions may not be exact. Just a thought, Ed in Port St.Lucie, Fla *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think Chris was suggesting any attempt to duplicate the proapgation. As I understood it, his point was to generate an audio version of Betty's notes which might help us spot possible or likely mis-transcriptions. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:51:04 EDT From: Amanda Subject: Re: NY > From Ric > >Fred's new wife's name was Mary Bea. Bob doesn't ring any bells. It's >possible that what Betty heard as "New York" was really something else but >the closest we've been able to come is "NRUI" (Itasca's call sign) and that >isn't very close. What Betty kept hearing as "New York" - could that be Nauru? Or even this: someone describing the wreck and saying "Norwich City" while Betty hears "New York City" and writes down "NY NY"? This begs the question of how many of the 7/37 newspaper articles describing Gardner Island mentioned the wreck and provided material for a hoaxer. Also, would the name of the ship still be visible on the wreck by that time, and if so, was it on the bow (visible/legible to the shore) or on the stern? I just had one thought on the "cuss words." In addition to probably ruling out a commercial broadcast, might not the bad language rule out a hoax as well? (She asked naively!) It just seems to me that broadcasting obscenities might add to the potential charges a hoaxer would face if caught. Not that that would deter a really determined hoaxer anyway... "But I never use that kind of language, officer!" Love to %&*#ing Mother, dammit Amanda Dunham ************************************************************************** From Amanda again (9 minutes later) Aaaaaaaaaaaaack!!! I just this minute posted my message and came back to read Jim's. I even included the phrase "begs the question"! I'm not a plagiarist, I swear. Just great minds thinking alike... Amanda Dunham ************************************************************************** From Ric (LOL) Indeed they do. We believe you Amanda. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:57:02 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: Marie? Ric: > Betty was just writng down the closest word she knew to what she heard. The > name Marie (as distinct from Mary) was not uncommon in the United States. Did AE ever meet Mrs. Noonan? If she were trying to pass on a message to FN's wife, what would AE call her? We do not know what FN would call her if he were under extreme stress, I presume. Ric, I tried saying "Norwich City" quickly. The last time the hairs stood up on my neck ... I was somewhere I should not have been, doing something I should not have been doing. I'll try it on my girl friend: if she slurs it into something else, I'll report. I like the idea of a recreation of the event. If nothing else, it would force a closer look at the rhythms and patterns of AE's voice, which would lead to a clearer view of other such messages. Are there any recordings of AE in the cockpit, doing pilot-y things? LTM (who likes islands, even though .... well, you know) Michael Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric AE had certainly met Mary Bea. They are both present in the photos of the airplane in Burbank being prepared for the departure of the second attempt. Betty, however, says that it was only the man who said "Marie". This recreation thing could be tricky but also very interesting. We would actually be creating a "radio play" from Betty's "script." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:01:44 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Re: N.Y. Betty's notes are pretty powerful stuff. I would find it pretty hard to believe she heard a hoax, as so little of the text makes any sense when taken as a whole. The repeated report of what sounds like "Marie" associated with "ny, ny, ny" is intriguing. The last notation says "ny or something that sounds like New York." Did Betty hear the words "New York" throughout the transmissions, or just the initials "ny?" If she heard the full name, New York city and just abbreviated it, she may well have actually heard "Norwich City." I know that this is a stretch, but it makes no sense for AE to say "New York" nine times over the course of six + hours so it had to be something else. Do we know if the name was visible on the hulks bow? *************************************************************************** From Ric Three times is the charm. Jim McClure, Amanda Dunham and Marty Joy have each independently formulated the identical hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:04:09 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Norwich City/New York City > Knee deep water on the reef would not directly threaten the airplane. No, but if your navigator was injured, the water was rising and you didn't know where you were, that might be a detail that gets overlooked. I tried "Norwich City" on my girl friend. I had her face away from me, so I couldn't see her lips, and she repeated the name about a dozen times, with increasing rapidity. After the fifth time, it had morphed itself into something that sounded very much like "New York City." (Why did she do this? I have no idea, except that I fixed lunch for her today.) LTM (who speaks clearly except when the water's rising) Michael Holt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:09:11 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's Notebook/ Authentic? I'm following Brill's "Content" magazine's motto: "Skepticism is a Virtue". So let me be skeptical for a moment. If those seeemingly unrelated,incongrous,cryptic words,phrases, and numbers were transmitted by a downed Earhart and Noonan attempting their professional best to transmit their best guess of position,location,and condition of themselves in an emergency situation to the Itasca and other potential rescuers in the area, I'd be surprised. Just no specifics. Earhart and Noonan knew the various island groups,west and south, where they most likely headed,so if still equipped with a compass some kind of position or bearing statement or island identification would come forth. You'd need a cryptoanalyst such as Capt Lawrence Safford to unravel that message.Forum members are trying now their best to interpret or make sense of those phrases and words, when in my opinion Earhart and Noonan would have been trying their damnest to speak clearly, continue to repeat position estimates, and give rescurers the best "plain language" directions to their location and plight. Not a peep of a navigator's terminology such as lat/long,degrees,drift,etc that would assist the rescuers. Just nonsensical numbers! (so far) Thus,in my opinion,three hours of transmission without reference to Howland,Electra's condition,distance traveled past Howland frequency suggestion, estimated position,or meaningful assistance to the guard ship Itasca is too much to believe.She heard what she heard but not from Amelia. Did Tighar ever find a statement or verification from her father attesting to his role in overhearing Earhart's voice ;and where was mom. So that's why the local Coast Guard and Fred Goerner may not have been interested.Apparently he didn't write anything down.So now we have 800 plus forum members including Tighar's expertise,experienced in AE's flight plan and radio capability, having to desparately try to find meaning to her words:Example: NY or New York City for Norwich City (how about I can see a big ship on a reef).NY appears so many times it seems if it were broadcast "New York",Betty would have annotated her notes. Was there a lot of dead space between those recorded words and phrases as for three hours of transmission, that's not a lot of information. On the other hand to support a radio transmission from someone, there are two references to "Z" and numbers. Navy and military,coast guard, used "Zulu" time which was Greenwich meridan time plus the calender date.Always used when time should not be confusing,especially navy messages. The time either ended up with a Z or began with a "Z". Those numbers translated to zulu time might make sense if someone is familiar with that system. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric All opinions are welcome. The use of Z or "Zulu" time as shorthand for Greenwich Mean Time or Greenwich Civil Time as it was known in 1937, is a very recent invention. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:11:45 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Niku Island and numbers. Searching for information on Nikumaroro Island, I discovered an e-text reproduction of the book, "Coral Islands of the Central Pacific" By Edwin H. BRYAN, Jr. (1941) at http://www.agt.net/public/taori/etexts/amer_polynesia/amer_poly.htm#Chapter21 - Gardner Island . The chapter on Niku is offered to the forum as general information. However.....please note the description of the island's location and the distances, (numbers) listed. 315 nautical miles SSE of Baker island. 280 nautical miles south of the equator. I wonder if....... LTM (who is inspired and confused by the numbers in Betty's notebook) Roger Kelley, 2112CE *********************************** Coral Islands of the Central Pacific By Edwin H. BRYAN, Jr. Tongg Publishing Company, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1941 Copyright 1941 by E. H. Bryan, Jr. This e-text is a reproduction of an original paperback copy. On many pages of the book someone has written interesting comments and additional info and research on many islands. These comments are included in [green text] and my own comments [Taori's notes] are in blue text in [square brackets]. Otherwise, the book is reproduced as identical to the original as possible. Email any comments (errors, typos, suggestions) to me at taori@tvds.net Chapter 21 - Gardner Island Gardner is the southwestern island of the Phoenix group. It lies 280 nautical miles south of the equator, 70 miles S.S.W. of McKean, 315 miles S.S.E. of Baker, and 260 miles N.N.W. of Atafu. The nearest Ellice islands lie 450 miles to the W.S.W., and the nearest Gilbert island 530 miles to the W.N.W., with others 110 miles beyond. [Native name Nikumaroro] Gardner Island is a triangular, wedge-shaped coral atoll, 3 miles long (N.N.W. - S.S.E.) by about a mile in greatest width, narrowing toward both ends. The rim is less than miles wide, in places scarcely 100 yards, except at the two ends of the lagoon. At the N.W. end is an oval mass of land half a mile wide by mile long. At the S.E. end is a triangular enlargement of the rim, about one-third mile on a side. The rim is broken at two places by narrow entrances, one on the west and one near the middle of the south side; both are blocked on the ocean side by the narrow fringing reef, 100 to 300 yards wide, which surrounds the island. The inner hundred yards of this reef dries at low water. Off the reef the water is deep. The only anchorage is off the west end, opposite the village, and is safe only with the prevailing S.E. trade wind. Landing is difficult, best a little south of the anchorage.Most of the rim is covered by a low scrub forest. The most conspicuous trees are buka (Pisonia) and kanava (Cordia) known as kou in Hawaii, with scattered tree heliotrope (Tournefortia) and other species characteristic of central Pacific Islands. The trees are highest at the N.W. end, some reaching a height of 90 feet above sea level. Two small clumps of coconut palms have been planted, one on each side of the western lagoon entrance. A conspicuous object at present is the wreck of the steamer Norwich City, a vessel of about 3500 tons, which went ashore on the western reef in 1931. Sea birds are numerous on the island, and also small Polynesian rats. There are the usual land, hermit, and coconut crabs. Fish and other marine life are abundant about the reef and in the lagoon. Gardner Island is thought ot have been discovered, about 1828, by Captain Joshua Coffin, of the ship Ganges, of Nantucket, and to have been named for Gideon Gardner, who was either owner of or agent for the vessel. It was also known as Kemins Island, and under that name it was claimed by Americans under the Guano Act of 1856. But there is no record of guano having been dug. It was visited, August 19, 1840, by the U.S.S. Vincennes, of the U.S. Exploring Expedition. Commander harles Wilkes says in his "Narrative": "On the 19th, we made an island in the neighborhood of the position assigned to Kemins' or Gardner's Island . . . This is a low coral island, having a shallow lagoon in the center, into which there is no navigable passage; but the reef on the western side is so low that the tide can flow into the lagoon. "When near enough to the island, the boats were lowered, and a number of officers and men landed, after passing for a considerable distance through a dangerous surf, breaking with violence over that parta of the reef through which the tide flows into the shallow lagoon. The remainder of the reef, which forms the island is white coral sand, about 300 feet wide, on which there is a vegetation that, unlike that of other low islands of Polynesia, is devoid of low shrubbery. "Birds were numerous on the island, and very tame; the tropic-birds so much so that some of the sailors amused themselves by collecting their beautiful tail-feathers, which they twitched from the bird while it sat on its nest--an operation which the bird often bore without being disturbed. "Besides birds, a large rat was found on this island. "The flood here sets strong to the northward, and the rise and fall of the tide was four and a half feet. No coral blocks were seen on this island, and it is less elevated above the water than those further to the eastward. The soil, however, appeared to be better than upon those, the coral sand being finer, and mixed with a greater quantity of vegetable mould. To this may be ascribed the larger growth of the trees upon it, which, although of the same kinds as those which have been already mentioned as found growing on the coral islands, are forty or fifty feet in height. The island may be seen on a clear day at the distance of fifteen miles. "Believing this to be the island discovered by Captain Gardner, I have retained his name." According to Sir Albert F. Ellis, coconuts were planted on Gardner by John T. Arundel and Co., in the 1880's. Coconut crabs, he says, were so numerous there that Arundel's Niue workmen called it "Motu oonga," the island of coconut crabs. The British flag was raised and protectorate established on Gardner, May 28, 1892. In 1916 it was leased to Captain Allen for 87 years, but remained uninhabited until 1938. In October, 1937, a visit was paid on H.M.C.S. Nimanoa, by the Administrative Officer of the GIlbert and Ellice Islands Colony, under which the island has been placed. The island was surveyed by the New Zealand navy, 1935 or 1938, the coral heads and channels in the lagoon being marked, and a sign erected which says, "British Pacific Airways, Gardner Island Sea Aerodrome Reserve. Notice: The use of that portion of the lagoon marked off as an alighting area for marine aircraft is forbidden without prior permission from the Administrative Officer." This island, like Sydney and Hull, has been colonized from the GIlbert and Ellice Islands. There were about 80 natives, but no white person, living on the island in the Fall of 1939. Their village is on the broadened part of the rim, just south of the western lagoon entrance. The Gilbertese name of this island is Nikumaroro. The drought and the limited number of coconut palms (estimated 200) have hindered the progress of this colony. A cement cistern has been constructed and more coconut palms are being planted. In time conditions on the island should improve, as it has a good climate, ordinarily with fairly abundant rainfall. [Had loran station during World War 2] ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:13:31 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Re: A possibility >Transmitters towers toaday are filtered to remove harmonics, but still are >capable or re-radiating signals, even on FM, and even when not >transmitting. You don't quite understand the concept. Transmitters (not the towers) often have harmonic filters incorporated into the design... or, a filter (which consists of a number of tuned circuits designed to "pass" one frequency or band of frequencies and REJECT others) may be inserted into the transmission-line cable between the trans and antenna. Towers may indeed REFLECT signals, and in some types of antenna systems multiple elements of an antenna -- sometimes consisting of tower structures -- are designed to do just that, to focus signals into a particular direction... but what we are discussing here is rather weak signals arriving from an unpredictable "path" or direction to begin with. A tower alone won't -- repeat WON'T -- serve as an "active repeater" to relay a signal. On the other hand, if a specially designed "repeater station" received the signal on one freq, amplified it and retransmitted it on another, this consists of a relay... BUT BUT BUT: THIS WAS NOT DONE ON HF, NOT IN 1937!!! You can absolutely disregard that concept... it'd be the longest of shots, too (even longer than suggesting that harmonics of AE's signal made it to St. Pete) to suggest that some person/persons unknown, hoaxters etc whatever -- were receiving AE's signals in real time and retransmitting them on another freq. NO WAY. Too far fetched. What would be the point? Why not give an ID of the relaying station (if there was one, which I say unequivocally there was NOT0 and a plea to go to her aid? Uh-uh. > >I know I'm the new guy, but everyone please think about this scenario. > >AE is transmitting from Niku on one of the harmonic frequencies. Skipping (I >asked about how that happens tonight Rick :) ) or ducting occurs because of >the atmospheric conditions in the area. The signal reaches another >transmitter site that that is either down or set to operate at or near one of >those harmonic freqs. Re-radiation of the signal occurs because in 1937 the >filters used today to remove such stray signals are not in place. AE's calls >are now re-radiated from another site with the transmit power from that site. No... misunderstanding again. Signals do not "piggyback" one onto another. And a tower by itself doesn't passively reflect them along the way. The filter you speak of is a device to keep the harmonics of the transmitter associated with that tower, from ever getting to the antenna/tower in the first place. > I've just learned that the radial wires of current transmit sites are >adjusted by current at different times of the day to modify the way the >signal pattern is shaped in order to send the signal to the wanted broadcast >area so that the "clear channel" transmitters are not interfered (spell) with. Another misunderstanding... what is actually done, is to divide the transmitter's power between/among multiple towers, in a particular "phase" relationship (accomplished thru tuned circuitry, and a very difficult concept to tell in few words) so as to make the multiple towers combile their radiation into a particular direction. It is not a tuning of the radial wires (grounding system) or the guy wires but the tower itself. But you are quite correct about WHY it's done! >Now say that the site AE's signal hits acts like a Near Vertical >Incidence (NVI) antenna and pushes that signal with the site's own transmit >power to bounce off the stratosphere. See above... can't happen. >(sidenote: Janet, the books I have left from the Navy don't delineate the >atmospheric levels, I vaguely remember the D layer) > >Mike E, do you have any records that show transmitter sites that would have >been operating near AE's freq or one of the harmonics? No, I can't help with this ... but it is absolutely correct to say this signal, if it did make it around the world, did so of its OWN VOLITION. No relays etc... And again, the notion of some tower or antenna out in BFE being able to "reflect" or reradiate that signal, is an impossibility. Hey... no problem with "bending my ear." Hope this helps. If you are still unclear e-mail me direct at ghostsignal@hotmail.com and I will try again. LTM (whose phases are legendary) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:21:22 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Betty's notes Well, I begin to see why Goerner wasn't interested. Allowing for the fact that this must have been a >very< rough, garbled transmission, and further assuming that 15-year-old Betty supplied words where she couldn't quite understand them ("Hello Bud"?) still ... 1. Unless the numbers are determined to mean something, there's absolutely nothing self-authenticating in the message; i.e., no facts the general public would not have known. The only exception might be "Get the suitcase from my closet" -- was AE telling George where to find her Will? How could you ever prove it? 2. Wouldn't knee-high water in the cockpit preclude any further radio transmissions? Wouldn't the engines, batteries and WE transmitter all have been under water at that point? 3. The words transcribed by Betty as "New York" and "Marie" evidently were intended as some kind of distress call. Betty must have heard them pretty clearly as she wrote them down several times. Does this correlate phonetically with any sort of known distress call from the '30s? 4. Finally, it's just difficult to believe a cool customer like AE would spend three hours transmitting panicky gibberish, including a blow-by-blow of her struggles with Fred. Totally out of character, unless maybe the microphone was stuck open. I'm sure the Celestial Choir is analyzing the numbers even as I type, and I'll await their judgment. But for now I vote in favor of a hoax. Sounds like a couple of kids playing around with dad's ham rig while he's away at work -- summer vacation time, remember. LTM (who was hoping for something like, "Fred, put our supplies in the sextant box and head for that wrecked freighter") Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:28:56 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Re: N.Y./Re-creation? Whoa!!! Think on this one... How was the name "Norwich City" actually pronounced??? "NORWITCH CITY" or... or.. or... "NORRICH CITY" or... OR... "NORRICK CITY"? That last possibility does "sound like" New York City doesn't it? Thank goodness for a friend with an Irish brogue.... LTM (whose favorite colour is green) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Every American I've heard pronounce it says, "Nor-witch City". Brits say "Nor-itch City". Neither Amelia nor Fred spoke with an Irish brogue. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:40:38 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: The notebook - random thoughts Here are a few answers to questions posed, as well as some thoughts on meanings in the notebook. 1) Other interest in Betty - When I was at the St. Petersburg library, using the microfilm reader with printer, I had to share it with several other people. During times when I could not be on the reader, I studied the old phone books and city directories for St. Petersburg in 1937, and many other years subsequently. What struck me of interest was that some of the neighbors (people who lived in the nearby houses) had check marks with their names. I did not notice any check marks against people's names on other streets, or further away from Betty's house on this street. I thought this unsuual, as it implied someone was interested in people who lived near Betty's house in 1937. Then when I looked up the family name in the 1942 phone book, I found both her father and her listed at the same address (by then they had moved to 19th Avenue South) with separate listings. But what struck me was that her name listed in the phone book (which was not Betty) had the name Betty written in the margin, next to her name. Again, I noticed no other names written in the phone book on that or nearby pages. That struck me as odd, and I made the assumption that someone had been checking her out before this. Since the neighbors would have been dead by this time, the fact that there were check marks made against some implied to me that they were checked when they were still alive, thus many years ago. 2) We might want to ask Betty if any of these immediate neighbors rings a bell: Rodes, Clanton and Cunningham. (to the right, across the street and to the left) 3) Movie listings - Yes, I did notice theatre and moving listings, but because of the limitation I had to access to the reader, I postponed looking into that subject until after I broke for dinner (the Library is open Monday to Thursday from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm). However, after I had a full dinner, I decided to return home, realizing I would be making another trip back within a week or so. Therefore, if it still looks apropos, I will check them out at my return visit. 4) I have several photographs of Betty's house, which I cannot attach to this listing. However, if anyone wants a couple, I will respond individually. Send your address to me at hhpoole@sprynet.com 5) I think the suggestion that Marie refers to Fred's wife is an excellent one. The only other suggestion I could offer is that it might have been a misspelling of the word "Mayday". But I consider this unlikely. 6) I notice on page 57 what appears to be "3Q rd 3U". Has anyone considered that may mean CQ (requesting a response) and 3U meaning respond at a higher frequency, or even CU (see you)? 7) Finally, for Ric I still question why the reference to KGMB has to be connected to the Amelia notes. Since Betty often searched the dial for foreign stations, couldn't that reference simply means she heard the Hawaiian station some other day and added it there? LTM, Harry *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, it could. Good point. Although its presence on the same page with "31.05" would make that quite a coincidence. No other call letters of radio stations heard, foreign or domestic, appear anywhere else in the notebook. Given Earhart's and Noonan's admitted ignorance of morse, it's hard to see either one of them using morse conventions other than perhaps a spoken "SOS". I'll ask Betty about the neighbors. Please send copies of the photos to me and to Bob Brandenburg. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:43:11 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: W40K If "W4OK" is a call sign, it may be the amateur radio call W4 Oscar Kilo... if it is w4 ZERO K, I dunno what it is. Not an amateur call. In 1937, US ham call signs consisted of W, followed by numbers 1 thru 9 depending upon location (areas of the country) and two or three letters. A "two letter" call like W4OK more than likely would ahve been at least ten years old by then... maybe considerably older. I have not yet checked anything but more than likely the ham call w4OK would have been active and current in 1937. If someone wants to beat me to it, check www.qrz.com and see if the call is still assigned to anyone; but more than likely, it has been reissued to another user during the past few years. The FCC implemented a program of "vanity" call sign issuance in the 1990s, which allows one to pick a call sign from the inactive list if that particular call has been inactive for a number of years and is eligible. Not many original "two letter" call sign holders are still alive; most are now Silent Keys. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Harry Manning was supposedly a ham. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:45:14 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Tidal trends > From Christian D > With all due respect, Ric, we are not talking about the EXACT tide height, > here, but only the moon phases and how that relates directly to the > general tidal amplitude of neap and spring tides. Actually, when I posted my message, I was more interested in the "choir" getting a rough idea of the likely TIMES of the tide that the tide height. If they calculate their idea of the tide time (based on celestial info) for a current day for a place we can get tide tables (Kanton, a couple of other places) and then the tide tables can be checked to see if they are accurate. If the choir times are close, then perhaps they can use the same method to calculate some times for Howland July 2 1937 and see if they coincide with loading or unloading the Itasca (which would probably happen over the period of high tide) and also calculate some for Niku. That would give us a very rough, but workable idea of when the water was rising on the reef, and maybe what time Earhart could have made a landing safely (give or take an hour or two). Th' WOMBAT. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:46:47 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Notebook is up 158 58 338 8983638 8?83?38 8583?38 ?583?38 Hmmm I wonder about numbers over radio. That's why we transmit "Fife" for 5 and "NinEr" for 9 and "ThuRee" for 3. While we're at it.. "ThuRee" "Muh-Ree" Dir our flying ace ever use phonetics? Probably not from all I've seen on the web site. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder if there was a phonetic alphabet in use in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:47:34 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: suitcase > If the Sequence "George ... get the suitcase in my closet .. > Calif(ornia): is a message to her husband, it seems as she may also be > delierious.<< In the suitcase in the closet there's a heap of junk, old papers, scribblings from planning ideas. There's this "plan B" we were working on if anything goes wrong........ Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:49:22 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: knee deep > Regardless of the contents of the note, how could the Electra's > radio still be working if the water is a foot high in the cockpit. The > radio was under the seat, wasn't it? And the batteries were under the > cockpit. Water coming in over a reef flat (especially if she was out near the N.C.) would start to be a worry if it was "knee deep" around the airplane. Bearing in mind that tidal range can change over a period of days. It may not have been as much of a problem as it looked to them. Alternatively, they may have been on shore part of the time, and Gone out to the aircraft at low tide to try to transmit during the 4 hours or so of low water. (Taking into account the time the tide recedes to the point they can enter the plane, and the time it will take to walk ashore again). Maybe the water came in too high and only one skeleton could swim ashore. The other may have been too delirious or injured... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:51:49 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: bail out? I use the term "bail out" as a reference to getting out of something regularly, but I wonder whether the common useage came into play after WWII? I can't see earhart or Noonan using it. On the other hand, It is possible that it could refer casually to leaving the aircraft to walk to shore... Th WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From ric Interesting question. When did the term "to bail out", meaning to parachute from an airplane in an emergency, come into common usage? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:53:05 EDT From: Amanda Subject: Re: suitcase That might have been where she was keeping her "popping off" letters. But wouldn't they have had the "Honey, if anything happens..." conversation before she left? Amanda ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:56:56 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: 44 N.E. Try this one, too. Note that the TIGHAR webpage map of the Phoenix Islands indicates that Gardner is at 4 degress 40 minutes south. Is there some tie-in ,here, with the first page of the notebook (top), which mentions Howland and "40", and then "44 N.E."? Multiple " 4s" in both the actual position of Gardner and the notes on this part of the page. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric It would have to be something like "Four point four degrees" misunderstood as "fortyfour northeast." Possible I guess. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:05:04 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: Gardner Island shipwreck. Have you seen any nautical charts of the Phoenix Islands group,printed in 1936 or ' 37 and typical of the ones we might expect Amelia and Fred to be carrying ? I wonder how readily they were able identify the island on their approach to it. Their identification of the island would be immediate on sighting the Norwich City if the wreck was shown by a symbol on their chart. The stranding occurred in 1929,so I would imagine that by 36 or 37 the latest navigational charts would depict the wreck by the shipwreck symbol.Perhaps the sailors in the forum can help here. If we can establish that Amelia was able to locate herself on Gardner Is. without the help of an incapacitated Fred then we are entitled to be suspicious of any post-loss message that appears to give co-ordinates when all that needed to be said was " We are on Gardner Island." LTM [Who was never lost,only uncertain of her exact position] Raymond Brown. ************************************************************************** From Ric We, of course, don't know if Fred had charts showing the shapes of islands in the region but if he had the most current chart of Gardner Island that was available in 1937 it would have convinced them that they had to be someplace else. It was based upon an 1872 survey of "Gardner or Kemin's Island" and showed something that looked more like an amoeba than anything else. The size and the shape are all wrong and, of course, no shipwreck is marked. A far more accurate map had been made by a British survey in 1935 but it was not yet published. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:07:58 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: "I need air" Given the context of the comment on page two "I need air", I wonder if the word "suffer" was really a mishearing of the word "suffocate", as in "I need air, let me out, I am going to suffocate"? Just a thought, not sure if it adds anything, except to note that if this is a hoax or dramatisation, this whole episode about needing air and needing to get out of the plane sure seems like something that people wouldn't think to add to the story. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric Having been there yourself Chris, what do suppose it would be like inside an aluminum tube on the reef at Niku 'long about 10 o'clock in the morning? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:14:40 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: "Betty" Tuning Around the Band? Did "Betty" have her father's receiver on one frequency on the same band over 3 hours? Or did she tune to several frequencies across a band? By the way, "W4OK" is a ham radio callsign that has been assigned to several hams over the past 67 years. No big deal to find out who held the callsign in 1937. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric As I understand it, she stopped when she heard the woman's voice and did not change frequencies after that unless perhaps to make fine adjustments. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:18:16 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: California Yes - but why's she saying this ? How could that possibly aid in a rescue ? I can't think of any possible scenario where the contents of a suitcase thousands of miles away would be important in their current circumstances - unless, of course she's delerious. This almost sounds like a deathbed statement....."George - the suitcase.....it's all yours...". Yet, if we buy that Betty did hear AE & FN, they're both still clearly active - even if not in perfect health. *************************************************************************** From Ric So we have a pattern of words that makes sense but seems wildly out of context. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:19:41 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: "We can't bail out" My problem with the phrase "We can't bail out" does relate to the idea of removing water from a boat. It sounds somehow superfluous and over-dramatic to me to say this if one is in a beached airplane that is awash from a rising tide. The context of usage, for me, simply doesn't "ring true". I still don't see anything in this transcript that couldn't have been put together from news reports. LTM (who preferred coffee cans) william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:20:42 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: 30 One thing that strikes me as interesting is that the next to last word Betty noted was "30." 30 or XXX is also used in journalism to indicate the end of an article or press release. The only other thing that Betty noted was the "NY", which, where this a recreation, could be a reference to New York City as a place of origin, say as part of a byline. Michael Lowrey ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:22:07 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: Vega models A little off topic right now considering all the wonderful news of betty's letter.I see a loaded gun about to fire,get ready to blow smoke from the barrel!! But Hallmark has released a Legends Of Flight series of desktop models.a beautiful die cast version of beloved Amelia's Lockheed Vega is featured.It sits on a stand with a motorized engine.It is a 1/72 scale model and comes with a certificate of authenticity.It is a limited edtion(only 24,000).They sell for $30.00 U.S.($40.00 cdn.).They are not for display until Nov.1 (lucky I date the beautiful manager of our local store).I am not sure if anyone is interested but I thought I'd share this wonderful find with my fellow forumites. LTM Richard Lund ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:25:32 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: No Subject "New York"? Seems strange. "Newark" more likely, since she flew there from Mexico City, and had her radio worked on there. From what little apparent information you've gleaned; Fred's injuries, time frame, etc. makes the Marshall Islands scenario more likely. (Or the Gilberts?) Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric It is certainly true that a Noonan head injury has long been part of the Marshall Islands stories but its also true that a single survivor (Earhart) is suggested by the evidence TIGHAR has found. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:42:03 EDT From: Troy Subject: Re: Notebook is up Wow! If true, this puts even more drama into all of it. Do you suppose FN was head injured because he was crammed behind closer to the CG of the plane and all the equipment? AE most likely had a more secure spot in her pilot seat? By far, I am no expert here. What does your experience with crashes lend you to think, assuming this account is valid? --troy-- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:47:56 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: California? The "suitcase in the closest"..."George"... does pique an interest in my cynical heart. Who in the wide world would throw in a word like "suitcase" whether its a hoax or re-creation-unless it were real reference. Now the speculation. She says NY and Cal so she may be specifying the home in Cal with the suitcase,as you suggest.Now the million dollar question: does that suitcase contain something so vital to the flight or is it merely a sentimental reference to some family artifact. Those numbers in that notebook keep hauting me,maybe Safford could unravel those as codes! But that leads you back into the theory you hate the most! Actually the longer I think about it those numbers and letters should be shown to a crypto guy.(Maybe its Gardner in Fiji language in reverse!) Unrelated but interesting: I haven't seen this on forum yet, but Roosevelt did dispatch his friend Vincent Astor and Kermit Roosevelt in early 1938 to the south pacific,including the Marshalls and most likely Phoenix, in Astor's private yacht the "Nourmahal" ostensibly to look for Japanese activity.You can bet they were looking for any signs of Amelia. Astor was one of Roosevelt's private "spys" and a Naval Intelligence reservist. Has anyone every looked into the yachts log and crew. I wonder what they found. Let me know what you think about encrypting those numbers.Or is that just crazy.Let's dwell on the suitcase reference in Cal.,it's obviously something she left behind at the beginning of the World Flight. LTM, Ron ************************************************************************** From Ric If you want to show the numbers to a crypto guy be my guest but frankly I think the possibility that they represent some secret code is, well, you used the word, crazy. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:50:29 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: suitcase What might be in the suitcase? Was it a suitcase or something else, really? LTM (who never looks through the closets of adult women) Mike ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:54:16 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Broadly Applicable tides? Concerning the post From Christian D: >The University of Hawaii already has a PV powered tide gauge on nearby >Kanton, with near real time satellite data transmission. If I remember >correctly, tidal data for Kanton is generally applicable for the Phoenix >Islands. > >Also: for what I know, the nearest (in time and location) tidal data >available is from Kanton, for 1949-50, and then from 1986 -on. In the spirit of providing all the possible information, NOS can (did) calculate the tides for early July 1937 at Canton Island. Here is their tide table for July 1-10, 1937 excerpted from their e-mail of 9/27/2000: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. NOS does not have tidal data for Gardner Island. Therefore calculations cannot be generated for the specific location. For the immediate: We cannot provide information specific to "Gardner Island", but we do have information for "Canton Island" in the Phoenix Island chain. Attached you will find tide predictions for Canton Island during July 1937. NOAA, National Ocean Service Center for Operational Oceanpgraphic Products and Services Silver Spring, Maryland Web Address: http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov E-mail Address: Tide.Predictions@noaa.gov Canton Island, Phoenix Islands Tide Predictions (High and Low Waters), July, 1937 Reference station is: Apia, Samoa Islands HWTIME =3D -1 HWHT =3D +0.40 LWTIME =3D -40 LWHT =3D +0.50 NOAA, National Ocean Service Standard Time Day Time Ht. Time Ht. Time Ht. Time Ht. 1 Th 19 H 3.1 615 L 0.8 1245 H 2.9 1834 L 0.7 2 F 122 H 3.2 724 L 0.7 1351 H 2.9 1937 L 0.6 3 Sa 224 H 3.4 827 L 0.5 1455 H 3.0 2036 L 0.5 4 Su 323 H 3.6 926 L 0.3 1555 H 3.1 2133 L 0.4 5 M 419 H 3.7 1020 L 0.1 1651 H 3.2 2227 L 0.2 6 Tu 513 H 3.9 1112 L 0.0 1744 H 3.3 2319 L 0.2 7 W 604 H 3.9 1202 L -0.1 1835 H 3.4 8 Th 10 L 0.2 653 H 3.9 1251 L 0.0 1925 H 3.3 9 F 101 L 0.2 742 H 3.7 1340 L 0.1 2014 H 3.3 10 Sa 152 L 0.4 831 H 3.5 1429 L 0.2 2104 H 3.2 11 Su 245 L 0.6 920 H 3.3 1519 L 0.4 2155 H 3.0 12 M 342 L 0.7 1011 H 3.0 1612 L 0.6 2249 H 2.9 13 Tu 443 L 0.9 1106 H 2.8 1707 L 0.8 2346 H 2.8 14 W 548 L 1.0 1205 H 2.6 1805 L 0.9 15 Th 45 H 2.8 653 L 1.1 1307 H 2.5 1902 L 1.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The format is explained below, excerpt from the NOS FAQ: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Format - This format is available in hardcopy and an electronic, ASCII file which provides time and height of tide information for a single location in a page readable format. The following example for EASTPORT, ME, April, 1997 shows the predictions in AM/PM Time and has been adjusted for Daylight Savings Time. Eastport, Maine T.M. 75 W. Tide Predictions (High and Low Waters) April, 1997 NOAA, National Ocean Service Standard Time Day Time Ht. Time Ht. Time Ht. Time Ht. 1 Tu 428am H 18.6 1101am L 0.7 504pm H 17.8 1128pm L 1.5 2 W 532am H 18.8 1204pm L 0.4 608pm H 18.2 3 Th 1233am L 0.9 636am H 19.2 107pm L -0.2 711pm H 19.0 4 F 136am L 0.0 739am H 20.0 207pm L -1.1 810pm H 20.1 5 Sa 235am L -1.2 838am H 20.9 304pm L -1.9 906pm H 21.1 Daylight Saving Time begins at 0200 6 Su 431am L -2.2 1033am H 21.6 457pm L -2.6 1058pm H 22.0 7 M 524am L -3.0 1125am H 21.9 548pm L -2.8 1148pm H 22.4 8 Tu 614am L -3.3 1215pm H 21.9 637pm L -2.7 9 W 1236am H 22.3 704am L -3.2 104pm H 21.4 725pm L -2.1 etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- At Canton, the time for Betty's radio receptions (about 1000 local July 5) seems to fall at low tide. Note that Kanton (Canton) is east of Gardner/Nikumaroro, and therefore on the same side of the dateline. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/MapsandPhotos/maps/Phoenixmap.html How good are they? For Canton Island, pretty good. NOS indicated: We can generate predictions for past dates. These would not represent what actually happened, but what would have been predicted for the given time period. Therefore presumably meeting their standards for publication. Maybe (speculation) they are using long-time data from the University of Hawaii monitor NOS also indicated: With a set of constituents, reguardless of when the data is obtained, we can generate predictions for virtually any date. Tidal constituents don't change all that much over time. Most of the changes would be due to evnironmental changes such as shoaling or errosion, and artificial changes such as jetties, dredging, etc. How good are they for Gardner Island? The FAQ seems most explicit. NOS seems to agree: > Canton Island is roughly 200 NM away. > Do you have a correction formula to convert from Canton to Gardner? > Do you have any way to estimate the accuracy of such a conversion? > Can 3. above be applied to increase accuracy? (implied task: relate Canton to Gardner from limited observations) No, we cannot convert from Canton to Gardner. That would require data at Gardner. If we had that information we could calculate it directly. I am sensitive to the difference between a publishable prediction and "generally applicable" use. So if you want to assume that Canton Island tides broadly relate to Gardner tides, here is the table. But it is provided on a "buyer beware" basis. I understand something of how difficult the environment is, but I still like the LTM fantasy/idea. Would University of Hawaii be interested in placing their monitor on Nikumaroro? LTM and buyer beware John Pratt (2373) ************************************************************************** From Ric Feel free to ask them. The tidal data for Canton are interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:57:35 EDT From: Dan Carmichael Subject: suitcase "Get the suitcase from the closet" was there any storage compartment in the Electra? Maybe FN was telling AE to get some equipment out of some storage space, and then too "watch the battery" as she had to move some things to get to it. ************************************************************************* From Ric There only "closet" in the electra was the lavatory at the rear of the cabin. In Earhart's plane the wing lockers, normally used for baggage stowage, were converted to fuel tanks. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:58:13 EDT From: Dan Carmichael Subject: N.Y. "or something that sounded like New York" this phrase, to me, lends credence that it sounded **like** New York but wasn't New York. If I heard a scratchy "Norwich City", never hearing of Norwich and scribbling fast I would think "New York City or something that sounded like New York"..... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:08:47 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Marie? That is exactly what I think....FN was married just one month before the flight. He apparently was hurt, I'm sure- scared, and who wouldn't call out a loved one's name under those circumstances. Judy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:10:27 EDT From: Judith Subject: suitcase I know it was just a movie (1980's movie about the last flight-AE/FN starring Diane Keaton) but the reference to 'get the suitcase out of the closet' reminded me of Amelia, in the film, saying her last goodbye to George...he had handed her a photo of them both to take with her on the flight. Amelia tore the photo in half, handed George her half of the photo (of herself), and kept the side of the photo with him. While downsizing the plane's weight (in Lae???) Amelia mailed her jacket with her half of the photo in it along to George with her suitcase and several other things including an inflatable raft . So "get the suitcase out of the closet" might be a very tender reference from AE to GP. Judith ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:12:02 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: N.Y. I sent essentially the same posting as Jim McClure re; "New York City" vs "Norwich City" I guess I need to get my oar in the water sooner here on the west coast if I want to get anything posted. Anyway, another thought: If Betty heard only "New York" (Norwich) maybe AE was in a position to only see the Norwich part of the name due to the curvature of the bow on the port side. Marty 0724C ************************************************************************** From Ric In most cases I post submissions in the order they come in. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:14:23 EDT From: John Clauss Subject: Look at the numbers Look at these numbers: The area that we think bounds the plane is approximately 174 33' 00"W and 174 32' 45" W and 4 39' 15" S and 4 39' 45" S The location could be outside this box, but this is our best estimate. Betty's numbers: 58 228 South 391065 Z or E fig 8 - 3.30 500 Z 3E MJ3B Z 38 Z 13 8983638 3Q rd 36 J3 3630 38-3 3 30 Most all these sets are likely incomplete. The one that jumps out at me is S 391065. 4 39' 10" S is on the Northern most tip of the reef flat. What would be the correct (or incorrect) terminology for broadcasting these numbers? Navigators help me out. LTM John Clauss ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:15:23 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Pirate Radio Drama > Ric: If these were local "pirate" stations, wouldn't Betty, with > such a big antenna, have heard a stronger signal with little or no fading? > Same seems to go with any other "ham" who just wanted to pull off a hoax - signal > should be much stronger, no fading or loss of signal. > > LTM, > Dave Bush That sorta depends on the frequency, doesn't it, and the path, sky or groundwave. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:17:55 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: two voices > From Chris Kennedy > > Something to keep in mind is that Betty says that the two voices > were often speaking at the same time. --That's pretty tuff to do with an aircraft microphone, which was never intended to have the sensitivity to pick up sounds from all over a room. This information would seem to be some bad news to the 'crash message' theory. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric That has bothered me too. Seems like another person would have to be very close to the person with the mic and speaking loudly to be picked up. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:20:35 EDT From: Judith Subject: Amelia Putnam -Using her married name, Putnam- AE had a prenuptial contract ??? with GP and she arranged to keep her Earhart name after marriage with GP. Maybe calling out from Niku with her married name was a comforting thing for her and for what she knew would be a comfort to George if he ever heard her transmissions. Judith *************************************************************************** From Ric Or maybe she just recognized that many people, especially the British, knew her as Amelia earhart Putnam or even just Mrs. Putnam. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:25:00 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Noonan's Uncle Bob? >From Chris Kennedy >.......can the Noonan experts tell us >whether Noonan had an "Uncle Bob" or an uncle with a similar name? When I first saw this posting I thought of a British expression: "Bob's your uncle". Consider the Noonan British connection: While Fred Noonan was known for his navigational skills in the air, he actually began his career at sea. In 1908 he ran away from home to become a sailor and spent years exploring the globe by boat, rounding the Horn of Africa seven times and working aboard Britain's largest square-rigged ship, the Crompton. During World War I, Noonan served in the Merchant Navy in the North Atlantic and was torpedoed three times. He returned to school to learn navigation. While attending the Weems School of Navigation in Annapolis, he became interested in a career in aerial navigation. In 1925 he was hired by Pan American Airways as a flight navigator and navigational teacher. http://www.aviationposters.com/frednoonan.htm Unfortunately "Uncle" and "Bob" are six lines apart and appear in that order. LTM John Pratt (2373) *************************************************************************** From Ric The Noonan bio material you cite is fairly, but not entirely, accurate. Perhaps some of our Noonan Project experts would care to comment. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:28:19 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: hams on Howland Maybe i am behind the curve, but are WOJ and W4OK supposedly land station calls for Howland Island? W4OK is a ham call sign, is this for the ham station, but if so, why the district-4 designation, which is around Ohio in the Eastern USA ? I have a US Stations list, 1935 i believe, of all stations, i could not find WOJ under any classification; since relay and experimental stations also had ham-type callsigns (letter, number for district, letter, letter ), i looked in these listings too, no luck. ( I don't have a ham call book for those years, so could not check that.) There should be a record of the island hamstation's call. I would think the first letter would be "K", and the number would be other than "4", or the call would have a "/" following it with another number to indicate mobile or temporarily relocated. (With just few exceptions, "W" callsigns are east of the Mississippi) Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric W40K is not "supposed" to be anything. It's just what Betty thought she heard. We should definitley check the numbers for the hams on Howland at that time but I'm quite sure you're right about them starting with K. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:31:06 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Notebook is up "Here he kept wanting to get out of the airplane and she kept calling him back...." Um, yass, and she had to hold the microphone up to her lips to do that, broadcasting to him, or the radio was somehow left on, draining its 70 amps from the battery, while the studio- sensitivity microphone picks up the whole drama... ?????????????????? But would i tell Betty???? (Hue Miller) *************************************************************************** From Ric Why do you have a hard time believing that somebody might, under those circumstances, yell at somebody else in the middle of a radio transmission? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:36:01 EDT From: Vern Subject: KGMB and Chronology I still fail to see how the KGMB notation helps to establish any bounds on the time Betty heard the alleged Earhart transmission. I don't see it in the notes of what was heard from AE. It must be something she noted from newspapers or newscasts. She could have jotted it down on any page she happened to open the notebook to at the time she learned of the KGMB broadcast. *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty has explained, and I have repeated her explanation, of how and why those two notations came to be on the page they were on. The explanation seems credible (to me anyway). In the absence of other evidence that indicates that her recollection on this point is faulty I don't see any reason not to accept it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:36:42 EDT From: Vern Subject: New York copied Itaska? New York copied Itaska on 3105 kc over a 10 day period in 1937? This could be the most significant thing we've seen relative to radio propagation, if it will stand up. I think we know what power the Itaska could run on 3105 kc but I don't remember. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:37:15 EDT From: Vern Subject: "We can't bail out" A couple more thoughts... 1. "We can't bail out" -- because the windows don't open. Bail out water, that is. 2. "We can't bail out!" -- We can't just leave the airplane -- abandon it, so to speak. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:38:50 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Phone number? >There is also a similarity with those numbers and other numbers in the >document: > >858 3638 > >158 3 38 > >Frank Westlake Yeah, could be two attempts to catch the same number with poor reception. That would indicate that those numbers, whatever they really were, were spoken at least twice. *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. These are not random numbers. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:39:53 EDT From: Vern Subject: "War of The Worlds" >...... why weren't hundreds of others also fooled? The War of the Worlds >radio play was broadcast on Halloween and included disclaimers but so many >people were taken in that it was a major news event. We need to remember that "War of the Worlds" was heard in the standard AM broadcast band. Wasn't it done during a regular program that many people listened to each week? Few would have heard it if it had been broadcast in the short-wave bands. Hmmm...Come to think of it, maybe it was! But people in the states didn't listen to that. I don't recall it being mentioned that "War of the Worlds" was not broadcast until over a year after the Earhart loss. I think it was October 30, 1938. So, what Betty heard was not a copy-cat thing possibly inspired by Well's "War of the Worlds." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:41:49 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Marie? >Marie? Could he have been saying "Mary Bea"? I could believe that. As Ric commented, the "B" sound does not come through well. It's one of those bilabials (lip sounds) -- not really vocalized. Moreover, I doubt that Mary Bea was at all familiar to Betty. She would have probably picked up on names like Mary Ann, Mary Lou, Mary Jo, etc., but maybe not on Mary Bea. I do find it odd that she never called Fred by name. Maybe she did but those instances just happened to be lost when the signal faded. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:43:29 EDT From: Joel Subject: Betty I believe if Betty was a ham operator, receiving messages in voice, it is possible that atmospheric bounce could have enhanced the signal harmonic and she might have been in the right place to receive that signal. Joel (husband of Sheila) *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty was not a ham operator. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:49:50 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Radio signal propagation Well, I apologize...most of the signals being monitored were Navy frequencies, ranging from 8kHz to 16kHz. You can post the .jpg files if you want, or drop the thread entirely. I did send you the pictures last night. ************************************************************************** From Ric Got the pictures. Thanks. I think we can probably drop the thread. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:50:50 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: WE Transmitter and "Harmonics" If the Western Electric 13C transmitter generated a significant second harmonic (double the transmitted frequency) anyone using this transmitter on 3105 would cause serious interference problems on 6210. This does not appear to have been the case with the 13C. A pirate station transmitting on 6000 kilocycles with 50 watts AM could have fading at a receiver 200 miles away, depending on propagation. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:53:17 EDT From: Tom King Subject: legible name on Norwich City For what it's worth, I can't find it either. I've checked all three of Harry Maude's reports and Laxton; no doubt you've looked at Bevington's diary. What's left? *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, but I haven't checked Bevington's book. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:56:30 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: N.Y./Re-creation? Ric is correct, although I certainly appreciate the support! My observation was that Betty reports that the two voices she heard were often talking at the same time, yet a person can't record what two people are saying at the same time. This can make a written record very difficult to figure out, so I was thinking that if two people took the roles of Earhart and Noonan in the transcript, and simply read and tape recorded the result, this might give context to the transcript which is difficult to determine just reading the words. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:22:10 EDT From: Judith Subject: Norwich City Your thinking on the Norwich City sounds good. Further, old ships last..we have the Lexington here in Corpus Christi, and it is strong and perfect. Iron hulks may rust, but they don't burn out (iron). Further, I would have climbed aboard under those circumstances myself, if for nothing else, for food and for meds. All big ships have pharmacies. Judith *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that Earhart and Noonan might logically have gone aboard but I think they would find it a pretty bleak place - gutted by fire and swept by seas for 8 years. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:26:01 EDT From: Vern Subject: Norwich City,,, HELP! Flying over the island, they've seen the Norwich City but have not realized it's a burned out hulk. Now they're down and in very bad shape. They may not be in sight of the ship where they have crash landed. Amelia is trying to get the attention of the people on that ship they saw. Betty is hearing both Amelia and Fred -- who is calling Mary Bea?? N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. Marie Marie N.Y. N.Y. Oh, if they could hear me N.Y. N.Y. Marie It's going ******** Translation ********* Norwich City! Norwich City! Norwich City! ( Fred ) Norwich City! Norwich City! Oh, if only they could hear me! Norwich City! Norwich City! (Fred) It's going ???? But no help was going to come from the Norwich City -- or anywhere else. *************************************************************************** From Ric No, no, no. They're not calling the Norwich City. Even from the air the thing is an obvious wreck (see Lambrecht). Earhart is transmitting the name of the only distinguishing feature she can identify that might give tell someone where she is. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:29:09 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook/ Authentic? > Thus,in my opinion,three hours of transmission without reference to > Howland,Electra's condition,distance traveled past Howland frequency > suggestion, estimated position,or meaningful assistance to the guard ship > Itasca is too much to believe.She heard what she heard but not from > Amelia. My work involves garnering and editing news from radio broadcasts and other sources, and one of the first things we teach any trainee is that if the signal is lost you can't say there has been a break in transmission, only in reception. Only the transmitting party can state what was transmitted. The best that could be stated definitely here is that over three hours no reference to any particular subject was heard - even if Betty had taken shorthand from perfect reception of the whole thing - and the difference is crucial. And it never ceases to amaze me when transcribing text from a poorly received piece just how few words you need not to be able to hear correctly before it becomes difficult or impossible to get a handle on the whole thing, and how easy it is to be sure you've heard something correctly and find out subsequently you were slightly off-beam. LTM.Phil 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric Attend, gentle Forum, and harken to the voice of Wisdom. Thank you Phil. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:31:10 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: "I need air" Ric asked: > Having been there yourself Chris, what do suppose it would be like inside an > aluminum tube on the reef at Niku 'long about 10 o'clock in the morning? It would be pretty awful---I vote for "suffocate". --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:36:03 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Nor-Witch City Do you think it might help if we came up with a large list of "New York" and "New York City" sound-a-like's, record them to tape, and see if Betty picks out Norwich City? Frank ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm afraid it wouldn't prove a darn (or insert expletive of choice) thing. It has been 63 years. She is not who she was then and we can't hope to duplicate the precise sound she heard. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:37:36 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's Notebook/ Authentic Again another doubting Thomas. If Betty heard an authentic single Earhart transmission intermittently for 3 hours after 5 Jul and possible to 9 July in Florida, why wouldn't the hundreds of other radio operators world wide-Itasca,Ontario, Swan,Nauru,Tutillia,Radio Navy Hawaii,Coast Guard Hawaii, Coast Guard San Francisco, and even the many amateur hams,etc.- have heard some fragments of that message with numbers,phrases,and letters that would have matched Betty's transcription in some instances. Yet we are to believe that as you put it a 15 year old teenager,after school comes home, and accidently randomly picks up an Earhart transmission from the South Pacific for three hours that not one other sole on the planet heard. Amazing. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Radio experts,an explanation, please. LTM, Ron B right ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:39:53 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: 3 hr play? How many radio plays then or now continue (continued) over a 3 hour period in one day? Even old 78RPM recordings I had of radio plays were a short segment today, another short segment tomorrow at the same time etc... I believe War of The Worlds was a departure from this, it will be interesting to find out what the duration of the "March Of Time" radio play was.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The March of Time was a 30 minute show. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:42:58 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: CQD > Ric, > 6) I notice on page 57 what appears to be "3Q rd 3U". > Has anyone considered that may mean CQ (requesting a > response)... I thought it was common knowledge that CQD is a distress call. It isn't in my 1930 radio telegraph code so maybe I'm wrong. With the 'r' in there I don't think it's usable anyway. Frank Westlak *************************************************************************** From Ric I've held a 3rd class radio operators permit (as every pilot must have) since 1965 I haven't until known until right now that CQD is a distress call. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:47:24 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Zulu time > From Ric > The use of Z or "Zulu" time as shorthand for > Greenwich Mean Time or Greenwich Civil Time as it was known in 1937, is a > very recent invention. For the uninitiated, "Zulu" (phonetic for "Z") comes from the military system of assigning letter designators to the 24 standard time zones around the world. Greenwich is Z, the zone 1 hour to the east of GMT is "A" (Alpha) etc. I have forgotten which two letters we don't use. Civilian time zone charts typically use numbers; how many hours from Greenwich, adding as you go east and subtracting as you go west. For example, here in Japan we are nine hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). The civilian charts show this as "+9", Greenwich time plus nine hours. In the military, we call it "India" (phonetic for "I"). "I" being the ninth letter in the alphabet. We also assign the hour number, but (typically) we figure it backwards. We start with local time and count the hours we need to attain Zulu time. Hence, I am in the "minus nine India" time zone. Hong Kong and Manila are in "-8 Hotel", Singapore is "-7 Gulf" etc. It is my impression (and I'm sure the Forum will correct me if I'm wrong) that only the military uses the letter system, although I have seen some use of Zulu to indicate GMT (also UTC or CUT for Coordinated Universal Time) in civilian radio circles. I'm not sure when we started using the letters in the navy, but I suspect WWII. LTM (who is in plus five uniform) Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Kerry. Gosh, I never knew that that's where Zulu time came from. I thought that there was only Zulu time and local time (also known as Bantu time). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:49:52 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: W40K > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > > If "W4OK" is a call sign, it may be the amateur radio call W4 Oscar Kilo... > if it is w4 ZERO K, I dunno what it is. Not an amateur call. I hate to mention this, but since Mike didn't, I will. The "W4" prefix was the south east U.S. including Florida. LTM (who is in W2 land) Kerry Tiller #2350, ex-WN2IVM and WB7SIQ *************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:53:21 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gardner Island shipwreck. An aeronautical chart for that part of the flight (mostly ocean) probably had little more than dots on it.. For that matter, was there an aeronautical chart, and did even the nautical chart have much more than dots on it to represent uninhabited islands? We already know the cartographers didn't even know where Howland was... Th' WOMBAT (Lost is not when you "Can't find your way there" it's when you "Can't find your way back again") ************************************************************************* From Ric I'm quite sure that there were no aeronautical charts of the Pacific in 1937 and, yes, the nautical charts showed just little dots. There were, however, planform charts of the individual islands available. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:55:35 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: bail out > From Ric > > Interesting question. When did the term "to bail out", meaning to parachute > from an airplane in an emergency, come into common usage? The etymology of the phrase as listed in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is 1951. LTM Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! It sounds like "bail out" only gained enough recognition to make it into the dictionary AFTER WWII. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:08:20 EDT From: Ric Subject: Sunday Forum We're not going to make a practice of this but, in self defense, I'll be posting messages today (Sunday). Otherwise I'll never catch up. (I'm sitting here looking at 74 new submissions,) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:08:37 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: Wyoming message Ric, Re. "8983638" in Betty's notes: This may be too obvious, but the first two letters of a 1937 phone number were dialed with a number, same as printed on the keys of todays' phones. So 8 is T, U or V and 9 is W, X, Y or Z. It's at least possible that AE/FN turned the letters into their equivalent numbers. Would TYler 8-3638 or UXbridge 8-3638, etc., produce a phone number we recognize? Wonder where Putnam was? How about his office or their homes in NY and CA - or the NY Herald-Trib? Another thought on phones: my recollection of long-distance calls in those days is too hazy (I was too young to make them!) but I think we dialed 0 for Operator and gave her the location and number wanted. How about overseas calls - were there "codes", like Z 38, Z 13, one might use to speed the call up? Let's not forget that AE "called home" occasionally so she might have known the procedures. If Randy hasn't already given you this: Commander, San Fran. Divn, USCG, radiod Itasca (Dztzf 1937042310COMFRANDIV, page 368 of Randy's MSG8.PDF) UNCONFIRMED REPORTS FROM ROCKSPRINGS WYOMING STATE EARHART PLANE HEARD 16000 KCS REPORTED POSITION ON A REEF SOUTHEAST OF HOWLAND ISLAND THIS INFORMATION MAY BE AUTHENTIC AS SIGNALS FROM MID PACIFIC AND ORIENT OFTEN HEARD INLAND WHEN NOT AUDIBLE ON COAST VERIFICATION FOLLOWS. Follow up msg on page 372, (Dztzf: 193707050057COMFRANDIV) FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY QUOTE INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN UNQUOTE. Like Dennis I suffer from CRS but think CG and Navy decided this was bogus account freq. Also the date/time Rock Sprgs heard it is not given, but presumably sometime before 23:10Z on 7/4, which would be 15:10 PST, 7/4 - and also 6:10 PM that day in St, Pete! Wow - this is fun! LTM Bill Moffet #2156 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bill. It does look like the CG dismissed the account because it was on the wrong frequency (which could have been a harmonic) and because it was signed "KDN" instead of "KHAQQ." On that basis they would have also dismissed Betty's account out of hand. I think that the Rock Springs message has to go back in the "could be authentic" column for now at least. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:09:56 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: hams on Howland > From Ric > > W40K is not "supposed" to be anything. It's just what Betty thought she > heard. We should definitley check the numbers for the hams on Howland at > that time but I'm quite sure you're right about them starting with K. Howland would have been a K some letter 6 prefix. K6 was West Coast and all the Pacific Island possessions (U.S.) used K-unique letter-6. Hawaii was KH6. LTM Kerry Tiller #2350 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:14:18 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Interviewing Betty > From Ross Devitt > 158 58 338 8983638 8?83?38 8583?38 ?583?38 Hmmm I wonder about > numbers over radio. ... Ric, have you asked Betty whether the numbers were recited one-at-a-time (one, five, eight, five, eight, three, three, eight) or as composites (one hundred fifty-eight, fifty-eight, three hundred thirty-eight, etc.)? Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric No, I haven't. Here's the plan. I'll be interviewing Betty in person on videotape on Sunday November 5th. At that time we'll go through the notebook entry-by-entry. I we'll have a better chance of getting good recollections that way than by hitting her with questions piecemeal. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:20:18 EDT From: Ken Knapp Subject: Phonetic alphabet Ric asked: > I wonder if there was a phonetic alphabet in use in 1937. From the 1936 ARRL Handbook, I have 2 different phonetic alphabets. One seems to be used by amateurs, while the other is used by Western Union. Notice that "George", "Mary" (MARIE?) and "New York" are part of the Western Union one. *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting coincidence, but I suspect that that is what it is. The word "George" occurs in a context which makes it seem most likely to be a person's name. As we've noted before, "Mary" and "Marie" actually sound quite different and "New York" repeated over and over makes no mores sense as meaning the letter "N" than it does as the city. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:23:10 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: suitcase > From Ric > There only "closet" in the electra was the lavatory at the rear of the > cabin. ... At some period before my youth, lavs were known as "water closets." They might even have been marked "W.C.", I think. Although a suitcase may not have been stored in the W.C. during the flight, one may have been placed there in the days before this transmission--to keep it above the high-tide mark while our heroes were on shore? I am not wedded to this guess. And I don't want to bring back the thunderbox thread. ;o) Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Lord no, not that! Actually, the lavatory in the tail (the lowest point in the cabin) would be the worst place to put something you didn't want to get wet. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:39:23 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: legible name on Norwich City Can't see anything in Bevington's book. The only reference to the "Norwich City" in Bevington's book is that on page 16 " ... Nearby was an ominous wreck rusting on the reef ...." He doesn't even refer to the name but is explaining his and Maude's initial visit to Gardner in 1937. However, page 11 ..."A map published by The American Geographical Society, in early 1937, had shown the islands as British, but now the Americans laid claim ....." he is referring to the Phoenix Island Group ... perhaps Earhart had this map? ... what references are on this newly published map? ... was it a new publication of old charts? Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric He must mean the National Geographic Society. I'm not sure of the date but there is a Nat'l Geo map of the Pacific in the Earhart collection at Purdue University. It does show the Phoenix Group as being owned by "Great Britain". The dot for Howland is enlarged and colored in in red. Canton and Enderbury Islands (the ones formally claimed by the U.S.) are underlined in pencil and there are other pencil lines to the south which could indicate maximum range. The map could represent a Plan B for the first attempt and, at the very least, establishes that Earhart was aware of the Phoenix Group. In Bevington's diary he refers to the ship only as "the wrecked cargo steamer." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:40:10 EDT From: Randy Jacobosn Subject: Re: New York copied Itaska? Apologies to all about NY copying the Itasca on 3105kHz. It appears that the document describes signal propagation at 8-16kHz and CW transmissions from Navy standard radiomessage traffic. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 13:58:09 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: Look at the numbers For groups of numbers, did the person(s) say such as "five-eight" or "fifty-eight"? > 3Q rd 36 > > J3 > > 3630 Was this last, for example, "three-six-three-zero," or was "oh" used for zero? In this case, perhaps studied repitition would reveal what else, other than numbers, these sounds represent. LTM (who seldom repeats herself) Michael ************************************************************************** From Ric Good questions, but I think we'll get our best answers if we until the interview. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:00:41 EDT From: Mary Jane Subject: Re: The number 8983638 If I were Amelia Earhart in a downed plane, needing immediate assistance, I would use some form of language over the radio, to that unknown person who may be listening which in turn would indicate to authorities that it was the "real me". If Bettys notebook is authentic and the numbers are recorded accurately, then the numbers might be a telephone number; bank account; agreed upon code; or a ship wreck with numbers that was visable to me. Anything that would prove the call was not a hoax. I did not expect the dissertation on telephone prefixes! but mine was Lynbrook 9 and I think the smiling face is a circle with the letter 3 at the top indicating the page number. (At first I thought the same). Mary Jane *************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder if Earhart would be cynical enough to worry about being mistaken for a hoaxer. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:02:23 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Itasca newsreel. I was watching the cable channel AMC ("American Movie Classics"), which shows classic movies on cable, and they showed a five-minute Paramount newsreel on the USCGC Itasca. There was no mention of AE or FN, so it may have been made prior to the search. I don't know if anyone has seen this before, but it shows the captain and the crew in action and many close-up views of the ship. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Cool! Wish I had seen it. I wonder if we could get AMC to send us a dub. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:05:29 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: legible name on Norwich City << Yeah, but I haven't checked Bevington's book. >> I don't find it there, either, or in any of the papers in the Source Book (survey reports, ship visits, etc.). Is it possibly something Eric or Emily told you? TK *************************************************************************** From Ric No, I just have this recollection of a written passage someplace that went something like "and we came ashore over the reef beside the hulk of the wrecked steamer Norwich City, her name still visible on her side." I'm beginning to think I imagined it. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:06:59 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: NY/Norwich & Marie/Mary Its great to see the FORUM cooking with gas. Ric must go down in flames every morning when he logs on and sees a thousand posts every day. I experimented with my father who has a slight hearing loss on the saying of "New York City and Norwich City". This had a double plus not only because of the slight hearing impairment but also he had never heard of the Norwich City. Even on the first try he had difficulty distinguishing between the two. Then I tried "Marie and Mary", with the same results. His slight hearing loss substituted for the difficulty "Betty" may have had in hearing due to changes in signal strength or other interference. As more and more information becomes available, it is becoming more difficult for me to have an unbiased opinion on this source of information. I agree, for once, with Mr. Gillespie that the numbers have significant value and are not of random selection. I am anxiously awaiting the verdict of the Celestial Choir on the numbers. The message "Get the suitcase from the closet" may have been a fevered rambling, or it may have been a message to verify that she was, in fact, AE. This message would only have been recognized by Putnam. Sort of a "I know its her because she has a mole where nobody can see it" kind of thing. Fascinating stuff. LTM, (who knows where all her children's moles are) MStill #2332CE ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:32:25 EDT From: Mary Jane Subject: Re: AE & Advertising I have been reading past postings and found this one. Just a thought- Perhaps the first day covers were in the suitcase in California and that is the reference Amelia was trying to make. Mary Jane *************************************************************************** From Ric The first day covers were in airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:34:45 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: 30 Yep. 30-30 is an old journalistic and broadcast code for "end". It was used very widely both in print and spoken recordings to signify the end of a piece. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Given Earhart's exposure to the media and publishing she may have been familar with that convention. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:36:21 EDT From: Ric Subject: No forum on Monday It's 7:30 p.m. Sunday night and there are 81 forum submissions waiting to be processed and Pat and I have to be out of the office all day tomorrow for a very important funding-related meeting in Washington, DC. In a word, AAARRGH! I'll post what I can this evening and the rest will have to wait until Tuesday. Thanks for your patience. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:47:30 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: suitcase When I read the "suitcase in the clauset" reference, what popped into my mind were the many letters from Earhart cited by Jean Backus in "Letters from Amelia" (Beacon Press 1982), in which AE referred to "little checkies" enclosed in letters to her mother and sister, and otherwise implied that she did a good deal to support them financially and otherwise to share with them. So here she is, confronting death on a remote island, and she's left something for them in a suitcase in a closet, and suddenly it becomes terribly important to her to make sure George finds it and gets it to them. Very very VERY speculative, of course, but it would be interesting to find out if there's any family folklore about such a suitcase or its contents. LTM (who thinks that sharing with one's mother is a mark of excellent character) Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent thought and certainly something we should be able to find out. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:54:29 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: The usage of "Bud" In the 1930s, the name "Bud" (short for "Buddy") was commonly used as a nickname for a child who had the same name as his father. For example, John Smith Jr would be called "Bud" by his parents, Mr & Mrs John Smith. Typically, this nickname was used only within the family. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Did we ever determine for sure whether Fred had any children by his first wife? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:00:40 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook/ Authentic? Phil Tanner wrote, >And... when transcribing text from a poorly received piece just how few >words you need not to be able to hear correctly... find out subsequently you >were slightly off-beam. This is exactly the problem I have with reading too much into the numbers. Even if it was truly Earhart that Betty heard, the numbers may have been misheard: They're only significant if they can be shown to consistently correlate, beyond the opportunities of chance, with something recognizable: They prove or disprove nothing if they remain a mystery. In principle only, Betty's transcript could someday be proven to be a record of an actual AE post-loss message, with the numbers themselves forever a mystery. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric Allow me to add another caveat. What we're compelled to do in evaluating Betty's notes is exactly how psychics snooker suckers all the time. They provide cryptic general references which the gullible alter and infuse with detail to suit their desires. And that's why we say, Love to Mother Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:01:30 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: CQD "CQD" was the internationally recognized radio distress call until SOS came into common use (it was easier to send and recognize via key). The RMS Titanic's first distress call was "CQD" until the radio operator switched to "SOS. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:02:07 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: bail out For what it's worth, the term "bail-out" in Betty's transcript has always sounded like "remove the water" to me. The context makes it pretty clear. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:07:05 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: legible name on Norwich City After reading some forum posts, I asked my wife to play the "Norwich City repeated rapidly" game with me. I repeated the phrase very fast, and she did say that it could sound like "New York City". I too can report having the "hair standing on end" sensation when I first heard the similarity. Unfortunately, Betty writes in the margin, twice, "Or something that sounds like New York", Betty clearly does not say it sounded like "New York City". I still have a problem with the phrase "take it away Howland", and with the frequent repetition of "Marie". Noonan's wife's name was Mary (or Mary Bea), and I find it difficult to accept that Betty would have misread it after so many repetitions. I do have a problem with the idea that Betty may have heard the intelligible words of "a man talking with" her during part of the broadcast. Radio com mics have close field pick up ranges (cardioid type), in order to eliminate background noise. The indistinct voice of someone talking nearby might be audible, but it's a stretch to think we could hear a running conversation between two people through a single cockpit mic on a demod signal that is full of static after skipping halfway around the world. It's possible, but it would be extraordinary. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't think of a better adjective for this whole friggin' development. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:10:11 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Betty's notebook In the last two days I received about 150 postings, GEZEEEE! Ric you opened a can of worms here. I think the majority of members and subscribers agree that Betty is a neat person and their is no hoax on her part. However, this pack of wolves have raised very interesting questions regarding her notebook. Bottom line, Betty has to be approached again and INTERROGATED, and confronted with the questions the Forum has raised. I realize she is 78 years old, but she stepped into it on her own accord. Sorry, I'm taking some meds right now to calm down. ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll be INTERROGATING Betty on November 5th. We have the duct tape, rubber hose and cattle prod all set to go. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:44:51 EDT From: Ric Subject: What we did Monday There was no forum yesterday (Monday 10/9) because Pat and I spent the day in Washington, D.C. successfully negotiating a media rights agreement which will secure the basic funding for the Niku IIII expedition. There is still plenty of money left to raise to do all we'd like to do; but the agreement provides sufficient funding to cover the ship charter, airfare, and operating expenses for the preparation and execution of the expedition. Just what kind of media coverage will result has not been determined and, as with all exclusive media agreements, we have given up some degree of control over how our story is told to the public - BUT - TIGHAR has relinguished no control over the way we conduct the investigation or the expedition or how we service the TIGHAR membership (we would never do that). Never before have we had this much of a head start on funding an expedition. We plan to make the most of it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:45:11 EDT From: Ric Subject: Thoughts on a train Before I tackle the 150 (I kid you not) forum postings that have come in since Sunday night I'm going to throw out to the forum a couple of thoughts that occurred to me while riding on the train down to Washington yesterday. Duration of the event Although Betty has said that she heard the transmissions over a period of about three hours, the notations on the pages suggest to me that the period was actually only an hour and three quarters. Notice that there are no time notations on pages 1 or 2. At the top of page 3 is the notation "since 4:30" and beside it is written "5:10." I suspect strongly that these notations represent the first time that Betty decided that it might be important to keep track of how long this was going on. I think the "5:10" is the time as she begins that page and "since 4:30" is her estimation of when she heard the first transmission. At the top of page 4 is the notation "5:30" - again, the time she begins that page. Beside it is the notation "1 hr." meaning that the transmissions have now been coming in - off and on - for one hour (since 4:30). At the top of page 5 is the notation "6:00" - as before, the time she begins the page. Immediatley below it is the notation "end at 6:15" which she apparently added when she was sure that the transmissions had stopped. If this interpretation of the notations is correct, then we have good information about the length of time represented by each page. Pages 1 & 2 - 40 minutes (20 minutes per page?) Page 3 - 20 minutes Page 4 - 30 minutes page 5 - 15 minutes There are the same number of lines and more or less the same number of entries on each page suggesting that the rate of received transmissions was roughly the same for each page. If there was a time when the pauses were longer and Betty flipped to page 44 to work on her drawings (as she says she did) we would expect that time to be during page 4 when the rate of transmission was slowest. This provides a possible context into which "KGMB" and "3105" might fit. Conversely, it appears that transmissions were coming in more rapidly toward the end because page 5 ony spanned 15 minutes. That agrees with Betty's recollection that Earhart the situation sounded more frantic toward the end. What were they listening to? Here's another observation: the phrase "Here put your ear to it" certainly suggests that one person, presumably AE is trying to get the other person to listen to something by putting his ear to it. She's talking on the radio. What can the "it" be except an earphone (the plane had no speakers). She has the headphones on and she pulls one away from her head and says "Here put your ear to it." Why would she say that unless there is something to hear? They must be receiving transmissions. From whom? The only receiving antenna they have (if I'm right about the antenna usage) is the loop. Not a good long range antenna. The sending station must be quite powerful. KGMB? Are they listening to a morning news broadcast by KGMB in Hawaii? Maybe hearing news about the search? Remember, it is perfectly logical that they had KGMB's frequency and logical that they might try to tune it in. KGMB sent a message on July 4 and again on the 5th asking AE to respond on 3105 with dashes - and dashes were indeed heard. On page 2 AE says "Oh, if they could hear me". Not "Oh, if someone could hear me." Who is "they" if not the people she is listening to on the radio? Let's take this a little further. Is it possible that KGMB interviewed George Putnam and Mary Bea by phone? If so, imagine the effect if AE heard her husband's voice and Fred heard his wife. Amelia's message to George about the suitcase and Fred's repeated "Mary Bea! Mary Bea! (if that's what "Marie" really was) suddenly become less strange. Was the KGMB announcer named Bud? If so, "Hello Bud" makes sense. Perhaps what we have is one half of a non-conversation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:54:33 EDT From: John Clauss Subject: "We can't bail out" "We can't bail out" How about "We can't bail it out" referring to water entering the fuselage LTM John Clauss ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:04:39 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: CQD > From Ric > > I've held a 3rd class radio operators permit (as every pilot must have) since > 1965 I haven't until known until right now that CQD is a distress call. CQD (CQ - general call to any listener plus "D" for distress) is an ancient distress call, even for 1937. In fact, it was the original distress call when Marconi first put his contract operators on board ships. According to Herold Bride, the surviving radio operator from the Titanic (and an employee of the Marconi Corporation vice the White Star Line), he and Jack Phillips (the other Titanic radio operator) at first transmitted CQD when Cpt. Smith told them to send a distress call. Later, Jack suggested to Herold to use the new SOS signal which had just been established (easier to send and to understand; easily distinguishable from a regular CQ). Tradition has it that the Titanic was the first vessel to use the new SOS vice CQD. That was in 1912. LTM Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Marty Moleski The change from CQD to SOS took place right around the time that the Titanic went down. I believe the Titanic was one of the first ships in distress to use the new SOS convention. http://www.execpc.com/~shepler/cqd.html Marty *************************************************************************** From tom Robison CQD was the accepted distress call amongst seagoing Marconi operators until the new international morse code signals came into use ca. 1912. Recall that on the Titanic, Bride told Phillips, as he was transmitting CQD, "try the new call, old man, it may be the last time you'll be able to use it" or words to that effect. Thence Phillips switched over to sending "SOS". Tom ************************************************************************* From Renaud Well, for what it's worth, from my recollections, CQD was the first wireless telegraph distress call for boats when the first Marconi devices were fitted on luxury steamers( first decade of 20th century). That is the message wich was first sent by the Radio operator of RMS Titanic, Phillips, on this famous and fateful night of april 1912... It was soon afterwards replaced by the "save our soul"(SOS) new signal,while the steamboat was finally foundering... Very much easier to pick up... tatata...ta...ta...ta...tatata... So after the tragedy, i guess that SOS overtook on CQD in radio use. LTM ************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy I believe that CQD was the old, pre-SOS distress call. In fact, I can remember reading someplace that the TITANIC (c. 1912) was one of the first to send an SOS. According to the story I read, one of the wireless operators aboard the vessel began sending CQD, and was then immediately corrected by the head operator and told to send SOS, as that had just been instituted. Of course, there are 25 years between the TITANIC and the Electra, so by 1937 I can't think of any reason someone would still mistakenly send CQD. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Raymond Brown I have heard of CQD before.It supposedly stands for "Come Quick{ly} Danger " I am quite sure that is not currently a recognized or official distress signal, and I doubt if it ever was. LTM Raymond Brown *************************************************************************** From Ric From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: CQD was a distress call used prior to 1912. It was superseded by SOS just before the Titanic disaster. In fact the Titanic was one of the first ships ever to use it. CQD was not, I think, used in the 1930s. By the way, CQD and SOS were/are RADIOTELEGRAPH prowords. I am not sure when the radiotelephone distress proword MAYDAY came into use. It was a sort of adaptation of the French "M'aidez" = "help me." LTM (who took Latin, and always confused her French verbs with Latin ones) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag It is my understanding that CQD was designated for ship radio operators to use as an official SOS in the early century. The first time it was ever used was by radio operator Jack Phillips on the night the Titanic sank. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Renaud Suprisingly, Earhart used the word SOS instead of Mayday. If someone knows when the words "emergency" and "mayday" were first used in radio broadcast ? LTM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:08:59 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: bail out > Whoa! It sounds like "bail out" only gained enugh recognition to make it > into the dictionary AFTER WWII. The dictionary gleans its etymologies from the first time a word or phrase turns up in print. Etymologies thus arrived at are usually conservative on the more recent side. I'm sure "bail out" in the original jumping-out-of-an-airplane-in-an-emergency definition was around before 1951. The staff of Merriam Webster was just unable to find it in print before 1951. The term may have been a part of aviation jargon (and not in general use) for some time prior. I'm not being much help, am I? LTM Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Ric Actually that does help. Given the extreme popularity of aviation throughout the 20s and 30s it's hard to believe that "bail out", if it was a term in common use, would not appear in print well before WWII. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:10:36 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Too many miracles > Why do you have a hard time believing that somebody might, under those > circumstances, yell at somebody else in the middle of a radio transmission? Alright, i'll admit that is possible. That also a repeat was broadcast for afternoon listeners. That instead of a close -to-the-lips aircraft microphone, a carbon microphone intended not to favor ambient sounds, a broadcast microphone was provided. That the transmitter was mistuned enuff, that the limited power it developed on the 2nd or 3rd harmonic carried to Florida and Maine. That altho the transmission was certainly below 20 MHz (home radio, remember), the signal touched down in the USA in only scattered locales (like CB or other 27-50 MHz stuff), and thus heard only by a very few listeners, or else the calls were more widely heard and ignored by the many shortwave radio listeners and the hobby magazines around in those days. (Too many miracles for me.) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:11:33 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: hams on Howland Were not the calls associated somehow with Howland in the notebook? Seems like the hamstation call would start with KH6. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:13:59 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: radio recreation > From Ric > This recreation thing could be tricky but also very interesting. We would > actually be creating a "radio play" from Betty's "script." There is a person in Seattle, namely Jim French, who is currently writing radio dramas and producing two per month, as far as i know, and these are recorded before an audience in Seattle, and then enter the playlist of "Imagination Theater" to be broadcast over AM stations on weekend nites. This is probably way premature, while the issue is still being studied, but it eventually might be worth a try to bring the notebook log to his attention. I do have to say, altho he could do an excellent job in production, he would probably have to add some dramatic twist or some paranormal element ( maybe something along the lines of "Bermuda Triangle" business) to make it viable radio drama, basing the story on the notebook log, and you might not be happy with this direction. Also, i should mention that he seems interested in aviation stories, and there's at least 3 i can recall, if i may generalize, they go along the lines of ghost airplanes or ghost distress signals (really), one on a strange dimension-bending island. Some of his stories are set right around 1940, so that time frame would not be a stretch for him to produce. I do think he would find the notebook pretty darn interesting, authentic reception or not. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric ...a strange dimension-bending island...yeah, I know where that is. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:15:04 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: N.Y Does the NY address listed for AE in the 1937 Berne List of aircraft callsigns, have anything to do with this placename being in the message? Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Beats me. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:17:13 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: betty's notebook In regards to Betty's notebook I put these thoughts to the forum could " here put your ear to it" refer to a bandage or cloth?if Noonan was injured she may have been tell him to apply pressure to a wound on the side of his head..Especially in lieu of the fact Betty feels Noonan had a head injury.Did the Electra have shoulder belts or just Lap belts as seat restraints? When she says "we can't bail out" Is she referring to bailing out the plane.To what end would they try,the plane was obviously sinking isn't it more than possible the surf action was to strong to risk exiting the plane with Noonan injured.especially a head injury involving the ear which would make him unbalanced. the phrases of "where are you going? "we can't bail out" "see" seems to me a way of saying you can't go anywhere in your condition(injured).later as the water rose she may not have been given the choice of waiting. If Noonan did have a head injury his meaning to words would be incoherent depending on the severity of his injury. the discussion of Marie and Mary is a good example.Anyone who has been drunk can confirm that one does not think clearly when your head is in another world. "Marie hey" translates to Mary Bea very nicely depending on the coherency of the person saying the words.I still have trouble with Adriana and Andrea when I'm sober let alone when I've had a few.Imaging having a head injury. It would be difficult to make sense of the meaning of the few words because Betty had intermittent contact and may have missed entire sentences or key words that would change the meanings of sentences.As in "bob"could be a persons name or just part of a sentence that faded out as in --"help us quick--(Noonan says something we can't hear)--I can feel it-- your right--the plane is bobbing(example)--we'll get out in a minute(example)--come here just a moment.Again with Noonan injured,not thinking clearly trying to escape the plane Amelia may have tried to wait till the last minute to exit to keep transmitting,and said "come here just a moment to keep him in the plane. I get the impression that Amelia was caught between trying to raise someone on the radio(or trying to keep broadcasting so they could get a fix on their position) and from keeping a injuried and disoriented Noonan From leaving the aircraft and/or hurting himself. I don't think I'll risk my suitcase in the closet or my other head injury theories as I caused enough trouble for today. LTM Richard Lund ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:19:18 EDT From: Warren lambing Subject: Re: "Betty" Tuning Around the Band? Ric wrote: > As I understand it, she stopped when she heard the woman's voice and did > not change frequencies after that unless perhaps to make fine adjustments. That makes sense. First when you pick up a weak signal on a old receiver you stay with, just a slight turn of the radio dial and you will lose the signal and the odds are you won't find it again. However because it is a tube set, it will change frequency well it warms up, you won't notice it on the regular AM band, but on the shortwave bands it make a big difference, while the set is warming up you need to make minor changes to stay on the frequencies and you get use to it, the set I listen to the most, I need to adjust just a slight bit, always is the same direction up the dial, and only a very slight turn, but you can tell by the way it sounds and it only takes about 15 minutes for the set to warm up and then it stays on frequency. Warren ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:21:08 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: Others who heard AE? Ric, For what it may be worth my review of Randy's Radio disc, shows Howland I. reported hearing a Japanese Broadcasting Station on 3105 kHz at: 05:18 July5 (15:48 Z, July 5) - Distinct Japanese MUSIC 20:22 July 5 (06:52 Z July 6) - weak carrier on and off (Japanese Broadcast Station) 00:30 July 6 (11:00 Z July 6) - Poorly modulated Japanese Broadcast Station close to 3105 00:50 July 6 (11:20 Z July 6) - Japanese Broadcasting Station causing WW (interference?) 01:35 July 6 (12:05 Z July 6) - Still on the air 02:00 July 8 (12:30 A July 8) - Weak Japanese station 02:45 July 10 (13:15 Z July 10) - MUSIC from Japanese Station 03:30 July 12 (14:00 Z July 12) - Weak CW carrier from Jap Station Knowing I'd seen these messages last winter, I used the "Find" command and this is what turned up. Other CG/Navy stations may have heard Japanese broadcasts but either couldn't identify the origin or simply found them irrelevant to the task at hand. Isn't it interesting that a Japanese station was playing music (caps, above, mine) on 3105 kHz at roughly the time of day Mrs. Lovelace reported in her letter to you. The frequency may or may not mean much. In later years (say the 1940s) many foreign stations broadcast the same program on several different freqs simultaneously. They may have done so in '37. Changing the subject back to Betty: don't know what Mike E. and Bob B. can make of Harry Poole's data on Betty's (possible) antenna, but I think the directional orientation is just fine for what she reported hearing - hope this thread turns out to be genuine. Certainly makes one sad that nobody "bought" it 63 years ago. LTM Bill Moffet #2156 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:28:36 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: KGMB and Chronology Do you know what day and time KGMB sent it message to AE, also do you know what frequency KGMB sent it's message out. If Betty did hear AE mention KGMB, then you have to assume AE heard KGMB, it also seems safe to assume that if Betty heard AE mention KGMB, that she would have been transmitting on the same frequency KGMB sent the message out. Would it make sense that AE would transmitt on one frequency, and have her reciever tune to another frequency? Not likely, you want to transmitt and listen for a reply on the same frequency, you would only change frequency if you had someone request you to tramsitt on a different frequency and then if you did'nt hear them reply on that frequency, you would go back to where you first heard them. Thanks for the reply to my transmitter question, after you sent the time that Betty heard the transmission and the time AE would have to send it, I have to aggree with other members of the forum, I thinks the odds of signal on those frequencies and that time of day, are zero. However as I mention several months ago, there are some new therories on the Equator and how it affects radio propagation, and I don't think I will much success at this, but I will see I find some information out there at least see if I can find the group working on the new theroies (who knows by now they may have proven there own theroies false). Regards. Warren Lambing *************************************************************************** From Ric Sending on one frequency and receiving on another was standard practice at that time. Earhart couldn't possibly have transmitted on KGMB frequency. She only had three transmit frequencies -3105, 6210, and 500. Whether genuine or overheard hoax, it's not hard to understand why nobody would take Betty (or who knows how many other listeners we don't know about?) seriously in 1937. Look how many people we have right here on this forum - people, by definiton, who are particularly interested in the Earhart disappearance - who can't seem to accept the idea that message even COULD be genuine. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:33:00 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Noonan's charts Fred Goerner established that AE/FN carried a copy of the U.S. NAVAL PACIFIC AIR PILOT. A "highly classified, registered document . . . . provided by Capt. William Satterlee Pye, USN, who later became a Vice Admiral . . . ." "It contained climate conditions and prevailing winds for most of the Pacific Ocean areas, along with descriptions of all islands that possibly could be used for emergency landings." .... "If Amelia and Fred could not find Howland, one of the Phoenix Islands would provide the closest alternate [a bone for TIGHAR!]. Canton Island, twenty times the size of Howland, would be their best bet." If you could locate a 1937 edition of P.A.P., one suspects there would be a reference to the NORWICH CITY under "Gardner Island". Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Just because Goerner said that he had established that they carried the document doesn't mean they carried the document. Goerner "established" all kinds of things that weren't true. What's his source? I'll bet you'll find that somebody told him they had it on board. That was usually good enough for Goerner. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:35:55 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Noonan's Uncle Bob? Ric wrote: >>The Noonan bio material you cite is fairly, but not entirely, accurate. Perhaps some of our Noonan Project experts would care to comment.<< A little Noonan history in reply to the generally published data. GENERALLY PUBLISHED (and this is pretty representative of what was usually in newspaper accounts of the time and also what's in many Earhart books) - While Fred Noonan was known for his navigational skills in the air, he actually began his career at sea. In 1908 he ran away from home to become a sailor and spent years exploring the globe by boat, rounding the Horn of Africa seven times and working aboard Britain's largest square-rigged ship, the Crompton. During World War I, Noonan served in the Merchant Navy in the North Atlantic and was torpedoed three times. He returned to school to learn navigation. While attending the Weems School of Navigation in Annapolis, he became interested in a career in aerial navigation. In 1925 he was hired by Pan American Airways as a flight navigator and navigational teacher. What we have been able to find out/confirm: The first sentence is true. We don't know whether he "ran away" from home. He left Chicago in 1906. His first ship out of Seattle was the Bark Hecla. He was aboard the Crompton in 1910, his second ship. Don't know how many times he went round the Horn. He was in the N. Atlantic in WWI as merchant seaman. A ship he was supposed to be on was torpedoed, he missed it. No confirmation of other incidents. We have been through all of Weems' records and found no evidence he attended the school and Weems, himself, never says he did (and he was not shy in his mention of famous flyers he taught, like Lindbergh). He was hired by the New York, Rio & Buenos Aires Line a few months before it was merged with PAA in 1930. His first job with PAA was not as a navigator or navigational instructor. All this, and more, is in the Eighth Edition CD when Mr. Gillespie makes it available. blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:40:01 EDT From: Vern Subject: 1937 microphone We have a lot of problems with that microphone. What was the situation in 1937? I think quite a lot of effort has gone into designing microphones for use on aircraft and in other noisy locations. How much had been done in 1937? Were they pretty much ordinary microphones -- about what you would find in a telephone of the same period? That push-to-talk switch... Could it have been of a sort that could be locked down? I can see that being of some advantage when the pilot has to be doing other things and doesn't want to be distracted by having to maintain pressure on the switch. I'm NOT suggesting locking the switch down for hours at a time but, perhaps, for two or three minutes at a time. And maybe they WERE "watching that battery" and starting and running an engine for a while before the battery was too low to start it. *************************************************************************** From Ric I've never heard of a push-to-talk that could be locked down but I've heard plenty of green pilots forget to let go of it when they got upset. Earhart was certainly not a green pilot, but she was green to radio. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:40:53 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Betty's Notes >We have a possible burst of communication several days after their >disappearance. Three hours of intermittent transmission indicates that they >haven't used much, if any, of their fuel for communication on any of the >preceding days. Why the sudden burst? The water is rising is one answer. >But why so much fuel remaining? Why not several hours of communication each >day? Maybe they wanted to conserve the fuel, either for cooking or for a >flight to another island. Maybe there were transmissions before and after those heard by Betty. She didn't happen to tune across the frequency at a time to hear something on those other days. Maybe the skip wasn't working for the Florida area at other times. We have to keep in mind that this is avery unlikely set of conditions and of coincidence for Betty to have heard it at all at one particular time. Just very lucky, if it's real. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:45:32 EDT From: Leslie Kinney Subject: Earhart's disappearance in general I posted on your forum previously, concerning Earhart's takeoff at Lae - offering observations concerning the takeoff film. I became fascinating with Earhart's disappearance over 30 years ago, I have pursued the mystery of her disappearance ever since. My career as a federal agent,has helped me to some degree, analyze and evaluate information reviewed from archives,and books concerning her fate. I was also fortunate to "work" and liaison with the agency heads of local law enforcement in the South Pacific during several years of the 1980's - being stationed in Honolulu at the time. I traveled extensively to many remote islands throughout the South Pacific asking questions when appropriate, which did not interfere with my official duties. My ultimate goal was to write a historical novel based upon her disappearance. Hopefully it will be completed - sometime before the next millennium. I commend TIGHAR for your web site and forum postings - the information you have amassed could never have been accomplished without the world wide web and the commitment of TIGHAR and its contributors. Unfortunately, my assessment of her fate runs contrary to your presumption she met her end on Nikumaroro. There is just too much passion by TIGHAR and no evidence of any kind that she met her fate there that you could actually physically link Earhart to this island. If you can name me one piece of physical evidence positively attributed to her or Noonan which could be accepted by historians I would like to know what it is. I am not trying to be confrontational - TIGHAR has done an absolute marvelous job of collecting every type of data about Earhart's historic voyage and made it available to the public. OUTSTANDING. I firmly believe the theory she landed in the Marshall's - I firmly believe she was originally discovered by the Japanese, and held by them for an indefinite period of time. Although I did not personally interview Bilamon Amaran, while in Majuro, Marshall Islands before he died, (I kick myself for this over and over) I did corroborate his veracity and truthfulness from Mr. Reimers. Mr. Reimers, the life long business man from Majuro had no axe to grind for telling about the reputation of Amaran. Reimers account of the events of 1937, are pretty much as reported. Since other local corroboration in the Marshall's threads itself so well with the Amaran interviews,I believe it has to be given a very high degree of credibility. As an investigator, I believe there is just too much antedotal evidence which taken in its entirety lead me to believe Earhart went down near Mili Atoll and was picked up by the Japanese. The "smoking gun" lies hidden in the bowels of dust encrusted boxes somewhere in Tokyo - there is much more to this story - trust me. Leslie Kinney *************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you for that refreshing antidote to our passion. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:49:18 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: The notebook - random thoughts Harry Poole wrote:- >But what struck me was that her name listed in the phone book (which was not Betty) >had the name Betty written in the margin, next to her name. Just to clarify, Harry :- I know Betty's name isn't actually "Betty", but are you saying that the literal "Betty" was written beside Betty's entry in the 1942 phone book ? If so, this would imply that either "Betty" is an obvious alias, or perhaps a nickname and the marks were made by someone who knew her well - or that the marks were made by one of our own flock ? Or a reluctant third conculsion - someone's laying a trail for us ? LTM SImon #2120 *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty's given name is Helen. Betty is her middle name and the name she has always gone by. It now seems likely that the notations were made by someone doing a background check on her during the war when she was working as a switchboard operator and had to be bonded for government work. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:53:26 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Bail out The term "bail out" coming into common usage in 1951 just didn't sound right to me. I have a book entitled "Marine Fighting Squadron Nine (VF-9M) by Jess C. Barrow. On pages 76 thru 78, while the Squadron was performing in an air show in Miami on 1-5-33, one of the aircraft went out of control at low altitude. The pilot ( 1st Lt. Glen M. Britt) left the airplane and was saved when his chute opened just before he hit the ground. Later Britt was escorted to the announcer's stand and interviewed. The announcer said "Ladies and gentlemen, I have here a very lucky man. This is Lt Jimmy Britt, the Marine pilot that just bailed out of his airplane. I will check other books for similar quotes. Marty Joy 0724C ************************************************************************** From Ric Now we're getting somewhere. When was the book published? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:56:04 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: The number 8983638 > From Ric > > I wonder if Earhart would be cynical enough to worry about being mistaken for > a hoaxer. A potential hoax may not have been considered possible. I'd assume AE (and FN, for that matter) would use some confirmable bit of data to assure that they weren't mistaken for someone else. No, I don't have anything similar I use, except maybe for my name at birth (I'm adopted), and practically no one knows that. LTM (known as "Mom" to everyone significant) Michael Holt ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:57:42 EDT From: Jim Van Hare Subject: head injuries Hi, some random thoughts concerning Betty's notebook entries: Patients of mine who had experienced a recent head injury often had slurred speech as well as confused speech, and sometimes they had problems speaking the word they actually wanted to say. It would not be surprising for Mary Bea to be slurred as Mar'-Bea or Mar'-'ea. Similarly, a brain injured person might want to say Mary Bea but actually say Marie . . . or Uncle . . . or Bob . . . or Bud . . . or toaster, for that matter. As a child in the 1930s I sometimes used the neighbor's phone and it was very common for a phone number to be listed as REgency 4-2300 or PEnnsylvania 6-5000 (Hotel Pennsylvania, later the Statler when I was in my twenties --- ah, the Rainbow Room and memories to warm a Golden Oldie's heart). So I think the idea of an exchange that sounds like 89 is a very good one, as in GRapevine8-3638 (just an example --- probably no such exchange as GRapevine ever existed). For the conspiracy lovers: All those numbers are codes for the real numbers of the Swiss accounts where the government's payments to AE were deposited, and the key to the code was in AE's suitcase in the closet . . . Sorry! Couldn't resist . . . Jim Van Hare http://www.bodyandmind.com (a little plug for my medical web site) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:59:52 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Bail out Could Kerry Tiller's dating of the term be a mis-print or typo? Could he have meant 1931 instead of 51? I've found another reference to "Bailing out" dated 1934. (The Armchair Aviator, John Thorn, page 242) Marty Joy 0724C ************************************************************************** From Ric Again, is this a book published in 1934 or a direct quote from something published in 1934? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:48:22 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Credibility Assessment Matrix As I see the process of assessing 'Betty's' message, it looks something like this: 1. Seek anachronisms in the related pages 2. Reconstruct transmission 3. Assess content Therefore I want to look ahead to the issue of content assessment. What follows is an attempt to clarify the assessment process by getting criteria and definitions "on the table". It is unlikely that everyone can agree on criteria, or agree on the relative importance of specific criteria. However, if a discussion begins without some framework confusion seems likely. Already some postings have identified possible "categories" to characterize the notebook contents, and I think I saw: Real Transmission From AE and FN "Ham Hoax" Pirate Radio, transmitted hoax by noncommercial radio Dramatization Radio play, transmitted by commercial radio station 'Betty' Hoax Made up by 'Betty' Maybe (surely) there are some I missed. The 'Betty' Hoax is early discounted but included for completeness. Already I see "characteristics" of these categories being cited and used for assessment. The following matrix is created to identify some of those characteristics and compare the categories based on those characteristics. Note that in some categories a characteristic may have a broad range of values, therefore it may not be a particularly good determinant of that category. Poorly-characterized categories may also be indicators of poorly defined categories, which require division into finer and more descriptive categories. Of course, the "Real Transmission" category will have more variability in its characteristics than the "Dramatization" category. On the other hand this type of analysis may identify some characteristics as critical indicators. Therefore, here's a straw man matrix: REAL TRANSMISSION "HAM HOAX" DRAMATIZATION 'BETTY' HOAX MUSIC NO UNLIKELY YES NO 3 HRS LONG POSSIBLE POSSIBLE NO UNLIKELY COMMERCIALS NO NO YES NO CLEAR RECEPTION UNLIKELY POSSIBLE LIKELY POSSIBLE STORY LINE NO YES YES YES CLEAR MULTIPLE UNLIKELY YES YES YES VOICES DRAMATIC ACTION POSSIBLE YES YES LIKELY CLEAR STATEMENT LIKELY LIKELY YES UNLIKELY OF LOCATION SPECIFIC SITUATION YES-TO-LIKELY LIKELY YES YES DETAILS SPECIFIC PERSONAL POSSIBLE-TO-LIKELY POSSIBLE YES POSSIBLE DETAILS "OCCULT" SITUATION LIKELY NO NO NO DETAILS "OCCULT" PERSONAL POSSIBLE NO NO NO DETAILS "Occult" does not refer to magic, only a compact notation for information "hidden" from the vast majority of contemporaries. (Sorry about the poor format on the matrix. It would have been far superior to attach a file with proper formatting. Vertical column alignment will be a function of your local selection of font and font size; it is likely that you will have to insert or remove spaces or tabs to recover a coherent matrix) I expect that everyone who reads that matrix will disagree with one or more of my characterization-values. That is part of the beauty of this formalism because the discussion can then find a focus. If we can't get something like consensis of what these categories will be like, it is unlikely that we can share conclusions that result. This type of discussion has already started, with the discussion that some sort of location should have been available for broadcast and therefore real transmissions should have that characteristic. Another advantage is that it lets us identify the logic we are intuitively using: For example, one might say that the apparent lack of a coherent story line is an indication that this is a "Real Transmission" because the alternatives are likely to have a story line. Also, intuitively, almost everyone seems keen to spot the "occult" details that would strongly indicate "Real Transmission" because few outside the participants would know them. Finally, it may show places where categories are "degenerate", not distinguished: For example, this set of characteristics does not seem to strongly distinguish "Real Transmission" from "Ham Hoax". The solution is to find more definitive characteristics or admit that the cases cannot be distinguished. In conclusion, I have attempted to organize the logic some of the credibility asessment posted so far. I see two features: 1. Some people have intuitively focused on characteristics that would support a conclusion of "Real Transmission" if found. It is probably not wishful thinking. If it finds the pony, they get the first ride. 2. It is not clear from the discussion so far that we can strongly distinguish between a "Ham Hoax" and a "Real Transmission" based on internal content. Of course post-loss hoaxes were recorded so this is not a new problem. John Pratt (2373) ************************************************************************** From Ric I really like this approach. Perhaps we need to put up an accurately aligned matrix on the TIGHAR website that we can then modify by consensus. I shall discuss this with the omnipotent webmistress. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:52:25 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Origin of LOP hypothesis Wandering on the web searching for entries concerning Gardner Island and Norwich City wrecrage, i found this one: http://www.kalamazoo.net/c-comm/mtsee/earhart.htm Down the page there are severals entries: CLICK HERE: There, two authors are talking about the origin of the LOP hypothesis. They said that, from their point of view, the 337/157 LOP theory was first elaborated in the book "Amelia Earhart lives". They didn't mention TIGHAR and the wonderful work you made so far. VONSTOMPENHEIMER REPORT: I don't know if you knew this one, but it is strongly recommended if you want to have... a good laugh. I guess that we had very busy days with the amazing " Betty's notebook", so i propose it... Is that fanciful enough ? ;O) The notice " Caveat emptor" and the price are self explanatory... LTM ( who loves taking a big break... ) Renaud Dudon #2366 *************************************************************************** From Ric As we all know by now (right?) the LOP hypothesis was first developed by the U.s. Navy on the evening of July 2, 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:55:07 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: The number 8983638 Ric wrote: > I wonder if Earhart would be cynical enough to worry about being mistaken for > a hoaxer. She would be if, while listening for a response to her legitimate calls, heard one of the hoaxers! Imagine THAT frustration. LTM Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:56:50 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Re: NACA Cowl, exaust thrust Birch Matthews wrote : "The only other thrust augmentation device I can think of relates to the exhaust nozzle designs used on liquid-cooled engine installations." (1944) Prototypes for the Republic XF12 Rainbow used a system to route exhaust and supercharger and accessory waste gases to an oval 'jet pipe' exhaust installation on (4) R-4360-31's which gained 250 to 300 HP per engine. (no idea what the metric equivant is there) Rather than having individual cowl flaps the entire nacelle was equipped with a sliding ring arrangement and internal variable speed fan for cooling air on the cylinder heads. The Rainbow was purpose built as a Strategic Reconnaissance aircraft (the F designation in 1940's USAAF-speak was for reconnaissance) The USAAF and later USAF decided to stay with the F13 (modified B29's) , redesignated RB29's after 1948. XF12s were significantly faster in cruise than the F13-RB29's (220mph vs. 380mph) (350kph vs 615 kph) with near 4000 (6430km) mile range and a service ceiling in excess of 40,000 ft, (12km) and had an onboard photo processing lab. The two prototypes were redesignated XR12 by 1948. Neither survives today. One is at the bottom of the gulf of Mexico, the other ended as a target on the Aberdeen proving grounds in the late 1940s or early 1950s. Republic proposed a passenger verssion,(PanAm ordered six) 46 passengers, 7 crew, 400mph (640kph) over 3500 miles (5600km) but never got enough additional orders to cover development costs. I think Republics Rainbow still holds the unofficial record for four engine piston speed at arround 460mph.(740kph) the design goal was sometimes referred to as "flying on all fours" 4 engines, 400mph cruise, 4000 miles at 40,000 feet. (Its not nearly so lyrical converted to metric, so I wont) LTM (who knows this has nothing to do with AE or FN, et.al.) Bill Zorn ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:59:16 EDT From: Ed Subject: Re: N.Y./Re-creation? Yes, I Understood the idea of the possibility mistranscription, it prompted the thought to attempt a re-broadcast, i.e., test the propogation possibilities. Why not? Even with new gear set in the harmonic range of AE's set from Gardiner, it may show that a channel or duct still exists. EMF flows very much like water and the stream bed may still exist to this day. It may be worth a try just to see if St.Petersburg (any location) is reachable. Keep up the effort! The evidence is there, just not found yet! Best regards, Ed of Port St. Lucie *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not a radio guy (as Cam delights in pointing out) but I don't think it works that way. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:03:24 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Broadly Applicable tides? > From Ric > Feel free to ask them. The tidal data for Canton are interesting. I know the tide thing has become one of your equine fatalities, but it is still sort of relevant. If you do want to find what the tide was doing in 1937, and are comfortable that the Canton predictions are close, all you have to do is take a tide table for Canton with you on TIGHAR IIII. Compare the Canton times with the Niku times for High and Low. The difference in time should be pretty constant regardless of year, or season etc. So high tide at Niku will always be about 2.5 hours (or whatever) before or after high tide at Canton on any given day. The time obviously depends on the distance East, but it also depends on the lattitude of the two places. I may get a workable approximate difference for our purposes if I know the distance East between Canton and Niku, and also the Distance South - Nautical Miles. It will be a little out but might be fairly useable after interpolating data from similar distances. Th WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The problem I have with this kind of extrapolation is that, inevitably, if the results come out like you want them to be you proclaim that the process is infallible. If they come out different than you prefer, you find all kinds of reasons that the data are flawed. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:08:26 EDT From: Ed Subject: supply cache Maybe the cache of supplies left there made a reference to the name of the shipwreck being that of the Norwich City? Best regards, Ed Of PSL *************************************************************************** From Ric If they made reference to anything it seems like it would be the names of the rescue vessels that provided them - the Lincoln Ellsworth and the Trongate. However, the lifeboats of the NC did wash ashore more or less intact. Do life boats traditionally bear the name of the ship they're from? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:12:25 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: A safe landing on Gardner Island ? Wouldn' t the suggestion of a head - injured Fred militate somewhat against the theory of a safe , intact arrival on the reef flat ? It would suggest to me a "nose over " at least, grinding the prop. blades into the coral. Not a good outlook for running an engine to charge the batteries. LTM [ Whose landings were always of the smoothest....] Raymond Brown. *************************************************************************** From Ric A valid point, but hardly a disqualifier. Predicting who gets injured and how in rough landing or minor accident is a crap-shoot. The Electra had seat belts but no shoulder harness. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:15:17 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Broadly Applicable tides? TIGHAR is always espousing the scientific approach to their investigations. From that we can assume that detailed logs and journals exist for each expedition. The tide height is of lesser importance, but in view of the "Betty" notebook, the tide TIMES have again become an issue. In my previous post I suggested using tide times from Niku IIII, but all we have to do is compare the times of High and Low tide on the days of each previous expedition with the historical data for the same tide times at Kanton (Canton - whichever is correct). Add the variation to the computed times for the dates in July 37 and we have a workable estimate! Th' WOMBAT (If you want Ric, I'll do the comparisons - you supply the tide times for the expeditions) ************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry WOMBAT, we're not THAT scientific. We're too busy whacking scaevola to note the time and height of the tides. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:17:09 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: legible name on Norwich City << I'm beginning to think I imagined it. >> I don't think so, because I think I remember you talking about it shortly after finding it, but then, I may be imagining that.... LTM (who reminds us that she's imaginary) TK *************************************************************************** From Ric This is ridiculous. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:18:39 EDT From: Vern Subject: What was not said As Phil Tanner has pointed out, we can't know what may have been transmitted that was not received. Or, in this case, that Betty was not able to get written down. And what is missing could make all the difference. A textbook example... IF, we're right about NY being "Norwich City" On one line we have: "Norwich City, Norwich City, Norwich City" On the next line we have: "Oh, if they could hear me" The second line suggests an effort to contact a specific entity -- "they" rather than "someone" or some other more general term. BUT... there is no way to know how much time passed between those two lines or what may have been transmitted but not received -- or not written down. It might make a lot of sense if we knew what was said immediately before that second line... or immediately after. What we have appears to be "bracketed" by NY's, but that may be an illusion. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:19:39 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re; 30 Earhart may have been familiar with the "30-30" convention, but the notebook does not record 30-30, it just says "30", and this symbol was generally used only as an end signal for journalistic reports (usually print, sometimes audio). It would have been entirely inappropriate for an emergency radio broadcast from a beached plane in the Central Pacific. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:38:33 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Norwich City The NC , like most rusting hulks would be a terrible place to hole up in. However, It is a very common occurrence in stranded and/or shipwreck situations to seek out a safe haven. The NC would have been their most obvious FIRST stop. It offered some sort of shelter (even though it would have proved to be a very bleak shelter). However, it has been proven that survivors will suffer initially until they can assess their situation. This is further enhanced if one or both of them are injured. They most definately needed time to gather their thoughts and monitor their potential "rescue area" ... where the Electra went down. The hypothesis that TIGHAR has presented lends to the probability that AE and FN spent some time aboard the NC ... even if just for a few days. The other part of the equation is if one of them was seriously injured and dies of their injuries early after the crash ... chances are they would have died aboard the NC in a galley, wheelhouse or even the bowels of the ship where the water would help keep the temperatures down. If we believe the Hypothosis put forth by TIGHAR, we must then take the situation that initial step further and incorporate proven survival instinct mentality. Those instincts based on 3 important factors lead to an initial shelter period (and possibly a death aboard the NC). The 3 things that AE and FN would be looking for after a horific crash and being thrust into survival mode would be: 1) Initial Shelter 2) Food & Medical Supplies 3) Base camp within site of the "rescue area" Granted, with familiarization of their predicament they may wande farther away in search of food, and to search the islands for help. But you can be assured that they stayed close to that "rescue area" until all hope was lost that they would be rescued ... I would say it probably took a month for the reality that nobody was coming and they had to face the fact that they are now marooned with little hope of immediate rescue. It is at this point that the "survivalist mode" kicks in and alternate plans are made. If you take the hypothesis again and the finding of what is believed to be AE's bones on the SE part of the Island then she was most likely into this "survivalist mode" when she died. Which in my opinion could have been from 1 month to about 3 months after the crash. After an extended period (more than 3 months) survivors usually begin building more permanent and extended base camps. No indication has been made that such an extended base camp existed. The only mention is of a fire ring and bones of dead birds in Geralds report. Thus, I contend that (based upon the hypothisis AND survival mentality AND the disvcovery of the bones and the site therto THEN I would place a timeframe of 1-3 month survival and closer to the 1 month than the 3 month. I also contend (based again on the hypothisis and above know facts of the bones of one person being found) that one died much earlier than the other. If injured badly in the crash ... within days. Another clue is that no rings, jewelry, coins or distinguishing relics are found near the body. This is not as unusual as may seem. Many survivors leave such relics behind in a conspicuous place along with notes or identifers (wedding rings, coins of their origin, diaries, log books, scribbled letters/notes, etc). the consipuous object that commands the attention of anyone coming onto Niku must logically be the NC! In brief summary and trying to piece together as much as can be derived from information gathered and accepting the TIGHAR crash location hypothosis ...my early scenario of the survival scene would be: 1. AE & FN crash near to the NC 2. One or both are injured 3. One (probably FN) has serious injuries 4. AE & FN lose the Electra to the tides, gather up as much as they can carry and struggle ashore. 5. AE & FN decide to take refuge on the NC until they can fully assess their situation. Continued .... Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:25:22 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Norwich City (Page 2) 6) Any salvage material that can be saved is taken on board the NC . 7) Within hours to days one dies of injuries and/or the complications of those injuries (probably FN) and if his injuries were severe enough to limit his mobility, he most likely died aboard the NC. 8) AE, (now alone) stays close to, if not on the NC for a period of time and slowly explores the surrounding area. Perhaps finding the survival billett on the island (thus she has in her possession water container with cork and chain) 9) Hope is fading of a rescue imminent and a larger exploration field is made. AE finally makes her way to the S.E. portion of the Island. She sets up a base camp probably consisting of a fire circle and temporary sleeping area. 10) AE dies for one reason or another, perhaps a result of injuires/complications of her crash injuries. She dies at her base camp on the S.E. sector of the island. The body, fire circle, and bird bones are covered with sand by wind gusts and sand movement. 11) Maude and Bevington arrive on the Island in October 1937 and Bevington and group pf natives make their walk ( a basic exploration walk) and see nothing of any life nor the remains that are now buried under sand drifts. 12) Late 1939/1940 HEAVY storms hit the region (as per Gerald's letter to Maude 20 Dec. 1939) "... we just had 3 weeks of violent westerly weather ..." he goes on to say that further bad weather is expected. 13) Above noted storms blow sand in the S.E. portion of the Island and uncover the body and camp site and possibly topple the "kanawa" tree that stood not far from the remains. 14) Early 1940 March/April/May a work party of natives find the remains camp. 15) August 4, 1940 Gerald arrives on the Island and the story of the bones and subsequent flurry of telegrams begin. Taking into account that Gerald's initial thoughts are that these are the bones of Amelia Earhart. 16) The "kanawa" coffin is made from the tree that was "until about a year ago growing on the edge of the lagoon not very far from where the deceased was found" 17) The bones leave Gardner for Suva. CONCLUSION: The above is only an extended view of the hypothosis of the Garner reef crash of the AE/ FN Electra. It does take into consideration some facts, some speculation and incorporates some very reliable patterns that are known to be consistantly evident in survival scenarios. I believe that the "Norwich City" MAY hold some very important clues that AE and FN did land on the reef at Gardner and the story of their presence (whether the aforementioned view, or any other view) on the island can be substantiated by factual exhibits. The N.C. in my opinion has the potential to hold exhibits such are artifacts from the Electra, rings, coins, etc left by AE or FN. ...FN's actual remains onboard the N.C., signs of survival aboard the N.C. and messages, diaries, etc. Time of course tends to eliminate the possibilities of finding any of the above. However, the N.C. being somewhat sheltered and void of some the deteriorating effects of the environment, has a MUCH better chance of retaining any artifacts and/or evidence of the presence of AE and FN in July 1937 than the miles of island terrain that is the alternative. The aforementioned is my humble opinion and an attempt to elaborate on the TIGHAR hypothosis. I believe that is hard to believe that AE or FN survived longer than 3 months and most likely both died within a 6 week period of the crash! If messages/clues/evidence/etc. are available on Niku then the N.C. may hold some of those "treasures" that lead to confirmation of the hypothosis set forth by TIGHAR and the possibility that AE and FN did indeed perish on "Nikumaroro". Over to the Forum. Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric An excellent summary. Thank you. I have only a few minor questions and quibbles, and one rather interesting, I think, observation. >>13. << No real need to have the storms uncover the bones/campsite at the SE end. By the time Bevington and company were in that area on their walk around the island, they were in dire straits themselves and were only intent on getting back to where there was water to drink. Someone walking along that beach naturally stays down by the water where the sand is hard and sees little or nothing of what may be along the vegetation line at the top of the beach slope. >>14<< On what do you base an August 4, 1940 arrival date for Irish on Gardner? Just curious. Observation: >>FN's actual remains onboard the N.C.<< Emily's very first comment to Tom King about the bones for which her father built the box was: "The bones were found in the sea on Nikumaroro. There was a boat that was wrecked, but that boat belonged to New Zealand and that part of the island was named for New Zealand. Where the boat was on the reef. Not too far from there, is where the plane came down. [shown map at this point, she indicates area north of Norwich City on reef]" Later, Tom asked: "Where were the parts of the airplane?" Emily: "Not far from where the ship was. Not toward the village but away from it. The struts were there. [holds up hands in circle, apparently indicating that the struts were round in cross-section, about 20 cm. in diameter] It was around that area were the bones were found. Could be bones from the ship or the airplane. During the westerlies, heavy swells took the rest of the bones away. There were not many that we found. Maybe 10 different people whose bones were found along that area. There were some with leather bottles and a pipe. I used to accompany my father to fish. Some people would not go to that area to fish because they were frightened. You would come up on the reef, then the beach comes up where the island shrubs start to grow. [with gestures and words, she and Foua indicated the storm surge line and first Scaevola line in from the beach] That is where the bones were found." And later, Tom asked: "Please clarify about the bones. Were the 10 skeletons/bodies separate from the bones that were put in the box?" Emily: "The bones of the 10 people were toward the shoreline, but these bones [the bones in the box her father made] were found on the reef near the remaining parts of the plane. People decided these bones were from the people from the plane. When I used to go to the place, the bones of the 10 people were still there. People who found the bones near the plane were frightened to touch them. They told Teng Koata of the bones and he told Gallagher. Koata had them collect the bones for Gallagher. Until I left the island, I hadn't heard anything about what had happened to those bones. The government put restrictions that children were not to frequent that area." When I interviewed emily several days later, Emily's story was slighlty different: Ric: Were there ever any bones found on Nikumaroro? Emily: Yes. Ric: What can you tell us about the bones that were found? Emily: Some Gilbertese went to fish, they saw in the shallows some pools, at the place where the plane crashed, some bones, and they knew these were human bones because of the skull bone. They went and reported to Teng Koata, there were bones. So from that they assumed that these must have been the bones of those who were in the plane when it crashed. These were under the plane, near the plane. This was near the top end of the steel. Ric: Did you see the bones? Emily: I didn't see them. We were forbidden, but my father told us. Ric: Were the bones found while you were on the island or did this happen before? Emily: These bones were found when we had already arrived on the island. These Gilbertese came and found bones and reported to Teng Koata. Then Teng Koata took them to the European. So it was arranged for a box to be made for the bones and the bones were brought. There were not many bones. " I later asked: Ric: Were any other bones ever found on Niku? Emily: Only these few bones they found. They do a search around that area but they found no other bones. Only these big bones that they found. I do not know how many. My father knew." Toward the end of the interview Russ Matthews asked: "You said there was a part of the island that was forbidden. Why was it forbidden? Emily: It was forbidden because of the bones of the New Zealanders who died on the shipwreck. They thought the government may send in people to look for the bones. Ric: So there was a place where there were bones from people who died on the ship? Emily: I really don't know that. There were people who used to go on board the wrecked ship. My father also went there. No ordinary people were allowed to go there." (The complete interviews are on the website at http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/15_1/interviews.html) All of this is rather confusing and sometimes contradictory but it's particulary interesting in view of the possibility that Noonan may have died either aboard the plane or aboard the shipwreck. The Gilbertese-style grave on the shoreline opposite the bow of the Norwich City looks more and more interesting. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:30:12 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Latitude in Betty's notes? Please bear with me, as this is an honest effort even if it betrays a lot of ignorance on my part: I am wondering if Betty's notes accurately record the latitude of Gardner, but the problem is longitude. Let's spin this out. Refer to page three of the notes, and the numbers and bracketed information at the bottom. I think Betty can't make up her mind concerning the meaning of the notation "z", and has further confused things by making the entries at two separate times. The "real time" entry is on the left. Betty recorded this as she heard it and had no time to figure it out. Understandable. Later, she comes back and tries to make sense of it. The evidence of this later attempt is the bracketed information (note how it is recorded at an angle---something different and similar to how she recorded KGMB] with a question mark. Query: When Betty records "Z" on page 3 of her notes, I am wondering if she was hearing a truncated version of the word "degrees"? By the time she gets to thinking about it, and comming up with the bracketed information, she has decided that the first part of the original message "South 39....." really was "S [south] 3 degrees[that little thing in the brackets that looks like a zero is really a degrees sign---it's just placed awkardly] 9 minutes". Doesn't this put us close to the latitude of Gardner? Might this have been the last position report Noonan prepared, hence was the best that Earhart had? Now, go back to the numbers recorded "real time" on the left. Notice how "1065 z or E" has become "165 degrees [I think that is a degrees sign] E" . Perhaps, indeed, the "o" in 1065 was shorthand for degrees. I don't know, but Betty now thinks it was 165 degrees. I can't explain the "E" for sure, yet I am wondering whether Betty is making an honest mistake here. Here goes: Originally (on the left) she can't figure out whether whether she is hearing "z" or "e". Yet she does hear the word "south". Yet, she does NOT hear the word "east" or "west". Why would Earhart say the complete word "south", yet only give the abbreviation "e" for "east"? If Earhart said east or west, it would've been recorded this way if heard, just like south was (not 's')..Betty apparently thinks later that she was hearing the word degrees when she heard "z" or "e". If so, we shouldn't see an "e" also appearing in the bracketed information together with degrees. I can only surmise that, at the time the original transmission was heard, nothing was heard about east or west, or the full word would've been recorded, just like south. Betty perhaps realized later, when filling in the bracketed information, that she needed an "east" or "west", and simply left in the "e". Another interesting conjecture is whether what she heard was not 165 degrees, but a "fuzzy" 175 degrees. Since, given the above, if "east" or "west" was heard by Betty it would have been transcribed in full, like "south", this leaves the possibility that the real transmission may have been "175 degrees west". As I read the maps, Gardner is at latitude 4 degrees 40 minutes south. It is at longitude 174 degrees 32 minutes west. Thus, if the recorded transmission was really latitude 3 degrees 9 minutes south, and longitude 175 degrees west, doesn't this put us awfully close to Gardner? --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:51:37 EDT From: Tom King Subject: The Trial of Betty's Notebook Ric writes: << At that time we'll go through the notebook entry-by-entry. I we'll have a better chance of getting good recollections that way than by hitting her with questions piecemeal. >> So, since you're so hard up for Forum messages to respond to, should everyone give you the questions they think should be asked, on an entry-by-entry basis? LTM (who's glad she's not in your shoes) TK ************************************************************************** From Ric That way lies madness, but let me propose an idea we've been kicking around for a few days. We have a number of attorneys on the forum who have demonstrated their skill at evaluating evidence. I propose that we invite "real" attorneys on the forum (outhouse lawyers like me are a dime a dozen) to form two teams: The Prosecution will prepare a case for Betty's notebook NOT being a record of genuine communication from Amelia Earhart. The Defense (or Defence) will prepare a case for Betty's notebook being a record of genuine communication from Amelia Earhart. Each side may call on Expert Witnesses from among the forum subscribers and each side may present a list of questions which I will ask when I "depose" Betty on November 5th. Each attorney on each side will receive an unedited videotape of that deposition. We'll enpanel a jury of twelve good people and true from among forum members who submit their names to a pool. Traditional rules of jury selection will apply. I'll function as judge but the case will be decided by the jury. The purpose of the entire exercise would be to approach the evaluation of Betty's notebook in an intelligent and organized way. If nothing else it should be a lot of fun and great theater. As a first step, please let me hear from attorneys who would be interested in serving on one of the teams and from anyone who thinks this is a really dumb idea. if we decide to go ahead with it, we'll then call for volunteers to serve on the jury. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:52:41 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The number 8983638 > From Ric > > I wonder if Earhart would be cynical enough to worry about being mistaken for > a hoaxer. I wonder how many people creating a hoax would have considered addinn "Putnam" to the broadcast.. I wonder how many people actually recalled that Earhart had become a Putnam. I doubt that a radio play would use it as they would be playing to the general audience that knew her as Earhart.. I wonder..... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:55:32 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: The usage of "Bud" Ric asked: >>Did we ever determine for sure whether Fred had any children by his first wife?<< We have found no record or, for that matter, recollections of children. We continue to keep a lookout, but I'd say the horse has been well beaten. blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:59:27 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: a little old notebook Having just reviewed the 72 postings contained in the 6 Oct to 7 Oct Digest, it simply amazes me that one... little old notebook ... could generate so much Forum activity! In order not to miss out on the extensive amount of speculation that has developed over this document, I recalled that AE spent some time as a social worker in Boston & wondered how 'Norwich City' might be enunciated by someone who'd spent some time in the nor'east? Would also like to... speculate ... that most lkely FN would have been sitting in the co-pilot seat as they neared their destination ...Gardner Island ... in order to to help AE not miss _this_ landfall & may have suffered the head-injury by being thrown forward into the 'windscreen' if AE had to bring the plane to a sudden stop upon landing on the somewhat uneven reef flat! (By the way, do we know whether the Electra was equipped with shoulder-strap seatbelts?) Sure looking forward to Harry Poole's library visit & his checkout of the motion picture listings for the month of July 1937 in old St. Pete! Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric The volume of interest doesn't surprise me at all. We're trying to determine the authenticity of the Earhart equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls. No shoulder restraints aboard the Electra. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:06:24 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Bearing and distance? You have told us several times what the distance is from Howland to Gardner but I can neither remember it nor find it on your web site (after about two hours searching). So please accept my apologies if this message was unnecessary. I'm working with a hand drawn map on a large piece of graph paper so everything I do with it is highly inaccurate. Do you have handy the exact bearing and distance from Howland to Gardner? I get 159T 318NM and this is too close to some of Betty's numbers to not have them checked. It would be an ideal fit if the actual bearing and distance are 158T 338NM but I hope my chart isn't that far off. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric That's an important enough question that I'm going to put it out to the Celestial Choir (which includes anyone with the charts and expertise to render precise numbers). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:19:19 EDT From: Ric Subject: Credibility Matrix up John Pratt's "Credibility Matrix" is now up as a Research Bulletin at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/10_11_00bull.html Let's talk about it. The first change I'd like to suggest is that we change the "3 hour" transmission to "1 hour 45 minutes" for the reasons stated in my posting yesterday. Discussion? Objections? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:32:29 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: First day covers Please forgive my ignorance. Explain the statement, "The first day covers were in the airplane." Thanks, Roger Kelley ************************************************************************** From Ric Actually they weren't "first day covers" at all. First day covers are envelopes with a new stamp affixed that get postmarked on the first day the stamp is issued. First day covers are souvenirs of the issuing of a new stamp. What Earhart had aboard are more accurately termed "commemorative covers". They were nothing more than an envelope or postcard with a picture of Amelia and a stylized drawing of an Electra circling a globe with the words "Round The World Flight - Amelia Earhart" and "1937". They were also stamped "2nd Takeoff" for the second attempt. At certain stops along the way, each envelope or card had a local stamp affixed and cancelled. At the the end of the flight each "cover" would be a souvenir of the entire trip. Naturally, they were carried aboard the airplane between stops. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:35:55 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Wyoming message Time Wyoming guy heard the signal was 08:00am Sunday or 04:30 am Honolulu time on 5 Jul 37.(Holwand time) That be 3:00 PM (regular time) in Florida,according to my replogue. That's pretty close to Betty's time!!! Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric 8 a.m. in Wyoming is 3 p.m. in Florida? The country must have been bigger in those days. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:37:16 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Itasca newsreel. > From David Evans Katz I don't know if anyone has seen this before, but it shows the captain and the crew in action and many close-up views of the ship.<< Any communications shots? (That could be single framed, just for interest?) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:39:33 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: hams on Howland The ham station on Howland was, I think, K6GAS. I'll see if I can verify that... think Cam Warren may have those call signs or maybe I got them thru the Moffetts. Ham call signs in the Pacific in 1937 began with K, and the number following would always be a 6... reason was, the call signs in US possessions always took the number designation for the closest US mainland radio district. In this case is is California, where all domestic calls began with W6. Only in the 1950s did domestic US ham call signs beginning with K come into use. By then the overseas possessions had the prefix changed to 2 letters and a number (i.e. Hawaii had become KH6, Guam KG6, etc etc). Yes there was a phonetic alphabet in 1937. Let me see... I think this is right as it agrees with a couple of sources.... Adam Baker Charlie David Edward Frank George Henry Ida John King Lewis Mary Nancy Otto Peter Queen Robert Susan Thomas Union Victor William X-ray Young Zebra By the way, these phonetics are STILL USED in police communications... And before anyone asks, the use of "Roger" was a military pro-word meaning "received okay", not a phonetic word... WILCO meant "Will comply with your instructions." Also a military proword, and supposedly Roger and Wilco were not used in the same sentence (I.e. "roger wilco)... it was one or the other. The ICAO phonetics we are familiar with today came into use in the early 50s I think. LTM (who prides herself on her diction) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:40:42 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Ham call signs Forgot to mention in my last post... no, the ham call sign W4OK was not associated with Howland. The 4th call area was in the continental US, in 1937, encompassed these states in the Southeast: NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MI, TN After the war these call areas were realigned... VA was W3 before the war, W4 after, and KY was W8 before the war, W4 after... Ohio was always W8, never part of the 4th call area. US possessions in the Caribbean before the war (ie Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands) had K4 calls. For Janet Whitney: I doubt the call W4OK has been issued more than three times, one original and twice thereafter... maybe only once after. If someone has access to a 1937 Radio Amateur Callbook Magazine (I do not) please look up W4OK, just for grins, and see who held the call and where the station was located. The Callbook is the definitive source for this info, not the Berne List. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:42:12 EDT From: Sheila Subject: Betty notes My husband was a radio operator on P2-V Neptune and P3-A Orion aircraft. The standard procedure during an SOS or MAYDAY is to identify yourself and then ask for "ANY" receiving station to respond. He believes that N.Y. was any... Makes sense to me. LTM, Sheila *************************************************************************** From Ric But was that procedure in use in 1937? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:48:21 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: dissing Wyoming message > From Ric > > It does look like the CG dismissed the account because it was > on the wrong frequency (which could have been a harmonic) and because it was > signed "KDN" instead of "KHAQQ." On that basis they would have also > dismissed Betty's account out of hand. > I think that the Rock Springs message has to go back in the "could be > authentic" column for now at least. Okay Ric, but you'll be called on to explain which harmonic ( i.e. 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x.....and so on) of 3105 or 6210 is ~ 16000. Also, here's KDN: from: "Commercial & Government Radio Stations of the United States" Dept. of Commerce, Radio Division, ca. 1935 (no cover, have to date it in context of Berne Lists i acquired it with, and information i know about in it - for example, does not include Itasca as having direction finder - presumably added later, before 1937...) Rock Springs, Wy. / Fixed aeronautical and fixed point-to-point/ KDN / 240 3360 3370 5920 5940 kcs. / Gov't business exclusively / 24 hours / Owner: Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Lighthouses. I am not exactly certain of the use of this station, as there is a separate listing for a commercial-aircraft station at the Rock Springs airfield. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not competent to speculate on the harmonic but if the message was signed by a local government aeronautical station that seems pretty wierd. Either we have hoax that was perpetrated by a local government employee who was so stupid that he signed it with the local call letters, or the "message was signed KDN" is in error. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:49:44 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Harmonics A possible harmonic generated in AE's transmitter would have been 15525 KHz, the tenth harmonic of the frequency-control crystal (1552.5 KHz) used for a channel freq of 3105. This is also the 5th harmonic of the 3105 KHz crystal used for the channel freq of 6210. The WE 13 transmitter employed frequency-doubling on both the HF channels, so the crystal freq was 1/2 the air freq. 15525 KHz would be an excellent daylight-propagation freq. May be. Maybe not. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:53:51 EDT From: Sheila Subject: Mayday? One more probably off-base idea. But.... could "Marie" actually be "Mayday"? LTM, Sheila *************************************************************************** From Ric When, I wonder, did "Mayday" come into standard usage? What is interesting is that only once does the phrase "SOS" appear. That would indicate to me that the person was not so much trying to advise a possible listener that she was in distress, but that she was trying to impart useful information to somebody who already knew she was in distress. Certainly Amelia Earhart could assume that if she identified herself, most people at that time would know that she was in trouble. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:56:18 EDT From: Dustymiss Subject: GP's phone number The letterhead belonging to George Palmer Putnam read - "10042 Valley Spring Lane - North Hollywood, California - Phone: STANLEY 7-1040" So, if those numbers were a phone number, at least it appears Amelia was not trying to phone home. Cheerio - Dustymiss ************************************************************************** From Ric Good job! We can probably also assume that if AE had her own line, the exchange (ST7 -) would be the same. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:15:30 EDT From: Sheila Subject: Re: More thoughts Sorry Ric but I am on a roll tonight (Kaiser), When you "interrogate" Betty, I wonder if you want to ask her if that man's voice she heard could have been anybody else but Fred's as in a radio response voice. I read the notebook again and some of the responses seemed to make that possible. Also, could Marie have been the name of a ship or freighter she managed to contact. That thought occurred to me when, according to Betty, Amelia said, "SHE got the radio again." Lastly, is the Island known as Gardner Island, Kemin's Island and Mary Letitia's Island the same Gardner's Island now known as Nikumaroro? I am getting a bit confused so I will stop rolling now. Sheila ************************************************************************** From Ric Same island. Betty did not say that Amelia said "SHE got the radio again." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:21:19 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: taxiing to the beach Need to remind people that what was written down was taken in long hand by a 15 year old who had no idea what was or wasn't important and was trying her best to write down things as fast as she could. It is not surprising that it doesn't make a lot of sense - she couldn't write whole sentences. We have to take what is there and determine if it is legitimate based on the existing content, not on what we think the content should have been. The message from AE is filtered by 1) poor radio reception 2) poor transcribing 3) perhaps AE's own panic in dealing with a damaged aircraft and an injured and incoherent Noonan. My own belief is that the plane must have sustained some damage upon landing on the reef (if it made it to Gardner - which I believe it did), otherwise, I think a prudent pilot would have taxied the aircraft onto the beach to be above the tides and wave action. Of course, if a wheel went into a deep enough depression, it might not have been damaged but only impossible to extricate without equipment and manpower that they didn't have. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric The plane may or may not have sustained damage on landing but no pilot, prudent or otherwise, would be able to taxi anywhwere near the beach. The only part of the reef smooth enough to land or taxi on is out near the ocean. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:22:25 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: jumping transmissions >From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: >And a tower by itself doesn't passively reflect them along the way. The I beg to differ. As a search and rescue pilot, I have found that ELT transmitters can radiate a signal that will "jump" and be broadcast from a tower or phone line or power line or metal building up to several miles away. This type of radiated signal frequently interferes with aerial searchs and we have to disregard the signal and search for the primary signal. This can often mean a considerable amount of time spent searching an area until we get the "real" signal. The "ghost" signals can be quite strong and will fool the best equipment we have. My first search put me in near an "antenna farm" of five 1500' to 2000' high antennas. When we couldn't lock on a good signal we flew to a nearby airport that seemed the most likely location. We landed, still getting a strong signal and met with a ground team. We spent over two hours there trying to determine which hangar and which plane was sending out the signal. We seemed to be getting a strong signal from one airplane, but after disabling its ELT, we were still getting a signal and spent the next hour looking for the right aircraft! Signals jump - PERIOD. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:24:12 EDT From: Paul Subject: Re: legible name on Norwich City What was the home port for the Norwich City? I assume it probably was NOT New York but it would be astounding if it were, AND if it was painted beneath her name. Alternatively, assuming her name was still visible, did pronouncing her home port name sound like New York? LTM (who enunciates v-e-r-y clearly) Paul ************************************************************************** From Ric British registry. Not sure what port, but her back was broken and the stern submerged anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:26:13 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: CQD etc. Noonan was an experienced seaman, so should have been familiar with CQD. If I was sending out an S.O.S., I would have used every recognizable variant to be sure that anyone that heard me would understand that I needed HELP! Mayday was primarily an aviation term, S.O.S. and CQD were primarily naval terms. Use them all including HELP! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:27:03 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Time correction/ Wyoming v. Florida The time that Charles Randolf heard the alleged Earhart transmission at 0800,5 July 37 translates to 10:00 am Flordia time, not 3:00PM.(When Betty first heard a transmission.) Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:30:50 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's notebook/ Notes from an authentic transmission Phil writes and I partially rest my case on his own words: "Only the transmitting party can state what was transmitted. The best that can be stated definitely here is that over three hours of transmission no reference to any particular subject was heard..." (Italics mine). That lack of a sensible reference sometime during the 3 hours is what I'm talking about. In this case we have two extraordinary individuals who crashed either in the ocean or more than likely on an atoll on 2 Jul 37. More than likely they would have initiated radio broadcasts immediately,if capable.My expectations of Earhart and Noonan to transmit for help are dependent on thier qualification and knowledge that radio transmissions may be full of static,fade in and out, have different ranges at nite v. day, and all of the vagaries of radio in 1937 from a 50 watt transmitter with a dying battery.Accuracy and repetition of position were of the essence. Thus in my opinion Earhart and Noonan, trained in navigation and emergency procedures, and foreseeing the possible dangers of this Lae-Howland leg, would have spent all of their collective energy and precious radio time attempting to best utilize the radio to transmit some kind of meaningful position. Betty's notebook contains some 77 entries of phrases,words, and " code type" numbers,some unfamiliar names ,etc, and as Phil points out only intermittently heard and recorded by Betty over the three hours on her home short wave. All coming from a teenager that describes herself as "crazy about airplanes" and " well aware of Earhart's flight". I submit that none of these fragmentary pieces as recorded by Betty provide a single,solitary clue to Earhart's position that any conscious,rational flyer would have transmited during these desparate hours. Earhart in her approach to Howland Island certainly transmitted some good data re distance, was conscious of radio problems, changes in frequencies, weather, and included her final LOP with apparent accuracy of her estimated postion. Thus I echo many of the experts involved in her rescue that her failure to report her position,(here given a continuous three hours on 5 Jul) is a most puzzling problem. But I guess I'm arguing with the philosophy of does a tree make a noise when it falls if noone hears it. Here one would have to argue that during those three hours, every reference to position/location or sensible number was fortuitiously skipped and occurred in the statically,dead space.Or the numbers recorded really meant something but without the entire context it is meaningless. In all fairness, I think we need to wait until Tighar interviews Betty in depth and we can assess the witness'es credibility and seek corroboration in the Goerner letter, the Coast Guard records, and her father's notes(if any), friends,neighbors,classmates,treachers, and relatives she may have shown the notebook to or discussed the memorable event with that may have occurred in 1937. The technical aspects have been somewhat addressed but not all concerning the transmitting possibilities or capabilities 3 days post crash,batteries, transmitter,etc. And if all checks out, the likelyhood of a hoax played on her or a re-creation program still must be considered (Maybe she missed the commercials!!) LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:32:51 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Compass Direction Notation?.? As with everyone else engaged in pouring over the cryptic notations in Betty's book, I probably have more questions than reasonable deductions. Obviously your all important interview with Betty may shed some light on the context of these entries. Then again, who knows. However, I will jump into the discussion and ask the following: At the bottom of page 53 at the start of the numeric entries, opposite "Hello Bud" there is a bracketed bearing entered, above which is a question mark. This is obviously in Betty's hand writing--or at least the numbers are made the same way.. If you look at the first numeric entry to the left of it ,you will see, by comparing them ,that the bracketed entry is the same except for the zero of the first entry having been transposed between the 3 and the 9. This obviously is an attempt to make sense out of what was written, since any kind of bearing of 391 degrees is a bit off the mark. There also appear to be notations that signify minutes and seconds, yet none for degrees, on the bracketed entry. I wonder if Betty was that knowledgeable of such notation ? Or perhaps she sat with her father (or mother)and went over the notes and possibly attempted an analysis ? Whoever did it was well aware of the conventions of proper notation that apply since on the bracketed one the possible "z" is replaced by the E. Not being close to any kind of a navigator, I wonder what this bracketed entry shows as far as location or is it just a directional bearing with no real meaning? Well, I won't tie up anymore bandwith as i am sure you are quite busy with the forum these days. My curiosity has just gotten the better of me on this one. LTM Bill Conover(#any day now) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:35:07 EDT From: Pete Subject: Notebook page I looked at one of the pages in Betty's notebook, and two entries caught my eye. The first: "fig 8- 3 30 500 z" The second: "3Q rd 36" uh, forgive the new guy but, AE saying she's flying a Figure Eight pattern at 500 feet (bad HF and "feet" sounds like "e" sound like "z"). 330 could be a bearing from Niku island, or she's working in the direction of 330 degrees true while flying this pattern to find either Itasca or Howland. OR, dragging an area in preparation for ditching/landing. 3Q might be the garbled receipt of a name with the "rd" being Betty's abbreviation for "road". Did Amelia's husband have an office on a road the sounds like "3Q", with 36 being the suite number in the building. Digital City was no help, anybody have street maps of the cities where AE would try to reach her husband or someone? The transmissions are coming in every few minutes, and Betty's writing it all down. In reference to an earlier post. Did FN have an accent that when AE asked what the name on the ship was, he'd have said "Norrich City", or something to be confused with "New York City"? "Watch that battery" Water is entering the plane, AE moves the battery to keep it from getting wet, and tells a roaming FN to be aware it's in the way. Learning about early submarines, salt water getting into the battery compartments gave off poison gas. Did AE know about that? No maintenance-free batteries in 1937, caps on top to add water. I would prefer to set a plane down on the edge of a beach so my landing gear would not dig into soft sand and ground loop. Shoving the rudder over hard and my tail uses the waves for braking on the short stretch of beach. Tailwheel gets stuck in the sand underwater but engines remain clear. Knowing I need the engines to power radios, I do everything to keep from bending the props. My poor navigator gets thrown around in the back of my plane because of the sudden rudder. New Guy must go to school now with serious goose bumps. My Best to All..............Pete ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:17:18 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: N.Y. Mary and Marie, depending how they were pronounced AND came across the airways and out of the speaker are too close, I think, to determine which was said. For example "Mare'-ee" is an easy "Mary." Said as "Mare-ree" or "Mare-ree' " could have been heard as Marie. Hope my poor phonetics are somewhat clear. I guess the point is that we know of a Mary but as of yet we don't know of a Marie so at the moment I would opt for Mary without more info. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:18:14 EDT From: Nick Murray Subject: bail out This is from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary: Main Entry: bail out Function: intransitive verb Date: 1930 1 : to parachute from an aircraft 2 : to abandon a harmful or difficult situation; Nick Murray (#2356CE) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:21:39 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Not like AE Well, I tried to resist adding to the deluge of "Betty" material, but here I am. Must be the Lemming effect. First, I have to agree with Ron Bright that this is just not what I would expect from AE, even considering the physical and mental shock that must accompany such an end to the flight. Earhart seems to have been quite capable of keeping her cool in the face of adversity, and I can't help but believe that within a few minutes of grabbing a mike and allowing for some period of "venting", she would have been able to transmit (consistently and repeatedly) a descriptive and useful emergency message. The message itself is like a numeric "Rorschach Blot". I probably lack imagination, but there does not appear to be anything that I can put together that makes sense within the context of the flight possibilities. I'm trying to keep an open mind and I try to look at most posts, but I just don't see paydirt so far. Better minds may find the key, though. One thing that you may want to ask "Betty" about is the 158 mi and 44 NE on top of page 1. The appealing thing about these is the units or other designations which gives some context for the numbers. The concern I have is that they look like "doodles" which are not really part of the sequentially listed message. For example, according to my limited map of Florida, today there appears to be an Interstate 4 running NE from the Tampa/St Petersburg area about 158 mi to Daytona Beach. There is also a Route 44 running roughly the same direction nearer Daytona Beach. Of course, I have no idea what the road designations were in 1937, but could these have been written for some other purpose in the breaks between messages? The South 391065 z or E does not seem to ring a (reasonable) bell for me in any format. They are, of course, also not reciprocal pairs, so this would not have been a direction on an LOP. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:23:21 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: 1937 mics Another question for the radio historical types. In my early days with radio, all microphones and headphones I had access to looked like the one earhart is using inthe photo. They used a thin sheet of metal and permags and coils. I don't recall them being very selective about what they picked up, in fact I seem to recall they picked up just about anything. Which suggests to me that Betty might have heard the sound of someone else speaking or especially arguing with the person transmitting. On the flip side, I would imaging having a whacking great radial engine running would make some noise too. I have never tried to speak into a microphone in an Electra with the engine running, and modern microphones are noise cancelling and Vox so they can't be used as reference. Any radio historical info on those thoughts? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:30:39 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Others interest in Betty Sounds more and more as a thriller (who else than we is trying to locate a crucial witness ?) More seriously, we could be in presence of a cheking procedure made immediately after Betty's father contact with the Coast Guard. We know from the reports of the time, including Capt. Friedel's report on the Tighar webb site, that alleged post-loss messages where quickly reported to the units in the search area. There must have been some checking procedure trying to evaluate the credibility of these reports, maybe including vicinity checks as they are called by the police. This would explain check marks on the 1937 phone book, but not on the 1942 book of course (Betty written next to her real name). Who would be in charge of the mission ? Tle local police most probably, the CG, the Navy ? Is Betty a name that was used when she was a child, or is it recent ? *************************************************************************** From Ric Although her name is Helen Betty, she has always gone by the name Betty. We thought we had the notations in the phonebooks explained by a wartime background check but Betty phoned me yesterday to point out that her family had moved between 1937 and 1942 and the neighbors checked in the book were not her neighbors in 1942. There is also the point that if Betty was being checked out in 1937 by the Coast Guard or whoever, why use the phone book in the public library? This only makes sense if the checking is being done at a time when the phone book is being used as a historical record that is only available at the library. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:32:44 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: "I need air" Ric wrote: > Having been there yourself Chris, what do suppose it would be like inside an > aluminum tube on the reef at Niku 'long about 10 o'clock in the morning? First, let me just say that the past few days of messages have been absolutely fascinating. Once again, Ric's open discussion policies have resulted in another find. As has happened so many other times, someone just happened across the site, found it very interesting reading, and remembered something long ago forgotten.... Anyway, returning to the radio transcript and the response from within the forum here, just about every question I had initially has been addressed, except one: Ric's comment about the heat inside the airplane made me think: would Earhart's radio have operated at the temperatures she would have been experiencing there at 10:00 am or so. I have seen modern radios, which have far greater tolerances, fail to operate over a certain temperature range -- something like 100 degrees F. Thomas Van Hare Historic Wings ************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent question. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:34:53 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Head Injuries For Troy: Having survived the crash of a Twin Beech in a landing accident this past spring, I can attest to the fact that a head injury is completely consistent with the possibility of Fred having the same. I was sitting in the cabin in the forward right hand seat when our aircraft swerved out of control, went up on it's nose, dug a 50-60 ft. trench in the turf runway, and then flipped over 180 degrees on it's back. Although I was strapped in the seat wearing a conventional seatbelt, my head got thrashed in the inertia and was wacked against the right side of the upper cabin against an "eyball vent" and opened up a 2 inch gash on my head which the good Doctors in the emergency room superglued together-no stiches. I also got a precautionary CAT Scan revealing a very mild concussion. The pilot and my son walked away with minor cuts & bruises on their arms, legs, face, and chest. They were wearing shoulder harnesses as well as lap restraints. Our case was miraculous if you could see what was left of the airplane and its crushed cockpit & torqued fuselage. It should have killed us quite frankly but by the grace of God we survived. If AE & FN crash landed on the Beach , I can see them ground looping the airplane, or gear-up, bashing into objects in the way or even flipping it over as happened to us. My point: even with restraints we all had head injuries of one extent or another. Were Amelia & Fred strapped in? Who knows. I do believe Fred would have been moving about the cabin in performace of his nav duties, particularly trying to get the best celestial shots available. Even if if they were restrained, the body traumas you can & will recieve in an event like this can be calculated somwhere between superficial and life-threatening. I remember the doctor asking me several times my name, age, etc for clues to see how badly my head had been traumatised and later commenting upon our discharge how fortunate we were as well as the state of delerium of those less than fortunate then we, in similar circumstances. Head trauma, shock? The injury speculation sounds very realistic to me. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:44:51 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: Wyoming message Poring over the verification message (on Randy's MSG8.pdf, page 372), I note the word 'unquote'; hence suspect KDN to be the initials of the person who interviewed the Rock Springs listener or who signed the message from Rock Sprgs to San Fran -- rather than a callsign. But if KDN is a callsign, it's probably a US broadcasting station and ought to be easy to identify. It's not in Randy's station list on the disk. Quick check on the 'net' shows KDN was a broadcasting station in San Francisco which went out of biz in early 1923, The callsign is not currently active. It may have been reassigned after '23. I'll see if I can find out, but think KDN is likely someone's initials. LTM Bill Moffet #2156 ************************************************************************** From Ric The content of the message between "quote" and "unquote" is : INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN Sounds to me like the report was dismissed entirely because the kid heard, or thought he heard, "KDN". You have to wonder what the Coast Guard would have needed somebody to tell them before they accepted something as possibly legitimate. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:48:59 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: St Pete About six days ago, I read a post from a gentleman named Harry, that had done some investigating in St Petersburg. (great piece of work, by the way) He mentioned finding a written source of info containing "Betty's" actual name, the family's new address, etc, etc. He also mentioned that someone else had "plowed" through the same info some time ago, and had written "Betty" over her actual name. How could this have happened "some time ago" (Goerner?) When you just recently picked the name "Betty" out of thin air to conceal her identity? I'm so confused. LTM - who is equally confused Marty 0724C *************************************************************************** From Ric I never said Betty was not her real name. I said, "...whom we'll call "Betty"..." which, in fact, happens to be her middle name. She is Helen Betty and has always gone by Betty. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:52:18 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Summary of information about Betty's house I have completed an analysis of Betty's house in St. Petersburg, and am summarizing some of this information for the forum. Other details are available. Betty's house was a small one, built in 1926. However, it has a relatively new coat of paint and looks pretty well. The house is located facing East, near the southern border of the lot, which is 65 feet wide and 64 feet deep. There is a utility easment on the West border of the property. where telephone poles and wires run South and North. The house has a small breezeway connecting the main part of the house to an oversized single car garage. Most of the vacant land available in the lot are on the Northrtn side. Although there is a television mast on the side of the house, it is not bamboo, is relatively recent and is not in the position where we understood Betty's antenna to be. If her antenna was located next to the kitchen door, and ran North to the property line, it would be 38' long. If the antenna ran into the neighbor's yard, or started South of the Kitchen door, or ran in an Easternly direction, it could be 50' to 60' long. I have not yet found any location which may have held earlier antenna supports, but I have not been able to search the property in detail without the current owners permission, and I don't think I could get that unless I explained the reason for our interest, which I am hesitant to pass on at this time. I have also accessed an aerial photograph of the property. Although I have looked at it, to examine it in detail would require purchsing a print. Since the area is well obscured by trees, it may not be worthwhile to do that. I don't think it would help on deciding where the antenna was placed. LTM, Harry #2300 ************************************************************************** From Ric Harry and Bob Brandenburg have been working together to sort out the antenna question. Betty is presently making a drawing for us of how she remembers the antenna was set up and oriented. That should help. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:53:21 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Vassar Mike Muenich wrote: > Since Betty was > 15 at the time of the entries, how did she come to have a VASSAR notebook? > Isn't Vassar in the Northeast and we know she was in high school from the > information you have already released. Vassar is in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., about 50 miles north of New York city on the east shore of the Hudson river. It was a girls-only private school teaching grade five to college degree as I recall. It went co-ed about 1975. It cost about $20K a year in 1968. LTM, HAG. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:55:35 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: W4OK According to the Spring 1937 edition of The Radio Amateur's Callbook, the ham callsign W4OK was assigned to: F.G. Carroll, 711 Ninth Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric Good work Janet. Okay, what does that tell us? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:56:53 EDT From: Troy Subject: Re: What we did Monday Congratulations! Can you disclose who the agreement is with? --troy-- *************************************************************************** From Ric Not at this time, no. The name wouldn't mean anything to you anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:01:52 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: A deluge! I came to work today and found more than 200 Earhart Forum postings . . . yikes, the boss is really going to be p***ed! Regretfully I didn't have time to read them all, so, Ric, if this issue was covered earlier, just toss this away. Betty claims she heard the transmissions for nearly three hours. Everyone (?) agrees that the batteries on the Electra would not last for three hours without recharging. They (just like "everyone") agree that the Electra's right engine would need to be running to recharge the batteries. 1. Is it possible to run the Electra's engine in a tropical environment for three hours at a high enough RPM for recharging the batteries (and/or operating the radio) without overheating? 2. Betty makes no mention of hearing an engine running nor does she hear any references to the engine running, or any "discussion" between the participants of running the engine. If one or more engines were running wouldn't it be audible over the voice and/or wouldn't the speaker have to talk louder to be heard. (In a moving airplane the pilot is moving away from the noise as he/she moves. If you're not moving, you're surrounded by the noise, hence needing to speak louder to be heard.) LTM, whose boss is prickly today Dennis O. McGee #0149Ec *************************************************************************** From Ric It now looks like the transmissions Betty heard spanned a total time of only about an hour and three quarters. How much of that was actual transmission time was certainly much less. Remember that Nauru, on the evening of July 2nd, heard unintelligible voice that sounded like the same one they heard from the airplane in flight but "without the hum of the plane in background." Maybe we need to consider the possibility that no recharging was done. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:15:51 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Another Norwich City issue People have been speculating that Amelia and/or Fred would have climbed aboard the Norwich City at least once to look for supplies. My question is: how? Seems like a tough bit of climbing to me. Were boarding ladders permanently fixed to the sides? The only other alternative I can think of, and it's even less attractive than scaling the hull, is swimming out to the stern and scrambling up the slope from there (I understand her back was broken - the ship's, not Amelia's!). Frankly, I wouldn't want to try either option. Besides, in a burned out hull, obviously the wooden decks are gone. How much of the original structure would be safe to walk around on? And wouldn't a lot of the deck plating & bulkheads have deformed/buckled in the heat of the fire? Regarding the name on the hull: was it painted on? or brass letters attached? And I just had some further thoughts on the string of numbers that might be a phone "exchange." In addition to the NY & LA possibilities, there's Muriel in the Boston area. Plus Amelia's secretary (Janet Mabie [sp?]) who might have been waiting in the Putnam's NY apartment, or the house in Rye, or in LA keeping Mrs. Earhart company. (the *original* LTM) If this were genuinely Amelia calling for help for three hours or so, wouldn't she rattle off every phone number she new? Another possibility for hearing "New York City" - "Morrissey." I admit it's a stretch... Amanda Dunham ************************************************************************** From Ric Looking at Bevington's photos of Norwich City (taken in October of 1937), getting aboard over the stern would involve swimming out and around the back but would probably be about the only way to do it unless the hull was ruptured (can't tell from the photos). The decks seem to be intact and do appear to be wooden so she must not have burned all that thoroughly. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:16:41 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Thoughts on a train Can the same people who helped Ric identify Brines, in Honolulu, help to see whether we can find out the name of the KGMB broadcaster? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:19:51 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: What we did Monday > Never before have we had this much of a head start on funding an expedition. > We plan to make the most of it. Ric, if we could offer you a knighthood, we would. Mike *************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg Ric: BRAVO ZULU !!! That's Navyese for WELL DONE !!! LTM, who says money in the hand puts the expedition in the bush Bob #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:21:43 EDT From: Gerry Galllagher Subject: Re: Thoughts on a train Is there any possibility that AE and FN are trying to re-establish communication with persons that they were able to establish communication with (Ham Operators) and what Betty is hearing is followup to previous answers to their calls for help? Marie from New York New York New York Marie from New York and Bud Bud Bud from California Bud or George George Perhaps the numbers are followup to numbers given out in the contact with the Ham Operators and an attempt to make sure they received the numbers. The fact that names are thrown out as they are in the communication tends to sound to me like they are attempting to reach Marie, Bud and George again. People who may have picked up her faint message and were able to answer? This would at least answer why names are repeated without any real message attached to the names. It is possible that they are calling out in vain to these people who had, against enormous odds, been able to answer their earlier mayday message prior to Betty picking up the signal. Just another "look" at an itriguing set of scribbled notes. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:22:19 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station Notice all the reports of a Japanese broadcast station being heard on or about 3105 kilocycles occcurred at night. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:23:14 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Thoughts on a train << Perhaps what we have is one half of a non-conversation.>> And if so, some ascertainable (I presume, by the mighty Forum) facts that could help verify or disverify the legitimacy of the transmission. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:26:14 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Notes on the margin about Betty Ric wrote: << It now seems likely that the notations were made by someone >doing a background check on her during the war when she was working as a >switchboard operator and had to be bonded for government work.>> That is of course a possible explination, but I think it was something else. The name in the Phone book was Helen B., and someone added Betty in the margin. Was it an investigator for the government during a background check? For that to be the case, the investigator went to the copy in the library to look up her number. Why wouldn't he have used his own phone book? I think it more likely that this lookup of Helen's name was years later, when the only easy phone book which could be looked up would be in the library. In addition, theory also does not explain why only the 37 year city directory had the neoghbors check marked. Why not the neighbors that were living nest to her in 1942 (she had moved)? They weren't marked with a checkmark. Why not neighbors in any other year's directory. Why the 1937 directory? Of course we can't be certain what happened, but it seems unlikely to me the facts fit into the government investigation theory. Of course, it probably doesn't matter, unless it implies that someone was checking her notebook story, and perhaps got information that disproved it (to them). And they missed it! LTM, Harry #2300 *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:27:19 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: bail out Marty, Ric, et al, I looked again at the entry in Webster's. They only give two definitions for "bail out". Both are dated 1951. One def. is to bail out a financial institution and the other def. is the general term meaning to leave or depart. Curiously, the dictionary does NOT give what I assume is the original meaning of the phrase; leaving an uncontrollable airplane in a hurry (hopefully with a parachute). Therefore, I take Webster's to mean the first time they found the term in print for usage other than the aviation one was 1951. I could buy that. LTM Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:28:14 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Betty's Notes -re: fuel for communication......everyone keep discussing all the fuel that AE/FN must have been using for communication. Well exactly HOW MUCH fuel is needed for communication....I mean, isn't it like putting your car in idle? It probably can't take much fuel, right? And, if I were them, at that point, I would have landed the first land sighted, never mind Howland. Therefore, they may have had quite a bit of fuel left for communication. Judy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:32:26 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Thoughts on a train Interesting idea re the half a one way conversation... but think on this, Ric: If indeed they were doing this, they could NOT be listening at the same time they were transmitting, if they had only one receiver. The comm receiver (WE20) would be muted during transmission. And if they were using the same antenna for rec and tx, the rec antenna post would be connected to the antenna relay in the transmitter. The relay GROUNDED the receiver antenna lead during transmission. If they had TWO receivers, however... one for comm, and one for DF which might be the one on which they listened to the signal from KGMB, and separate antennas for each receiver... then it fits nicely. But the battery drain from the transmitter and TWO receivers, all full of tubes and powered by current eating dynamotors, would be very high. Unless they had a way to charge the battery, it'd go rather fast. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric What would happen if the transmitter and receiver were completely independent systems - the transmitter using the dorsal vee for an antenna and the receiver using the belly wire (now gone) and the loop? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:37:02 EDT From: Judy Subject: photos of Howland On forum, just read that u had traveled extensively throughout the Islands in the South Pacific in your work. I'm trying to locate a photo-email or otherwise- of the Amelia Earhart Light (lighthouse) placed in memory of AE on Howland Island. Do you know where I can locate such a photo? I would like to see this memorial to her. Judy ************************************************************************** From Ric For those who may be interested I've just been communicating with Sarah Leen, the photographer that accompanied Finch's flight. She has photos of Howland and Finch's Electra to which she holds the copyright. Here's what she says: " I hold the copyright for all of the photographs taken for the Amelia Earhart story. The Geographic keeps the published photographs in their Archive but I have all of the outtakes. For many of the published photographs I have near frames or duplicates which I could make available. It is a bit more complicated and time consuming to access the ones which the Geographic keeps in their Archive. Sincerely, Sarah Leen" You can contact her directly at marrleen@toadmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:38:10 EDT From: Kathi Subject: Re: two voices How about if she had one large engine running, to generate power/ recharge batteries?? If that were true, I can see them getting close to the mic. LTM Kathi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:43:21 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: bail out > From Ric > > Actually that does help. Given the extreme popularity of aviation throughout > the 20s and 30s it's hard to believe that "bail out", if it was a term in > common use, would not appear in print well before WWII. I suspect that aircraft were not quite so expendable, nor parachutes as readily available (uncluding the useage of them) until WWII. The parachute was used in the First World War mainly by balloon observers. The Germans allowed some use of parachutes by combat pilots, but the British refused to issue them in case the pilots left the valuable aircraft rather than trying to save them. In the Second World War I suspect some bright spark had decided it was easier to replace an aeroplane than a trained pilot! I can't find any instance whatsoever of pioneer aviators in this country (and we had quite a few) leaving their aircraft in an emergency. Even I don't carry parachutes, (and my passengers would probably love them.) If Betty heard the words "bail out" I imagine it would be from the nautical, rather than the aviation use of the term. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I can assure you that the emergency evacuation of aircraft by parachute was a not-uncommon occurrence throughout the 1920s and 30s. There was even a society called the Caterpiller Club for those who had saved their lives by "hitting the silk." (No need for anyone to "chime in" on this. We have enough traffic already.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:44:10 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Earhart's disappearance in general For Leslie Kinney, I'd be happy to put you in touch with the researcher who interviewed Bilimon Amaron in 1984- one Randall Brink. His report is in his book Lost Star,or maybe you've talked with him (Brink not Amaron). He lives a short distance from me. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:45:42 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's notebook/ Meaning of "Bud" Ric and Van Hare, While looking for Amelia's secret bank account in Switzerland, I continued to research the reference to "Bud",noted in her notebook. . A little known fact, but Anhauser-Busch was a co-sponsor of the World Flight. She actually said "THIS BUD'S FOR YOU", handing Fred a cold one as they sat in the hot cockpit waiting for rescue and listening to the morning news on KGBM. Only Betty just heard "...Bud..." because of the transmission problems. Fred answered "will you please" hand me the bottle opener. If you look deep enough into these mysteries, one can usually find the answer. LTM,Ron Bright Note her Electra had Budweiser colors on the wing . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:58:30 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Pacific Air Pilot >>Just because Goerner said that he had established that they carried the document doesn't mean they carried the document. Goerner "established" all kinds of things that weren't true. What's his source? I'll bet you'll find that somebody told him they had it on board. That was usually good enough for Goerner. It's S.A. remarks like that that give you a bad name! Just because you seem to have a personal vendetta against Goerner, Joe Gervais, Doris Rich, Elgen Long and anybody else who doesn't swallow your favorite scenario shouldn't be a reason for completely abandoning any semblance of objectivity on the Forum. Incidentally, Rich's use of Gene Vidal's quote that Earhart intended to fly back to the Gilberts is CONFIRMED to my satisfaction. "Dusty Miss" notwithstanding, the material IS in the U. of Wyoming collection. Be sure and tell your new sponsor! Oh, and it was Capt. Pye who told Goerner about the P.A.P. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you for confirming my suspicions. There is nothing personal in my comments about Goerner, Gervais, Rich, Long, Brink, Klaas - or Warren for that matter. Bad methodology leads to bad conclusions. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:00:21 EDT From: Judy Subject: No snakes Ric....congratulations on the media money to partially finance the next trip to Niku...we're all looking forward to your finds. Does Niku have snakes? Judy ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Judy. No. No, snakes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:17:29 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: radio recreation Hue Miller wrote: < writing radio dramas and producing two per month, as far as i > know, and these are recorded before an audience in Seattle, > and then enter the playlist of "Imagination Theater" to be broadcast > over AM stations on weekend nites. This is probably way premature, > while the issue is still being studied, but it eventually might be worth > a try to bring the notebook log to his attention. It might be interesting to type up the notes and see if he recognizes it as a radio play transcript. With his interest in setting stories in 1940 or thereabouts, he might see something we can't see. Michael *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe Hue would like to do that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:18:48 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Page 3 I have a problem or question with numbers on page 3. FIG. 8-3 30 500z or E Was AE reading from something written and referring to a chart or picture FIG. 8-3 That is my question. LTM Bruce *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting thought. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:32:01 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Re: supply cache Lifeboats from commercial liners of the period did bear the name of their mother ship. I do not know if military ship lifeboats carried their name. LTM, MStill #2332CE *************************************************************************** From Randy Jacobson I was thinking the same thing: the boat from the Norwich City captured on film by the Kiwi's when they did the survey in 1938 might show the name of the vessel as well. How did the Brit's later know it was the Norwich City, if it wasn't easily identified on the spot? There's not a lot of knowledge lying around in the central Pacific about these wrecks...Hell, I spent two full days at the National Archives until I stumbled across the first report of it! There had to be something with the name of the ship! Maybe a life preserver? *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't see a name on the photos of the NC lifeboat but I can't see the whole boat either. I agree with you. There HAD to be a way that somebody could know the name of the ship. People knew the name that knew nothing else about the ship. Gallagher, for example, knew the name but had the details wrong. Same with Laxton. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:37:31 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: abundant postings You have to be suffering from supreme burnout and maximum overload from all these postings. Especially when something of great interest (Betty's notes) arrives on the scene. I have noticed that many members and subscribers post multiple messages. Perhaps you should limit the Forum to one posting each day. By the way, how many members and how many subscribers does TIGHAR have? ************************************************************************** From Ric S'ok. That's what they pay me for. I don't mind posting multiple messages but I would ask that, at least until things settle down a bit, please avoid postings that don't contain any real information. Speculation and ideas are fine, but jokes and off-topic excursions just add to the load without taking us any farther. TIGHAR currently has roughly 700 members. We'd like to see 2001 by the end of 2001. As of 2 minutes ago the forum has 644 subscribers about 40% of whom are TIGHAR members. We get, on the average, about 2 additions and 2 deletion each day, but the forum's overall subscription level has remained remarkably constant at around 650 for the past year. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:40:39 EDT From: Pete Subject: Train thoughts and lifeboats I think it is entirely possible AE was hearing KGMB, and was trying to raise that station. I doubt that any commercial station would have receivers, just the transmitters, as they get paid to talk, not listen. As I understand it, yes it certainly is traditional for ships' lifeboats to carry the name of the vessel, it may be even maritime law. Life rings are also painted with the ship's name. I started looking up info on AM transmitters at school tonight, that LTM may not be as hard to do or as expensive as you may fear, I sent Mike E. some mail for his opinion on some equipment. How deep is the Niku lagoon? I'm thinking milk jugs full of rocks or concrete for anchors, with 1/2" nylon line to secure the buoy. I'll keep looking into it, might be able to use a lot of government surplus to get away with it. TC (who has a building for of electronics people) Pete ************************************************************************** From Ric The lagoon is about 25 feet deep in most places but putting tidal monitors in the lagoon wouldn't do any good because the tidal effect in the lagoon is only a fraction of what it is on the reef and lags way behind in time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:53:58 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: CQD Ray Brown wrote: >I have heard of CQD before.It supposedly stands for "Come Quick{ly} Danger " >I am quite sure that is not currently a recognized or official distress >signal, and I doubt if it ever was. Indeed, CQD was THE internationally accepted code for danger before the new SOS was developed. But it didn't stand for "Come Quick, Danger". CQ was the common code transmitted when one was "surfing" the airwaves for other radio operators. One would just simply broadcast the letters CQ, CQ, CQ, which essentially means "I'm here, is anyone listening"? Then there were other letters that one added to the CQ to indicate a specific situation or statement or question. I can't remember the rest of them now, but adding a D (which didn't necessarily stand for danger) to CQ specifically meant "Hello, is anyone there, I need help", or words to that effect. Much like SOS or "Mayday", one never transmitted CQD unless one actually needed assistance in a hurry. LTM, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:56:56 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Bail out Ref. your question "When was book published?" The book was published in March of 1981. The preface indicates that extensive research was done in the writing of the book, including interviews with no less than 32 Marine officers of the era, 21 of which are retired General Officers. The author also cites research in the National Archives and the Marine Corps Historical Section. There is a photo in the book of the crashed F4B-4 with Lt Britt standing next to it. The statement about him "bailing out" is in quotes. The person describing the event is the commanding officer of the demo unit, a Lt. Sandy Sanderson. Major General H.M. Sanderson (ret) is one of the aforementioned interviewees. This is about the best I can do to corroborate the statement. The other mention of bailing out was found in a description of a disabled mail plane on February 13 1934, flown by Robert L. Scott jr. as described in his 1943 book "God Is My Co-pilot" LTM Marty Joy 0724C *************************************************************************** From Ric By themselves, neither of those references establish that the term was in use before WWII (although, based on information that has been offered in other postings, it looks like it was). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:58:26 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Broadly Applicable tides? > from Ric > The problem I have with this kind of extrapolation is that, inevitably, if > the results come out like you want them to be you proclaim that the process > is infallible. If they come out different than you prefer, you find all > kinds of reasons that the data are flawed. I realize that, but as a yachtie I know the Time/Tide variations for particular places in one geographical area are pretty tightly related over time. The catch is, you can't work out anything until you have tide times for Niku AND Kanton over a considerable time to compare them and get the differences. So I suppose it's not going to be practical anyway... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Exactly. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:01:58 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Broadly Applicable tides? > From Ric > > Sorry WOMBAT, we're not THAT scientific. We're too busy whacking scaevola >to note the time and height of the tides. I wasn't being facetious, but when I read it I thought I sounded that way.. I imagined you'd keep a pretty tight daily journal with a lot of that stuff in it. th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Some team members keep a running notebook. All team members, at the end of each day in the field, write up a description of where they were and what they did. the notes are extensive but they pertain primarily to the work at hand. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:03:55 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Re: Credibility Assessment Matrix From the analysis of the matrix, it appears that it would be virtually impossible or at least very difficult to distinguish REAL TRANSMISSION from "HAM HOAX" unless any OCCULT situation or personnal detail becomes clair. In the notes only the various groups of numbers would qualify for this task. The others situation- or personnal-details do not descriminate between REAL TRANSMISSION and "HAM HOAX. Even a ham could have known the name of FN's wife (more or less, he thought that it was Marie), and that AE and her husband had a house in California. That leaves the meaning of 'N.Y.' It clearly appears important that Betty confirms if she heard N.Y., the letters, or NEW YORK the whole word. Only then can the problem of Norwich City vs New York City become relevant. And eventually qualify for a possible OCCULT SITUATION DETAIL. Other question : is anybody familiar with any gridd system present on US Navy charts (either for ship or plane) used in 1937 ? Maybe Page W. Smith could be of help ? 3E MJ3B Z 38 Z 13 8983638 3Q rd 36 J 3 Could be areas (rectangles) on the chart copied more or less completely by Betty. After all we don't know what charts FN had. Could as well been US Navy charts.(after all the octant came from the US Navy). Other hypothesis, the charts came from Pan Am. What charts did they use ? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:07:31 EDT From: Pat Subject: Re: Credibility Assessment Matrix Ric writes: > I shall discuss this with the omnipotent webmistress. The Webmaster (screw this sexist stuff) says all things are possible. At least as long as I don't have to hand-code the table, which I don't. Later today, guys. Pat *************************************************************************** From Ric That's my girl! The matrix is now up on the website as a Research Bulletin at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/28_EvaluatingBetty.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:09:52 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Rough Landing All of this is, of course, speculation, but based on known possibilities. You have said that the reef at Niku/Gardner is relativley flat, but with "pot holes" in it. With the oversize tires of the 10E, a landing would be possible, but fraught with opportunities for damage to either tires (coral cuts) or damage to the gear itself. The collapse of one gear would not preclude the possibility of one engine still being functional. Also, I would offer this speculation: The airplane lands, landing is rough and FN suffers a severe head injury (while seatbelts were there, he may have forgotten to strap in given the situation - I read where Grumman was approached to design shoulder harnesses for fighters early in WWII because one pilot was killed from a head injury in a crash landing - a landing that he would have survived IF he had shoulder harness - Grumman delivered shoulder harnesses in two days). AE is knocked about some herself. The aircraft is relatively intact, but cannot be moved from its position on the reef due to the damage. At first, AE is busy tending to FN's injuries and her own injuries to worry about sending out an immediate broadcast. Next, she checks her fuel and sets up the wobble pump to pump all the fuel to one tank to insure continuous and dependable fuel supply (also, this way she KNOWS how much fuel she has and how long she can run the engine). Next she starts trying to make calls while maintaining vigilance over FN, the battery, the fuel and the water. That's a lot of balls to balance, especially if she herself is slightly injured. We know how even a minor injury in the tropics can become septic quickly, but does she know this? As to what they did after the plane was swamped, whether they took shelter in the Norwich City or elsewhere, is also pure speculation. I would point out that if FN died aboard the Norwich City, wouldn't the later expeditions have been likely to have found him? They took photos from the ship, which would indicate that they took the time to board it, thus I would think that the remains, if still aboard, would have been found. If he died there and wasn't found, then the wave action that has broken the ship up probably washed any remains out and they would have been taken by sharks or other predators and only the skeletal remains would be around and possibly scattered everywhere across the reef, off the reef or in the lagoon and lagoon passages. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:15:25 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Re: Thoughts on a train I tend to agree with your "thoughts on a train" concerning the time frame of the notes--I was curious myself over the span they covered and how much of a lapse between the fragmented entries existed. I also had, as you, the impression from reading the entries, that it appeared AE was hearing something and responding to it. The lack of direct response seemed to frustrate her. The "put your ear to it" entry seems to me to be a reference to part of the headset, AE telling FN to listen to what she is apparently hearing. The entries just prior to that being the fragments of her responding to what she hears and trying to give information as to their location and condition. Concerning the microphone, it would be reasonable to surmise that, if FN had a part of the head set to his ear, then he was possibly in very close proximity to it. Other entries are notated that he was yelling, which may have carried to the mic far better than normal conversation from a distance. My further thoughts on the entries are that I have an impression that if FN was injured and not acting in a "rational" manner, the prospect of their having landed and left the plane and then returned to it over a period of time is slim. Once possibly, but I doubt more than that. It is quite possible they stayed in it the whole time till the water forced them out. Additionally, Betty remarks about the heat affecting the man. The temperature would have been pretty consistent each day at that time I believe, so I am left with the impression that his experience with it was probably new. The tide cycle also appears to be of great concern and strikes me as a new experience also. Had they been out of the plane for a while they should have been able to see the rise and fall of the water and how the aircraft was affected. Unless of course the waves were stronger and the water higher than normal, and the plane was beginning to lift and float--(BOB)--and slip off the reef.--fascinating stuff if these are genuine transmissions. Two final thoughts here. One is that in the entries, the man is saying "quick, let me out" and "let me out" If FN was in the right hand seat, he would probably have to climb over AE to exit from the top (i believe that is correct).That could explain those statements. I wonder if it was common knowledge that he would be sitting there and not be in the back with the "table", (and bamboo fishing pole) that was supposed to be his navigation station? And the second is that the frequency of the number "3" in these entries is probably significant. It seems almost all include it. Possibly some should be "E" but there is something to this. I just wish I was talented and knowledgeable enough to figure out what it is. LTM, Bill Conover ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Noonan would have had to climb over Earhart to exit the cockpit hatch regardless of whether he was in the copilots seat or standing in the companionway. Very cramped quarters. In fact, several of the comments in the notes make sense in the context of the internal layout of the airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:18:42 EDT From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: The Trial of Betty's Notebook Sign me up for the prosecution. Though I am in-house counsel and my role traditionally has been one of defense, I think it would be fun to play on the other side of the field. Before you turn a pack of legal attack dogs loose, you may want to set some parameters for how this "proceeding" should be conducted. For example, how do the rules of evidence apply? Are you going to allow hearsay evidence? Arguably, the notebook itself is hearsay since the author is still alive but there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule (e.g past recollection recorded etc.) You may also want to set a time limit for each side to make their case taking into account everyone's work schedule. ********************************************************** From Ric Good points counsellor. We have one for the prosecution. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:21:54 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Latitude in Betty's notes? Chris Kennedy wrote, >>Thus, if the recorded transmission was really latitude 3 degrees 9 minutes south, and longitude 175 degrees west, doesn't this put us awfully close to Gardner? This is a 90 minute difference in position, which translates to around 166 kilometres (over 100 miles) from Gardner. It's a little closer to McKean, but still more than 100 kilometres. The USS Colorado was in the immediate vicinity of W175' S3'9" on July 9th. Our base 10 system makes it easy read unjustified significance into numbers. I find it difficult to believe that Earhart and/or Noonan wouldn't have known Gardner's accurate position (within a few seconds), especially if they landed there. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric It seems clear to me that anyone making the case that Betty's notes represent genuine communications from Earhart has to start with the assumption that she is not at all sure where she is. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:26:54 EDT From: Dean Alexander Subject: Re: Credibility Assessment Matrix As I have said earlier I am VERY familiar with trying to decipher faint signals on equipment dating from the mid to late 30's. I think it is possible that the transmissions Betty heard were indeed from Earhart. This is something that barring any additional information will never be conclusively verified (in my opinion). Hence, to keep things simple we have only two possibilities. First, the transmission is genuinely Earhart or second it isn't-- whether it is a hoax or whatever doesn't matter. If it was Earhart it fits in with what TIGHAR has been espousing, but it isn't conclusive proof that TIGHAR'S theory is correct in and of itself---i.e. it isn't the "smoking gun." If it wasn't Earhart but something else, then again, this doesn't prove or disprove any theory about Earhart. If TIGHAR finds the "smoking gun," whatever that may be then this might lend credibility to what Betty has recounted. It might help fill in some missing details that we would never have known about the aftermath of the flight (unless some sort of log or diary is found). So, matrices and all the analyses are nice but like most of the discussions here it will end in differed opinions which won't "prove" anything. I understand that all of this discussion is useful in that it makes people think and it helps things come to light but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. *************************************************************************** From Ric No argument. I don't see how the notebook could ever be a smoking gun, but if we should find that, as best we can determine, it is PROBABLY genuine then it is an irresistable window to a few moments in the past that we could never otherwise glimpse. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:28:03 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Latitude in Betty's notes? Ric, I screwed up my last post. Sorry. Please use this one instead. Chris Kennedy wrote, >>Thus, if the recorded transmission was really latitude 3 degrees 9 minutes south, and longitude 175 degrees west, doesn't this put us awfully close to Gardner?<< This is a 90 minute difference in position, which translates to around 166 kilometres (over 100 miles) from Gardner. It's a little closer to McKean, but still more than 100 kilometres. The USS Colorado was in the immediate vicinity of W175' S3'9" on July 9th. Our base 10 system makes it easy read unjustified significance into numbers. I find it difficult to believe that Earhart and/or Noonan wouldn't have known Gardner's accurate position (within a few minutes/miles), especially if they landed there. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:29:08 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Bearing & Distance For Frank Westlake; I compute bearing & distance from Howland to Gardner(Niku) 351 nautical miles on a true course of 159 deg. using lat/long cordinates: Howland: N 0.48' W176.38 Gardner: S4.40' W174.32' I computed the numbers using a basic language pocket computer that I carry on the job, but I get the same numbers within a degree & 2 miles using plotter & dividers. Punch up brutavia@shout.net if you want to discuss it further. I've got a copy of a section of the Jep plotting chart covering the area that I could fax to you if you're interested. Doug Brutlag #2335 (who resides in the tenor section of the celestial choir) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:38:22 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Dumb idea Ric said: "As a first step, please let me hear from attorneys who would be interested in serving on one of the teams and from anyone who thinks this is a really dumb idea. if we decide to go ahead with it, we'll then call for volunteers to serve on the jury." As an outhouse lawyer, the first thing I'd do is challenge the jury selection. What if the jury at Nuremberg (spelling?) was composed of former Nazis, what would have been the outcome? The jury in this case is not only tainted, it is a witness. You need a different jury, people with a bit more objectivity than Earhart Forum members. Balancing the need for objectivity and the need for expertise in this issue/evidence is always iffy. I wish I had some suggestions for you, but I don't at this time. LTM, who's a poor juror Dennis O. McGee, #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric I thought about that and I can't think of a solution either except to say that our situation is analogous to the trial of a crime that received international publicity. I have the impression that we have a wide range of opinions among the folks on the forum, not a few of whom are in the "undecided" column. Seems like we should be able to find a fair jury. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:39:56 EDT From: Peter Thomas Subject: Mrs Putnam TO ROSS DEVITT, >>>I wonder how many people actually recalled that Earhart had become a >>>Putnam.<< In Australian and British newspapers reporting the disappearance, all reports, without exception, that I have seen, always refer to her as Mrs. Putnam; only occasionally was she even referred to as Mrs. Amelia Putnam, and once or twice as Mrs Amelia Earhart Putnam. But NEVER as Mrs Amelia Earhart , OR Mrs Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:48:28 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: GP's phone number Were social security numbers used in 1937? What about driver's license numbers? Any other "numbers" people gnerally might have used in 1937 to identify themselves? Ric, do the numbers in the notebook have any similarities to any numbers you may have in your records on the Electra or its equipment? Just thoughts. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************* From Ric Social Security was very new but it was around. The only reason I can imagine to transmit SS or driver's license or aircraft serial numbers is as some sort of "this is really me" verification. So far, nothing is ringing any bells. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:51:13 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Bearing and distance? The bearing from Howland to Gardner is 157 degrees true, and the distance is 353 nmi. Bob #2268 ************************************************************************** From Ric Doug Brutlag says it's 159 degrees and 351 nm and both of you guys are very sharp navigators. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:52:27 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Betty's notebook/ Notes from an authentic transmission No one can conclude, at this point in our knowledge, that Earhart "failed to report her position". Several of us on the Forum have been working on the possibility that the "real time" notations in Betty's notebook following the word "south" on (I believe) the third page of the notebook, are a record of a position report, however sketchy. I particularly emphasize the importance of the word "south", which is clearly recorded----this is a word commonly used to denote position. The fact that it is immediately followed by a sequence of numbers is especially interesting, and consistent with someone trying to report latitude. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:54:12 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: jumping transmissions Yes, at VHF/UHF there is often a phenomenon of reflection, but at the much longer wave lengths we are talking about, it's not so common or pronounced. Certainly impossible to "reflect" thousands of miles. And yes, it is indeed possible to observe abberations in signals at low frequencies (even in the AM broadcast and beacon bands) when an a/c is over an area with a large metallic object beneath, or over areas of iron-ore deposits etc... but what you're trying to say is that this supposed AE signal could be reflected halfway round the world like this. Uh-uh. No way. These reflections, even at VHF/UHF, are a local phenomenon. I once observed distortion of bearings on about 250 MHz, from aircraft approaching Seymour Johnson AFB (NC) from a certain direction... when the tower would call an a/c and ask for a transmission so the UHF homer in the tower could get a bearing, if the aircraft was over a lake in that direction, they often got something rather different from what they expected... the signal from the plane was bouncing off the lake surface and interfering with the direct signal from the a/c. Again, this was from a distance of about 10-12 miles out max. And we are talking about wavelengths in the 1-meter region, vs. 98 meters (3105) and 49 meters (6210). 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:00:43 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Wyoming message/ Call sign The newspaper account I have (The Honlulu Star Bulletin) states that the young lad could not hear any further numbers or any call sign. I don't know the origin of the KDN sign off. He claims he only heard the faint voice "Amelia Earhart calling...ship on reef south of equator." An interesting side note, is that Amelia landed at Rock Springs,spring 1937, and was sort of a town celebrity. An AP photo of her and the Electra at Rock Springs,made the AP's top five photos of the 20th century or something like that.Maybe you have it in the Tighar collection. This could,argueably, heightened the concern of citizens in Rock Springs when she was reported missing and lend some credibity to Randolf's report on "16000" kilocycles-on an "inexpensive commercial radio" (no further info). You could also argue that the lad was overly influenced to the extent he made it up.Or using the same arguements about Helen of St. Petersburg's notes it(the transmission) was either real, fabricated, a hoax, a re-creation type broadcast, or simply misheard ,misunderstood communications from other legit sources. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric The KDN reference comes from an official Coast Guard message describing an investigation of the Wyoming report. A big connection between Earhart and Rock Springs probably makes a hoax a greater possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:02:04 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Bail out Congratulations on your successful fund-raising mission. Yet more on the subject of when the term "bail-out" was first used: Two more references: "Student Pilot Handbook" Copyright 1943 Page 59 "In case of emergency and it is necessary to bail out of an airplane, follow these directions:" "The Armchair Aviator" Copyright 1983 A 1974 interview by Robert Gallagher of Gen. Jimmy Doolittle: (Q)" Did you ever have occasion to use a parachute?" (A)" The parachute saved my life three times. Once in 1929, once in 1932, and the last time was after the Tokyo raid and I had to bail out over China." Maybe we could put this question to rest. It seems certain that the term was commonly used during WW2, and very likely during the early 30's LTM (Who prefers the term "hit the silk") Marty Joy 0724C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:04:21 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: dumb idea.. On second thoughts . . . You're right! Why not have members from the Earhart Forum serve as jurors for our mock trial? Except how about getting about dozen of the lurkers -- the ones who subscribe to the forum but don't speak up. Let them volunteer and then select the jury from the list of volunteers. The whole idea is to get relatively unbiased juror, but the problem with using regular contributors such as Tom King, Cam Warren, Jerry Hamilton, Randy Jacobson, Janet Whitney, The Wombat, etc. you could be accused of trying to influence the outcome. Even putting regular contributors in the pool of potential jurors could raise the specter of jury tampering. But we also need jurors that have at least a passing interest and knowledge of this topic, ergo, use the lurkers. They're out there hovering at the edges of the forum, so let's ask them if they want to play. Simply solicit volunteers from anyone who has NEVER posted a message to the Earhart Forum. Hopefully enough will respond. If not, any volunteers from the general forum population will be accepted. LTM, some times a lurker, but never a stalker Dennis O. McGee, #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting idea. Let's get our lawyers first. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:17:13 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Helen's notes/ Significance of (?) With all of this extraordinary interest in the interpretation and analysis of Helen's notes, you are in the best position of measuring the significance thereof. Assume that Helen noted ( as best she could) a fragamented but authentic Earhart transmission sometime beftween 5-8 July 37.. We could then say for sure: a. the Electra landed on land,probably an atoll within her range,some 3-400 miles from Howland on 2 Jul 37 b. Amelia and Fred survived the landing for several days,at least to 5 Jul. AE was capable of transmitting.Fred may have been critically hurt. c. The transmitter worked for a while,at least to 5 Jul, but the receiver was still faulty picking up only KGBM.(Not the Itasca,etc) d.Earhart was unable to clearly identify her position/or Helen didn't get it right,or misunderstood the transmission as it filtered in.( It can't be reconstructed). Tighar and others have speculated with some pretty good evidence the same fate for years-she crash landed a few hours after her last transmission on an atoll;Tighar says Gardner, others say Mili,etc. Some 130 post loss transmission reports ,some contemporaneous and reputedly reliable,certainly may contain some real ones, as Tighar believes. Without some kind of hint on which Island she landed, we still seem faced with the same devilish enigma:where! So is it it really worth the time and effort to most likely come to some subjective conclusion that there is a "high probablity" Helen heard a real Earhart broadcast?Or there is a "low probablity". Absolute,concrete proof is now beyond our capability. Does it get us any closer. The only virtue I see is that it dampens the "ran out of gas and crashed into the ocean " theory as proposed by many,and ,most recently Long. Maybe it would simply be of historical value, another footnote in the "authentic" radio broadcasts after she was down. I don' t know. Your opinion please. LTM' Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric As I said in a recent post, if the communications in the notebook are determined to be probably authentic they are an irresistable window on events we could never otherwise know about. They do seem to describe a scenario that could fit either Nikumaroro or Mili or some other island. The difference is, the case for Niku is sound and the case for Mili is not, and there is no case for any other island. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:27:57 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: dissing Wyoming message KDN was the radio station reporting the hoax from Wyoming, not the originating station/person who heard the report in Wyoming. ************************************************************************** From Ric DUH! Thank you. Now I've got it. Coast Guard headquarters in San Francisco sends Itasca a message that says: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY QUOTE INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN UNQUOTE Translation: KDN (the government radio station in Rock Springs) reports that it has investigated the signals heard near sixteen megacycles and thinks that they are from Earhart. Have I got that right? That means that the signals were investigated and thought to be genuine! LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:13:23 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Norwich City (Page 2) Answers to your response to my "Norwich City" summary: Item 12 ... I believe you must have read that wrong. It refers to the storms of late 1939/ early 1940, that in my opinion began to uncover the bones that I contend lay buried under sand drifts for 2 1/2 to 3 years. The storms in the region (very violent North Westerly winds) is in line with the subsequent finding of bones in the S.E. sector of the island. The storms could have also toppled the "kanawa" tree that was used to make the coffin. The work party may have been attracted to the downed tree as "kanawa" wood was the popular wood to build furniture on the island. Their attention to the downed tree could have brought them in contact with the bones (now uncovered from the sands that hid the remains for 2 1/2 - 3 years). The fact that mention is made of the tree being close to the remains and having stood close to where the bones where found, and Gerald notes on Dec. 27 1940 that "... 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" This dates the tree coming down around late 1939 early 1940 ... right in timeline with the storms. Thus it is more likely that the tree was felled by storms than being cut down by a work party. Item 10 This item is where I refer to Maude/Bevington's arrival on the Island in 1937. I contend that by simple natural sand drifts that the remians could have been covered up. But as you say it really wouldn't have mattered. Bevington's party of natives and himself could have walked right past exposed remains as they were in no other frame of mind than to get back to Maude and the "Nimanoa". Bevington as a matter of fact hard pressed the natives to "get a move on"! Item 13. August 4 ... I apologise, that should have read the earliest would have been August 4th but most likely was sometime in early September. The point is when Gerald finally comes on the Island and takes charge of the "bones scenario" ... which his initial thoughts lead him to declare that he thought these are the bones of AE. Emily Yes, the problem with any folkelore is that some of the facts can be innocently altered. The big problem with any type of verbal account of any incidents is what is fact and what is perceived or conjoured up additives to the story. We have an old saying in Scotland that ... "A man tells a story of a plant seedling on one side of the town. By the time it reaches the other side it is the story of a flourishing forest" ... along the way the story devolps its own life. The main point in Emily's story is in my opinion "taboo" that existed from the Elders and that bones of some sort or other, from some source or other are attributed to ... near the "Norwich City". Conclusion: I FIRMLY believe that some extended time should be alloted to search the NC for clues and evidence. FURTHER, the grave nearby should be checked to at least eliminate it as a possibility being that of FN or AE. The ideal scenario is that evidence is found on board NC AND the remains in the grave are confirmed as those of either AE or FN. Thus, you put forward a time expenditure outline recently asking where time should be alloted. I VOTE FOR THE NC & GRAVE! Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric Re Item 12: We have reports from the NZ survey of severe westerly weather for the first week of January 1939 and your esteemed cousin wrote of westerly gales that pummeled the island in the last quarter of 1940, but I don't recall a reference to bad weather in late '39/early '40. Did I miss it? I agree that we should take a hard look at what little is left of Norwich City and, yes, I'm real curious about that grave. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:15:22 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: bail out Ric says "Given the extreme popularity of aviation throughout the 20s and 30s it's hard to believe that "bail out", if it was a term in common use, would not appear in print well before WWII." "Bail out" must have started as a nautical term, later adapted to aviation. You can "bail out" a boat, as in remove water and dump it overboard, and you can also "bail out of" a boat, as in dump yourself overboard and abandon ship. I think the abandon ship version was adapted for aviation use, which means the nautucal use must predate the aviation use. I suspect that "bail out" would have been in use as a nautical term before the war. Anyone got an OED to check? How about an old nautical dictionary? Also, I think life boats generally do have the name of their host ship on them, but that is just an impression from watching many cruise ships in St. Thomas harbor. I do not know that there is some kind of requirement, but it is useful to know where a lifeboat, or life preserver for that matter, originates from in case you find one empty. Helps identify what might be missing. LTM (who doesnt like to find empty life preservers) Andrew McKenna 1045CE ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:17:07 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: WOJ Mike E. says > If someone has access to a 1937 Radio Amateur Callbook Magazine (I do not) > please look up W4OK, just for grins, and see who held the call and where the > station was located. The Callbook is the definitive source for this info, > not the Berne List. We might look at W4OJ too. Mike, 1937 is going back some for a Call Book. Does the ARRL have an accessible archive in Newington? Seems to me they would have a complete collection of Call Books maybe. Just a thought if none of the Forum Hams have a 1937 edition. LTM & 73s Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Janet Whitney It appears the FCC and its predecessors never issued the call letters "WOJ" to a medium wave or shortwave station. There was a station with the call letters "WOOJ" that broadcast on medium wave AM for many years in Ft. Myers - Naples Florida area (about 100 miles from St. Petersburg). Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:33:38 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: early usage of MAYDAY The origin of Mayday as a distress call seems to be a hotly debated subject in the news group alt.usage.english. I did a search of Deja News and found an interesting discussion of the topic in that groups archive. I will leave the debate concerning old Vs. new French out of here, but I did find an interesting citation to early use of the call. I quote from the posting: The earliest citation is from the International Radio Telegraph Commission, dated 1927, and reads as follows: Rules apply to the radio telephone distress call which consists of the spoken expression MAYDAY (corresponding to the French pronunciation of the expression "m'aider"...) The URL for those interested is: http://x63.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=515546397&CONTEXT=971294353.182039 3515&hitnum=4 This appears to show that Mayday was an established distress call in 1937. LTM, Bill Conover *************************************************************************** From Ric Solid information. Thanks Bill. It strikes me that the argument that "Marie" is actually "Mayday" runs into the same problem encountered with "Mary." The accent is on the wrong syllable. Hard sounds like "d" and "b" might well be lost in the shuffle but inflection is going to come through even if the word itself is unintelligible. Betty apparently heard something that sounded like "maREE." The closest word she knew that sounded like that was the name Marie, so that's what she wrote. An English speaker saying Mayday says, "MAYday", but someone using the term as the French expression for "help me" might say "mayDAY." The same argument is what makes "New York City" and "Norwich City" seem so close. Same number of syllables and the same inflection, especially for an American English speaker. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:38:09 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: The Trial of Betty's notebook With all due respect to lawyers. I don't favor your idea of such a "trial". Lawyers are trained/skilled, not to be such hot-shot investigators (a la TV), but as advocates who maintain a position which is in conformance with law and what is legally admissible in a court of law. What the law says may have little to do with whether or not something happened or what all of the facts in a matter are. That doesn't make lawyers bad people, just not the ideal to pull questions together in this case. I think you yourself know what basic questions to ask. Certainly, some excellent inputs have been put forth so far by forum members. You know what they are and have distilled them down by now. If I were Betty, I would resist being interrogated to death on this, and there are surely 10e<6 other things which could be asked. Memory is tricky. False memory is very common in everyone. People who try too hard to recall facts under extensive quizzing unwittingly start manufacturing facts. I would at this point suspect her own memory or even her interpretation of her own notes after so long a time. Good luck. LTM, ( preparing for a deluge from lawyers!) Bob #2021 *************************************************************************** From Ric An interesting point. Justice Learned Hand said, "The study of law sharpens the mind by narrowing it." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:40:04 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: mayday As far as I can remember "Mayday" came into use with the introduction of the ICAO radio alphabet after WW II. I don't remember the year but it was sometime after 1950. Until then the military radio alphabet was still in use as introduced during the war by the Allies. Just for the record here it is as learned by heart by my generation : Able Baker Charly Dog Easy Fox George How Item Jig King Love Mike Nan Oboe Peter Question Roger Sugar Tare Uncle Victor Whisky X-ray Yoke Zebra. LTM (who probably prefers Alpha, Bravo, Charly...) ************************************************************************** From Ric As Bill Conover has documented, the term was in use as early as 1927. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:57:43 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Bearing & Distance > From Frank Westlake [Head. Dist. HOW-NIK > >I get 159T 318NM and this is too close to some of Betty's numbers >to not have them checked. My calc. says head. 158T dist. from 'old' How 354 miles. Dist from recent HOW position, 351 miles; heading the same RC 941 ************************************************************************** From Ric What a hoot! Bob Brandenburg says 157 degrees and 353 nm. Doug Brutlag says 159 degrees and 351 nm Bob Sherman says 158 degrees and 354 (from "old" Howland, which is probably better to use) Betty says that she heard "158" several times. ************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt 157 - 158 - 159 Ric and I and others on the forum have (or have had) to calculate the heading before every cross country flight, using a map and a protractor. Sit 3 pilots in a room, with 3 maps and protractors, get them to plot the heading to a destination and then read the 3 different answers, all within a degree of each other. It all depends on how sharp your pencil is, and how far you are flying. A mistake of one degree on a flight of 300 miles will still bring you within 5 miles of your destination over 300 miles. A mistake of 3 degrees will bring you within 15 miles over the same distance. In the case of Gardner, they would probably still see the island (even if the couldn't see Howland from a similar distance). Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:07:23 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: dissing Wyoming message Ric wrote: >>Have I got that right? That means that the signals were investigated and thought to be genuine!<< No. There are really two embedded quotes. USCG-SF relays a message it receives from KDN: "INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN". This is the literal message received by the CG. What KDN sent to USCG was "INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ" (information) with SIGNED KDN showing the originator/signature. The originator/signature was standard procedure for commercial transmissions, and, in fact, required procedures. ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, but the bottom line is that the "INVESTIGATION (that was done) REVEALS (that the) SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES (by the kid, are) THOUGHT (by the investigators) TO BE FROM KHAQQ". Or am I nuts? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:09:45 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Trial of Betty's Notebook There have been people hanged on a lesser volume of circumstantial evidence than TIGHAR has for the Earhart on Niku hypothesis. Having said that, I believe some of them were innocent! Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:19:22 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: No yoke on right side? >from Ric > No shoulder restraints aboard the Electra. However Amelia had a whacking great wheel to hang on to and prevent her being thrown quite so hard forwards. Fred had a lap restraint...... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, there was a wheel in front of Fred too - or maybe not. Curiously, among the gear piled in front of the cabin door in a photo taken in Darwin are two parachutes, a bottle of what is probably nitrogen for servicing the struts, a spare tailwheel and a control wheel. A control wheel? Not the sort of thing you would expect to be carried as a spare. (Don't you hate it when the control yoke breaks?) It seems much more likely that the copilot-side control wheel was removed in order to give Fred more room up front. He wouldn't be able to spell AE on the flying, but she had an autopilot for that. Removing the copilot-side yoke would make a lot of sense but could also explain why the right-seat occupant got hurt and the pilot didn't. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:26:36 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Bearing and distance? Using position N0048.0W17638.0 for HOWLAND and S0440.3W17432.5 for NIKUMARORO (contemporary aviation format), I get a True Course of 159 and distance 355 Nautical Miles. The chart used for this is not optimum for this task--it is a Jeppesen South Pacific Plotting Chart, Lambert Conformal Conic Projection, Standard Parallels 5 and 43, Scale 1 inch equals 150 nautical miles. If you want it really pinned down, I'll forward the request to one of my buddies who is flying an airplane with a world-wide data base. Skeet ************************************************************************** From Ric I think we have the ballpark defined as closely as Noonan could have defined it. Of course, saying that Betty's notes describe a bearing and distance from Howland supposes that Earhart had that information and, by definition, knew where she was - and yet we don't have anything that sounds like "Gardner" or even "McKean" or "Phoenix" (okay, or for that matter "Mili"). Maybe all she has is the bearing. She knows what direction she was flying down the LOP but distance information (where she was on the LOP) was always the problem. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:28:38 EDT From: Michael Lowrey Subject: Re: KGMB and Chronology If we accept that the belly antenna was gone - which may well have been AE's main receive antenna - how could she have picked up KGMB? Was she carrying a separate, emergency radio receiver in her survival gear? Michael Lowrey *************************************************************************** From Ric Not as far as we know. She did, however, have another receiving antenna - the DF loop. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:32:52 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: CQD Found a page online with some discuusions of Ham radio terms http://www.ac6v.com/pagear.html quoting an section, (cutting and pasting, anyhow) "Let's turn to page 4 of Baarslag's Famous Sea Rescues (formerly titled: SOS To The Rescue): "By 1904 a number of ships in the trans-Atlantic trade were equipped with wireless telegraphy. The British operators were nearly all landline telegraphers who had left railroad or post- office keys to go to sea in the newly opened field. They brought along with them not only their Morse code but also many of their telegraphic abbreviations and signals. One was the general call - CQ, which had been used to attract attention of all operators along a wire. It preceded the time signal in the morning at 10 o'clock and also all notices of general importance. CQ went to sea and became a general call to all ships." A couple paragraphs later, "Early in 1904 the Marconi Company, realizing the desirability of some universal distress signal, filled the need by issuing the following general order: ``It has been brought to our notice that the call `CQ' (All Stations) while being satisfactory for general purposes, does not sufficiently express the urgency required in a signal of distress. Therefore, on and after the 1st of February, 1904, the call to be given by ships in distess, or in any way requiring assistance, shall be `CQD.' '' " Page also links into a fairly concise record of the role of Radio in the Titanic disaster cutting and pasting again from "the titanic radio page" http://www2.dynamite.com.au/rmstitanic/ "The message "CQD" means a general call to all vessels, which indicates the vessel sending is in distress and requires immediate assistance. At the time of the "Titanic" sinking, the Marconi company's "CQD" was still in common use, although it had been officially replaced by the well known "SOS" - which, by the way, does NOT mean "Save Our Souls" or anything so melodramatic - it was chosen specifically to be easily and instantly recognisable in morse - "dit dit dit, dah dah dah, dit dit dit". Such was the dominance of Marconi over the infant marine radio industry that many ships still used CQD, rather than the official distress signal SOS. This can be seen in the Titanic's initial and final distress calls - Jack Phillips stuck to the company CQD signal to the end...." Bill *************************************************************************** From Ric So the Titanic being the first to use the "new" SOS distress call is myth? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:34:48 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Wyoming message Just wanted to stick in a bit about receivers/senders out of Wyoming on the last flight that might have some significance to Wyoming's capability of receiving AE messages (maybe its an atmospheric thing in Wyoming). In 'Last Flight, chapter- Arabian Flight -in a foot note by George Putnam he writes..."It (conversation with AE) was recorded mechanically in the office of the Herald Tribune in NY. The conversation traveled 8,274 miles. From Karachi to Bombay, communication was by land lines; from Bombay to London, and thence to NY, by short-wave radio. Later there were other long long-distance conversations, from Calcutta and Bandoeng and Soerabaga, the latter two routed across the Pacific, covering about 12,000 miles. For the last, George Putnam en route to California by United plane, was picked up at Cheyenne, Wyoming, his Back-of-the world chat being sandwiched into a twenty minute refueling stop there. The last conversation, with both voices clearly recorded, ended: GPP-Is everything about the ship OK now? AE-Yes. Good night, Hon. GPP-Good night....I'll be sitting in Oakland waiting for you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:40:54 EDT From: John Buontempo Subject: Re: Others who heard AE? I have been away from the computer for exactly a week now. I had to have emergency surgery at 13:30 on the 4th of October. You know the deal, emergency appendectomy -- appendix necrosed, turned gangrenous, life threatening, complications, ad infinitum. Now I'm just trying to catch up on the postings (327 of them!!!) I have a couple of questions. >From Ric > >In a letter to me postmarked October 11, 1990, Mabel Dunklee of Corinth, VT >wrote: > >"On the first night of Amelia Earhart's disappearance I heard her SOS loud >and clear, not on the frequency but on the one President Roosevelt said she >might use. Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. >Small, uninhabited. The plane was partially on land, part in water. >She gave the latitude and longitude of her location. I listened to her for >30-45 minutes. After waking my family to listen - two sons and my husband >(all three now deceased) and I had called our local paper to let them listen >to her message also when one member of our family reminded me that our >President had asked that no one give out any information if they heard >anything, as it might endanger her life. > >I heard her message around 2 A.M. daylight saving time from my home in >Amarillo, Texas. She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously >injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as >serious as Mr. Noonan. >My family and myself decided not to discuss this with anyone. The government >of the USA was supposed to take care of everything, so did not even listen >for any later messages from her. 1. After reviewing pictures of NIKU taken by previous TIGHAR missions, it appears to me that the reef flat slopes upward to the beach at a steep angle. In reference to the statement -- "The plane was partially on land, part in water". a. Could AE have been trying to taxi the 10E onto the beach but could not get it any further? b. Could the 10E have come to a final stop on the upslope of the beach from the landing? Question 1: If this were true, would the angle of the 10E (somewhat nose-up and skyward rather than horizontal) have helped any in any radio transmission(s) in relation to wave-length propagations, skip, etc.? >"On the first night of Amelia Earhart's disappearance I heard her SOS loud >and clear, not on the frequency but on the one President Roosevelt said she >might use. Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. Question 2: What frequency did President Roosevelt say she might use and why did he NOT want anyone to discuss it. WHY would it endanger her life? I know - The "C" word again. John B. *************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome back John. Glad you survived what sounds like a real ordeal. The reef flat does not slope, but a landing mishap could have left the airplane in an attitude that altered the normal antenna orientation. Specu- lation. President Roosevelt never said anything about the Earhart disappearance on the radio, as far as we know. This part of the account seems to be very flawed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:43:39 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Betty's notebook/ Notes from an authentic transmission re:" technical aspects and transmitting possibilities" of the Electra equipment. In 'Last Flight', chapter -First Pacific Flight'- AE states, "My radio frequency was not particularly efficient after sun-up. However, I kept on broadcasting periodically, knowing that listening shore stations would at least get my signal and thus know I was still afloat.Being fairly sure they could understand little of what I said, I became slightly careless with words. I commented on the scenery, which wasn't much, and made other remarks. After flying over this monotonous fog-you have no idea how wearying it can be- for one hour, for two hours, for three hours, I remember saying into my little hand microphone: "I'm getting tired of this fog". My message was picked up "I'm getting tired." (They sent out a Doc and nurse to meet a "tired" AE in Oakland who wasn't tired). At the end of the world flight in chapter -Lae- AE states "In addition (to "winds blowing the wrong way" and "threatening clouds") , Fred Noonan has been unable, because of radio difficulties, to set his chronometers. Any lack of knowledge of their fastness and slowness would defeat the accuracy of celestial navigation". So I hope Amelia has helped us understand what transmitting effectively meant to her in 1937. Judy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:44:29 EDT From: Judy Subject: maps on line Pete, you can get very detailed maps of cities in the US at www. mapquest.com. Just enter that web address then click 'maps' when its window opens. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:48:48 EDT From: Mary Jane Subject: Re: The usage of "Bud" Since you mentioned horse I just cannot resist this! Amelia Mary Earhart (Millie) and her sister according to the AE Museum in Kansas on occasion took care of a neighbor's horse, and his name was "BOB". This reference is listed Early Stories about Amelia. Ric, I wonder if Betty would consent to a type of Regressive Hypnosis, It might prove interesting to take her back to that day and age. ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know anything about Regressive Hypnosis but it sounds like pop pseudo-science to me (like therapeutic magnets and memory enhancing herbs). If there is real research supporting the technique I'd love to see it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:54:46 EDT From: Nick Murray Subject: Re: Norwich City (Page 2) After reading Gerry's hypothesis about AE and FN using the Norwich City as a shelter, I was curious how people would be able to get on and off of the ship in the location and condition that it would have been in. I reread the story on the website, about how the crew tried to get off on a lifeboat, and the lifeboat capsized. It brings up the following questions and thoughts: 1. Given the length and beam of the ship, with it sitting on the edge of the reef, the deck level must be approximately 20 feet above the reef. 2. Since the ship was destroyed by fire, could any rope or wooden ladders on the side of the ship have survived? Perhaps a metal stairway on the side of the ship? 3. If AE or FN were seriously injured, how would they have been able to get on the ship? 4. How were the colonists able to get on the ship? Human pyramid? 5. How were the New Zealanders able to get on the ship to take the photo? It seems to me that if AE or FN were seriously injured, it would be more logical to set up a camp somewhere near or on the beach, and possibly explore the ship for anything that may be useful. If/when the injured person dies, then I would consider the possibility of staying on the ship. But I would have to return to the island periodically for supplies/water, and depending on how difficult it is to get on the ship, I may stay on the island anyway. Just something to think about. Nick Murray (#2356CE) *************************************************************************** From Ric The easiest way to get aboard would be over the stern which sat low in the water because the ship's back was broken. The break also resulted in a breach in the hull which, at least in late 1938 when the Kiwis were there, was quite large. How difficult it may have been to clamber from the bottom of the hold up to the deck, I can't say. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:56:38 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: The Trial of Betty's Notebook Ric wrote >As a first step, please let me hear from attorneys who would be interested in >serving on one of the teams and from anyone who thinks this is a really dumb >idea. if we decide to go ahead with it, we'll then call for volunteers to >serve on the jury. Ric I think this is the best idea since Niku I... Pat thought of it, right? Tom *************************************************************************** From Ric Actually, the seminal idea of having lawyers tackle the question was Tom King's. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:01:15 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Family Folklore? To follow up on this posting: >From John Pratt > >>From Tom King >> >>When I read the "suitcase in the closet" reference, ... >>So here she is, confronting death on a remote island, and she's left >>something for them in a suitcase in a closet, and suddenly it becomes >>terribly important to her to make sure George finds it and gets it to them. >>Very very VERY speculative, of course, but it would be interesting to find >>out if there's any family folklore about such a suitcase or its contents. and the comment: >Excellent thought and certainly something we should be able to find out. To carry it out, the obvious way is to ask the family. However, the family should have a special position in this matter and asking them potentially painful questions requires some consideration. 1. Is there a TIGHAR/Family relationship already, with a point of contact already established? 2. If not, is there or should there be a TIGHAR policy of who makes these contacts and how contact is made? 3. If not, is there an obvious family spokesperson such as the one who currently conducts business on behalf of the Amelia Earhart name? LTM (who follows family folklore) John Pratt (2373) ************************************************************************** From Ric We have recently made an excellent contact in the Earhart/Morrissey family. I'll handle inquiries of this nature personally. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:04:00 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Harmonics >From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > >A possible harmonic generated in AE's transmitter would have been >15525 KHz, the tenth harmonic of the frequency-control crystal (1552.5 KHz) >used for a channel freq of 3105. This is also the 5th harmonic of the 3105 >KHz crystal used for the channel freq of 6210. >15525 KHz would be an excellent daylight-propagation freq. The last sentence is certainly true, as would be any frequency from here on up to where the home radios left off, ~20000 kc/s. However, amid the popular grasping for another miracle, i would like to remind how far down the output power would be, at this high a harmonic. Another obstacle would be, whether the antenna was the right length to favor possible candidate harmonics. If someone can really verify that with an accidental signal (from harmonics, normally considered troublesome incidental radiated energy), with a radiated power of only several watts, home listeners heard the signal at "armchair level" (i.e. head phones not clamped to their heads), on home radios, AE's crash messages were heard in the Eastern USA, they will have, i feel, one of the "stories of the century", running maybe a close second only to locating the plane or remains. I'm all for that, but want to remind how unlikely that really is. And no, don't tell me you talked to Australia on your 5 watt CB, because i'll ask if 27 MHz is really that comparable to 15 MHz, and what kind of antenna you used. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:05:05 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: jumping transmissions > From Dave Bush > >>From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: >>And a tower by itself doesn't passively reflect them along the way. > > I beg to differ. As a search and rescue pilot, I have found that ELT > transmitters can radiate a signal that will "jump" and be broadcast from a > tower or phone line or power line or metal building up to several miles away. Agreed, an antenna or structure serving as an antenna will reradiate. (In the 1950s the Russian bug of the Great Seal of The US in the US embassy worked on that principle - it was energized by microwave radio from them). However that phenomenon wouldn't deliver more power than impinged on the antenna, and wouldn't have helped any message from AE travel any farther than they already (some say) travelled by skywave propagation. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:07:43 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter Facts Aeronautic Radio, by Myron Eddy, 1939, has an interesting treatment of this equipment that adds to the Morgan book. Unfortunately, nothing on the receiver. The Eddy book presents the schematic on TWO pages, large enuff that you do not need a magnifying glass and do not become bleary eyed and hallucinating after a few minutes of tracing paralleled lines with minimal separation. Janet's question some time back. the SIGNAL terminal 12 on the transmitter connector: this goes to a warning lamp on the pilot's box that indicates the channel selector is NOT set square right on a channel, channel switch (section) D1 also prevents the transmitter from operating (or trying to operate, and burning up) if the channel switch stops between channels. ( I presume this missed-channel, in-between channels switch resting place could occur because of the mechanical flexible cable that twists the channel control from the pilot's control box.) Mike- "rough signal " reported, Lae: I had never before noticed, this transmitter is "Screen Modulation". As we know, this circuit is fairly critical as to antenna tuning, to have the modulation work right: if the antenna circuit is mistuned, transmitter current is abnormal, the modulation doesn't work right (simplifying here), and the the thing "sounds bad", voice quality-wise. This can occur on any or all channels, depending on the adjustments made for each channel. A lawyer might say mistuning COULD favor harmonics, i say no chance this information by itself favors THE HARMONIC THEORY. Oh, dig this microphone-related info: resistor R4 in the microphone circuit has 2 settings: one for "quiet locations (ground stations, boats, etc." where additional sensitivity where microphone sensitivity can be increased if desired. The "normal setting" limits microphone sensitivity for settings where ambient noise is bad (like an airplane.) That means, no broadcast studio microphone acoustics, even in a crash landed plane cabin. The adjustment is internal, not user-reachable. I mention this, because this microphone senstivity limitation, plus the fact that the microphone is a carbon type, would seem to lean strongly (to say the least) against voices in the back ground, or two voices being heard at once --Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:09:09 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Why not tell mom? Just an observation, I don't recall reading 'Betty' making any reference to her mother... was she living _alone_ with her father at the time she heard this broadcast? Seems strange she mentions hearing the broadcast to her father, when he returned home from work, but makes no mention of speaking about the broadcast to her mother, if in fact her mother was at home during this time frame. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. I'll ask. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:16:00 EDT From: John Hancock Subject: bail out - settled Please reference "THE PENSACOLA AIR STATION NEWS, Vol XII (February 5, 1932, No. 8). On the cover is a reference to a series of articles entitled "Bailing Out" by John H. Hancock, AMM 2c, USN. This was the third part of a three part series appearing in the news magazine, written by my father, who was a licenced parachute rigger (Dept. of Commerce Licence # 16, issued November, 1931). I am in possession of the three issues of THE PENSACOLA AIR STATION NEWS and the Dept. of Commerce license, and will gladly share them with anyone with an interest in early parachuting, however I do not have scanning capability. My dad later became an enlisted pilot (NAP) and I spent my pre-teen years listening to SNJ's and other Naval aircraft, including Lockheed 10's ( I can't remember the Navy aircraft designation) which were used by the Navy at Pensacola for ferrying Navy brass from Anacostia NAS in D.C. to Pensacola (my Dad ended his carrer as the Leading Chief of VM-1 at Chevalier Field, Pensacola NAS - now gone - flying 10's) in 1945 - 48. Also, two interesting asides, (1) Dad, Mom and I were passengers aboard the PAA "Yankee Clipper" from Lima, Peru to Miami, FL in 1945 while returning from the American embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and (2) Dad served with Lt. Lambrecht aboard the USS Colorado and the heavy cruiser USS Tuscalusa, flying in catapault launched Vought 03 U3's.(In the Mid 1930's) It would seem that the term "bailing out" (as used in referencing the leaving of a plane in distress) was in use in 1932. John H. Hancock, Jr. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. That really settles it. There was one Lockheed 10 built for the Navy. It was c/n 1052 and was designated Bu. No. 0267 and called the XR2O-1. The airplane is currently undergoing restoration at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT. (We know her well.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:24:13 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Norwich City (Page 2) A couple of observations on this excellent exchange.... If FN died aboard Norwich City, his remains must not have been evident when Maude, Bevington, et al crossed the wreck in late '37, nor when the Kiwis, Maude, Gallagher, and the colonists were all around and through it (storing stuff in it for awhile, even) in '38. That's actually good news, since anything that WAS aboard the NC would be virtually impossible to find now, given the reduction of the wreck to little but a scatter of ferrous metal. We can hope that if he died there, Earhart was in a position to bury him, perhaps with identifiable artifacts. But she obviously wouldn't have buried him in a Gilbertese style grave. Nor would the Norwich City survivors have buried the three bodies they recovered in such graves. If the bones mentioned by Emily really were found near the wreck, of course, the colonists might have buried them in a Gilbertese style grave nearby (perhaps accounting for a second-hand story we've heard about someone in Tarawa who says she saw "the grave of a pilot" on Niku), but they might also have dumped them in the ocean (accounting for the story of how the bones were disposed in the Kilts account). Since western Nutiran was occupied by colonists in the later colonial period, it's also very likely that the Gilbertese graves there are in fact the graves of Gilbertese. But as I recall from your notes, Ric, and from John Claus's description, one of the "graves" wasn't very "Gilbertese" at all (and perhaps not a grave), but was merely marked by what seemed to be a headstone. Much more like something Amelia would do -- or the Norwich City survivors, of course. To complicate things further, we have the Maude-Bevington account of "piles of rubble" (or words to that effect) on Aukaraime South, near/at the Shoe Site. We've speculated about such a pile possibly being the stuff heaped up over a shallow grave. An alternative to Gerry's scenario might have Fred survive long enough to join Amelia in her "survivalist mode" trek around the island, but cash in when they got to Aukaraime South. Where AE buries him as best she can, takes one of his shoes to wear on a foot that's gotten cut and infected, and hence swollen, discards one of her own shoes, and hobbles on to the Seven Site where she expires. Thus accounting for the peculiar distribution of shoe parts between Aukaraime South and (we think) the Seven Site, and the Bevington-Maude rubble heap, but of course NOT accounting for the bones near the shipwreck. Sheesh, anyone for aliens? LTM TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:25:43 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Gulf of Mexico Pirate Broadcast? Could what 'Betty' heard have been a pirate radio broadcast from a ship or boat in the Gulf of Mexico? Maybe by some people who got really sloshed over July 4th on someone's yacht? Maybe by some people who met Earhart socially or had business dealings with George Putnam and disliked one or both? Also, Earhart was fervently New Deal and pro-FDR, and the Florida resort areas were populated by many Republicans who hated FDR. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:29:04 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: media rights If someone else has already asked this, feel free to delete, as I can read your answer to them. I'm following the Betty thread with just as much interest as everyone else, but I'm also curious about the media rights deal you recently concluded. Are you permitted to elaborate? Who's doing it, and what's going to be done? Is a film crew from one of the network or cable channels going to accompany the Niku expedition? If so, will they have real-time satellite transmission capability--are we going to see you guys on Niku on the nightly news? Finally, going back to a thread from a few months ago, are you concerned that media broadcast of a smoking gun artifact, if found, might compromise the security of the site: i.e. if NBC News scoops the world with news of verifiable AE artifacts on Niku, might some well-heeled "treasure scavengers" pick Niku clean before a true archaelogical recovery mission could be mounted? Sorry for all the questions--just curious. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************************** From Ric Legitimate questions, none of which I am able to answer at this time. I'll say as much as I can as soon as I can say it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:31:10 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Head injuries and "bail out" From yet another person (me) who has suffered a severe head injury... Coherent speech and coherent thinking are usually just not there. Fred could have been going-on about "bailing out" as a means of escape and Amelia's comment may well have been in the context, "Fred, we CAN't bail out... we are down already!" For what it's worth. LTM (who NEVER -- well, HARDLY ever -- says what she doesn't mean) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Another suspicion confirmed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:24:37 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Security checks <> A war-time security check could have (and most likely did) include former neighbors as well as current neighbors, so this would not be unusual. It would be logical for an investigator to check old telephone directories at the library. Many years ago (uring the Viet Nam War), my family and our immediate neighbors were questioned by two men (either FBI or Naval Intelligence -- I can't remember which) who were doing a security check on a former neighbor. The former neighbor was a naval officer involved in something that the two investigators did not discuss. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric That makes sense. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:28:50 EDT From: Mike E Subject: Re: Wyoming message Ric, the text precedes KDN with SIGNED. This is telegram/radiogram format for indicating a SIGNATURE. KDN is definitely a set of initials. Been there/done that... The SIGNED means the signature of the person sending THIS telegram. Not the signature or call sign of what the kid heard. It would be worded differently. In telegrams, the message always ends with "signed" or "signature" to indicate a break between the text and the sender's signature. The most probable reason the message was dissed was on account the fact it was heard "near" (NOTE WELL, "near") 16 MHz. This was of course the "wrong" freq... not 3105 or 6210... but it could have been a harmonic and they pronbably never even considered that possibility. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, but I see no indication in this message that it's a dismissal of the message at all. On the contrary, it appears to be a validation. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:30:26 EDT From: Troy Subject: flipped over? If the plane flipped over on landing, how does this change things? No ability to recharge the battery, for one. What about flooding? Radio propagation? Just a thought... --troy-- *************************************************************************** From Ric If the plane is on its back the transmitting antenna is broken and underwater. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:31:45 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: W4OK In trying to interpret this, we need to keep in mind that Betty reports that she heard either W40K "or" W O J, and that "Howland port" was also heard. How many degrees west of Gardner is Howland? From the maps on the webpage, it looks like about 4 degrees west, but I am wondering if someone has the exact coordinates. One possibility is that "Howland port" may be "Howland ABort". --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:39:38 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Air Time I would add two comments on the question of whether the engine was running or not during the transmission which Betty heard. Since it appears that the transmission only lasted over a period of perhaps 1 and 3/4 hours, and since part of that time the radio may not have been transmitting. I think there is enough power in the battery to transmit for 1 hour or so without running the engine. Since the period of transmission ended about 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard time), it might even have been received on July 2, shortly after Amelia landed. Of course this does conflict with the message from the radio station in Hawaii, if it was noted on the same day Betty recorded these notes. I think we need to settle somehow on the date of the messge log. Betty might help if she could answer this question: Did she know that Amelia was missing when she made those notes (that would eliminate the 2nd) or only that she was currently making the world flight? Again, if her father did try to contact the Coast Guard the next day, the Coast Guard might not have been too interested at this early stage. LTM, Harry *************************************************************************** From Ric One of the first questions I asked Betty the first time I talked her by phone was whether knew Earhart was missing when she heard the transmissions. She couldn't remember. Having gotten that response, I'm very hesitiant to push her to try to remember. That's a good way to get false memories. If the transmissions started at 16:30 EST that would be 2130Z or 10:00 Howland/Niku time. That's really pushing the arrival at Niku time but I suppose it's possible. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:54:47 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's Intercept/ Earhart's transmission ? The story goes that at 8:35 Hawaii time on Sat 3 July 37,Pan American Airway monitors reported four distinct breaks in a carrier wave on AE's frequency "seemingly in response" to instructions broadcast earlier by KGBM in Honolulu. According to Dick Strippel,researcher ,this transmission was a "Putnam gimmick" because of the technical improbabilities . KGBM transmitted the message on its regular broadcast band 1320-kHz, a standard AM band. Strippel contends that "unless Amelia Earhart had a broadcast-band radio specifically tuned to this station, there was no way she could have received it."* He adds that "hundreds of thousands" of Hawaii and West Coast stations heard the the KGBM message to Earhart.* Betty's note book contains 'KGBM" penciled in. The technical question is did AE have a broadcast -band radio aboard and if so tuned to that station. If she didn't, then Betty heard another radio station, maybe KGBM, or someother radio source. The dramatized March of Time radio broadcast re-creating the Earhart event including a two way conversation between Earhart and Itasca was carried by 36 stations of the "Red Network",including KGBM, Honolulu.* Question: were any of the St. Petersburg or area radios part of the Red Network?(A check with local stations there should quickly resolve that.) If Betty heard only an estimated 1.7 hours,intermitttently, and catching only fragments, those intercepts may be reconcilable with her notetations. *(SOURCE: Amelia Earhart: The Myth and Reality, Dick Strippel, pub 1972.) Strippel reports many other well known alleged intercepts of AE,including Randolf's in Rock Springs, Wy on 5 July 37. These technical aspects may or may not negate the Earhart intercept by Betty,but should be a high priority in this investigation. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric There were two KGMB broadcasts and the responses were more complicated than you describe. The entire KGMB episode is well documented in the official radio messages. Dick Stripple's allegation that the broadcasts were "a Putnam gimmick" is truly outrageous and shows a fundamental failure to accept GP's genuine anguish over the disappearance of his wife. Earharts WE 20B receiver was certainly capable of tuning to KGMB's frequency and doing so would have been a logical thing for Earhart to do. I think we have already conclusively eliminated the March of Time broadcasts as part of this puzzle. Even supposing that Betty happened to miss the musical cues and the Itasca part of the fictionalized conversation, the shows were only a half hour long and the transmissions Betty heard went on for more than three times that long. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:55:45 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Cal Tech Analysis For David Evans Katz: In reviewing past postings to the Earhart Forum, I ran across one of yours on March 31, 2000, concerning the CalTech analysis involving Earhart's Electra 10E fuel consumption. I believe this analysis was utilized by the Longs in developing their scenario for Earhart's loss. In any event, you indicated that you had once seen the analysis and were endeavoring to identify the names of the authors. I wonder if you had any success in this matter? Regards, Birch Matthews ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:57:39 EDT From: Ted Rodgers Subject: Radio drama? 1) I would be interested in knowing from Betty just how difficult it was to hear throughout the broadcast. Was there static at the best of times picking out a word here and there, or were there times of clarity? To me, this gets into the question of exactly what she heard. If she is picking words out of static/interference, then it would be easy to think you heard "New York City" instead of "Norwich City," for example. I do not mean to suggest that this would resolve major questions. Rather, it would help in assessing what is in the notebook, and would be a simple thing to ask. 2) I would be interested in hearing from posters, older ones or from people who can ask older people, if radio dramas from the late 1930s would have commercials as we do today; that is, every 10-15 minutes, a bright, vibrant commercial interruption. What I am getting at is this: If this was a radio drama aired by a radio station, would Betty have heard commercials every 5-10 minutes, as we do today? Or was it common at the time to have little more than an occasional announcement (maybe every half-hour or so, "This is Theater of the Air sponsored by Acme Products ..."), something so soft and low-key that it might be missed? I am interested in determining how likely it might have been that a station somehwhere put together a drama, believing it was clearly labelled as such (much as Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater people believed in the famous "War of the Worlds" broadcast was clearly labelled as fiction), only to have the signal skip to Florida, but with such interference that it was mistaken for a real distress call? I am not sure we can reach a conclusion, but we might be able to determine if it is more or less likely to have happened. I am reading a lot of speculation on whether the broadcast was a hoax, when it might not have been broadcast as a hoax, but might have been received as fact when it was meant as fiction. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:03:24 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Pacific Air Pilot For Cam Warren Cam wrote: >>Rich's use of Gene Vidal's quote that Earhart intended to fly back to the Gilberts is CONFIRMED to my satisfaction. "Dusty Miss" notwithstanding, the material IS in the U. of Wyoming collection.<< I have spent over a month with the Assistant Archivist at the Vidal Collection 6013, American Heritage Center and specifically, box 19,Pages 1-97, at the Univ. of Wyoming. He dedicated far more time than an archivist would normally do for us, and believe me, he did not find one single reference to the Vidal's reference that AE intended to return to the Gilberts.(See my earlier posting of 26 Sep 00). If Vidal's remark is at Univ of Wyoming no one has yet to find it and it ain't where the authors have referenced the cite. Rich told Dustymiss that indeed it was an accurate cite, and Dustymiss is writing back that we are unable to find it. Brink relates the same story and told me he was there but he can't cite the source. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:06:31 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Gallagher's reference to charts In Gerald's letter to Maude (20 December, 1939) he asks Maude the question: "Did you remember to get me a copy of Norries Nautical Tables in New Zealand - we must have these if we are going voyaging in your boat - also, of course, a chronometer of some kind - then we shall be set." These are the Nautical Tables that Gerald was requesting for his use in the area. Would AE/FN have similiar charts and what information is available on these charts? Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric Dunno. Anyone familiar with Norries Nautical Tables? Doesn't sound like charts to me. Sounds like tables for celestial observations. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:10:50 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Battery life Ric said: "Maybe we need to consider the possibility that no recharging was done." Ouch! All of our Radio Guys may have to haul out their slide rules and do some more calculations, here. I seem to remember one of the Radio Guys calculating the known battery size vs. radio output and determined that the batteries would last for "X" minutes under continuous use without recharging . I forgot what "X" was but I remember it being a relatively short time. If Betty heard transmissions spanning 1.75 hours and the transmissions she did hear and transcribe represent only a fraction of what was actually transmitted -- which appears to be the case -- then I suspect there may be some errors in our calculation of the Electra'a battery life. Accepting that the radio drains "X" amount of power per unit of time when transmitting, the radio also uses power when it is on but not transmitting. If our calculations of the Electra's uncharged battery life is less than 2 hours, then we've got some explaining to do in light of a "no-recharging" scenario. Personally, I like the idea of AE greasing that bugger onto the reef and sitting there for 2-3 days transmitting and recharging the batteries as long as her fuels lasts. Practical experience (i.e. just about any NTSB report on an off-field landing) leads me to a different conclusion. LTM, who retired her slide rule in 1973 Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric As a general rule, the fewer conditions we have to put on an occurrence in order for it to be possible, the better. A landing that leaves the airplane intact enough to run an engine is a big condition. If we can remove it and still have credible post-loss signals, that would be good. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:19:58 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station >From Janet Whitney > >Notice all the reports of a Japanese broadcast station being heard on or >about 3105 kilocycles occcurred at night. So if there was a Japanese radio station at 3105 is there a chance that Japanese listeners could have been pointed to her frequency and heard the same messages? Greg *************************************************************************** From Ric Not if what was getting out was a harmonic, but in any case, Japanese listeners would be unlikely to understand the significance of what they were hearing unless they knew English. Might they at least recognize her name? I don't know how the name Amelia Earhart would be rendered in Japanese but it has some sounds that are traditionally very difficult for Japanese speakers to handle. Also, would one of us be able to pick out, say, Hideki Tojo or Isoruku Yamamoto from a stream of Japanese? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:28:33 EDT From: Ric Subject: A new anecdote Ready for a new and interesting anecdote? I recently received an email from a gentleman in New Zealand by the name of Rob Gorman who mentioned, very much in passing, that he had run into an old pilot in Fiji back in the 1970s who told him that Earhart and Noonan had ended up on Nikumaroro. I asked him to elaborate and this is his reply: ------------------------------------- The chaps name I remember was Alf Marlow who owned once and operated one of the Dornier Libelle flying boats that came to New Zealand in the 30,s. The rare aircraft was snapped up for a very big price in the early 70,s when they found out that Marlow had it stored in Suva. Marlow was in the building business and used the Libelle to carry timber out to the islands. He used a lot of Fijian native labour on many of the outer islands and picked up stories about aviation from them as he was naturally interested in them. Marlow was like most of us in the aviation game had an intrigue about aeroplanes and there owners and pilots. He died in the late 70,s. If I remember correctly I took note of the comment as he said "O the natives that use to be on Gardiner said they found their bones. The aircraft is in the sea." He was an off handed type of chap. How can I discribe. He felt fate was fate and there was no need to go any further. The conversation came about me asking about the ship the Joita which was a great Fijian marine mystery. It was found adrift with all passengers and crew gone. The passenger list was interesting as it was Australian political people on holiday. I had heard a distress message from it from a ham radio chap. The authorities said including the Navy in Australia claim there was no distress radio signal at all. But that was not true. The story is that a Russian sub., got them as at the time things were very bad with the US Australian Russian situation. So he gave me a great deal of information about the captain. So you see I was on another scent! However the Earheart story came up in passing. Rob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:29:40 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Re: Hello Bud & fig.8 Just a bit of speculation (or wishful thinking?) concerning the hello bud and fig.8 entries. How about something like: hello bud= hell no, but..... and the fig. 8 entry: fig=BIG and 8=FREIGHT(er) Big Freighter---make any sense to anyone? The thought sure makes my hair stand up--and there isn't much there to do that. LTM, Bill Conover (#2377) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:31:38 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Rough Landing Dave Bush, regarding comments regarding the "Norwich City". Yes, remains could have been washed away or removed in any number of ways. They could however still be there, or artifacts relating to AE/FN could be there as well. Regarding expeditions, etc. There is no indication that I have seen that any search of the vessel was conducted. To the best that I can determine no more than 200 people have EVER been on Niku. The majority of those, native Gilbertise were not allowed access to the area, never mind the ship itself because of "taboo". Others, such as Bevington, Maude, Wernham, Luke, Thomson, etc. spent only hours on Niku. The National Geographic and US Navy personnel make no reference to the wreck or any investigation of it. For that matter, most of the 200 or so people who have been on the Island had no need, nor interest at all to examine the ship in detail. Climbing aboard the ship for a look around and taking some pictures is a long way from checking the ship in a calculated investigation aimed at finding specific facts/evidence. There may be NOTHING there, but that cannot be stated until it is checked out as an objective part of an investigative process! I will be willing to bet that that wreck still holds evidence of life on board. Granted, the evidence of life may well be of the crew who last sailed aboard her. However, what if evidence is uncovered of AE/FN or pieces of equipment salvaged by them from the Electra. This would be the proof that transforms a hypothosis into a factual account! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:32:43 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Latitude in Betty's notes? <> Good point. If AE & FN had been certain as to their location, they would likely have made it to their intended destination in the first place. As the Cheshire cat said to Alice, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there." David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:35:01 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Phone numbers? Ric: We know that the number isn't AE/GP's phone number at home, but did GP or AE have an office in California? Might that be the number? Why don't we use reverse logic and look up the number for that year and see where it leads us? Anybody have access to Ma Bell's records? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric All you need is a phone book. The L.A. public library probably has one. You could also look up the neighbors and put check marks by the names. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:37:40 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: dumb idea I agree with Dennis. Not necessarily a DUMB IDEA however: Being of the "Legal Trade" myself I cannot see how you could get an impartial jury. With all due respect Ric, you as a judge would be a biased Judge as you already subscribe to a hypothosis that would taint your impartial views! Seems to me that it would be almost impossible to create a trial scenario on this one! It would indeed be FUN, however I defer to my fellow counsel on this Forum to come up with how it can be done within the confines of neutrality. Regards Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************** From Ric It would not be the first dumb idea I've had (and probably not the last). We seem to have a building consensus that it wouldn't be worth the considerable effort it would take ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:59:10 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Island choices You state, in your usual unequivocal fashion: >>the case for Niku is sound and the case for Mili is not, and >>there is no case for any other island. How do you define "is"? While personally I lean heavily to the "splashed en route" theory, AE's destination could likely be the Gilberts (after all, she told Vidal that was her "alternate") or Canton, much larger - and hence easier to spot - and with nice broad beaches. (And her trusty "Pacific Air Pilot" recommended it!) If she got to Mili, it was most likely on a Japanese boat, but a lot more (obviously misguided) folk are sure she showed up there . . . . Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric It all comes down to methodology doesn't it? That's how you decide what you believe. If you believe the Gilberts were an alternate because Rich and Brink say Vidal said so (even though their citations don't check out), and if you believe that they had a copy of a classified government publication with them just because somebody told Goerner they did, then you can believe all sorts of things and reach all sorts of conclusions and be in very good company among the ranks of "Earhart researchers". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:00:22 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 1937 mics Followup (I left something out of the previous post): > earhart is using in the photo. They used a thin sheet of metal and permags > and coils. I don't recall them being very selective about what they picked That was the headphones. The Mics used a similar diaphragm with a canister of carbon if I remember correctly. Either way, I still don't remember them being very selective.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:08:15 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: battery > 2nd, heard unintelligible voice that sounded like the same one they heard > from the airplane in flight but "without the hum of the plane in background." > Maybe we need to consider the possibility that no recharging was done. It has been established beyond doubt that the radio could NOT have been used without the engine running.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess I missed that. As understand it, the radio always runs off the battery or batteries. The engine's only role in this is to run the generator that recharges the batteries. The 1937 commment about the engine having to be operable was prompted by the apparent persisitence of post-loss messages over several days. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:15:19 EDT From: Jim Harvey Subject: Missed Opportunity? I noticed the Nai'a dove Nikumaroro this summer and apparently visited the Norwich City site. Their diary of the event has some good pictures of the local underwater wildlife, but no airplane parts jumped out at me. ; ) Any chance a TIGHAR made the Phoenix2000 trip or that you had a chance to talk with the researcher group before or after their trip? http://www.wwfpacific.org.fj/phoenixdaysix.htm http://www.wwfpacific.org.fj/phoenixdayfive.htm Jim Harvey *************************************************************************** From Ric Nai'a crewmember and diver Cat Holloway is a TIGHAR member and veteran of our 1997 expedition. I briefed both Cat and reef biologist Dave Obura and they carried out a preliminary inspection of the ledge off the west end of Nutiran during the Phoenix 2000 trip. Dave has given us a report that helps us define the size and nature of the ledge but they didn't see any airplane parts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:16:32 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Thoughts on a train I've contacted the folks who now run KGMB and KGU, and there is no one left from that time period, nor specific information as to what was transmitted, except for some quite ambiguous statements in the newspapers about the number of long dashes to be sent if S or N of the equator and if on land or on water. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Randy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:29:24 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Pacific Air Pilot I believe I've seen that document, sent by Adm. Pye (at that time), and it was mostly useless information regarding winds and currents. It mentioned no airports, or other emergency landing information. The document was supplied to AE in November/December 1936 timeframe, and was kindly returned in approx. January of 1937. The documentation resides at the National Archives. *************************************************************************** From Ric You saw transmittal and return paperwork to and from Earhart? I wonder if that file was classified at the time Goerner was doing his research. If he had seen it he would have known it was nothing to get excited about. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:35:01 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: W40K Wouldn't broadcasting your call letters for a hoax transmission, be a ridiculous thing to do? Isn't it like saying here I am come and get me FCC, kind of like a bank robber putting a note to hand over all of your money, on the back of a bill with his name and address on it. It could be he wasn't transmitting on a emergency frequency and doing his own play thing, but considering everyone was looking for AE at the time, not likely you will want to pull a crank and give your ID? It could also be this Ham operator heard the same transmission and was trying to contact the radio operator on the other end? Regards. Warren Lambing *************************************************************************** From Ric Sort of no-brainer isn't it? The possibility of a ham on the same frequency trying to reply is interesting. If there was signal path to St. Pete it might have also extended to Lake Worth, which is down on the east coast of Florida near Palm Beach. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:39:26 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: LOP At the risk of opening old wounds; based upon a cursory knowledge of celestial navigation, and based upon a cursory review of the notebook and the 1K postings over the last 10 days, I raise the following questions: 1. Is a LOP altitude sensitive; i.e. If FN is over Howland on July 3rd at 8:00 and at an altitude of 1,500 feet MSL, would the LOP be different if he were on the ground at the same time and position? 2. Is a LOP time sensitive; i.e. if his navigational chronometer broke on landing (crashing) and he was unable to get a reliable time hack, would an error of several minutes on his wristwatch affect the LOP? 3. Is a LOP date sensitive; i.e. if FN took a LOP on July 3rd, would it change on July 8th at the same time and place? 4. Can a bubble octant and a sextant perform all of the same functions; i.e. can an octant produce each of a LOP, Lat. and Long; can a sextant? The reported LOP on the 3rd, near Howland was 157/337. I assume that this was calculated in the morning, say between 7:30 and 8:30 and at an assumed altitude of 1,500 to 2,000 feet MSL. TIGHAR has assumed as its hypothosis that AE and FN followed the LOP southeast into the Phoenix Group and landed (crashed) at Niku. I note the "first" line in the notebook is "158 mi.". I also note the first line on the next (second) page is "58 338". With the exception of what appear to be radio call signs of some sort, or entries that appear to be time oriented, there appear to be a significant number of 3's, 5's, and 8's; so many that they appear to be disproportionate to the remaining numbers if someone selected a random sample. I think a 15 year old girl could accurately copy numbers, but given the fact that she knew even less navigation than me, might not recognize the significance of other elements and mis-copyed them as "mi.", or other notations based upon what she phonetically "heard". 5. Depending on your response to #4 above, is it possible that FN could only calculate a LOP and not Lat. or Long.? 6. Depending on your response to #2 above, could a time error cause the creation of a LOP of 158/338 for Gardner? 7. Depending on your response to #3 above, could the progression in dates from July 3rd to July 6th, 7th, 8th etc cause a change in a LOP? 8. Assuming all of FN's equipment is in working order and he is accurate, is there a date on NIKU that's its LOP is 158/338? 9. Would the change in altitude from 2,000' +/- MSL to 10' +/- MSL cause a shift in the LOP? 10. If FN was severly hurt, could he talk AE through the process of calculating a LOP with either a sextant or an octant and what would the theoretical amount of error be; would he be equally able to talk her through a Lat./Long. equation? 11. Is it possible that only a LOP could be calculated with some of the equipment at hand and not an accurate Lat./Long. by either AE or FN? It appears to me that the "speaker" in the notebook is trying to give some form of position report; there are too many coincidental numbers ( 1's, 3's, 5's and 8's) to ignore, and it appears that they could be a 158/338 LOP, but AE or FN couldn't, for whatever reason calculate Lat./Long., and since they couldn't find Howland in the first instance, didn't know a distance or bearing from Howland, although they could presume that because they headed southeast, that they were in the Phoenix Group. They would also assume/presume since they had given a LOP on the 3rd that logic would dictate that they would be along the 157 component if they were on land, since the 337 component takes them into the deep blue pacific northwest of Howland. I am convinced there is significance in the various numbers if we can figure out how to interpret them. Targets up--shoot away. *************************************************************************** From Ric Mike, these are good questions and I'd like to invite responses from the Celestial Choir. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:41:27 EDT From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Summary of information about Betty's house As I recall, you are going to interview Betty. Would it be useful to ask her if she has any photographs of her home that would reveal anything about the antenna? Jerry W. Ellis #2113 *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty has sent us the only photo of the house she could find but it doesn't show the antenna. We'll look for more photos while we're there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:44:23 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Climbing on NC Ric said: "Looking at Bevington's photos of Norwich City (taken in October of 1937), getting aboard over the stern would involve swimming out and around the back but would probably be about the only way to do it unless the hull was ruptured (can't tell from the photos)." Yes indeed, but the swimming could have damaged the camera... When you know how delicate ( and rather expensive ) the cameras were in the thirties, it seems to me that Bevington wouldn't have taken such a risk... Moreover, I recall that on of these photos was taken through the broken bow... So, was the wreck reachable with the low tide ? The upper deck was probably wooden, but I would bet that lower decks were steel ( depends on the date of birth of the Norwich City ), especially near and in the vicinity of the engine and boilers rooms. Shipyards were very concerned with the danger of fire aboard commercial ships after the first WW. Knowing somewhat british standards, i would bet that the name of the ship was painted in white at the stern, over the black paint of the hull. *************************************************************************** From Ric Bevington could have gotten aboard in a launch up to the stern. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:49:07 EDT From: Renaud Subject: the fuel question Judy wrote: " Therefore, they may have had quite a bit of fuel left for communication." Well, From Chater report and K. Johnson telegrams, i guess there could be 100 gallons left (surely a bit less) in the tanks, after the hypothetical landing on niku. Ric, do we know roughly what would be the amount of fuel expent per hour while recharging the radio battery ? If i take the purely subjective number of 15 gal per hour, that would have meaned a little less than 6 hours and half of communications... enough for three or four days, according to betty's log transmission duration. LTM, RENAUD DUDON *************************************************************************** From Ric We discussed this on the forum a long time ago. As I recall the RPM needed to run the generator (and therefore the fuel expended per hour) would be quite low, but trying to quantify it all would be very speculative. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:50:00 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Bearing and distance? I would be happy to split the difference with Doug. Bob #2268 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:55:30 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Recreation Audio Some of the staff here at HistoricWings.com have expressed an interest in doing the audio recreation for you. We have sound editing and recording capabilities, as well as streaming media players for the web. The staff, like most involved in the TIGHAR forum, is knowledgeable in aviation terminology; we have both male and female voices. Beyond the text, we would need comments about the clarity of the shortwave, the timing of the various parts of the text, and a description of the sound interference she was experiencing that day, which we would include in the recreation. If you would like us to do it, then we would like to hear ideas from other forum members as to what other questions should be asked of Betty in November that would aid in preparing the sound files. Let me know if you would like us to prepare a reenactment (hmm, let's see... when doing the reenactment should we say "Norwich City" three times fast....). Thomas Van Hare Historic Wings *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the offer. I think we'd need to be real clear about the purpose of the recreation. Betty says that a lot more was said than what she copied down. How do we deal with that? What do we do with the recreation after we have it? Let's have some input on this. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:58:35 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: Re: belly antenna What are the chances Amelia would have know the belly antenna was missing? She more than likely would have tried to raise someone on the flight from the Howland area to Gardner Island without any known success(specifically the Itasca).Upon landing on the reef,would there be a chance she would inspect the Electra and find the Belly antenna was missing(wheels down landing)?If she did a belly landing would she know enough about the radio to know that the belly antenna would be useless for receiving, most likely being ripped away in the landing or at the least damaged?I know there is no concrete why to prove she knew it was missing but a EDUCATED guess might help determine if she was able to receive signals.Especially if you are correct and the belly antenna was used for receiving only.Is it standard PRACTISE to inspect your plane on a forced landing? To our radio gurus Would the "skip" caused by solar propagation cause Betty to hear the signal in Florida but not let the Itasca hear it in the general area of Howland. Also if Amelia did know the belly antenna was missing and thus she was not able to receive signals would a holding the mic on allow for someone to triangulate on her position. This may have been covered in a previous post,I just can't recall the answer right of the top of my head. LTM Richard Lund #2376(finally) *************************************************************************** From Ric I think you'll find that many of your questions are covered in recent posts but if you had just spent about 24 hours in a noisy little room wouldn't you want to get out and stretch your legs? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:00:35 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Others interest in Betty Maybe the 'Betty' and check marks next to Betty's neighbors in Florida in the public library's telephone book were done by someone checking out Betty's credentials for Goerner after she had contacted him regarding her notebook relative to his investigative studies about AE's disappearance. Judy *************************************************************************** From Ric Except the approach to Goerner was made via a family friend. Goerner never had Betty's name. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:02:21 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: "I need air" re: AE's radio-operational in excessively high temps? This is what she tells us as she flies over Africa.... In ' Last Flight' AE tells us..."On this day's flying to Lamy and the next, we crossed stretches of country barren beyond words, a no-man's land of eternal want, where the natives cling tenaciously to an existence almost incomprehensible to westerners"."Not that Fred or I particularly minded the occasional broiling of cockpit or fuselage (often the outer coating of the plane's metal was too hot to touch, while the temps of its innards sometimes were so high for our peace of mind we avoided recording them. But very hot air can make difficult flying. It is thin and lacks lifting power." "As expected, thanks to the day's heat, which caught up to us, it was particularly bumpy flying, with a particularly desolate region below us"."Heat waves danced up from the surface of the desert" "Heated air blasted up from the mountain slopes, buffeting the ship unkindly. Even abouve 10.000 feet it was rough going". -----For all that, never did AE mention that her radio was disabled from the heat. Judy *************************************************************************** From Ric On the other hand, we don't know if she tried to use it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:05:14 EDT From: Pam Subject: Re: dumb idea.. On second thoughts . . . Let me introduce myself. My Name is Pam . I have been a "Lurker"" now for about a year. I have been interested in Amelia Earhart, for some time. Wondering what happened to her has always lurked in the mysteries of my mind. Hence, How I stumbled upon the Forum about a year ago. More than ever, I am running home to my e-mails lately since the discovery of the notebook. I will not get into much detail about myself or my opinions on the forum discussions right now. I am however volunteering for the "Jury" end of this "mock Trial" I have never posted a message to this forum, but have followed faithfully for some time. So, if I may be of any assistance, or if you might need more info on my position, please feel free to contact me. Indeed, this is truly remarkable stuff. I understand you are not quite looking for the jury end of this yet, But keep me in mind. I feel I know enough about Earhart and the situation to be productive, Yet not So involved that I have formed my own opinion or would possibly be biased. Sincerely, P.M. Middleton. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Pam. If nothing else this suggestion has prompted you to "de-lurk." Good to hear from you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:08:49 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: bail out Re: "bailout" and AE/FN's parachutes. "At Darwin, by the way, we left the parachutes we had carried that far, to be shipped home. A parachute would not help over the Pacific". Amelia Earhart, 'Last Flight', chapter- 'Down Under'. ************************************************************************** From Ric A classic case of don't-believe-everything-you-read-in-Last-Flight. The book was heavily edited and embellished prior to publication. A contemporary newspaper account from Darwin makes it very clear that the parachutes were collected, not dropped off, in Darwin. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:10:04 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Thoughts on a train re: exiting AE's cockpit. "On a shelf at the bottom of the window are a flock of pencils and a notebook in which I write now and then. This haphazard authorship progresses best when the Sperry pilot "spells" me. Just above is the hatch, opening upwards. Usually I exit through it, although one may crawl over the tanks back into the fuselage and use the normal passenger door." Amelia Earhart, "Last Flight"....chapter 'Karachi'. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:14:37 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: Random thoughts on a blustery spring day........ Thanks for your reply to my posting on the subject of AE and FN's charts.Thanks too to Cam Warren for pointing out that they may have had a copy of the US Navy publication "Pacific Air Pilot". I think it is an entirely reasonable proposition that Army Air Corps and the Navy would have provided Amelia with any material they had which might have been useful.The Navy certainly entrusted her with a valuable piece of their equipment,namely the Pioneer octant. I wonder if there is a 1937 copy of the Pacific Air Pilot in existence still. It would be interesting to know what was in it. Gerry Gallagher's thoughts on the attraction of the Norwich City wreck make good sense to me .I think that the ship would have been like a magnet to survivors on Gardner Island,especially so to Fred,an ex seafarer,who would have known his way around ships. As well as some protection from the equatorial sun the wreck would have provided a vital necessity and one that Amelia and Fred would have had to address quickly.That is drinking water.The innumerable corners and crannies of the deck and superstructure would have been trapping rainwater. It would have been rusty water probably,but it would have been drinkable,and possibly the only ready source of freshwater available on the island.... The "trial"of Betty's notebook is a great idea.But what would you need to select a jury for when you already have a Grand Jury available? That is,the entire Forum. What I am suggesting is that when the defense and prosecution have presented their cases a few days be given for subscribers to address any questions to the respective teams and then the Forum could be polled..... LTM [Who always says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.] Raymond Brown. *************************************************************************** From Ric Your reference to a blustery spring day really threw me until I noticed that your email address ends in "nz". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:23:11 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Wyoming Message Questions One interesting aspect of the "Wyoming Message" is the reference to landing on a "reef" SE of Howland. My charts of the area do show both the Winslow Reef and several others, one being referred to as "Reef and Sandbank reported 1945" which is about 150-160 NM roughly SE of Howland. It would not be too much of a stretch to assume that something might have been there in 1937. As I recall, this group of reefs were the only potential landmasses in the Phoenix Is. area that were never found or overflown by the Colorado planes during the search. The Colorado itself wisely avoided going anywhere near them. I remember trying to estimate from the plotted flight paths in the Lambrecht report whether the search took place anywhere near where these features are plotted today, and at least at Lambrecht's map scale the search seemed to cover the area pretty well. Lambrecht seemed to feel that the reported reefs were the product of an overactive imagination. Still, one has to wonder about a feature that was conceptually known at the time and which still shows up on modern charts, but which was actually never found or searched in 1937. Has there been any effort to find the person (if alive) who heard the "Wyoming Message"? Does anybody out there have a recent copy of Sailing Directions for that area or Ocean Passages for the World which might provide insight into the latest reported position and any other description of these reefs. Is it possible that these reefs and shoals rise and break the surface in different locations as the years go by? To anyone's knowledge, has this area ever been investigated, photographed, visited by oceanographers or overflown for any purpose that might provide additional data? Thanks, TOM MM *************************************************************************** From Ric Randy Jacobson has done a lot of research into Winslow Reef and its history. Bottom line: it's there, sometimes, but it's never there in a way that you could land an airplane on it and live to tell the tale. If the receiver of the Wyoming message, whom Ron Bright says was Charles Randolf (I haven't seen the source for that) was a 12 year old boy he could very well still be alive. We should try to find him. Ron, is it Randolf or Randolph? What's the source? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:25:18 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Calculator for Bearing and Distance For curious forum members who may want to do some navigational "what ifs" on their own: The solutions to numerous Nav calculations can be found on the net on a page maintained by the National Image and Mapping Agency (NIMA). http://164.214.12.145/index/ (and select Marine Navigation Calculator) Bearing and distance calcs can be found under "Sailings Calculator". Mercator sailings are appropriate under these circumstances. The basis for all this is nicely covered in "The American Practical Navigator", 1995, Defense Mapping Agency Pub #9. An incredible bargain at around $25. It's always good to do a few by hand just to get the idea, and there is a lot more than just nav methods in it. The U.S. Naval Observatory astronomical applications dept is also a good site to have bookmarked. Last time I looked it was: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/ Tom MM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:27:42 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: Mayday and Bail out "The 'Radio' Handbook", 1938 Ed., under 'Distress Signals' reads, "The International Distress Signal is . . . - - - . . . (three dots, three dashes, three dots). The distress signal is not SOS; it is an easily recognized group of characters . . . For radiotelephony distress calls the signal is M A Y D A Y. All communications must cease when a distress call is heard. Communications must not be resumed until it has been definitely determined that all is clear again..." It goes on to tell what must be done, what may not be done, secrecy, use of minimum power to effect reliable communications, profanity prohibited, etc. Then, "The penalty for violation of the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 is $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 2 years, or both, for each offense." While this volume was published in '38, it likely was written in '37. Perhaps one of the lawyers in the forum can check the above Act to verify the use of MAYDAY, but it seems safe to assume it was in standard usage in the U.S. by 1937. On the subject of "bail out": I joined the Caterpillar Club on November 25, 1944 and that term for a parachute jump was in common use then. But unless their Electra was still in the air, why would AE/FN talk about using parachutes (if they still had them)? My Random House Dictionary gives two other meanings for "bail out" which might well have been as appropriate in '37 as today: (1) To assist in escaping a predicament and (2) To dip (water) out of a boat as with a bucket. Given that the plane was a "tail-dragger" and the windows were sealed - were the cockpit's side windows sealed? - it hardly seems likely they could use a container of any sort to bail water out effectively. If water had risen enough to enter the cockpit, wouldn't one or both props be churning water and the batteries and radio be submerged? Perhaps their use of the phrase simply meant to exit the plane. Betty copied "We can't bail out". If they landed heading north, the port side would be toward the surf and normal exit would be through the hatch over AE's seat and down the port wing under which the "water's knee deep". It's also conceivable that the port gear had collapsed, further adding to their predicament. LTM (who doesn't look forward to "bailing out') Bill Moffet #2156 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:38:31 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Summary of information about Betty's house >> Harry and Bob Brandenburg have been working together to sort out the antenna question. Betty is presently making a drawing for us of how she remembers the antenna was set up and oriented. That should help.<< Why don't someones start working on explaining the mechansms of how the signal supposedly arrived at (nearly only) Florida and Maine? So far it seems the only explanations seem to have been seeking a miracle, or some Bermuda Triangle-like anomaly. After the analysis of Betty's simple and standard wire antenna, and radio, how about working on which frequency could have propagated across this distance, at these times, from that particular antenna type and radiated power at that particular sending station? (sans miracles). Why such a momentous reception wasn't more widely reported? (Remember, shortwave radio listening was *much* more popular in the 1930s, in fact you could compare it to the explosion of interest in computers in the 1990s.) (My own uncharitable explanation would be, such reports were dismissed as unworthy of followup and print space, by the shortwave journals.) The ham call W4OK ? I suggest it was just manufactured for this hoax broadcast, and had actually nothing to do with any actual call or person. To clarify (or bludgeon) something i posted yersterday: The WE transmitter had a circuit type that was intended to economize on components, space, and weight, for aviation environment. One drawback of this type is that if not carefully adjusted ( "tuned up" ) to spec, it has a tendency to sound bad, have distorted audio. I suggest one channel was not optimally tuned up, and that accounted for the "rough signal" report at Lae. [ technically: screengrid modulation ] Happy tuning! Hue Miller ************************************************************************* From Ric Mike Everette and Bob Brandenburg are working on just those questions. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:40:22 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Radio susceptibility to heat The conventional wisdom about vacuum tubes vs. transistors is that vacuum tubes are mechanically fragile and electrically robust. Vice versa, for transistors. 100+ degrees is nothing, really to either type of equipment. If a circuit fails at 100-120 degrees, its design is very, very poor, that its cooling is so marginal. You can probably be sure that the famous high quality WE design and construction took temparatures into account. I do not know the actual upper end for this set, but the Eddy technical book states that the transmitter had some provisions apparent for the low end: the quartz frequency setting crystals had heaters to kick in and prevent the low temperature from falling below 0 degrees. High temperature + high humidity + possible salt spray is a complication. Also, most comm equipment seems to be rated on a duty cycle, something like for example, "50% transmit" or "one minute transmit, 3 minutes receive". It's possible that more or less continuous transmission over a half hour or so, might start overheating the components in the transmitter box - i don't see that there were any cooling provisions other than convection. Or maybe 1 hour continuous transmission might start to enter the transmitter into failure danger - i don't know. Probably this has to remain a possibility of unknown odds. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:41:37 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Useable Fuel Fraction A while back this subject was discussed on the Forum and most commentators took exception to my estimate that Amelia Earhart's Electra had a useable fuel fraction of something like 96% due to the complex plumbing system, number of tanks, possible evaporation losses and reduced fuel specific weight. I based my estimate on technical data for the Bell P-39 and North American P-51 fighters. Courtesy of Doug Brutlag, I was able to examine Beech D18 data from various manuals. Fuel tank volumetric capacity for the D18 is listed at 212.2 gallons. Useable fuel volume is stated as 205 gallons. This is a difference of 3.4 percent decrease, quite close to the P-39 data and my estimate for the more complex Earhart Electra fuel system. The Beech D18 is a twin powered by Wasp Jr engines (at least some were) and gets around the objection of comparing the Electra to a single engine fighter. It is somewhat smaller than the Electra, but not very much. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:45:28 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 1937 mics What type of microphone suggests to you Betty heard two persons speaking or arguing? Broadcast microphones? The microphone for the WE transmitter was a carbon granule type, same as every aircraft used. If you have an older home telephone, one where you can unscrew the caps over the receiver and transmitter, that is a carbon microphone. In an aircraft there would be no point to having it so sensitive as to pick up all sounds around, do you see that? In the WE transmitter, the microphone sensitivity was adjustable via an adjustment in the transmitter, and this was exactly to cut down on sound pickup in the noisey cabin. Pilots, ex-military radio operators, it's time to come out and explain just how likely it is that an aircraft microphone could pick up both sides of this drama. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Sound like a woulda-coulda-shoulda question to me. Surely there are examples of this type of mic extant and in good condition which could be the subject of an experiment. Mike Everette, how say ye? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:52:41 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Pilot Question I have a question for piston engine pilots on the Earhart Forum. Is it common practice to gradually step up in altitude as your fuel load burns off during very long flights where maximum range is critical? Aerodynamically, maximum range is achieved when the airplane is flying at a speed producing the maximum lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio. At any other speed, obtainable range will decrease as fuel weight diminishes because drag increases. To maintain or closely approximate maximum L/D over long durations such as Amelia Earhart faced, one may maintain the initial velocity and gradually gain altitude; or maintain altitude and slowly retard speed. The L/D change with time is subtle, but not trivial in context with the duration of Amelia's flight. For example, I believe she flew for approximately 9 hours at 10,000 feet during the last half of her journey to (near) Howland. At the beginning of this 10,000 foot element of her flight, V max range was 135 mph for a gross weight of 11,700 pounds. At the mid-point (4.5 hours) aircraft gross weight was down to about 10,600 pounds where optimum speed was 128 mph. At the end of 9 hours (about the time she descended to 1,000 feet), the best speed was 122 mph and gross weight had diminished to around 9,400 pounds. Brake horsepower required for these three speeds was about 356, 306 and 256, respectively. Conversely, Amelia may have pushed the Electra to greater altitude as time passed, holding power constant. If so, she would have begun this leg of her flight profile at 10,000 feet and then stepped up to 12,500 feet as the fuel burn continued to reduce gross weight. I tend to doubt that she flew above 12,000 feet due to the possibility of oxygen deprivation. In fact, I strongly suspect she flew at a constant power setting and constant altitude generally following Kelly Johnson's recommendations. If so, she did not obtain maximum theoretical range from the Electra. This is a topic that Elgen Long tried to address in his recent book, but didn't quite manage to accomplish. In any event, I would welcome thoughts from pilots on the Forum. If this is of little general interest, please contact me at wetwings@aol.com. ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll welcome postings on this subject for the forum. My own two cents is that what you do with your increased capability due to fuel burn-off depends on your priorities and the wind. If getting there sooner is a higher priority than range you'll sacrifice optimum L/D for an earlier arrival, and you're not going to go higher in any event if you're already bucking a headwind and you think it's even worse upstairs. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:54:59 EDT From: John Buontempo Subject: Re: Page 3 Could she possibly have been referring to 500Kz or 7500Kz? Just a thought! John B. ************************************************************************** From Ric No kilohertz in those days. They were kilocycles. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:55:34 EDT From: Joe Subject: Re: WOJ For a fee of $10 the Radio Amateur Callbook will hunt down any callsign no matter how old! Joe W3HNK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:57:06 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: mayday and bail out To confirm, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate online dictionary lists "mayday" as a derivative of the french m'aider (infinitive of "help me"), used as an rt distress call, and notes the earliest citation of its use as 1927. Merriam Webster's Collegiate dictionary (online) cites the phrase "bail out", as it specifically applies to parachuting from an aircraft, as an intransitive verb, with an earliest cited use in 1930. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:01:53 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Norwich City (Page 2) The reference that Gerald indicates severe weather in late 1939/ early 1940: Reference: Gerald's letter to H.E. Maude 20 December, 1939 while Gerald is on Beru Island. He specifically references the North Westerly storms that have been hitting the area for some weeks and that future weather is expected to be the same! He indicates to Maude that travel may be difficult due to inability of the "John Bolton" to travel in such adverse weather. So both Gerald's letter and the NZ reference quite clearly confirms very bad weather in late 1939/ early 1940. You are quite correct that Gerald mentions bad weather in late 1940 as well, however the above noted reference is dated 20 Dec. 1939 and specifically is in reference to the severe North Westerly storms of late 1939/ early 1940. YES ... the grave adjacent to the NC are of intriguing interest! Regards, Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Gerry. You're absolutely right. I had missed that. Looks like there was bad westerly weather in the December/January period in all three years (1938/39; 1939/40; and 1940/41). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:01:37 EDT From: Matt Mondro Subject: Janet Whitney As a dailiy forum reader for 2-3 years ive never seen another forum contributor quite like Janet Whitney. Maybe you dont post all her posts but ive never seen anyone post so much random info pertaining to nothing currently on the table such as her. Questions to her go unanswered, comments about her dont seem to "cut" in and draw response, whats the deal, her inability to reciprocate conversation bothers me for some reason. I know some people have said to leave her alone, give her a chance but i still dont think she has helped or otherwise enlightened the forum on anything. Not that i have either though ill admit. Just sick of Janet...... But enjoying the forum daily....Wishing i could help. Matt Mondro *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll admit that our Janet can be hard to take sometimes, but she means well and sometimes she does come up with useful information (she just nailed the ham operator whose call sign was W40K). Finding Amelia is like raising a child or running for the Senate in New York - it takes a village. (Apologies to the forum's overseas contingent for the Americentric joke.) LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:08:42 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bearing and distance? I wonder whether many of these attempts of ours (including mine) to try and find bearings/latitudes/longitudes from the numbers in Betty's notebook may inadvertantly incorporate our assumption that they were taken by Earhart/Noonan at Gardner and then transmitted. In reality, if there is any validity to any of this we need to keep in mind that, once having landed, the best information Earhart may have been able to give could have been based upon readings taken at some point along the LOP, but not at Gardner, itself. Perhaps this accounts for some of the variations we are seeing in the numbers from our own fixed starting and end points. My own "latitude" theory has the position radioed as South, 3 degrees 9 minutes, and West 175 degrees, and perhaps this was the last position plotted before reaching Gardner and there was no way another position could be plotted with Noonan incoherent. Skeet, I accidentally deleted Mr. Webster-Garman's plot of yesterday, but could you check where these cordinates place the Electra with respect to Gardner and the LOP (probably somehwere just to the south of Houston, with my aeronautical "talents")? Thanks, --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:12:07 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: The Trial of Betty's Notebook No, no, no! With all respect to everyone concerned, if you want to find out the truth, the last thing you need is an adversary proceeding with people choosing up sides. The only purpose in questioning this lady is to have her tell you everything SHE remembers, without suggestions or leading questions. Anyone who thinks a trial is directed toward producing the truth hasn't been there - a trial is about winning. The best way to proceed is to take a REAL "discovery" deposition, and that is best done by convincing yourself that you don't know which side you are on. All you want from Betty is HER best recollection about the events; save the cross examination for another day. (A good lawyer taking a discovery deposition is in truth trying to tie the witness down to a version of the events that favors his side - that's ok, it's his job, but it is not conducive to producing the truth. You are an historical investigator - please don't conduct an interview like that.) We all remember interviews about the white woman seen in the Pacific in 1937: "Did she have a nice smile? [they ask] Amelia had a nice smile" etc. etc. If you suggest things, the answers you get are worthless. "Tell me everything you can remember about the woman," would have been the proper question, followed by "anything else?" as often as needed. ************************************************************************** From Ric And in fact, that is how we conduct interviews. The trial was dumb idea. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:15:35 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Unusual designation? Ric said of the Navy's lone Lockheed 10: It was c/n 1052 and was designated Bu. No. 0267 and called the XR2O-1. Strange. I would have thought it would be a XR2V-1, as "V" was the designator for Lockheed. Wasn't "O" used for Loening? LTM, who picks too many nits Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Hey man, I'm just quoting the book (Francillon, "Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913", and several others). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:22:32 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Norwich City (Page 2) If Earhart did bury Noonan, given the scenarios mentioned, below, I would think it more likely that she piled soil/vegatation atop the body rather than dig a grave. "Digging" is not easy on the island, especially for someone without proper tools and possibly injured. Also, under the circumstances, I would think someone might leave something more definitive/obvious above the grave (possible rescuers drawn to the area of the Norwich City)rather than the stone we found. Remember, we weren't sure whether the stone was, in fact, a marker, or whether it was a stone that had been upturned by the roots of several large trees in the immediate vicinity. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric You're talking about the "putative" grave that's about 20 meters back in the scaevola up the beach a ways from the Norwich City. That may or may not be a grave but there's a no-doubt-about-it grave right at the vegetation line just opposite the bow of the wreck. There's a big old Ren tree there where Clauss and the boys camped the night they stayed ashore. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:24:41 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Re: 1937 mics Concerning the technical discussions about AE's mic, I saw on TIGHAR's webb site in the Luke Field Inventory, on Sheet No 1 : Item: 21 2 Microphones with Cord, Western Electric type No. 631B Ok she could have used other mics during the 2nd attempt. There were also 2 mics during the 1rst attempt. Was it possible for 2 peoples to use them simultaneously, accounting for 2 peoples being heard talking together ? *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think so. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:29:14 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter Facts >Aeronautic Radio, by Myron Eddy, 1939, has an interesting >treatment of this equipment that adds to the Morgan book. >Unfortunately, nothing on the receiver. > Thanks Hue... I have not yet seen that book ( it is not in the NCSU library collection but may be available thru interlibrary loan). I'll try to get it and compare notes. >Janet's question some time back. >the SIGNAL terminal 12 on the transmitter connector: this >goes to a warning lamp on the pilot's box that indicates the >channel selector is NOT set square right on a channel, >channel switch (section) D1 also prevents the transmitter >from operating (or trying to operate, and burning up) if the >channel switch stops between channels. >( I presume this missed-channel, in-between channels >switch resting place could occur because of the mechanical >flexible cable that twists the channel control from the >pilot's control box.) I agree with this... I knew it had a function of interlocking the control circuit so the thing could not be keyed if the crystal switch was not seated, as I told Janet... my control head diagram did not show the indicator light. >no chance this information by itself favors THE HARMONIC >THEORY. Agreed, in and of itself... but it is certainly an indication that the thing could have been mistuned, and given the circuit, harmonic radiation is a strong possibility in any event... made more possible by the fact that the antenna has been altered (by Gurr) and when the rig was retuned, the tech may have been going mainly by antenna current readings... if he did not know what to expect, given this antenna (likely) he may have tuned for max and that could well have led to being tuned on the wrong freq... or at least, the rig was tuned using taps on the coil which led to low circuit "Q" (tech term for quality factor, which is related to selectivity or quality of resonance/tuning -- very simplified) and therefore harmonics resulted. >Oh, dig this microphone-related info: resistor R4 in the >microphone circuit has 2 settings: The adjustment is >internal, not user-reachable. I mention this, because >this microphone senstivity limitation, plus the fact that >the microphone is a carbon type, would seem to lean >strongly (to say the least) against voices in the back >ground, or two voices being heard at once >--Hue Miller I was quite aware of this "gain adjustment" jumper inside of the radio. Yes, the mic was carbon... yes, they may exhibit low sensitivity compared to a modern crystal or dynamic mic... BUT, how many times have you heard background noise over the phone when you talk with a friend, especially one who has little kids anywhere in the house(!)? Many telephones still use carbon mics (those made by WE/AT&T, anyway). The WE mic used aboard NR16020 used a "button" element very similar in characteristics to AT&T telephone microphones of the era. It was not a noise cancelling type. It could have picked up more than one voice (but how well may be questionable) in a quiet environment. LTM (who always covers her phone when making snide remarks about a caller to someone standing beside her) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:35:03 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Betty's Intercept/ Earhart's transmission ? Ric, the WE 20 receiver AE had would only tune to 1250 KHz. The tuning range on Band 2, which normally would be the AM broadcast band, 550-1500, had been modified to 485-1250, so as to cover the 500 KHz distress freq. Yet another agrument in favor of AE having had 2 receivers, not one... 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Did Band 2 on the WE 20B not cover from 550 to 1500 KHz? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:39:38 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Why not tell mom? An excellent question re Mom's role in Betty's scenario. Also ,according to Tighar's preliminary interview, Dad comes home, listens, but hastily runs to a neighbor house (I guess in the hopes of a clearer reception?) but Tighar doesn't indicate if Dad came right back and listened to a great deal of the alleged intercept.(He arrives home at 5:15 and the transmission ends around 6:15) I would ask Betty how much and how long did Dad listen to Earhart, did he make any notes, did he add his signature or comments in her notebook for future confirmation, and did they ever retune their short wave to this station during the following days 5-9 July? Also ask what kind of short wave set the neighbor had as apparently Betty speculates that their antenna wasn't long enough. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:41:58 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: 1937 mics These would be pressure microphones (as opposed to free field) with a peak at somewhere above 2500 Hz. Similar to telephone microphones. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:48:40 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Phone numbers? Something that many may already be aware of, but if you are not, this is useful... It is tough to reverse-lookup a phone number using only a telephone book... but, there was something called a "City Directory" which listed not only names of individuals (with professions, whether married/single, homeowner or tenant etc) with address and phone numbers, but also gave street breakdowns such as: First Street (100-199) followed by all those who lived on that block, then the cross street name, then resume First Street (200-299) etc. In addition, the City Directory listed all the phone numbers in each exchange for that city in alphanumeric order, and gave the name to whom listed (unless the number was in fact an unlisted one). One company publishing these books was Hill's City Directory Co. (I may have the name not quite right but it is close). Hill's may not be the only such company, but they were a biggie in the biz. Some libraries may have old editions of these, but my guess is that most would not keep one over 5-10 years. ("Weeding" a collection is a big pastime for library personnel; it gives volunteers something to do...)They take up a lot of space. But surely someone somewhere has the archives (we hope). Direcotries of this nature would be standard equipment in police departments/fire departments and municipal offices. They were also used by businesses. Hope this helps. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:50:43 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Bearing & Distance >Bob Brandenburg says 157 degrees and 353 nm. >Doug Brutlag says 159 degrees and 351 nm >Bob Sherman says 158 degrees and 354 (from "old" Howland, which is probably >better to use From spherical trig formulas the distance and bearing information I get (when using the coordinates Brutlag cited) are 351 nm and 159 degrees. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:05:18 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: A new anecdote Sounds like just a passing bit of information over a quick beer. Nothing to really sink your teeth into. Do you think that Marlow might have met "Irish" at some point and discussed the bones? *************************************************************************** From Ric No, I don't. The significance of this anecdote is that in the 1970s, long before TIGHAR began its investigation and at a time when the popular notion was that Earhart had been captured by the Japanese, there was story floating around the islands that Earhart and Noonan's bones had been found on Nikumaroro and that the plane was in the sea (not on land). That rumor can not have been generated solely by the WPHC bones investigation because there was never any reference to the airplane in that file. The story Marlow told sounds most like the story told by Emily, Tapania and Floyd Kilts. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:06:31 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: W40K I seriously doubt that W4OK was involved in a hoax... I just wondered if perhaps W4OK could be a notation referring to a relative or family friend of Betty; or maybe just someone interesting she heard on the radio. By the way, none of the harmonics or spurious frequencies capable of being produced by AE's transmitter fall into the ham radio bands. Just for the record, the ones being considered -- and Bob Brandenburg is working on analyzing these in terms of signal paths, as well as whether the antenna on the Electra would be favorable to any -- are these: (freqs in KHz, kilohertz) 4657.5 7762.5 9315 10867.5 12420 13972.5 15525 17077.5 18630 20183.5 21735 23287.5 Of these the ones between 12 and 24 MHz are the most likely, given the daylight propagation conditions and the tuning ranges of most "all-wave" radios of the era. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:20:14 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: dissing Wyoming message > From Ric > > Okay, but the bottom line is that the "INVESTIGATION (that was done) > REVEALS (that the) SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES (by the kid, > are) THOUGHT (by the investigators) TO BE FROM KHAQQ". One might translate "THOUGHT" as "alleged by the kid but not believed by the investigators." Marty Moleski *************************************************************************** From Ric Pat just spent a half hour diagraming the sentence. (She can do that stuff. I must have been absent that day.) The subject of the sentence is "investigation reveals signals heard near sixteen megacycles" and the predicate is (the implied verb "are") "thought to be from KHAQQ". In other words, this English language sentence, as written, means "Investigation reveals ... signals are thought to be from KHAQQ." The question, of course, is WHO thinks the signals are from KHAQQ? The kid? Heck, that was known from the start. If the intent of the sentence is to communicate that the investigators do not agree with the kid, it has failed to do that. The way the sentence is written it means that the investigators think the signals are from KHAQQ. If the sentence had said "Investigation reveals signals thought to be from KHAQQ heard on sixteen megacycles" it could be interpreted to mean "we found out that the signals were heard on the wrong frequency", but, again, that is not what it says. Of course, we have no way of knowing what the person who wrote the sentence meant to communicate. I wonder if we have any indication in later messages or press reports how the sentence was interpreted at the time? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:22:11 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Recreated audio Recreated audio? Hm-m-m. I think it is a very generous offer but I wonder what it would prove. Right now about the only value I see would be as a learning tool to demonstrate the problems with radio communications from that era. To do it correctly, Tom Van Hare and his crew would have to create (easy enough for a journalist! :-) ) some context for the words and phrases from Betty's notes. Then they'd have to lay on top of that the pops, squeals, hisses, fading, and crackles common to radio transmissions of the 30s but leave the crucial words (the ones Betty copies) still audible. Sounds like a big assignment with a small pay off. An alternative idea may be to have Tom shake down his crew for $50 each and send it to TIGHAR for Niku IIII. LTM, who often pops, squeals, hisses, fades, and crackles Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:27:06 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: AE's Microphone The Luke Field Inventory (see Documents of the Week on the TIGHAR website) lists two Western Electric 631B microphones as being on board in March 1937. I would be willing to bet this was the same type mic she used on the final flight. The purpose of the audio-gain adjustment resistors, which Hue Miller pointed to earlier, is not only to increase gain in quiet environments or reduce it in noisy ones, but also to adjust the current in the microphone circuit for different microphones... a carbon microphone is, itself, a resistor. Talking into the mic moves a diaphragm, which acts upon the "button " carbon element, compressing it and varying the mic's resistance in accordance with the speech. A carbon mic must be energized by means of a voltage applied so that current can run through the mic. Usually this voltage is between 1.5 and 10 volts, depending upon the "resting" (no voice applied) resistance of the mic element. Most carbon mics have a nominal "resting" resistance of between 90 and 250 ohms. The resistors and jumpers (to short out one or more of the resistors) in the audio circuit would be arranged to limit the current through the mic, to avoid "cooking" the element by having too many milliamperes flow through it... this would ruin the sensitivity of the mic, or destroy it. Such a gain-adjustment circuit is often used in commercial land mobile (business, public safety) radios today... yes, some still use carbon mics. Having the resistors and associated jumpers inside the radio, rather than using a simple "gain control" knob, avoids having nontech types with no understanding or appreciation of how the circuit works, FUBAR it by "cranking up the gain." I will check to see if one of my microphone-collecting friends has a WE631B mic. LTM (who is known for her penetrating voice) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric For the uninitiated, FUBAR is an acronymn for Fouled Up Beyond All Repair (politely put). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:35:47 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Fuel/Radio A number of postings over the past two weeks have skirted or flirted with the issue of operating the radio on batteries for an indeterminate period of time as opposed to operating them from the engine generator set. In order for any survival hypothosis to work, the plane had to first land or ditch and float. If it ditched and floated any radio operation had to be battery powered. Most of the "radio" posts I have seen over the past year seem to indicate one hour to two hours maximum for operating the radio solely from battery power, if at all. While that time frame would cover "Bettys" notes, it wouldn't appear to cover all of the other time frames indicated by the other post-loss messages (Wyoming, Canada, and Vermont are the ones that have been recently mentioned) some of which are becoming more viable as additional facts come to light. Can the gentleman (or gentleperson) who recently analyzed the post-loss messages provide us with a spreadsheet showing date, time, and duration of those messages he believes could be valid. Obviously if "Betty's" log matches the time/date/duration for Canada's or Wyoming's or other possibly valid messages, and that mutually inclusive window is less than two hours the batteries are possible, but if each time/date/duration is mutually exclusive, (as I expect) we need to stay within a "fuel window" for possible operation of an engine/generator set to sustain the radio. That window appears to be four to six hours max. The various radio messages may work to further TIGHAR's hypothisis of a NIKU landing since a date/time/duration matrix that would be more than two hours but less than six could only have been made if the aircraft could operate the engine that drove the generator set. Targets up--shoot away *************************************************************************** From Ric A few corrections. The radio won't work at all if the airplane is afloat because critical components are under water. The radio does not work off the generator when the engine is running. It always works off the battery. The generator just recharges the battery. There has been no comprehensive listing of alleged post-loss radio messages corrected to Greenwich time. That needs to be done and posted on a spreadsheet (as you suggest) on the TIGHAR website. I'll draw up the basic layout and we'll get something put up that we can all start working on. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:38:38 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Wyoming Message Questions The name is Charles Randolph Jr., then age 13. My orginal source is a UP release datelined July 5,1937 at Rock Springs,Wy,appearing in the Honolulu Star Bulletin. A staff writer was a James Sullivan. It was a headline. A second source is Strippel's book but he doesn't cite an orginal source. I'm in contact with an investigative reporter of the Rock Springs newspaper who said she would attempt to check out Randolph, the story from her paper's archives, court records,etc. The reporter is the one who told me about the Earhart and Electra photo at Rock Springs. Also the status of the KDN inquiry. Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds like a good start. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:42:04 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Recreation Audio In re "input": Let's see what Betty says was said that she was not able to take down, first. We can't see if and how we can deal with it until we know what it is. If we decide to go ahead with the recreation, my hope is that hearing it will somehow enable us to put things we are speculating on, now, into a context in which it will make sense. The thing I comming back to is that Betty may have heard two voices at once, but can't write down two voices at once. Using her comments on the transcribed messages in the notebook, and whatever she tells you when you interview her, in a "real time" recording, might fill in lots of gaps. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, but we'll be filling in the gaps in a contemporaneous document with 63 year-old anecdote. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:47:03 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Pacific Air Pilot (Vidal) This may come as a shock to some who think otherwise, but neither Doris Rich nor Cam Warren were making up stories about the Vidal quote. IT ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY IS in the Vidal Collection at the U. of Wyoming. (I've already sent a transcript to "Dusty Miss", who promised to forward my message to you, Ron.) It's listed in the voluminous inventory - you just have to look a little more carefully. Pinpointing its location was accomplished by yours truly (a diligent researcher, I must modestly admit), and actual recovery was by archivist Matt Sprinkle, based on a rough copy of Ms. Rich's notes. (Admittedly, Doris had the box number wrong.) Besides Rich and Goerner, Vidal was quoted by researcher J. Gordon Vaeth, who spoke to Gene Vidal on several occasions. Sorry your Assistant Archivist spent a month looking but still missed the target. That should be a lesson to all Earhart researchers (amateur or professional) to never give up hope, even if the object doesn't seem to be where its supposed to be! (Bayes Theorem of Selective Probability, anyone?) Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric What is this? Are you saying that you have known all along that the document is there and its correct location? How long have you had this information? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:48:26 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Winslow Reef Winslow Reef and environs - Been there, done that. Mile-long Winslow is 36 feet under water, but has a highly visible (from the air) white sand top. The other reefs in the neighborhood don't exist. If Tom MM wants a copy of my 1992 report, he can reach me via email. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:43:39 EDT From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: Betty's story vs. photographic evidence Maybe I'm confused but it seems that about a month ago, there was a lot of discussion and debate about whether the pitot and the belly antenna on the bottom of the Electra sustained damage on the runway at Lae. If that damage in fact occurred and it affected AE's ability to establish radio contact with Itasca (which was in the general vicinity of Howland before AE's disappearance) how is it possible that (assuming AE was able to land the plane) a transmission from AE could be received in Florida? Well, let's assume for a second the belly antenna wasn't damaged at Lae in spite of the photographic evidence. What are the chances AE could land the Electra on a reef or beach without damaging the pitots or belly antenna? Maybe the Forum members with a much better understanding of radio signals than I have can help piece this together. LTM Bill Carter 2313CE *********************************************************** From Ric The damaged belly antenna and pitots would have no effect on the aircraft's ability to transmit which was accomplished via a wire antenna on the top of the airplane. The lost belly antenna was a receiving antenna. Some contend that reception could also be accomplished over the antenna on thr top of the airplane. Others, (myself included) think that reception (in the absence of the beelly antenna) would rely upon the DF loop over the cockpit. In either event, the accident at Lae would have no effect on the post-loss radio question. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:53:48 EDT From: Pete Subject: More than 50 watts? Submitted for your approval: The westinghouse set on the 10E is pre '50s, so only vacuum tubes are inside. they must warm up prior to use as the heat reduces the resistance. I've been taught that vacuum tubes are still in use for high-power applications as they will tolerate far more heat dissapation than transistors. Okay, hot summer day on Niku, the heat in the Electra lowers the resistance of the tubes even further. By Ohm's law, voltage = current times resistance. change the formula to voltage divided by resistance = current. The resistance goes down, voltage stays the same, current goes up. Power in watts = voltage times current. Was it possible our little Westinghouse set was able to actually exceed 50 watts on that July day? I was looking in a textbook in the school's library to research AM transmitters. One thing that caught my eye was the section regarding "take-off angle" of an antenna. So: the temp of the tubes increases the available current, which increases the available output power. The attitude of the Electra has altered the take-off angle of the antenna. Throw in some ducting, is it not possible to get to St. Petersburg? Oh, regarding the Niku LTM. By asking the Instructor of the quarter that does communications: Idea is to use two solid state frequency generators fed into a summing amplifier, then to power transistors before heading out to the antenna. A "cheap" oscillator should allow for transmission on harmonics as well. With the tide times being behind the lagoon, looks like we anchor it just off the reef, maybe even attach a line to Norwich City. Tidal measurements should need no power. A spring-loaded drum with nylon line attached should do the trick. Put the weighted line in the water with the same markings the Navy uses on anchor chain to identify the scope of chain that's paid out. Quick little reference card, bingo, current depth in fathoms. Compare readings every hour or so, do the math, make the tide tables. If the markings are large enough, no need to even go to the buoy, just observe from the beach. I'm thinking fiberglass over aluminum for the casing. Have a good one! Pete ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:49:13 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: battery >From Ross Devitt > > 2nd, heard unintelligible voice that sounded like the same one they heard >from the airplane in flight but "without the hum of the plane in >background." Ric: Lets suppose that you are on the ground and want help. So far, people have not heard you or at least you haven't heard them. Wouldn't you want the least noise and electrical interference possible? I would opt to run the engine only to recharge the battery once it was drained to a certain point (allowing enough charge to start the engine). This way I could have a greater chance of hearing a faint signal and also that my transmissions would be heard without the engine interference. Also, someone asked if Betty heard the sound of the engines and it was said they didn't think AE's mike would pick up other sounds - but it would seem that others listening to her broadcasts at that time have already clarified that the mike CAN pick up more than the voice that is close to it! LTM Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. I'll add that starting an R1340 is not like turning the key in your car. Radials are notoriously cantankerous and there is newsreel out-take footage of AE having an awful time getting the Electra's engines started. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:07:10 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Rough Landing Gerry, regarding your statement that: "The majority of those, native Gilbertise were not allowed access to the area, never mind the ship itself because of "taboo". I think that's a bit extreme on a couple of grounds. First, we have only Emily's word for the story that the area was off limits. Assuming it's true, we don't know how big an area was off limits, but Betty's own account indicates that she viewed the "airplane" wreckage from the beach, so that part of the area must have NOT been "taboo." We also don't know how long the area was kept off limits, and we DO know that the area onshore from the wreck was occupied by the 1950s. Finally and most persuasively, we have a number of artifacts in the village that almost had to have come from the Norwich City. Some may have washed in, but others are sufficiently massive that this seems unlikely. An accurate statement would be that we have anecdotal indications that some portion of the Nutiran reef in the vicinity of the Norwich City was put officially out of bounds for a period of time, but that's a long way from saying that the whole shipwreck area was permanently off limits. TKing ************************************************************************** From Ric Emily said that her father had a special dispensation to go into the forbidden area along the Nutiran shore because, as the island carpenter, he needed to scout out good timber to be cut. While Emily is the only source we have for the shipwreck itslef being off limits, we do have Tapania Taeke's account that in the late 50's the chiildren were admonished not to play around where the pieces of airplane wreckage were because "there are ghosts there." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:08:20 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Climbing on NC Some of the Kiwi photos, as I recall, are of the stern from on deck somewhere aft of amidships, so it has to have been possible to get aboard one way or another. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric That's right. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:12:36 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Pilot Question Birch Matthews wrote: > I have a question for piston engine pilots on the Earhart Forum. > Is it common practice to gradually step up in altitude as your > fuel load burns off during very long flights where maximum range > is critical? Ok, to start off this discussion topic, I think it would be important to discuss these issues from a more general perspective. Therefore, with Ric's permission, I will talk about this one from the layman's perspective for those who are not pilots out there. Generally speaking, there are a lot of issues that come into play here. When looking at very long distance, endurance flights, the most critical factors are going to be the engine setting, maintaining minimum rpm while running at higher manifold pressures (often called "over square"), and the winds that vary at different altitudes. (To address the modern pilots in the forum, running an engine "over square" is not a bad thing, in actual fact, from an endurance and engine maintenance perspective, it is quite rather the opposite -- just check with a good maintenance guy and he'll confirm this -- and if it is in the POH, then you can run it that way, despite the common wisdom....) However, when you're flying a relatively slower airplane like the Electra, "hunting the wind", an old Pan Am Clipper term which means looking for a favorable tailwind or minimum headwind at the least by climbing through various altitudes, may be far more important than the engine setting. Now think about the fact that the winds commonly vary in both direction and windspeed depending on the altitude. In the old days, when the planes were slower, the winds played a very big role in getting there -- when you have a top speed of 400 kts, a difference of 30 or 40 kts in windspeed are not proportionately very significant. However, when you're flying a plane that tools along at 80 kts, that can mean nearly doubling your time in the air if you're facing a headwind of 40! Now, imagine yourself in a Lockheed Electra. The plane cruises nicely at 140 kts and runs for about 8 hours at that engine setting. If you push the power, you can maybe fly at 150 kts and run for 7 hours. If you throttle way back to maximum engine efficiency, maybe you will fly at 125 kts for perhaps 9 hours. Now, we'll imagine that today you're facing a tailwind of 20 kts down low. however, it switches around to a 40 kts headwind up high. Being a macho man of a pilot, you believe that flying high and fast will always get you there faster -- oh, so wrong, as you will see.... So, you push the power in and fly up high. The result is a ground speed of 110 kts (150 kts speed minus that 40 kts headwind) and a higher fuel burn. Amelia Earhart, however, might have flown at her best efficiency engine settings down low. That would yield a ground speed of 145 kts (125 kts speed + 20 kts tailwind). Now add in the number of hours of fuel on board depending on the engine setting (the faster you push it, the more fuel you burn), and you will see some interesting numbers. Flying low and slow, using that good tailwind, the smarter Amelia Earhart in this example would fly fully 1305 miles (145 kts ground speed multiplied by 9 hours of air time). The fly high and fast macho man would end up going only 770 miles (110 kts ground speed multiplied by 7 hours of air time). So if your destination is an island 1,000 miles away, flying smart means the difference between crashing in the ocean or arriving with two plus hours of fuel on board -- enough time to circle around looking for that little dot of land somewhere out there and maybe even fly to an alternate destination! Returning to reality, to really examine this issue for Earhart's particular situation, it would take solid information about winds along her route of flight (not known with any certainty), her actual power settings (potentially could be surmised), the exact engine specifications on her twin radial engines (I believe the Kelly Johnson numbers have been discussed before here), her planes performance and endurance at each power setting, and much more, those being the most critical items. Some of this is known, some of it is not. What could follow on this topic could be a long and very involved discussion that reaches no solid conclusions. Mr. Long in his book seems to find it quite acceptable to make educated guesses about power settings and projected winds aloft, as well as guessing what altitudes Earhart may have flown.... That's a lot of guesswork to depend on if you are going to say that she ran out of gas at a particular moment in time. For my part, I can't remember ever flying a single long distance flight without adjusting my power settings at least several times. All of this aside, suffice it to say that Noonan and Earhart would have done their best -- and they were pretty damn good by the standards of those days. Thomas Van Hare Historic Wings ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:39:51 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Friedell Report A couple of observations.I have been reading Friedell's Report of the search, and in it he mentions the March of Time broadcast in an entry dated 8 July. He refers to it in the context of it being the source of a message from AE to Itasca that a person on Hilo heard at 1515hrs. This is part of a reference he makes to two supposed location calls having been received within the "last 24 hours".That would seem to date the broadcast at around 1500 Hawaiian time on 7 July. Does not seem to fit too well with Betty's notes--in the time frame context anyway. The other thing I am curious about, and which may have been gone over at length earlier, is the Lambrecht search on 9 July. Viewing the map he submitted with his report, the notations indicate that planes were launched at 0700 hours and proceeded to McKean, Gardner and Carondelet Reef before returning to the Colorado for recovery at 1030 hours. This makes for a total time from launch to recovery of 3.5 hours. I have looked for the distances between these various points but have not found them. Given the speed of these planes (which I do not know) and the distances traveled in the time frame indicated, I wonder just how thorough and complete a search was actually performed. Repeated zooming and circling leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I have to wonder if the "search" was just a sort of circling pass as they flew by ? LTM, Bill Conover #2377 ************************************************************************** From Ric We've done quite a bit of calculating about that. It's impossible to be specific because there are too many unknowns (For example: How long did it take from the time of the first launch at 0700 untill all three planes were in the air and formed up and on their way? Two minutes? Five minutes? Ten Minutes?) but, as I recall, the bottom line seems to be that they couldn't have spent more than about fifteen minutes over Gardner. Randy, do you have those numbers handy? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:25:33 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Norwich City (Page 2) Ric wrote: > there's a no-doubt-about-it grave right at the vegetation line > just opposite the bow of the wreck. But that's a Gilbertese-style grave, is it not? Whatever else AE may have been, she wasn't Gilbertese. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric It's a single coral slab imbedded on edge in the ground. The exposed portion is maybe two feet wide by 18 inches tall. The known Gilbertese graves we have encountered have had similar "headstones" but they all also had smaller "footstones" and, in some cases, were also bordered by smaller slabs (as was the baby grave on Aukeraime). There seems to be no doubt that this slab is an artifact of human work, but upon further reflection, I can see three possible explanations for what it is: 1. A property marker similar (albeit larger) to the markers we found on the Nutiran mud flat. The principle argument against this explanation is that there don't see to be any other "markers" that line up with it (as there are on the mud flat). 2. A grave fashioned by the Gilbertese but lacking a "footstone." 3. A grave fashioned by someone other than a Gilbertese who happened to use a coral slab as a "headstone" because that is what was handy. Recall that we have multiple independent anecdotal accounts of human remains being found in the general vicinity of Norwich City (Emily and Bauro Tikana) by the first settlers. Kar Burns, with first-hand experience in the environment, is of the opinion that the chances of such bones being from victims of the Norwich City disaster some ten years earlier are virtually nil. So if bones were, in fact, found in that area, whose were they? And what was done with them? Emily says they were the bones that Gallagher dealt with, but we know that is not true. Bauro didn't say anything about what became of the bones. We know what the same people did with the skull they found on the SE end. They buried it. (Which prompts the thought that we should look for a coral slab near the hole where we suspect the skull was dug up.) So we have what appears to be a Gilbertese grave right smack in the area where folklore says that the Gilbertese found bones. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:34:54 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Janet Whitney It's my impression that Janet Whitney has significantly toned down the one-sided "requests" and "arrogance" that the forum was complaining about, and that she's done this in response to what she read on the forum. When she first appeared on the forum, there were obviously some adjustment issues regarding tone and style. This is not so unusual, especially with talented people in her age range. I sense that both she and Ric (as forum moderator) have gradually found some sort of acceptable balance, making her participation possible. She does contribute relevant, new information from time to time and I have no problem with her participation, based on the posts that I've seen over the past weeks. On the contrary, I think her presence has become generally positive. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric This forum is a community with a wonderful cast of characters and we try very hard to welcome everyone who wishes to participate so long as they accept our fundamental ethic of the free and open (and more or less civil) exchange of ideas and information within the topics under discussion. To my knowledge, Janet has never violated that ethic. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 11:20:20 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station Were the Japanese picking up AE's broadcasts and did they understand her name, and English? In 1937,the Japanese were in preparation for their big military blowout..their objective....to own and control all of South East Asia which would have meant owing and controling over 1/2 of the world's population. And, in 1937,Japan's military establishment was angry with the US because we would not send/supply them with oil/fuel to aid with their munitions buildup (no oil in Japan). It follows that the Japanese military inteligience was 'listening' very closely to everything coming out of the USA, (they didn't want us to give them any problems) and certainly their intelligience officers knew English. Of course they did. They also knew when the Americans turned tail after 18 little days of searching for AE/FN and went home. And where would u suppose the Japanese military might go after the Americans went home.....remember, at one point in her last flight, Earhart was only 100 miles off shore from one of those Japanese occupied islands with munitions buildup. The Japanese could have swum to Gardner, or taken a row boat. ************************************************************************** From Ric As Cary Grant supposedly once said, "Judy, Judy, Judy...". Your impression of Japan in 1937 is pure Hollywood. At the time of the Earhart disappearance Japan was hardly the aggressive monolith it was to become in later years. The political power of the militarists had not yet become firmly established ( a general election in June showed strong continued popular support for a parliamentary government). It was not until July 7th that the army, in a successful effort to undermine democratic leanings at home, staged the Marco Polo Bridge incident which sparked war with China. Japan, at that time, was still trading freely with the United States. The freezing of Japanese assetts in the U.S. and the embargo on oil sales didn't happen until 1940. No "munitions buildup" had yet begun in the mandated territories in 1937 and Earhart (assuming she was on course) never came closer than about 500 miles to any Japanese island. If she was on Gardner she was a thousand miles from the nearest place controlled by the Japanese. That place - the oft mentioned Mili Atoll - was nothing more than a few Marshallese fishing villages with some Japanese commercial supervisors. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 11:21:22 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: A new anecdote The Marlow anecdote definitely sounds like an echo of the Earhart stories that circulated on Gardner/Nikumaroro in the 1940s and 50s. I think its pretty clear by now that in the 1940s, people were coming to conclusions about Earhart that were remarkably similar to TIGHAR's current hypothesis, which 50 years later has been based mostly on independent physical evidence and reliable documentation. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 11:22:44 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Recreation Audio It may be of some benefit if we had someone with AE's Kansas accent (listening to Amelia on film, she has a profound accent) talk into a carbon mic. pronouncing these words. Also might be of interest if they could have it done like in a tube with the ocean surf around them. Even without the ocean surf, it would be very interesting and perhaps useful to hear a woman with a similar accent go over these words with a carbon mic. Regards. Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 11:24:14 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Regressive Hypnosis Psychologists such as Robert Baker and E.M. Thornton have rather convincingly demonstrated that most forms of hypnosis are forms of learned social behavior, rather than emperical windows into untapped information in the mind. In the courts, convictions based on the testimony of witnesses who have been "hypnotized" by their therapists have been recently overturned, and the entire practice is becoming increasingly discredited. A summary is available at http://skepdic.com/hypnosis.html. I suspect that in 200 years, if anyone cares to mention it at all, the use of hypnosis in late 20th century courts and other "serious" venues will be generally regarded as an artifact of the rampant ignorance, superstition, and barbarity of the age. Personally, I would disassociate myself from any project that gave serious consideration to hypnosis as an investigative tool. LTM william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:23:05 EDT From: Kathi Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter Hue Miller wrote: <So the Titanic being the first to use the "new" SOS distress call is myth? No, I think there is sufficient evidence on record that Phillips alternated between CQD and SOS briefly, until he was answered by the Carpathia. I'm sure I can provide chapter and verse, but it is late and I have miles to go before I sleep. Tom *************************************************************************** From Ric This is woefully off topic but irresistable. "Chapter and verse" would have to an original copy of the Carpathia's radio log. Does such a document exist? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:41:54 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: LOP Answers to Mike Muenich's questions: >>1. Is a LOP altitude sensitive; i.e. If FN is over Howland on July 3rd at 8:00 and at an altitude of 1,500 feet MSL, would the LOP be different if he were on the ground at the same time and position?<< Yes, but only at a 0.1 degree level. >>2. Is a LOP time sensitive; i.e. if his navigational chronometer broke on landing (crashing) and he was unable to get a reliable time hack, would an error of several minutes on his wristwatch affect the LOP?<< Most definitely, as the LOP depends upon the time of day. LOPs change most rapidly during noontime, but this particular LOP was at sunrise, as was stable for approx. 1.5 hours. >>3. Is a LOP date sensitive; i.e. if FN took a LOP on July 3rd, would it change on July 8th at the same time and place?<< Yes, but only slightly at this time of the year. >>4. Can a bubble octant and a sextant perform all of the same functions; i.e. can an octant produce each of a LOP, Lat. and Long; can a sextant?<< LOP is derived from a bearing relative to true north to a target, and is usually extracted from a detailed table. It is where that LOP lies that is obtained from using a sextant-type device. Sextant, octant, and bubble octant, if used correctly, are equivalent for determining positions. >>5. Depending on your response to #4 above, is it possible that FN could only calculate a LOP and not Lat. or Long.?<< LOP is not directly observed, but is inferred. Latitude is easy to measure; longitude requires precise time. >>6. Depending on your response to #2 above, could a time error cause the creation of a LOP of 158/338 for Gardner?<< Not likely. >>7. Depending on your response to #3 above, could the progression in dates from July 3rd to July 6th, 7th, 8th etc cause a change in a LOP?<< Yes, but I don't see why this is relevant to AE's navigation or where they think they are. >>8. Assuming all of FN's equipment is in working order and he is accurate, is there a date on NIKU that's its LOP is 158/338?<< Yes, probably each day of the year, but the time it happens will vary from day to day in a regular fashion. >>9. Would the change in altitude from 2,000' +/- MSL to 10' +/- MSL cause a shift in the LOP?<< Not measurable within normal precision. >>10. If FN was severly hurt, could he talk AE through the process of calculating a LOP with either a sextant or an octant and what would the theoretical amount of error be; would he be equally able to talk her through a Lat./Long. equation?<< Unlikely, but possible if she knew mathematics and what she was doing. It's tough even when the books are right in front of you. >>11. Is it possible that only a LOP could be calculated with some of the equipment at hand and not an accurate Lat./Long. by either AE or FN?<< LOP could be inferred directly from the tables with reasonable accuracy. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:44:29 EDT From: Doc Holloway Subject: Re: Unusual designation? For Dennis O. McGee: According to "United States Navy Aircraft since 1911" (Second Revised Edition) by Gordon Swanborough & Peter Bowers, O had three different uses between 1929 and 1960: Lockheed Aircraft Corporation (Plant B) 1931-1950 Piper Aircraft Corporation (also E, P) 1960 Viking Flying Boat Corporation 1929-1936 As an old Naval Aviator I also thought V was always used for Lockheed. LTM(Who never ceases to be amazed by what she learns on the Forum!) Doc Holloway *************************************************************************** From Ric So why, I wonder, was the Lockheed Model 18 designated the PV-1 during WWII? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:45:40 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: Phone numbers? > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > > Something that many may already be aware of, but if you are not, this is > useful... > > It is tough to reverse-lookup a phone number using only a telephone book... These are great! I used them in my search for adopted folk, years ago. > One company publishing these books was Hill's City Directory Co. (I may have > the name not quite right but it is close). Hill's may not be the only such > company, but they were a biggie in the biz. There are two companies. The Hill Directories and ... rats, I forget the name ... but it started with an R. Both have the same sort of information; some even list the names of children. > Some libraries may have old editions of these, but my guess is that most > would not keep one over 5-10 years. ("Weeding" a collection is a big > pastime for library personnel; it gives volunteers something to do...)They > take up a lot of space. But surely someone somewhere has the archives (we > hope). Try the libraries. I know the local City library keeps them back to the early 1920s. State libraries keep them forever. If you can find the office of the directory company -- there are local offices in some cities -- they have the complete run, frequently. > Direcotries of this nature would be standard equipment in police > departments/fire departments and municipal offices. They were also used by > businesses. Churches have the directories, too. LTM (who updates her copy) Michael Holt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:46:37 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: W40K > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > > I seriously doubt that W4OK was involved in a hoax... I just wondered if > perhaps W4OK could be a notation referring to a relative or family friend of > Betty; or maybe just someone interesting she heard on the radio. I'd like to know how W40K would react to knowing that he appeared in something related to Amelia Earhart. He might know something about it ... but no, I have no idea how or why. What else might "W40K" mean? Might it be a automobile license number, for example? Michael Holt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:49:04 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter Facts >>no chance this information by itself favors THE HARMONIC >>THEORY. > > Agreed, in and of itself... but it is certainly an indication that >the thing could have been mistuned, and given the circuit, harmonic radiation >is a strong possibility in any event... Mike, no doubt harmonics did arise. Probably there were harmonics up to the 99th harmonic, maybe more. But... AGAIN, what i am asking, challenging, is to explain how the diminished power level of the harmonic, versus the full carrier power, against a poor quality (in DX - long distance terms)antenna, could have made this trip, to a home receiver. Despite being mistuned, the transmitter was not , did not favor the harmonic over the fundamental. That means the actual harmonic energy is much less than even the diminished best harmonic level that could be could be achieved, even with the set adjusted to favor harmonics. To repeat, how much *power* on the harmonic is a mistuning going to get you?? > I was quite aware of this "gain adjustment" jumper inside of the radio. > Yes, the mic was carbon... yes, they may exhibit low sensitivity compared to > a modern crystal or dynamic mic... BUT, how many times have you heard > background noise over the phone when you talk with a friend, especially one > who has little kids anywhere in the house(!)? Many telephones still use > carbon mics (those made by WE/AT&T, anyway). Mike, let's not try out the home telephone. That is a very dubious comparison, and you should know that. Let's try out an RS-38 or T-17 carbon mic, into an aircraft transmitter, or any military transmitter of the the era. How well do you suppose it would pick up the sounds of the kiddies in the background? (You probably have done this....please recall) If it did pick up the kiddie sounds that well, how well do you suppose it would perform in the aircraft cabin? > The WE mic used aboard NR16020 used a "button" element very similar in > characteristics to AT&T telephone microphones of the era. It was not a > noise cancelling type. It could have picked up more than one voice (but how > well may be questionable) in a quiet environment. Nor is the radio path to the listener completely noise free. Hue ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:50:38 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Betty's Intercept/ Earhart's transmission ? >From Ric >Did Band 2 on the WE 20B not cover from 550 to 1500 KHz? We missed that point, didn't we? very, very interesting. Hue ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:51:53 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: SOS, CQD >So the Titanic being the first to use the "new" SOS distress call is myth?" In the transcripts I found online for the Titanic disaster, http://www2.dynamite.com.au/rmstitanic/ the R/O's used both CQD and SOS signals. Another page http://www.qsl.net/ae0q/sos.htm notes that in 1906 an international convention first proposed SOS as a universal distress call, but it wasn't adopted as THE international standard until after the infamous titanic/iceberg interface event. I haven't yet found any one event noted as the first recorded usage of SOS as a distress call, it seems unlikely that the Titanic was the first, coming six years after the conference. More likely this was the first time that the mass media and the public had repeated, dramatic exposure to the term. For the majority of the public this was the first time they had ever heard of 'S-O-S', and some clever newspaper headline writer came up with the "sound bite" that SOS was an abbreviation for Save our Ship. On this web page also noted were some of the other distress calls used or proposed over the years by telegraph, radiotelegraph, and radio operators as QRR,QRRR,CQD,SOE, and NC. Bill ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:52:53 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: 1937 mics Are you guys real sure these resistors accomplish gain adjustment? It seems to me that the audio voltage produced by the mic is more a function of how much resistance change occurs in the carbon "button" resistance, and consequent current change, than it is of the average energizing current through the "button." Not having much hands-on experience with carbon mics, I'm speculating that these adjustment resistors are more to establish an appropriate mic current than to adjust sensitivity of the mic. LTM who believes mics always pick up what you don't want heard. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:54:49 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Re: LOP For Mike Muenich's questions: Well, I'll try to take a crack at these. Some of these relate to LOP's in general, but others can only be answered if it is understood that a single celestial body is being discussed. In those cases, these responses relate to the sun only - not to the moon, stars and planets. It became clear while typing these that a lot of simplification had to take place. Hope this does not just make things worse. I have to say that once the aircraft was down, an LOP would not be the thing to report to the world (coordinates or island name would be the thing) unless you didn't know where you were, but were trying to describe how you got there. In that case, you would expect only one leg of the LOP to be broadcast (ie, "we flew on 157 true for about xxx miles on an LOP thru Howland." At least that would specify a narrow search band. Anyway, Q & A's follow. 1. Is a LOP altitude sensitive; i.e. If FN is over Howland on July 3rd at 8:00 and at an altitude of 1,500 feet MSL, would the LOP be different if he were on the ground at the same time and position? ANS: No, the raw instrument readings will be different, but once the appropriate corrections are applied, there should be no significant difference between a sight at altitiude vs sea level. The LOP should be essentially the same. 2. Is a LOP time sensitive; i.e. if his navigational chronometer broke on landing (crashing) and he was unable to get a reliable time hack, would an error of several minutes on his wristwatch affect the LOP? ANS: Yes, time is a very sensitive parameter. As an approximation for small errors in time, with a sun sight the entire LOP will shift approximately 15 minutes of arc in Longitude for every 1 minute of time error. Marine sights are timed to the second. 3. Is a LOP date sensitive; i.e. if FN took a LOP on July 3rd, would it change on July 8th at the same time and place? ANS: Yes, it is date sensitive. 4. Can a bubble octant and a sextant perform all of the same functions; i.e. can an octant produce each of a LOP, Lat. and Long; can a sextant? ANS: Yes, they both do basically the same thing. The bubble octant is used when a horizon is not clearly distinguishable. 5. Depending on your response to #4 above, is it possible that FN could only calculate a LOP and not Lat. or Long.? ANS: I'm going to skip a ton of drivel here and say that if the observer is stationary (ie the aircraft is down) and they have a sextant/octant, almanac, tables, accurate chronometer, a clear sky and only one celestial object to sight (the sun), they should be able to get a good full fix within 1/2 day at most - Lat and Lon. This could be reduced to about half an hour (including calcs) if two bodies are visible with a decent angle of cut between them. 6. Depending on your response to #2 above, could a time error cause the creation of a LOP of 158/338 for Gardner? ANS: In this case, it would be more like a significant date error (assuming the sun is the celestial object used for sights). 7. Depending on your response to #3 above, could the progression in dates from July 3rd to July 6th, 7th, 8th etc cause a change in a LOP? ANS: Yes, but remember that the LOP runs +/-90 degrees to the computed azimuth of the celestial object at the time which it is sighted. Thus if the celestial object is north of the observer (like the sun was in this case) the LOP will "rotate" counterclockwise thru the day from sunrise to sunset. With each passing day (in July), the sun will rise and set slightly more south, increasing the angle thru which the LOP will "rotate". 8. Assuming all of FN's equipment is in working order and he is accurate, is there a date on NIKU that's its LOP is 158/338? ANS: Yes, but this is a little more complex than it looks. If you want the LOP derived from a sunrise sight on NIku, 158/338 is probably not possible until around July 9th, give or take a day - however, I think I can say not on July 3rd. If you are just sitting there on an island, it would be much, much better (for accuracy) to wait until the sun or other object was at least 10-20 degrees or more degrees above the horizon. There is no unique answer to this one, but by later in the second week in July, LOP's of 158/338 were possible. 9. Would the change in altitude from 2,000' +/- MSL to 10' +/- MSL cause a shift in the LOP? ANS: As in (1) above, no. 10. If FN was severly hurt, could he talk AE through the process of calculating a LOP with either a sextant or an octant and what would the theoretical amount of error be; would he be equally able to talk her through a Lat./Long. equation? ANS: It is not completely impossible, but I doubt it. This is just simple math, but it is very procedural and pretty hard to imagine teaching while semi-incapacitated and in pain. Unless you can do repeated table lookups and sexigesimal addition and subtraction perfectly, anyone can make a serious blunder, especially under stress. Even fully staffed nav sections on military vessels have goofed. Comparison with your expected (DR) position and redundant sights should reveal any errors and should motivate some serious re-checking, but under difficult conditions this is not always possible. Typical standards (with practice) for good sights might be 1 nautical mile for marine sextants, 15 nautical miles for bubble octants. Push button GPS looks better and better. 11. Is it possible that only a LOP could be calculated with some of the equipment at hand and not an accurate Lat./Long. by either AE or FN? ANS: I think if they can get one LOP, they could get the two or more needed for a full Lat/Lon fix. The exception would be if they lacked accurate time, or an almanac or sight reduction tables. In that case, clever work by FN would allow latitude to be well estimated but that is about it. That's all I have to say 'bout that, Tom MM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:56:17 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Reception Hue Miller asked: > Why don't someones start working on explaining the mechansms > of how the signal supposedly arrived at (nearly only) Florida > and Maine? At the risk of restating a point already made - IMHO adding "nearly only", even in brackets, turns this into the wrong question to ask. Yes, that it could have reached these points needs explaining from a technical angle, but that's the beginning, middle and end of it. Philosophically, it could have reached a zillion places with nobody happening to have heard it for a zillion reasons, starting with "no human population for a hundred miles in any direction" - but that's a different question altogether. LTM Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:57:00 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Phone numbers? Maybe this desn't cut any wood but over here (Belgium) there used to be a TelePhone Museum. They kept a nearly complete collection of telephone directories until the museum was closed some five years ago for lack of public money. Butthe collection was saved and is now kept in the National Library in Brussels. Is there any comparable institution in the US where they might keep old telephone directories for future generations to consult ? Maybe the Smithsonian in Washington ? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:00:07 EDT From: Mike E Subject: Re: Betty's Intercept/ Earhart's transmission ? >From Ric > >Did Band 2 on the WE 20B not cover from 550 to 1500 KHz? Yes it did, on the standard 20A (local control) and 20B (remote control), but not the modified 20B that AE had. In order to reach the 500 KHz marine distress freq (and this was the only universal distress freq used in 1937), the tuning range of the receiver was modified. The Band 2 coverage was "fudged" downward. Because the low end was moved, the high end of the AM broadcast band was lost. This is a result of the shifting of the tuned circuit either by placing "padder" capacitors across each of the Band 2 coils, or by replacing the standard Band 2 coils with others having greater inductance. I do not know which method was used. Either will work, but the replacement of the coils would be preferable. Since we are talking about Western Electric, who normally did things in a very thorough manner, I'd sort of bet on that method; but then again, seeing how they modified the transmitter for CW -- a sort of Rube Goldberg arrangement -- who knows? Nonetheless, the tuning range was indeed shifted downward. The published specs for the 20AA and 20BA, which are the models for the range-modified units, list Band 2 as 485-1200 Kc (KHz). I may have said 1250 yesterday; sorry, that was a typo. So if KGMB was transmitting on 1320 in 1937, she could not hear that station on the WE receiver. Ergo... second receiver. Unless they had some kind of emergency receiver, like a "portable" full of tubes and heavy "A" and "B" batteries. I am going to have to research this... for some reason I thought, all along, that KGMB used 630 KHz at that time, and just never looked it up. For a station whose primary coverage area includes all the Hawaiian Islands, a lower freq would certainly give better ground wave coverage over a wide area day and night. Also, the high end of the AM band (considered to be above 1000 KHz, and especially above 1200) is mostly the province of "local" stations, many being low power peanut whistles (1 KW or less). 1320 KHz, in fact, is a frequency populated by many such outlets in the modern era. (Yes, I know, there are notable exceptions to that, including WCKY Cincinnati, WCAU Philly, etc etc etc.) LTM (who likes them newfangled transistor radios) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric Whadya wanna bet you find that 1320 is not the frequency that KGMB was using in 1937? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:02:00 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Pilot Question The simple answer to Birch Matthews' question is, no, it was not common practice to step-climb piston-engined transport aircraft as gross weight decreased. Other factors were of far greater importance in determining cruise altitude. For UNPRESSURIZED aircraft: 1) Cruise altitudes are necessarily limited due to oxygen requirements. 2) If possible, altitudes were selected to avoid visible moisture and temperature combinations that would require use of carburetor heat (less than 15 degrees C). Reciprocating engines are significantly less efficient when using carb heat--but much more efficient than they would be if the carburetor iced up 3) The airplane (and the pilots) are less efficient in turbulence, so selection of an altitude that was smooth was more than just a "passenger comfort" issue. For PRESSURIZED aircraft: 1) Speed was the overriding consideration for the airlines. Therefore, cruise altitudes were determined by the altitudes offering the best True Airspeed at maximum cruise power. This occurs in high blower in the low-to-mid 20s. 2) Avoidance of turbulence and carb ice were still important. Birch, if you would like any more information, I'd welcome an excuse to dig into my library of old flight manuals. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:36:22 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter Facts Mike E. - I think too much is being made about Earhart's antenna. The length recommended by Western Electric was ~40' for 3105/6210. Which, as you can see, is an optimum 1/4 wave for 6210. After previous mods, the Pan Am guys in Miami set it up that way. Fine tuning was completed at the transmitter. The effective radiated power was considerably less than 50 watts even on the higher channel, not much for 3105. Voice reception from Howland vicinity to Miami? Little short of miraculous! And Bob Brandenburg shouldn't be worrying about the minute details of Betty's backyard wire. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:40:10 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Fuel/Radio Thus spake Ric - >>There has been no comprehensive listing of alleged post-loss >>radio messages corrected to Greenwich time. au contraire! As I've mentioned (more than once) in the past, Ex-coastguardsman Charles Hill did just such a GMT/local time listing some years (10?) ago. He was going to write a book about AE, but I don't believe he ever did. The last I heard, he was living in Fort Thomas, Kentucky, but wasn't taking kindly to strangers. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** Thus speaketh Ric If nobody has seen it, or has had a chance to verify it, or has been able to use it - and if the author won't release it - it may as well not exist. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:41:59 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Batteries and generators Somehow I thought we had ridden this horse already and he was run hard and put up wet... In a vehicular electrical system (aircraft or automotive or marine or railroad locomotive) the primary function of the battery is to provide power to crank the engine(s). Once the engine-driven generator or alternator comes on line, it provides most of the power. The battery is sort of "floated" across the system and acts like a filter, as well as a form of regulator. The charging system must supply current to the battery at least as fast as it is taken out by the load. About a year ago someone provided an excellent analysis of the batteries aboard NR16020... might be interesting to roll this out again. If the batteries were used intermittently, maybe for 15 to 30 minutes, and allowed some time to "recover" between periods of heavy use, even without recharging, their useful life would be prolonged.... but how far is hard to say. That would depend upon the conditions of the batteries, the ambient temperature, and the load upon them. Certainly the receiver(s) could be run a long time, because they only would draw 3-4 amps each... but the transmitter would eat them up. Maybe some have seen the old film "Island in the Sky" starring John Wayne... real good analogy to the AE case. (I think this rider was on the horse last time too.) LTM (who thinks operating a radio aboard a horse might be interesting) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:43:32 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Betty in the book Just another observation...why would a teenager be listed (along with her father) in the telephone directory, in 1937? As I recall, in the 1930s, youngsters (including teenagers) were still included in the ...'seen-but-not-heard'... catagory. Could the 'Betty' listed in the directory be her _mother's_ name? Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric I think you misunderstood Harry. Betty herself is not listed in the 1937 book. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:48:51 EDT From: Jim Gyer Subject: Re: early usage of MAYDAY Interesting. This made a few other thoughts pop in my mind. I may calmly say "HELP me", but with stress and fustration this may become "help ME" or "mayDAY (d__m it)". I also wonder if anyone has studied AE's speech pattern. I have been fascinated by the voices of several performers/celebrities over the years and upon study, it resolves into some systematic variation from typical pronounciation. Most recently, I listened to candidate AG's acceptance speech, and it took me a while to realize his distinctive sound comes from a tendancy to accent and stretch the final vowel of words. Jim *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure that listening to AE's voice in newsreel interviews would help us much in determining what she would sound like if she was really, really upset. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:49:54 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Tampa Bay Broadcasting Web Sites I've found two major-league Web sites that have much information about AM-FM-TV broadcasting (past and present) in the Tampa Bay area. The URLs are: http://members.aol.com/jeff560/jeff.html http://members.xoom.com/ddsradio1/radio01.html It appears that the Tampa Bay area has been a hotbed of pirate radio activity in recent years (almost all on the FM broadcast band). It appears from the content of these Web sites that there are people interested in the history of broadcasting in the Tampa Bay area who could be excellent sources of information about radio in the 1930's in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area. Janet Whitnay ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:52:19 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Climbing on NC From my memory of the pictures, the breach in the hull is large enough for someone to walk in. It's also on the reef in calm water. From there, there are probably many ways to get around inside (I did this, myself, several years ago on some beached wrecks from the 19th century around Punta Arenas, on the Straight of Megellan). That seems like the easiest way to get in, and even if there is a metal ladder some where we can't see, that would not extend below the water line of the ship and the entire ship is sitting elevated on the reef. In other words, you'd have to reach for it, and it might be in bad/unsafe condition. You know, I have a difficult time imagining that the New Zealanders didn't explore as much of the interior of the ship as possible. While I don't know how busy they were while on the island, "busy" on Gardner now, and in the 1930s, is a relative term, and the ship is a tremendous curiousity even today (it must really have been so when it was largely complete in the 1930s). Perhaps someone did spot something interesting while aboard, but it either wasn't reported or we can't find the report that it was. This question has come up before, and is the reason why individuals in New Zealand are doing their best to track down reports of the visit, or survivors. A number of people have commented that the Earhart landing by the Norwich City probably didn't happen because the New Zealanders didn't see anything when they were there soon after. This conclusion assumes we have a complete record--- they could very well have seen something that got their attention (as Bevington commented on the "bivouac" he spotted), but it either wasn't reported (unlike Bevington did) or the report has yet to be found. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:57:58 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Climbing on NC If Maude was ever on board (I believe someone indicated that he was), then access would have been easy. Maude was suffering from a bad back. Ric can enlighten us if indeed he has indication of Maude on board. But it is well documented that Maude had a very bad back problem. Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric That's right. That's why he didn't accompany Bevington on his hike around the island. I've seen no indication in the literature (Maude or Bevington) or photos that the initial October 1937 evaluation expedition went aboard Norwich City except to tie a line to her stern for mooring the Nimanoa. Later, when the colony was first getting started in 1939, the hold of the ship was used to store seed coconuts. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:04:36 EDT From: Renaud Subject: right seat controls Ric wrote: "Removing the copilot-side yoke would make a lot of sense but could also explain why the right-seat occupant got hurt and the pilot didn't." On the photograph, was all the pitch/roll control apparatus present or only the yoke ? Fred could have been wounded by the directionnal "column" or "arm"( i dunno the right english word for that), since he probalby only had a waist belt. This could occur, especially when you are landing a plane with "classical" undercarriage, since your are keeping the yoke "into the stomach" during the run, until the full stop. LTM ( who still have a spare yoke in her bag ) RENAUD DUDON *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting point (no pun intended). Yes, the photo shows only the wheel itself. N the Lockheed 10, the housing for the cables and pulleys is an arm that extends at an upward angle from the side of the cockpit. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:05:29 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Marie, Uncle, George... I know this one is REALLY stretched... But, from earlier posting MARIE, UNCLE and GEORGE could be actually spelling from radio alphabet... Just another thought... LTM( who only knows the Alpha Bravo system...) RENAUD DUDON#2366. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:08:43 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Friedell Report > From Ric > > We've done quite a bit of calculating about that. It's impossible to be > specific because there are too many unknowns (For example: How long did it > take from the time of the first launch at 0700 untill all three planes were > in the air and formed up and on their way? Two minutes? Five minutes? Ten > Minutes?) The 1939 edition of Fahey's "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet" has a photo of the Colorado with one of her scout planes on the catapult, which was mounted on top of number 3 16-inch gun turret. The aircraft "hangar" in battleships was a stowage area just below the main deck near the stern of the ship. Each aircraft was hoisted by a crane at the stern to a "standby" position on the main deck, and was moved forward on a dolly-like device to another crane which hoisted the aircraft to the catapult for launching. I estimate it would take about 10 minutes, best case, to move an aircraft from the "standby" position on the main deck to ready-to-launch on the catapult. Assuming that Colorado had one aircraft on the catapult, and the other two in standby on the main deck aft, 20 minutes would elapse between launching the first aircraft and launching the third. So the first aircraft would have burned 20 minutes of fuel before the third was launched - - and the remaining fuel in the first aircraft would constrain the mission time for the other two aircraft. Bob #2286 ************************************************************************** From Ric Geez, I never thought of that. I guess I always assumed that Colorado had three catapults. That really does shorten the available mission time. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:10:41 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Rough Landing Ok ... good debate! The point being, of the 200 or so people that have set foot on Niku. Few have been aboard the NC. Emily was in the company of her father when she claims to have seen aircraft parts. She also stated that she was only with her father in that area a couple of times, if I am not mistaken and that her Father had special permission to seek out wood in that area. Perhaps it is safe to say that stating almost all of the Gilbertise were forbidden to go into the area never mind on board the ship is a bit of a strong statement ... but I am basing it on interviews TIGHAR had with the natives and their accounts of life on Niku. I will loosen the statement to some degree. It is known however that the area was made off-limits to MANY for an UNDISCLOSED period of time. The fact that accounts from persons living on the Island in the 1930's and living on the Isalnd in the 1950's allude to this "taboo" area indicates to me that the period of time was significant AND that if the stories are true then the "taboo" area did exist! The Colony was abandoned in 1963/64. If you then believe that a "taboo" existed .. it would appear that it existed at LEAST from the 1930's thru the 1950's ... with a POSSIBILITY that it continued until 1963/64 when all left Niku (unless of course something changed to lift the "taboo"). The main point is ... of the 200 people or so that have been on the Island ... a small amount of those actually climbed aboard the NC. Of those who did, how many made a thorough search of the vessel? Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:14:44 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Re: More than 50 watts? A simple answer to this question.... NO. >Okay, hot summer day on Niku, the heat in the Electra lowers the resistance >of the tubes even further. By Ohm's law, voltage = current times >resistance. > change the formula to voltage divided by resistance = current. The >resistance goes down, voltage stays the same, current goes up. Power in >watts = voltage times current. Was it possible our little Westinghouse set >was able to actually exceed 50 watts on that July day? Again: No. And as for the antenna situation: stay tuned, Bob Brandenburg is working on a number of antenna/harmonic/propagation issues. >Oh, regarding the Niku LTM. By asking the Instructor of the quarter that >does communications: Idea is to use two solid state frequency generators fed >into a summing amplifier, then to power transistors before heading out to the >antenna. A "cheap" oscillator should allow for transmission on harmonics as well. In the real world: LOTS of harmonics, more than you need or want, if you try to amplify two signal sources simultaneously... lots of potential trouble with a phenomenon called "intermodulation." Wonder how much your instructor is familiar with this? I think you will have a boxful of problems tuning an antenna as well. You should concentrate on optimizing the transmitter for the intended frequencies rather than wasting power in harmonics. *************************************************************************** From Ric Pete seems to have the bit in his teeth on this Long Term Monitor thing. If he came up with something we could just plop down and turn on, fine. But we're not going to devote significant assets to transporting or installing such a thing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:34:52 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Could AE hear KGMB? Ric and Hue Miller, I can't quite get this straight. Could Earharts receiver (band 2) receive an AM broadcast of 1320 (KGBM)? Mike E says Earhart could not receive 1320 kHz on her "modified" WE20B that is KGMB. He adds that ergo that means a "second receiver". Well the other more probable explanation is that Betty did not hear "KGBM" broadcast from Earhart,but its source was another radio station. Please clarify. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Band 2 on the standard WE20B covered 550 to 1500, thus covering 1320. Mike Everette says that in modifying the receiver to accomodate 500, the top end of that band was lowered to 1200, thus eliminating the ability to receive 1320. As I will show below, the original record does not support that contention. If Mike is right and frequencies were thus restricted, then nobody knew about it at the time. To help answer the question of what frequencies Earhart could receive and to dig out further information about the whole KGMB affair, I've gone back through the database of official messages and pulled out several that seem to provide useful information. I've added punctuation, paragraphing. and some implied words - always in lower case and in (), to make the messages a bit more readable. COMFRANDIV is Commander USCG San Francisco Division. COMHAWSEC is Commander USCG Hawaiian Section. ************************************************************************ From: COMFRANDIV Action: COMHAWSEC Info: ITASCA Datel 06/12/37 Text: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM MIAMI AIR STATION, "WHEN AMELIA EARHART TOOK OFF FROM MIAMI SHE STATED SHE WOULD NOT TRY TO COMMUNICATE WITH ANY RADIO STATION BUT WOULD BROADCAST HER POSITION EVERY 15 AND 45 MINUTES PAST EACH HOUR ON 6210 KCS. SHE ALSO TRANSMITS ON 3105 KCS. SHE STATED THAT HER RECEIVER WILL BE USED MOST OF THE TIME TAKING RADIO BEARINGS". ************************************************************************* There really does seem to be only one receiver aboard the airplane. ************************************************************************* From: COMFRANDIV Action: ITASCA Date: 06/25/37 Text: MR PUTNAM NOW AT OAKLAND AND ADVISES MISS EARHART AT BANDOENG JAVA FOR REPAIRS TO MOTORS AND DEPARTURE INDEFINITE. SHE WILL CABLE DETAILS COMMUNICATIONS FROM PORT DARWIN DIRECT SAN FRANCISCO AND YOU WILL BE GIVEN ALL INFORMATION IMMEDIATELY. ALL COMMUNICATION FROM PLANE WILL BE ON 500, 3105 OR 6210 KILOCYCLES BY VOICE - POSITIONS BEING GIVEN AT FIFTEEN AND FORTY FIVE MINUTES PAST THE HOUR. ITASCA (should) ADJUST TRANSMITTER FOR POSSIBLE USE 3105 KILOCYCLES FOR VOICE. DIRECTION FINDER ON PLANE COVERS RANGE OF ABOUT 200 TO 1400 KILCYCLES. ************************************************************************ "About" 200 to 1400 would include KGMB's 1320 Kcs, but the information comes from Putnam and the message is not specific. ************************************************************************ From: COMFRANDIV Action: ITASCA (PRIORITY) Date 06/26/37 Text: FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM EARHART THIS DATE, "HOMING DEVICE COVERS FROM 200 TO 1500 AND 2400 TO 48 KILOCYCLES. ANY FREQUENCIES NOT, REPEAT NOT, NEAR ENDS OF BANDS (are) SUITABLE". SUGGEST USING SUITABLE FREQUENCIES HAVING IN MIND UNCERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH FREQUENCIES. USE 333 KILOCYCLES OR FREQUENCY IN THAT VICINITY AND TRY 545 KILOCYCLES AFTER TESTS WITH STATIONS YOUR LOCALITY TO DETERMINE WHICH IS BEST. ADVISE IF IMPOSSIBLE TO PLACE TARE 10 TRANSMITTER ON 3105 KILOCYCLES EARHART AT LAE VIA TUTUILA EXACT FREQUENCIES SELECTED AND ASSUME CONTINUOUS SIGNALS AFTER HER DIRECTION FINDER IN RANGE. SEE BROADCAST ON QUARTER AFTER AND QUARTER BEFORE HOUR ON 6210 AND 3105 KILOCYCLES. AM ADVISING EARHART THAT ITASCA WILL VOICE RADIO HER ON 3105 ON HOUR AND HALF HOUR AS SHE APPROACHES HOWLAND. REPAIRS MADE AND EARHART NOW AT SOURABAYA EXPECTS LEAVE DAWN THIS DATE FOR PORT DARWIN AND NEXT DAY FOR LAE. ADVISE PRIORITY IF ADJUSTMENTS TARE TEN TRANSMITTER SATISFACTORY FOR USE ON 3105 *********************************************************************** She must mean 200 TO 1500 AND 2400 TO 4800 KILOCYCLES. This seems pretty unequivocal, but also pretty strange. According to this, she should be able to get KGMB on 1320 but NOT be able to use 7500 for DFing. ************************************************************************ From: COMHAWSEC Action: ITASCA Info: COMFRANDIV Date 07/04/37 Text: RADIO OAHU PAA THIS OFFICE HEARD VOICE CARRIER END KGMB BROADCAST 3105 CONTINUING BROADCAST CONCENTRATING 3105 FOR REPLY. SEVERAL DASHES ALSO HEARD. ************************************************************************ From: ITASCA Action: COMHAWSEC Info: COMFRANDIV Date 07/04/37 Text: WE HAVE RECEIVED KGMB CLEARLY ON WARDROOM RADIO AND CARRIER WAVE 3105 KCS ON RADIOROOM RECEIVER BUT NO DASHES. SUGGEST PAA CONCENTRATE ON BEARING IF ONLY APPROXIMATE. WILL COMMENCE RECTANGULAR SEARCH EAST FROM ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY BETWEEN ZERO AND TWO NORTH AT DAYBREAK. THIS SEARCH WILL COVER AMATEUR REPORTS. ************************************************************************ Itasca is hearing KGMB just fine. ************************************************************************ From: COMFRANDIV Action: COMDT CG Date 07/04/37 Text: ITASCA AND HAWSEC REPORT HEARING DASHES AND STRONG CARRIER WAVE ON 3105 KCS IN RESPONSE TO BROADCAST FROM HONOLULU STATION KGMB FOR EARHART TO ANSWER IF SHE HEARD REQUEST. SPECIAL MONITOR SAN FRANCISCO REPORTS STRONG CARRIER WAVE ON 6210 KCS ON THREE RECEIVERS WITH DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAE INDICATING POSITION WEST OF COAST. PAA OAHU ATTEMPTING OBTAIN BEARINGS. ITASCA SEARCHING WESTERLY QUADRANT TO COVER REPORTED POSITIONS AT DAYBREAK ************************************************************************* From: COMFRANDIV Action: COMHAWSEC Datel 07/04/37 Text: FROM PUTNAM, "REQUEST KGMB BROADCAST TO MISS EARHART THAT HELP IS ON THE WAY AND THAT SIGNALS HAVE BEEN HEARD." ************************************************************************ If we're going to say that Earhart's receiver could not accomodate KGMB's frequency we have to also say that everyone, including Earhart herself, was operating under the illusion that she could. ************************************************************************ From: COMFRANDIV Action: ITASCA Action: COMHAWSEC Date 07/04/37 Text: MONITORING STATIONS REPORT NO SIGNALS ON PLANE FREQUENCIES EXCEPT CARRIERS. LOCAL PLANES WERE HEARD 3105 BETWEEN 1100 AND 0130. MONITORS ESTABLISHED WATCH AT MAIN RECEIVING UNIT(ed) PRESS WIRELESS SANFRANCISCO ON DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS BEAMED ON HONOLULU. SOME SIGNALS ON 3105 AT NMC (Coast Guard HQ San Francisco) BUT BACKGROUND NOISE EXCEPTIONALLY HEAVY. COMMERCIAL STATIONS REPORT RECEPTION FROM MIDPACIFIC OFTEN BETTER ON THIRD HARMONIC WHICH MAY ACCOUNT FOR REPORTS OF PLANE BEING HEARD ON 10 MC AND 16 TO 18 MC FROM VARIOUS POINTS ON COAST. RECEPTION BETTER ON COAST ON 6 MC DURING EARLY MORNING HOURS FROM ABOUT 0500 TO 0900 PST. MONITORS AT PRESS WIRELESS REPORT UNIDENTIFIABLE SIGNALS 3105 KCS AT 0815 SIGNALS WERE HEARD ON TWO RECEIVERS AND TWO BEAMS ************************************************************************ Note the awareness that "RECEPTION FROM MIDPACIFIC OFTEN BETTER ON THIRD HARMONIC WHICH MAY ACCOUNT FOR REPORTS OF PLANE BEING HEARD ON 10 MC AND 16 TO 18 MC". ************************************************************************* From: COMHAWSEC Action: COLORADO Date 07/04/37 Text: AT 0630 GCT KGMB BROADCAST 1320 KCS, "TO EARHART PLANE - WE USING EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH YOU. IF YOU HEAR THIS BROADCAST PLEASE COME IN ON 3105 KCS. USE KEY IF POSSIBLE, OTHERWISE VOICE TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HEAR THIS BROADCAST TURN CARRIER ON FOR ONE MINUTE SO WE CAN TUNE YOU IN THEN TURN CARRIER ON AND OFF FOUR TIMES THEN LISTEN FOR OUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AT 0645 GCT". BROADCAST WILL BE REPEATED AT 0700 AND 0730 GCT. REQUEST COLORADO ITASCA SWAN TUTUILA AND RADIO WAILUPE REPORT RESULTS AFTER EACH BROADCAST ************************************************************************ From: RDO WAILUPE Action: COM14 Info1: COLORADO Date 07/06/37 Text: FOLLOWING VIA PHONE FROM MR STANLEY KGMB HONOLULU QUOTE FOLLOWING AMATEUR STATIONS ALL HAVE REPORTED A RIPPLING CARRIER RIGHT ON 3105 KCS. ONE OF THEM GOES SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE MOTOR GENERATOR DRIVEN RATHER THAN DC. CARRIER HEARD INTERMITTENTLY 21:17 TO 22:37 HAWAIIAN STANDARD TIME. CALLS OF AMATEURS K6OQE OAHU, K6NTY MAUI, ANOTHER OAHU CALL (letters) NOT OBTAINED OPERATOR HORNING, AND STATION W6NNR LOS ANGELES, AND ANOTHER STATION IN WHITTIER AT 0122 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME ************************************************************************ A whole bunch of people are hearing something. ************************************************************************ From: COMHAWSEC Action: COM14 Date 07/08/37 Text: POSSIBILITY REPORT EMANATING FROM HILO RELATIVE HEARING EARHART PLANE MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED WITH MARCH TIME BROADCAST 1600 TO 1630 RELEASED THIS AREA THROUGH KGMB 1320 KCS ************************************************************************ But that also eliminates March Of Time as the source of the other reports. *********************************************************************** From: COLORADO Action: UNIPRESS Date: 07/09/37 Text: HONOLULU PLANES UNSUCCESSFULLY SEARCH MCLEAN (sic), GARDNER, CARDONDELET (sic) AND WATER BETWEEN (this) MORNING, DROPPING LOW OVER ISLANDS (to) INSURE THOROUGHNESS. UNCEASING SEARCH RADIO WAVES CONTINUES. (Planes will) SCOUT HULL, SIDNEY (this) AFTERNOON THEN UPSWING RENDEZVOUS SWAN (at) CANTON ISLAND (on) SATURDAY (to) OBTAIN PLANE GAS. KGU KGMB BROADCAST EXCELLENT SIGNAL. ************************************************************************ So KGMB's broadcasts were being heard easily in the vicinity of Garndner Island. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:35:31 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: KGMB Please everyone refrain from bombarding KGMB with e-mails. I e-mailed the station myself this morning with a list of specific questions which will probably answer most if not all our pertinent questions... including asking about any on-air personalities named "Bud" in 1937. And before someone jumps my case, I apologize for poorly wording something this morning. I am WELL AWARE that WCAU and WCKY are not on 1320 KHz. My point was that there a few high power regionals or even a very very few clear channels above 1000 KHz, but these are much in the minority compared to local stations.... and getting rarer. By the way, for those not aware of it, the high end of the AM broadcast band prior to WW2 was 1500 KHz, not 1600. The extension came in the late 40s if memory serves... I'll pin down the date in a source if anyone needs it. LTM (who seldom likes to be on the high end of anything) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:37:20 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Re: Unusual designation? According to "United States Navy Aircraft since 1911" (Swanborough, Bowers) Naval Instite press 1990, (same book series as Ric references) Manuf codes 'O' Lockheed, plant B 1931 to 1950 'O' Piper Aircraft 1960 'O' Viking Flying Boat co. 1929-1936 'V' Lockheed-Vega plant A 1942 on 'V' Candian Vickers 1942-1945 'V' Vultee 'L' Loening 1922 to 1932 'L' Grover Loening 1945 'L' also gets used for Bell Helicopters,Columbia aircraft, and LWF Engineering The USN aircraft number system before 1962 gets real complicated, especially in the 1930s. Sometimes you need to know the actual aircraft serial number to know just what series of aircraft, who designed the original and what manufacturer, and which plant actually built it. Personally I prefer the USAAF/USAF block system for designations. Apparently so did the Pentagon in the 1960s when they made all the services use the same system, based more on the USAF system than the Navy's system. LTM (who wonders if they post the latest USAF slogan prominently at Navigation school,......"No One Comes Close") Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:39:15 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: CQD, SOS > I haven't yet found any one event noted as the first recorded usage of SOS >as a distress call, it seems unlikely that the Titanic was the first, coming > six years after the conference. Titanic CQD from her first call until about 1:00AM, then switched to SOS.(1) First recorded use of SOS was S.S. Arapahoe, August, 1909. (2) - Bill (1) Finding of the Court, British Inquiry, see http://www3.mwis.net/~breaktym/BritRep/BritInqRep07wires.htm for details. (2) "The Telegraph Office" Volume II, Issue 2, "SOS," "CQD" and the History of Maritime Distress Calls, Copyright (c) 1997, 1999, Neal McEwen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:40:27 EDT From: John H Subject: Re: A new anecdote >From Ric > >No, I don't. The significance of this anecdote is that in the 1970s, long >before TIGHAR began its investigation and at a time when the popular notion >was that Earhart had been captured by the Japanese, there was story >floating around the islands that Earhart and Noonan's bones had been found on >Nikumaroro and that the plane was in the sea (not on land). That rumor can >not have been generated soley by the WPHC bones investigation because there >was never any reference to the airplane in that file. I don't think the fact that the file doesn't mention an airplane is enough evidence that a story originally based on that investigation floating around for 40 years wouldn't have added an airplane. Even something as innocent as a person relaying the story and adding "They never mentioned the airplane, so it must have washed into the sea" would have done it. LTM (who loves a good rumour and isn't afraid to embelish) John H ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:42:03 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station-off topic- Thinking that Japanese could have build a fortress or an ammodump, stockpilling armaments as far as Mili Atoll ( Marshall's ? ) on july 1937, seems to me irelevant. At this time, japan had not started his armament programs( army, aviation), except for the IJN navy. Furthermore, his assault against Xiang from mandchoukouo( july 1937) probably monopolized all japanese military factories... Japan was ( and, for many reasons, still is ) a little country with little primary ressources. Furthermore, that is not before that Prince Konoyhe left the governement, replaced by the general Tojo( october 1940, if my memory serves me right) that Japan slided on the slope leading to expansionism war. Even after Pearl Harbor and the first amazing japanese victories, the main strategical goals to achieve ( Australia ? Indian ocean ? even Russia ? ) were not clearly set before april of 1942... That is all, but it proves that the context doesn't tend to the "japanese conspiracy" concerning AE disappearance... end of off topic, again sorry Ric :o) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:57:21 EDT From: Leslie Kinney Subject: Japanese Broadcast Station - Military buildup Ric, I am sorry to call you wrong on this one but you are wrong dead wrong. The Japanese started their military buildup in the early twenties - the military was furious for the civilian government at that time in agreeing to a treaty in which the Japanese agreed to a fleet that would be smaller than the US and Britain. (The 5-5-3 ratio) They immediately began a strategic naval plan to "cheat" on this plan by building up their navy with advanced carriers and a large submarine fleet. The Greater Japanese East West Co-Prosperity Plan was born in the early thirties - long before Earhart's flight. This plan openly espoused by the general population, the government, and especially by the military, would make Japan the first among the nations of Asia, and of the world. In the early thirties, Saipan, Guam, and many other dozens of islands in the South Pacific were emigrated by thousands of Japanese citizens in colonies allegedly to "assist" in the development of the islands economy and to provide food - (mainly sugar and other staples) for Japanese consumption. This never was a viable economic plan - but it really was never intended to be; it was only meant to establish a strong foothold in the Pacific in order to carry out the greater plan which the military pushed with a fervor. By 1900 Japan was a major military and political power in Asia. Britain had even signed a treaty with Japan in order to keep Russia at bay. By the early thirties Japan had control of Korea, had invaded Manchuria, and pushed into China with the Kwangtung Army. In 1933, the Japanese had occupied the north China region of Jehol, and had withdrawn from the League of Nations. Even by the mid 1920's the military influence on society was pronounced with slogans all over Japan that only a military Japan would be a strong and safe Japan. Politically in the early 1930's the victories by the military caused great admiration among the civilian population and the press. There was an enormous amount of prestige for the "officer" class. By 1935 the Japanese civilian leaders in the Diet were terribly afraid of any action which would antagonize the military. In earl 1937, the generals established a plan of control through Imperial headquarters - (Daihonei) - which was the Supreme Command. Under this plan the emperor was to attend the formal meetings , but it was useless for him to object to the behavior of the generals. The western nations were well aware of the threat in the mid -thirties posed by Japan. Newspapers in Britain and the US were full of articles throughout the thirties criticizing the actions of the Japanese. For gosh sakes it is common knowledge you could not enter any area of Japanese control in the Pacific without getting their permission or through subterfuge. Ric - please do your homework before you quickly dismiss any conversations that interfere with the TIGHAR philosophy. The Japanese military knew everything about the Earhart flight before the flight itself. When she was lost - don't you think they monitored radio transmissions from Honolulu and from the ships in the area? The Japanese military was paranoid to a fault - it would be unwise to believe they did not give thought to the purpose of Earhart's mission. I AM NOT ADVOCATING EARHART WAS ON A MISSION FOR THE US GOVERNMENT - what I am advocating was at that time, the Japanese did not know what to think, but rest assured they certainly had serious reservations about its purpose. Leslie Kinney *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not going to get into a debate about Japanese political history. The tumultuous course of events surrounding the rise of the militarists and the adoption of a national policy that eventually led to Pearl Harbor is well documented. I will, however, ask you to provide some shred of documentary support for your statement that "The Japanese military knew everything about the Earhart flight before the flight itself." (I'm assuming that you mean that they knew more than was published in the newspapers) or any indication that "they certainly had serious reservations about its purpose." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:32:00 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station Concerning your comments regarding Japan in the 1930's, Japan was hardly the peaceful non-agressive nation you describe. Japan had invaded Manchuria in 1931. They had bombed and fought a small war in Shanghai in 1932 against the Chinese. They had a whole series of assasinations by militarists of high level cabinet and governmental officers throughout the 1930's. They denounced the League of Nations and defied its rulings and conditions. They signed various treaties with the Axis powers. They did begin building faciliites (ports and airfields) in the Marshall and other Mandated islands, under the guise of civilian agencies (which were staffed by military personnel). Our military leaders were very much concerned with Japan's agressive military intentions, and we had developed several key reports even in the 1920's (by Lt.Col. Pete Ellis USMC, General Billy Mitchell USA, Commander Ellis Zacharias USN, Adm. Frank Schofield USN, etc.) forcasting conflict with the Japanese. We were constantly updating our "war plan orange " to combat the Japanese planned aggression, throughout this period. Ron Reuther *************************************************************************** From Ric C'mon Ron, I never said that Japan was a pussycat in 1937. Japan was a nation in turmoil that was slipping further and further under the control of the military and was heading down a desperate path that would eventually lead it into a suicidal war with the United States and Great Britain. There was fear, secrecy, paranoia, and ominous contingency planning by some military people on both sides. However, post-war studies confirmed that the militarization of mandated territories in the NanYo (South Seas) did not begin until well after the Earhart disappearance (in most cases 1939 and 1940). That's hardly surprising. In 1937 Japan's attention was focused westward toward China and Southeast Asia. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:42:39 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Friedell Report I couldn't find my notes easily about this particular flight, but here is what I remember. I was able to infer the speed of the planes based upon the search for Winslow Reef: about 90 knots in still air. We knew where the Colorado was when the planes were launched and recovered, so that gives us total time aloft. We know approximately the flight paths, and that gives us about 10-15 minutes at each island. ************************************************************************* From Ric That's my recollection also. Looking at the Colorado's deck log it appears that there was more than one catapult. The entry for July 9 reads, in part: "0656 Plane 4-0-4 was catpulted from quarterdeck, Lt. Lambrecht pilot, Marks S1c observer. 0656 1/2 Plane 4-0-6 was catapulted from high catapult. Lt. (jg) Fox pilot, Willimason, RM3c observer. 0700 Plane 4-0-5 was catapulted from quarterdeck. Lt. (jg) Short pilot, Lt. Chillingworth observer." So BB45 was able to get all three planes in the air in a span of four minutes. Not bad. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:47:58 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: KGMB freq Ric wrote: >>Whadya wanna bet you find that 1320 is not the frequency that KGMB was using in 1937?<< I'll take that bet. KGMB was 590 kHz in 1937, 1000W power. In 1939, they went to dual 590 - 1320kHz and upped the power to 5000 watts. Just send the unmarked bills to my residence. *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm arguing against my own case here, but how do you explain: From: COMHAWSEC Action: COLORADO Date 07/04/37 Text: AT 0630 GCT KGMB BROADCAST 1320 KCS, "TO EARHART PLANE - WE USING EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH YOU. IF YOU HEAR THIS BROADCAST PLEASE COME IN ON 3105 KCS. USE KEY IF POSSIBLE, OTHERWISE VOICE TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HEAR THIS BROADCAST TURN CARRIER ON FOR ONE MINUTE SO WE CAN TUNE YOU IN THEN TURN CARRIER ON AND OFF FOUR TIMES THEN LISTEN FOR OUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AT 0645 GCT". BROADCAST WILL BE REPEATED AT 0700 AND 0730 GCT. REQUEST COLORADO ITASCA SWAN TUTUILA AND RADIO WAILUPE REPORT RESULTS AFTER EACH BROADCAST ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:11:12 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Plan B (Vidal) >From Ric > >What is this? Are you saying that you have known all along that >the document is there and its correct location? How long have >you had this information? No, I said I recently (within the last few weeks) located it. Some time ago I agreed that it had apparently "disappeared". Doris Rich was kind enough to send me a copy of her notes, and a scrap of info therein set me on the right trail. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric As recently as October 12 you wrote: >>Incidentally, Rich's use of Gene Vidal's quote that Earhart intended to fly back to the Gilberts is CONFIRMED to my satisfaction. "Dusty Miss" notwithstanding, the material IS in the U. of Wyoming collection. Be sure and tell your new sponsor!<< Having the correct citation and the nature and wording of the long-sought document in hand, I'm curious as to why you did not (and still apparently will not) share that information with the rest of the forum? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:12:16 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Celestial LOP-Explanation Excellent explanation Tom. Have you performed this on the water or in the air or both? I've not tried the marine method yet but I know how it works. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:13:45 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Bearing & Distance Ric wrote: > Bob Brandenburg says 157 degrees and 353 nm. > Doug Brutlag says 159 degrees and 351 nm > Bob Sherman says 158 degrees and 354 (from "old" Howland, which is probably > better to use Mark Prange wrote: > From spherical trig formulas the distance and bearing information I get > (when using the coordinates Brutlag cited) are 351 nm and 159 degrees. I now agree with the solutions presented by Doug Brutlag and Mark Prange. My original solution was for the great circle from the Itasca's position offshore Howland to the nominal center of Gardner Island, as computed by the HF propagation model. Subsequent to my posting, I noticed that Doug's coordinates were for the center of Howland and the northern tip of Gardner. Using Doug's coordinates, I did a hand solution of the Mercator algorithm, which yields rhumb line course (a straight line on a Mercator chart) and distance. The results are 158.9 degrees true and 351.04 nautical miles, which round to Doug's and Mark's solutions. The Mercator algorithm gives the exact result in the general case, but the great circle solution also works in this case because the Mercator chart projection distortion in latitude is minimal near the equator. LTM, who hates not knowing where she is. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:51:22 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Re: Pilot Question My thanks to Tom Van Hare and Skeet Gifford for responding to the question I posed with respect to long range piloting technique. Your comments are quite useful to me as a layman whose only close association with flying is basically limited to jumping out of the back end of perfectly good Air Force transports while a member of the 82nd Airborne Division back in the early fifties. Tom Van Hare's observation that not enough is known concerning specific details about Amelia's last flight (winds aloft, precise headings at any given time, actual power settings and so forth) is correct in the strictest sense. We do know sufficient information, however, to permit reasonable and intelligent estimates of her flight altitudes, power settings, and approximate gross weight at takeoff. The aerodynamics of the Electra 10 E are well defined in Lockheed technical reports. This is enough information to determine a nominal or baseline profile for her flight from Lae to Howland Island. Sensitivity analyses of the baseline profile will show what variables were most significant. It may (I do not say will) be possible, for instance, to examine the variables and find a scenario that comes close to matching the content of some of her later messages to the Itasca. My effort in modeling her last flight is somewhat analogous to the excellent assessment of antenna radiation characteristics that Bob Brandenburg developed. Will the final result indicate precisely when Amelia ran out of fuel and where she came down? The answer is no. Hopefully it will place reasonable limits or boundaries on the question, however. That should be useful insofar as eliminating certain speculative outcomes is concerned. For these reasons, I am obliged to both Tom and Skeet for responding to my question about what a pilot would do under the circumstances. My sincere thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:54:37 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Pacific Air Pilot Ric asked: >>You saw transmittal and return paperwork to and from Earhart? I wonder if that file was classified at the time Goerner was doing his research. If he had seen it he would have known it was nothing to get excited about.<< OK, now that I have returned home and could consult my notes, here is the documentation I have that might be related to Pacific Air Pilot. Oct. 14, 1936, Letter from GPP to Capt. AC Read, Asst. Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics, asking about "Climatic Features of the Pacific Island Region" and "Detailed Information on Seaplane Anchorages and Landing Fields". Oct. 15, 1936, Capt. AC Read to Capt. LR Leahy, Hydrographer of the Navy, forwarding Putnam's letter. Oct. 15, 1936, Read to GPP: says letter forwarded to Leahy; some info is confidential, but will endeavor to get unclassifed material. Nov. 2, 1936, letter from NB Sangree, BAC to AE: tried to obtain weather info for you, but book is confidential; info is not. Expects to have something tomorrow. Leahy of Hydrographic Office will messenger extracted info to me. Nov. 6, 1936, letter from LR Leahy to NB Sangee, BAC. CNO has approved supplying weather data, enclosed is Climatic Features of Pacific Islands Regions. Please return when done; not for general circulation. Book contains beaufort scale descriptions, but not of sea state. General description of wind rose in upper air and surface charts, but no data. Nov. 9, 1936, letter from NB Sangree, BAC to Leahy: Thanks for letter and info; have told AE to return and not to distribute. Nov. 10, 1936: GPP to Sangree: Acknowledge no distribution and will return to Hydrographic Office. I've examined all letters (not computerized and indexed as yet) up to the end of March, 1937, and do not see when GPP returned the pamphlet. However, the pamphlet is in the archived records along with the Nov. 6 letter. Unless two pamphlets were sent from Hydrographic Office to Bureau of Air Commerce, the only alternative is that they were returned and filed accordingly. Apologies to Cam Warren and the rest of forum, if this information is not pertinent to what was originally talked about. It sure does sound similar in content. BTW, LR Leahy is not to be confused with Adm. William Leahy, who was the CNO in a couple of months! *************************************************************************** From Ric Hmmm...no mention of Goerner's "Capt. Pye." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:55:25 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: More than 50 watts? The outside temperature effects the component temperature at a rate of 1:1. The improvement in tube efficiency isnt the issue its all of the rest of the components in the circuit. Things like capacitors, resistors, and transformers which cannot tolerate temperatures anywhere near the internal operating point of a tube. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:58:01 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter Facts Hue Miller asked: >how much >*power* on the harmonic is a mistuning going to get you?? I really don't know. I really don't think it matters... all that counts is, IF there was enough power being radiated on the RIGHT harmonic (and by "the right harmonic" I mean one that makes the trip, eh?). I don't know if we can even conclude what the power distribution may have been through the harmonics... in fact I don't care, right now. Not a rip! Let's just see if the harmonics could have made it in the first place and then see what Bob Brandenburg says about propagation paths and signal to noise ratio... he's been working on this ever since we came up with the harmonic theory... then we can do a SWAG method approximation of the power. >Mike, let's not try out the home telephone. That is a very dubious >comparison, and you should know that. Let's try out an RS-38 >or T-17 carbon mic, into an aircraft transmitter, or any military >transmitter of the the era. How well do you suppose it would pick >up the sounds of the kiddies in the background? (You probably >have done this....please recall) If it did pick >up the kiddie sounds that well, how well do you suppose it >would perform in the aircraft cabin? Yes, I do indeed know some things about this. And I do not think that a home phone, using a carbon mic, is all that "dubious" a comparison. I know that when I ran an actual test with a T-17 AND an RS-38 (both of which by the way are rough contemporaries of the WE 631B, Army and Navy respectively) I had to close talk the things to surpass 80% modulation on a screen grid (SCR-274N)or suppressor grid (GF-11) modulated transmitter, but that was more the limitations of the equipment itself than the mic... yes, I tried injecting tone into the audio inputs to see what modulation levels I could achieve. About 80% max. On the average, on voice peaks, the mod level was rather lower. If the a/c cabin was quiet, I can easily see how it might be possible for 2 voices to be heard, if both of them are in the cramped cockpit. Notice I said, MIGHT. I did NOT say "is." I am not convinced of the veracity of this theory yet. But you should know, if you have operated HF very much, that it does not always require "big gun" power to work DX, especially in the upper HF region. I once worked, from NC, a guy in Romania on 7 MHz (40 meter ham band) who was using FIVE watts of AM. He was not loud, not at all, but I worked him. (Yes, it was at night.) 15 to 20 MHz in daylight, Niku to St. Pete? I think it could be done. Let me see if I can devise some kind of test using the aforementioned mics, that will prove acceptable... if I can, I'll even try to compare the results with a Western Electric telephone using the earliest-manufacture date mic element I can find. This will be an F-1 element more than likely from the 1940s or 50s. We may, I hope, all learn from this. Give me a week or so. >Nor is the radio path to the listener completely noise free. >Hue And we don't know the signal strength... again let's give Bob Brandenburg time to come up with some ideas. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:59:35 EDT From: S Saddoris Subject: Re: Marie If F.N. was calling out names and such, especially "Marie" could simply be a stretched out call for Mary, with the last syllable stressed. Think of calling your kids to dinner. If he were in the background, it could've been even more misinterpreted as "Marie" vs. the intended "Mary." And having worked with my fair share of head-injured in the Speech therapy department of Rehab wards, I can attest to confusion, word reversals, slurred speech, poor judgment and lack of concentration. I believe Betty could easily have heard the "Marie" she did and that it was not a confused ham, but a confused F.N. I'm with you Betty! And on another note: I still get frustrated with this conclusion by some that it would be so "out of character" for A.E. to be tearful or lose her cool. Under these circumstances, and seeming lack of responsiveness, anyone could succumb to desperate feelings and lack of control. That is a human component and we ALL have a breaking point. I hope you don't have to find yours. Thanks for your space for my venting, SSaddoris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:06:17 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Fuel/Radio Something that has flirted with the edge of my brain for a while finally slipped in. The battery powers the radio. The engine powers the generator that charges the battery (is this the dynamotor that was under the seat?) But is the engine started by battery power? If so, is it the same battery? Or is the engine started using a hand-cranked magneto? If that's the case, then to recharge the battery would take two, right? One to crank the magneto, and one to operate the controls. If this is the scenario, then Fred can't have been terribly incapacitated. Also, would it be possible to put up the photo you referred to the other day? The one with the control wheel. I think you said it was taken in Darwin. If that is the copilot's control wheel, how simple / complicated would it be to remove and replace? If it was taken out to give Fred more room to work, I have to presume the entire column would be pulled out, or there wouldn't be that much space gain. Is there anything documented that indicates that Fred did any of the flying during any of the prior legs of the trip? When you work up the post-loss table, maybe you could include columns that would give the equivalent time in our areas of interest (such as Florida, Wyoming, Niku, etc) for those of us who have a hard time figuring out the Dateline... Thanks in advance for considering it. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric The engine is started from the same battery that powers the radios. Starting the engines is a one person operation done from the cockpit. I'll put the Darwin photo up as part of the next Research Bulletin. Removing the control wheel looks like it would be a simple operation removing a few bolts or screws and would affect the arm containing the cables and pulleys. Getting rid of the control wheel really would free up a lot of space. Those things were huge. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:16:57 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: impossible technical problems KGMB was on 1320 Khz in the summer of 1937 broadcasting at 1000 watts. Source: Radio Historian Halper who cites the 1938 Radio Annual with the assigned FCC frequency and wattage. Her annuals date back to 1928. Additionally,in her opinion, it would be "impossible" to transmit a signal from Hono to Gardner with only 1000 watts,unless there was that unusual skip late at night. I don't know her credentials concerning broadcast distances. Today KGMB broadcasts on a much higher wattage. Thus there are several seemingly impossible technical problems to Betty's "Earhart" transmission intercept. a. Amelia couldn't have heard the KGMB call sign on the WE20B, if Mike E. is correct on the modifications of Band 2 on her WE 20B receiver.(485-1200 Khz) b. If that is true, Amelia couldn't have transmitted the call sign "KGMB" to Florida that July of 1937. Thus from a pretty solid technical probablity, Betty heard what she heard, but it was not from Amelia Earhart. As many have pointed out there are certainly other plausible explanations. LTM, Ron Bright ( who listens only to KGB broadcasts at nite) ************************************************************************** From Ric As you have by now seen from further postings, it ain't that simple. Some question remains about whether the signals to Earhart went out on 590 Kcs as well as 1320. There are also some unresolved questions about the capabilites of Earhart's receiver. That KGMB's 1,000 watt signal was easily heard in the region is well established by reports from Itasca and USS Colorado. It is also worth noting that the notation "KGMB" in Betty's notebook does not necessarily mean that Earhart claimed to be hearing KGMB. I'm afraid your dismissal is premature. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:20:10 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: Re: belly antenna Others, (myself included) think that reception (in the absence of the belly antenna) would rely upon the DF loop over the cockpit. In either event, the accident at Lae would have no effect on the post-loss radio question. Sorry for my previous post Ric, I was under the mistaken impression you believed the belly antenna was the only way of receiving.The point I was trying to make was there would have to be another way to receive if your theory about a one sided non-conversation was to be true.I don't think that point came out as I intended for it to. I think it came out as if you had no clue as to something obvious. My apologies if I sounded contemptuous and for my error. LTM(who'll go to the corner for a time out) Richard L #2376 *************************************************************************** From Ric No offense taken. Your ideas are always welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:22:34 EDT From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: More than 50 watts? For Pete- In regards to your second paragraph, my old Sears and Zemansky Physics text, second edition, pages 496-497 says that the resistance of a wire "increases" with temperature rather than decrease as I think your are saying there. Jerry W. Ellis #2113 ************************************************************************** From Nick Murray Pete said: "The westinghouse set on the 10E is pre '50s, so only vacuum tubes are inside. they must warm up prior to use as the heat reduces the resistance." Pete, most materials that conduct electricity actually INCREASE in resistance as the temperature goes up. One of the reasons that you have to let the tube circuits warm up prior to use is because the circuits can be unstable. To the casual user, the radio doesn't "work" until you let it warm up. Following through your logic, assuming the voltage stays constant, means that the output power would decrease with an increase in temperature. How significant this power decrease is (.001 watt or 1 watt?) depends on the resistance temperature coefficient of the material in question. I think it is more likely that the stability of the tube circuits would be affected by the temperature increase more so than the output power. Nick Murray (#2356CE) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:44:22 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Reception >Philosophically, it could have reached a zillion places with nobody >happening to have heard it for a zillion reasons, starting with "no human >population for a hundred miles in any direction" - but that's a different >question altogether. Philosophically, only special listeners were selected by Divine Providence to hear the broadcast. Sorry, I'm being real silly. But there certainly were hosts of SWLs in that area of FL, and very possibly Maine. That was a quite popular hobby in those days - really part of the Golden Era of shortwave radio. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Theoretically: - Start with the number of shortwave fans in the geographical area(s) where reception was possible. - Eliminate all those who did not have the highly specialized antenna array (some aspects of which were intentional and some accidental) that seems to have been a requirement at least at the Florida location. - Next, eliminate all those with adequate antennas who didn't happen to be listening to the short wave at that time. - Of the ones who had adequate antennas and were listening, eliminate those who didn't happen to hit that particular frequency, or didn't pay attention to the woman's voice, or thought it must be a play or a hoax. - Of the ones who thought they were hearing Amelia Earhart, eliminate those who didn't want to get involved because lots of other people must be hearing the same thing. - Of those who reported what they heard to the authorities, eliminate all those accounts that were dismissed and never made it into the news or government records. In the end it seems pretty miraculous that we have the accounts that we do, let alone a real-time written record. The very dearth of accounts and their striking similarity argues strongly that whatever these people are hearing is a highly anomalous event. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:44:28 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: Phonetic alphabet in use in '37 ? Thanks Herman for the World War Two era phonetic alphabet. I recall seeing on the website a telegram from the Itaska to Amelia sent while she was in Lae,I think. It referred to the Itaska's transmitters as "TARE TWO",standing I suppose for T [for Transmitter] Mark Two. This suggests that this particular phonetic alphabet was in use in 1937, at least in naval circles. Thanks,by the way , to Tom Robison for straightening me out on CQD. LTM [Who says that a little bit of public correction is good for the soul.] Raymond Brown. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:53:51 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Betty's Intercept/ Earhart's transmission ? > From Mike E. > > I am going to have to research this... for some reason I thought, all along, > that KGMB used 630 KHz at that time, and just never looked it up. The 1935 Dept of Commerce list has TWO stations listed for Hawaii. KGMB is 1320, 500 watts. Yes, you read that right. When you look at a listing for those years, you see that the 50kw stations were the uncommon exception. MOST stations were about 1 kw. People had wire antennas connected to their home radios. KGMB had doubled power by the time of the 1937 list. > For a > station whose primary coverage area includes all the Hawaiian Islands, a > lower freq would certainly give better ground wave coverage over a wide area > day and night. Also, the high end of the AM band (considered to be above > 1000 KHz, and especially above 1200) is mostly the province of "local" > stations, many being low power peanut whistles (1 KW or less). In those days, i don't think this concept applied, as you see 500 and 1000 watt stations being the rule, from bottom to top. Ric said: >>Whadya wanna bet you find that 1320 is not the frequency that KGMB was using in 1937.<< Ric, where will my new Dodge Ram be delivered? You REALLY don't want to budge on this, do you? Per FCC list 1937: KGMB 1320 1 kw unlimited hours. (photocopy can be supplied for proof, on request) sez Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm happy to budge when the facts are established. I'm satisfied that KGMB was transmitting on 1320 at 1,000 watts in 1937 but Randy Jacobson says that 590 was also in use. We need to know where that comes from. There is also a huge discrepancy between what Mike Everette says the receiver can receive and what all the 1937 sources say the receiver can receive. It just doesn't make any sense to me that all these people (including, we have to assume, people like Paul Mantz who should really know) are engaged in something that can't possibly work. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:56:01 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Some more on aircraft microphoney A couple items which i send for general interest in this topic, and also related to carbon microphone picking up two voices in the supposed crash messages. Via Hue Miller: George, W5VPQ: All carbon microphones have the same characteristic, insensitivity to low levels of acoustic energy. If you have noticed, we all hear background noises on peoples phones which we did not hear previously, as electret and other microphones on store bought telephones replace the old standard T1 and T2 buttons which were used in Bell instruments.The telco elements were actually made to be as linear as possible, and tended to pick up more background than microphones designed for high noise level locations. The T-17 comes to mind as does an Electro-Voice model which had a smsll protruding bloch where you talked with two slots in it. This latter, in addition to being carbon, had the back of the element exposed to the other slot so that distant sounds tended to completely cancel (in theory anyway), while close talking would get a response out of the element. Now, the answer to your question is, the old military carbon will be much less sensitive to background noise than a dynamic, electret, or other modern microphone.................. Many of the military designs were low gain, since the user often found himself shouting into the mike anyway, to hear himself over the cockpit (air, tank, humvee) noise. Mike Hanz KC4TOS: My ARMN (Navy Airborne Radio Maintenance Notes) dated November 1945 mentions a problem with high background noises attributable to one of the interphone amps, cautioning techs about the fact that they were shipped with the volume control set at full volume (doh!). A lot of work was done in noise cancellation towards the end of the war, driven in part by the move toward cockpit pressurization and the need for a more comfortable crewman interface...... 50ish replacements aren't nearly as comfortable, IMO, but they do offer a plug-n-play clip-in carbon element .....that is indistinguishable externally from the original .......element and has considerably more sensitivity - might be a T1 or T2 design variant for all we know. The noise cancellation design relied on the fact that sound pressure was inversely proportional to distance from the emitter. Engine noise tended to be fairly constant throughout the cockpit, and any suspended mike diaphragm with both sides open to the environment would remain stationary, unmoved by the sound pressure. If you positioned the mike element just touching the lips, the constant background noise was mostly canceled out at the mike diaphragm but your voice would modulate the current through the carbon granules very nicely., reducing the previous shouting match requirement to a reasonable level..... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:04:56 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: CQD >From Ric > >This is woefully off topic but irresistable. "Chapter and verse" would have >to an original copy of the Carpathia's radio log. Does such a document >exist? I suspect that it does. There were two massive investigations into the sinking of the Titanic. I would think that one or both of them called for various radio logs as evidence, but in any case, the Carpathia was so famous afterwards that I can't imagine the radio logs being destroyed. Following is from *Titanic, An Illustrated History*, by Don Lynch (one of the acknowledged experts on all things Titanic): "In 1906, the International Radio Telegraphic Convention in Berlin created the signal SOS as an alternative means of summoning assistance. The three letters were chosen solely for their simplicity in Morse Code... "In 1908, SOS officially superceded CQD as the regulation distress call, but Marconi operators rarely used the new signal. Only after Harold Bride radioed his now-famous SOS from the sinking Titanic did the new signal become standard". A couple notes on the above: 1) Telegraph operators at that time did not work for the steamship line, but for the wireless company. Marconi was in competetition with other wireless companies at that time, and held a tight reign on his operators. They danced to his tune, not necessarily to the tune of the captain aboard whose ship they were assigned. 2) The book quoted above claims that Harold Bride sent the famous SOS, not Phillips. Bride was the assistant telegrapher. It is known that Bride took over for Phillips for short periods that night, but I thought it was Phillips who sent out the SOS first. There are other sources that have discussed this issue, but I can't put my finger on them now. Anyone else? Tom ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:05:56 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: 1937 mics Vern wrote, >Are you guys real sure these resistors accomplish gain adjustment? Sensitivity could be a function of voltage in carbon microphones. A lower voltage could raise the "gating" threshold, beneath which the microphone was much more insensitive to sound pressure (i.e., the slope of the response curve becomes acute). I'm not an authority on carbon mics, but the principle is definitely there. The presence of a resistor to change sensitivity is reasonable. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:07:15 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 1937 mics One more thing on microphones, which maybe was not immediately obvious. Why would you increase the microphone sensitivity at locations that permitted ? Not to broadcast radio dramas, of course; you would use a crystal (piezoelectric), or dynamic, or capacitor microphone, not carbon. You would increase the sensitivity so you didn't have to speak in an abnormally loud voice, with your lips up against the microphone. BTW, i was tonite lissening to "Coast To Coast AM" radio program, guest was Charles Pellagrino (sp?), author of "Ghosts of the Titanic", who said that some organic materials have survived all that time under water, items that were apparently in a low oxygen situation (for my lack of a better term). For example, a leather briefcase survived (at least one, probably more), complete with readable letters inside, and apparently other diaries have also been found and are readable. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:07:55 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Norwich City (Page 2) OK, I'd misunderstood. It sounds like what you have, though, is not a clear-cut "Gilbertese grave," but simply a grave with a coral headstone, as likely to be a European grave (Norwich City, FN, or ???) as a Gilbertese. Either way, I agree; worth more investigation. LTM (who prefers cremation) TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:19:55 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Phonetic recreation <> Why stop in LA? Didn't they still have a home in NY or CT? What about Putnam's office in NYC? also <> The purpose of the recreation is to get us off focusing on the written transcription of Betty's notebook. We need to experience the delivery through the aural mode, as Betty did, rather than through reading. I think a whole lot more stuff might come out of it by listening to it. For example when we read W40K we immediately think this is a radio call sign. Why? Because it LOOKS like one, but what we need to do is convert all this text into it's phonetic version and stop fixating on the written letters. I tried to say W40K several times in a row out loud with my eyes closed. what came into my head after saying it several times was "We aRe O K" Granted the W in we isn't much like saying "double U" but how about "We are in Trouble, Crew are OK" add in some radio interference and you might end up with ".......ouble..rew...aRe...O...K" which the ear might easily convert to W40K. I think it would be a productive exercise to analyze the notes from a phonetic point of view. LTM (who likes to listen) Andrew McKenna 1045CE *************************************************************************** From Ric I like this. I don't think it would be wise or helpful to try to construct a script around the words Betty wrote down. What she wrote is the only script we have. When I interview her I'll try to get some clarification of what she meant by what she wrote (for example, did she hear "double U forty kay" or "double u for oh kay"?). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:49:10 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Vidal Collection/Confirmation of Gilbert Is Plan This maybe a duplicate of Cam Warrens report,but since I spent a lot of time and money with the Univ. of Wyoming on this project, a quick summary. As you know from earlier postings after several months of hunting, the Assitant Archivist Carl Hallberg was unable to confirm the Doris Rich cite of Box 19,p 97 reference to Vidal's claim that Amelia told him (hearsay) that if she missed Howland, still had four hours of fuel left, she would fly back to the Gilberts and land on a nice sandy beach. Numerous other authors cited Vidal's claim but none provided specific cites except the "Vidal Collection",Univ of Wyoming. Although Dustymiss and I tried to get Rich's notes, who first reported them "discarded", Cam Warren finally obtained her notes and with that new information found the reference in Box 40, pages 94-103; and sure enough on page 96-97 there is Vidal's recollection of Amelia's intention. This is a lengthy"oral history" tape now transcribed. I am attempting to find out exactly when the tape was made,transcribed and to whom it was made. (It was taped after the loss as it refers to Amelia's remark that she was "running low" on gas when "she should have had 4 hours remaining") As Cam has pointed out that is only an insight into her possible plans, although no other contingency,i.e.,Phoenix is mentioned, at the planning stage of the 2Nd World Flight. Vidal was obviously close to Amelia and he says he helped her with her route and maps. A lady can change her mind and of course she was in "exigent" circumstances. Nevertheless, the Gilberts were a strong possibility,based on Vidal's story. All of us realize that that doesn't solve the "where" yet but it confirms there are still records existing out there in archives, and museums that may lead to the solution. In view of the controversy over Vidal's cite, Cam Warren deserves a Tighar T-shirt with the Gilbert Is on the front'; seriously, Warren's diligent efforts in this research deserves commendation and reminds us of the painstaking methodolgy it takes to examine a report. LTM Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you Ron. Cam Warren hasn't made a report. Cam Warren, in the grand tradition of pre-TIGHAR Earhart researchers, hoards his little treasures like a schoolboy and allows other to peek only when it suits his own agenda of self-aggrandizement. If it weren't for you we still wouldn't know what the facts are. As with Cam's other revelations, this one sounds completely overblown. The vaunted Vidal source for a Plan B turns out to be not a contemporaneous document at all but an "oral history" (which is just a polite way of saying anecdotal recollection) of, as yet, undetermined vintage. The fact that the recollections were "taped" puts them, by definiton, at least a quarter century after the events described. Much ado about nothing. The real question that arises out of this whole affair is whether Cam Warren should be permitted to enjoy continued access to the Earhart forum given his clear contempt for the openess and good will that is the forum's underlying ethic. I leave it to those whom he has wronged - the members of the forum - to decide whether they wish for him to remain among us. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:50:14 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter > From Kathi > We don't know if the resistor R4 was actually changed or > whether the transmitter was simply installed as is. We > would assume given the environment the xmiter was op- > erating in, resistor R4 would have been changed, in re- > ality can we prove that? Another example of wishful thinking, trying to build a chain of miracles link by link. Kathi, as the Eddy book states, the adjustment was to heighten sensitivity on the microphone, when using transmitter from quieter installations than an aircraft cabin. The book examples ground stations and boats (not including deserted islands). It would seem to be a nutzo move to want to increase the background noise into your radio in your airplane. Yes, we do *not* know if this was done, but we can maybe assume that these people adhered mostly to conventional logic. Hue ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:53:05 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Hand-cranked generator Rick Seapin wrote: >>Several weeks ago I posted a news report taken from the New York Times (June 5, 1937). Which mentioned a hand-cranked generator. You dismissed the article as bogus, concerning the generator only.<< Please, i'm not trying to go out of my way to be negative, but i do wish to opine on this. Having once cranked a military surplus crank-powered radio, and spoken with numerous people who have, i can tell you the power generated by a strong man is not anywhere near the power level of the AM transmitter in the Electra. The one i cranked was 45 watts input, approx, which is maybe 30 out, cw only. Her transmitter was 50 out, AM. It's all you can do to crank for a few minutes. If you can crank 10 minutes, you are a very powerful dude, with some real upper body strength. (I lasted maybe 4 minutes). Imagine reeling in an anchor weighing maybe 50 pounds, and doing this while maintaining about 70 rpm. Then, when you think you've got the hang of it, the operator presses the key, or the microphone button, and another 80 pounds of drag is suddenly added to the load. This would be one fine muscle builder, especially to crank the thing working against the pulsing load of a telegraph transmitter. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric And how much did one of those puppies weigh? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:55:03 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 1937 mics > From Vern > > Are you guys real sure these resistors accomplish gain adjustment? It seems > to me that the audio voltage produced by the mic is more a function of how > much resistance change occurs in the carbon "button" resistance The mic is a variable resistor, right, that creates the voltage changes sensed by the radio as audio voltage. With a higher battery voltage (here, source voltage set by those resistors), the percentage change of resistance in the mic controls a higher voltage. If a whistle into the mic causes a, say 10% resistance change in its carbon granules, 10% of 6 volts is more than 10% of 3 volts. It's not really a gain adjustment, it's actually an output adjustment. Even at the lower setting, the thing would still pick up the same back ground sounds, it's just that they would be too low in amplitude to do any good, or harm. The upper limits are heat, moisure, and heat from electrical current, from too high a supply voltage, that causes the carbon granules to pack, adhere. You no doubt have used a phone, especially some old pay phone, that sounds really fuzzy, til you bang the micrphone against the table, freeing up the granules. Oh, by the way, on another one, increased heat does not really decrease the resistance or output of vacuum tubes, until the temperature is raised really substantially, out of specs. They pretty much will continue to operate normally right up to when the internal metal parts get red hot and melt, or the glass melts. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:58:48 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: KGMB and Chronology > From Ric > > Not as far as we know. She did, however, have another receiving antenna - > the DF loop. The length and shape of the antenna for a receiver is not nearly as critical to receive a signal as that of a transmitter to send one. You can receive a signal over a very wide range of frequencies on almost any length of wire. In fact, you can receive quite good signals over a long distance with no antenna at all, provided the "ground" connection is sound. (before the radio "experts" shoot that one down - try it. It works!) If you transmit into the wrong length wire however, you may find your signal either going out on the wrong frequency, or being reflected back into your transmitter and destroying it. (That one works too - sadly, as many CBers found out in the 70's) Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:00:38 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Wyoming message > recorded, ended: GPP-Is everything about the ship OK now? We know the term "ship" to refer to an aircraft was pretty common in the US as well as elsewhere. I wonder how common it was among the general public. Would a hoaxer call it a ship or an airplane, or a plane back then? "Ship on reef"? ?? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think we can rule out a hoax on that basis. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:22:37 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Plan B (Vidal) You've long belittled the writing and reports of other Earhart researchers, including Goerner, Lovell, Long, Rich, Strippel, Gervais, et al. So, when someone on the Forum mentioned the Gene Vidal quote, you lost no time in discrediting both Goerner and Rich, implying that their information was not to be trusted. Especially so, since recent searches of the U. of Wyoming Vidal Collection failed to produce the document in question. I took issue with your remarks, and redoubled my efforts to substantiate the authenticity of the Vidal quotation. I was successful in that endeavor, and reported to you that its existence was confirmed, and was, in fact in the U/W archives. I didn't feel obligated to hand you a copy of that document, since a call to the University should now get a copy for the TIGHAR files. Your two unsuccessful emissaries, (Ron Bright and "Dusty Miss") have been provided with an appropriate summary - only a couple of pages of the interview transcript are applicable) - indicating my willingness to "share". I did not receive copies of the actual transcript until today. You probably would not regard a copy of my copy as sufficiently authentic. In a word, Vidal was present at one of Earhart's planning sessions (post Honolulu) when Amelia indicated her alternate choice would be a beach somewhere in the Gilberts, to where she would head when four hours of fuel remained. The University has indicated it has no information as to who did the long (104 pages of transcript) taped interview, but it was likely a graduate student. The date is also unknown, but Ron Bright and I are attempting to trace its provenance. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Nice try Cam. What you said was that the information "is CONFIRMED to my satisfaction. "Dusty Miss" notwithstanding, the material IS in the U. of Wyoming collection." You did not say that it had been located, much less where and what it is. What any other forum subscriber would have said was something like, "I have found the reference in the U. of Wyoming collection. It was in Box 40, not Box 19, and is a transcript of an oral history taken at an unknown time." Any other forum subscriber probably would have also included the pertinent excerpts from Vidal's anecdotal recollection. Ron Bright, in fact, did just that in a fax to me. I'll put them up as a separate posting. You are correct. I have long belittled the writing and reports of other Earhart researchers who, like you, eschew the ethics of collegial research and peer review. Like you, they don't feel obligated to hand anyone a copy of what they find but they're more than happy to take advantage of the obligation TIGHAR feels to hand everyone of copy of anything we uncover. I'll let you in on a little secret. We do it this way, not so much out of some sense of noble purpose, but because it's the best way to get at the truth. No one researcher can find Amelia Earhart - that has been adequately demonstrated - but TIGHAR has shown, time and time again, that by working together, a network of dedicated amateurs and professionals with an almost infinite variety of expertise and experience can make amazing strides toward solving the puzzle. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:37:11 EDT From: Ric Subject: The Vidal anecdote Ron Bright has provided the applicable excerpts from the Eugene Vidal oral history transcript located in Box 40 of the University of Wyoming, Eugene L. Vidal Collection by archivist Matt Sprinkle using a rough copy of Doris Rich's notes provided to him by Cam Warren. Interview with Gene Vidal talking about Amelia Earhart, pages numbered 94-103 [undated] Excerpt: .... I helped her with the preparations. We discussed her route and studied maps. She always sat on the floor with friends, so maps were all over the rugs. (P. 95) Her only worry on the entire world flight was not to miss Howland, a very small island in the Southwest Pacific. From .... Lae, New Guinea to Howland is about twenty-five hundred miles. During the flight she would cross the Gilbert Islands, a chain running some 1,500 miles [?] perpendicular to her course. This chain is about two thousand miles east of Lae, or five hundred miles west of Howland. .... We know she passed the Gilbert Islands since messages indicated she was near Howland, working back and forth, north and south, trying to find Howland .... The radio compass, a homing device, was new and apparently not properly receiving the transmitting from the boat. [USCGC ITASCA]. Her plan had been to hunt for Howland until she had some four hours of gas left. If she had not located it by that time she planned to return to the Gilbert Islands, which she felt she could not miss, and land on a beach. Apparently the weather was satisfactory. .... She finally radioed her gas was running low at the time when she should have had four hours remaining, so one can assume she then turned back and landed on one of the Gilbert Island beaches as planned. (P. 96) (Mantz) claims she did not run out of gas .... because she was a very thorough, capable person and planned in great detail all flights taking into consideration all alternatives.... she must have turned back to the Gilberts when she had about four hours of gals [sic] remaining as she had planned to do, and landed on a beach. [end excerpt] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:38:24 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher's reference to charts > From Ric > > Dunno. Anyone familiar with Norries Nautical Tables? Doesn't sound like > charts to me. Sounds like tables for celestial observations. You can get a copy from: http://bluewaterweb.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/nauticalbooks/prodpages/01660.htm?E+mystore4 Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:41:08 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Battery life > From Ric > As a general rule, the fewer conditions we have to put on an occurrence in > order for it to be possible, the better. A landing that leaves the > airplane intact enough to run an engine is a big condition. If we can remove it > and still have credible post-loss signals, that would be good. This is a long shot (as usual) but: The sum total of "Betty"'s messages add up to only "minutes" of actual spoken time, heard over a considerable real time period. I know it has already been established that there was no way the Electra could have transmitted unless an engine was running. (I had my head chewed off last year for suggesting the possibility) But since this possibility is now being discussed, just imagine there was a little power in the batteries and the transmitter could be used without the dynamotor running. Would Earhart, knowing she had limited power, hold the transmit key down and talk for an hour and a half? Would she not rather transmit a few words, then wait a while for a response? The receiver should have drawn far less from the batteries than the transmitter. A battery has a habit of picking itself up a little after you've used it briefly. An example of this is cranking a car engine until the battery is flat and the engine won't turn. Come back a couple of hours later and the engine will often turn over again as if nothing had happened. Each time you "flatten" it, the recovery time is longer, and the cranking duration is reduced. I once rigged a yacht radio after our 12V battery had been holed, to run on two 6V lantern batteries. They lasted the whole 3 day, 2 night race even though some idiot decided to hook the "music" radio up to listen to the news and music on night watch. We kept our listening watches, using a little power, and transmitted only a brief report on schedule. All this after having been told by the skipper and other experts that it couldn't be done, and we'd have to turn back. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:54:31 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Thoughts on a Sunday Afternoon I see a plan to drop the "trial" as a "dumb idea". Maybe the lawyers and procedure were not what the situation needs, but maybe the situation still needs "something". What would a trial have accomplished? 1. Organized and published cases for and against the authenticity of the "Betty" Notebook 2. Opened those cases to question and comment. 3. Collected an opinion from (representatives of) the forum, 4. Published the result Clearly the first two are more valuable than the third, unless something turns up to make the notebok a central support of the TIGHAR hypothesis. So how can the first two objectives be accomplished in some other way? How about selecting two "champions" and inviting them to collect arguments and facts, (from the Forum postings or directly but copied transparently to the Forum) for a couple of months. They should also participate in the "Betty Interview" through some process. Then publish the two reports (on the forum or on the web page) for a comment period. Finally, update and publish the result on the web page as a jointly-authored research document. One might argue that the Wyoming reception report is of the same order of evidence: anecdotal account with contemporary documentation. In fact, both have the problem that modern radio-propagation calculations would find them improbable, even though the radiated power at those frequencies can be no more than guessed. So, is there an equivalent paper in preparation addressing ALL post-loss transmissions? I noted that you were planning to publish a spread sheet of transmissions and times, so why not go a step further and publish short paragraph of current status of assessment for each? This might include identification of a assessment panel, including specialists in radio-propagation, internal content, and maybe even sociology. At the risk of loading the data beyond what it will bare (but then, most of us haven't actually seen it and would not have had the specialized knowledge to assess it), perhaps the panel members could provide numerical grades (+1,0,-1) and the average will provide a credibility-ranking for each report. Are there any reception reports an entire panel can agree are authentic? Also, as we evolve more information some opinions might change. Is it reasonable to have an annual review (perhaps in the year-end holiday period), to publish the list of post-flight radio receptions on the Forum and accept new comments? The result could be publication of an updated list of scores after the panel considers the comments. And thinking of a multi-year thread of assessment of a single subject, that would provide more than a record of the ups and downs of particular items. It would be educational because it would make clear the basically constant thrust of the logic and the changing nature of the questions applied. (One could also make a form like the Talmud by sorting all the comments under each subject, not unhandy for research.) It would also demonstrate the integrity of the TIGHAR process, which resembles the scientific process in its self-correction from public input. Another thought. Would the same multiple-year evolutionary presentation help in several other subjects? As data comes in and the hypothesses are formed and refined and supported or contradicted, how does a casual watcher keep up? Would it be reasonable to provide the TIGHAR Hypothesis itself as an evolution, just to keep members current? Think how difficult it is to try to tell someone about this controversial subject and get told that the (tin can, fire, shoe, radio transmissions, pick one) is no longer part of it. After all, every hypothesis and every presentation of a hypothesis must be subject to testing, modification, and even potentially discarded. If we did anything else, the word "Dogma" comes to mind. TIGHAR has obtained a good reputation for rigor (how else, with so much diverse comment) but the broad outline of the TIGHAR hypothesis has remained constant since 1988. It would be educational to show that. Finally, if there is another "Betty"-sized burst of activity (or even bigger if NIKU-IIII strikes paydirt), would the forum be left behind? Would newcommers be baffled? Maybe that is addressed by the Forum Summary on the web page. Maybe the titles of the postings (Re. ...) form informal threads and allow the reader to set priorities. On the other hand, at the risk of making it an impossible task, could Ric mark some as important as they go out? Naturally all postings are important and doubtless the dedicated Forum participants read each one (eventually). However, in a fast-moving situation, having a mark to identify those that are truly essential could be more than useful. Perhaps a red title for those? LTM John Pratt (2373) ************************************************************************** From Ric Whew! Some very good suggestions and a lot to think about. The problem is, as you say, keeping the investigation moving forward in an orgainized way as we are periodically (and increasingly, it seems) bombarded with new information, while at the same time presenting what we have learned in such a way that a new comer can quickly be brought up to speed. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:59:56 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Climbing on NC > From Ric > > Bevington could have gotten aboard in a launch up to the stern. Apparently Bevington thought so too...... "Wednesday, October 13th (R.T.) We sighted Gardner at dawn. A wrecked cargo steamer was up on the reef and in the distance it looked 0.K. The natives were very disappointed as they thought someone had got in ahead of us. The wreck was a cargo steamer; the bows high and dry in the reef while its back was broken in two places and overhung the reef; the ship was about 3000 tons, is very rusty and has been up 20 years. There being no anchorage we tied up to the stern of the wreck, as the wind took us away from it. I boarded the wreck and found the hold to be teeming with mullet; they were so thick that more fish were visible than bottom." Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. Interesting to note Bevington's impression that the ship had "been up 20 years." It had, in fact, been there for only 8 years. When Gallagher found the bones in 1940 they looked older than four years to him. Niku is a tough environment. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:18:56 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: CQD/SOS <> No, it is not a myth. Virtually every published (ear)witness account of the Titanic radio transmissions (including both official U.S. and British inquiries) describes the exact same sequence of messages (almost verbatim). It is so well documented, in fact, that it is surprising to me that there is even a question about it. The initial distress call used was "CQD", followed by the newer "SOS". David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Forum postings have shown that the allegation that Titanic sent SOS in addition to CQD is very well documented, but that Titanic was "the first" to use SOS is equally well documented to be myth. This kind of thing happens all the time. Lindbergh flew the Atlantic nonstop from Norwich City (or something that sounds like Norwich City) to Paris, but most people would tell you that he was the first to fly the Atlantic (he was the 92nd). Likewise, Earhart flew the Atlantic on the 5th anniversary of Lindbergh's flight and the public perception was that she had duplicated Lindy's feat when in fact she had flown less than half the distance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:29:52 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations In reply to a question of mine, elsewhere, re harmonic output from transmitters, i have been given figures of 15 and 20 dB down for the 2x harmonic, this from military transmitters of the time. I am hoping there will be other data coming in on this, too. But let's say the WE is really bad abou harmonic radiation, for example the 2x harmonic is only 10 dB down. So when you do the computer simulations for path, Betty's antenna, etc. etc. why not factor in an output power of 5 watts? Then when you consider the 3x harmonic possibility, imagine what wattage output would be. 1 watt? less? That reception of Betty's would appear to be a real "DX catch". As for the hundreds (or more) of other SWLs somehow missing the reception, where were they? Even a transmission on 16 MHz would maybe have been tuned across by listeners with the general coverage type receivers of the day. To get from one area of interest to another you have to cross the intervening frequencies. Also, the Maine reception was right in the middle of a shortwave broadcast band. So okay, grind these facts. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric So what did these few people hear? If you make the argument that more people should have heard a genuine transmission, that is even more true of a hoax or a radio drama. by that logic we're left with two possibilities: - the transmissions were genuine. - there never were any transmissions and these people all made up the same story. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:33:09 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Norwich City (Page 2) > From Ric > Thanks Gerry. You're absolutely right. I had missed that. Looks like > there was bad westerly weather in the December/January period in all three years > (1938/39; 1939/40; and 1940/41). Just happens to be smack bang in the middle of "Cyclone Season" for the Pacific.... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Tell me about it. I can document that there was also heavy westerly weather in the region in February/March of 1997. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:38:28 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Janet Whitney The only thing I can see that Janet does to rub people up the wrong way is that she doesn't engage in "chat" on (or off) the forum. She finds something she wants to share, posts it, and looks for something else to share. On the other hand, Th' WOMBAT posts all kinds of garbage (most of it the first thing into his head) trying to see if others have the same vague thoughts. Occasional value for money, and a lot of irrelevant junk male... I for one enjoy Janet's contributions.. Now that I'm used to the brevity.. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric Don't be so hard on yourself Wombat. I wouldn't call you an irrelevant junk male. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:40:00 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: the Vidal letter search For Cam Warren: Cam, this isn't the first time you've alluded to having "inside information" on some aspect of this quest. You say that the existence of the letter has been proven to you. Would you be so kind as to share this proof with us? The tone suggested by your recent post was akin to "I have a secret and I'm not telling you unless you ask me in just the right way." I suggest that (1) that sort of behavior is beneath someone of the caliber you claim to be, and (2) is exactly the sort of behavior which makes Ric and others so casually dismissive of many of your posts. Please, share what you know--if you produce the letter, it's a safe bet Ric'll give you credit for it. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:41:38 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Carpathia log Ric asked: <> Yes, such a document exists. It is in both the Congessional Record of the United States and in the British Board of Trade records. These records have been published by many parties (including the U. S. Senate and the British Board of Trade. They are readily available in most major public libraries. If you prefer to purchase a copy of either the Official U.S. Senate Inquiry into the Sinking of the Titanic or the Enquiry by the British Board of Trade into the Sinking of the Titanic, I believe that both can be obtained through Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.com. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:42:55 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Norries or Nories? (or Noire's?) From John Pratt Concerning the reply to "Gallagher's reference to charts": "Dunno. Anyone familiar with Norries Nautical Tables? Doesn't sound like charts to me. Sounds like tables for celestial observations." I don't navigate except in the internet, but here's a mention: Deck Officer Class 6 - South African Department of Transport ... in the nautical almanac and Venus. NOTE: For the computations required in this examination the candidate may use sight reduction tables, Norries or Burtons Tables... URL is: users.iafrica.com/s/sh/shorstop/DeckOfficerClass6.htm However, if there were a misspelling, Norie's Nautical Tables is referenced many places as a navigational reference table, currently available widely (best price seen about $37). Typical reference: "Nories Nautical Tables This is a book of tables for use in navigation, not much theory. 570 pages. " URL: http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/vbb/woronora/maritime/Navigation.html The $36.95 price, incidentally, is at Bluewater Books and Charts (http://www.bluewaterweb.net/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/nauticalbooks/prodpages/01 660.htm?E+mystore4) where they spell it as "Noire's" but show a picture of the cover. LTM John Pratt (2373) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:53:47 EDT From: Leslie Kinney Subject: Re: Japanese Brodcast Stations - Military Buildup In a previous post / same subject I stated that Japan had set up colonies in numerous locations in the South Pacific - one of which I wrote was "Guam" - this is was in error - Guam was US Territory, an important listening post for the Navy - not a part of Japanese colonization. By the time this gets posted I am sure I will catch "H" for this mistake. I apologize for the error. Leslie Kinney *************************************************************************** From Ric S'ok. That error was minor compared to the idea that Japan set up "colonies" in the South Pacific. Japan administered "mandates" granted by the League of Nations after WWI. Of course, they exploited them commercially just as they would had they been "colonies" but the point is that the Japanese did not go out and "colonize" new territories (as, for example, the British did in the Gilberts in the 1890s). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:55:42 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Exploring the NC Chris Kennedy said: "I have a difficult time imagining that the New Zealanders didn't explore as much of the interior of the ship as possible . . ." I'm just the opposite, I can easily envision the crew doing at best a cursory look around the ship and then going about their assigned tasks. First, the Kiwis had a limited time on the island and had specific duties to perform, which cut down on their "recreation" time of exploring old ships, especially since there was no good reason to explore the NC. Second, exploring any part of the Norwich City would have been very dangerous even for an experienced crew. The ship had started to come apart and there were a lot of sharp edges to watch out for, because if they were cut and injured it could be fatal (lock jaw). This was in the days before tetanus shots. Also, going below decks would have been hazardous because there would be little if any light, other than what they might be able to bring with them. Bumbling about the sharp and jagged innards of a rusting old steamer with minimum light to see by is a good recipe for injury. Plus after eight years sitting in the elements I suspect most of the hatches etc. were rusted shut and would've proved very hard to open. While exploring the Norwich City would appear to us today to be a lark, I suspect the Kiwis summed up the situation early on and just went about their duties. LTM, a conservative explorer Dennis O. McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:09:05 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Earhart's Receiver The tuning range of AE's Western Electric receiver, a Model 20B, had to have been modified if she was to receive the 500 KHz distress frequency. My conclusions regarding the modification are based upon the data in the 1939 edition of "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment" by H.K. Morgan. In the absence of an actual Western Electric document such as a maintenance manual, addenda to that manual or work orders detailing the mods specific to AE's rig (and we are not likely to ever find those) or other published specs such as advertising, this is the best we have. My view is that the 1939 specs mirror what was done to AE's receiver in 1936-37 as a one-off job. Being quite familiar with commercial electronic communications gear from many manufacturers and its lineage/evolution through modifications and revisions, I believe firmly that this is reasonable and correct. The tuning range most easily modifiable was Band 2. In that era, most radio receivers tuned in "straight line wavelength" fashion... that is, the dials were calibrated so that the frequencies at the lower ends of the bands were more spread out than at the high end (look at any AM home radio of pre-digital design to see what I mean). This is due to the design of the tuning capacitors. The plates of the capacitors were asymmetrical, so that WAVELENGTH remained constant all across the dial... even tho the dials may have not been calibrated in wavelength at all. This practice was a holdover from earlier days when stations specified WAAVELENGTH in meters, rather than frequency in kilocycles (likohertz, in modern terms)... but wavelength is not as precise to specify (and is more cumbersome) than frequency. Therefore, when the tuning range was shifted downward to 485 KHz at the low end, the number of kilohertz gained at the low was far less than the number lost at the high end... so the tuning range stopped at 1200 KHz in the modified version. It might also have been conceivable that Band ONE was the band undergoing mods in AE's case, but I don't believe this at all. Here is why: The beacon band probably was deemed more useful for a flight outside the US, as many airways stations and control towers transmitted on these low freqs. Also, from a receiver design standpoint, modifying the high end of Band One presents two problems: One, the 500 KHz freq would be at the high end of the dial on Band One... if your radio's high end tuning is compressed, it's harder to set the receiver exactly. Two, freqs toward the high end of the dial are subject to be affected more by "drift," a phenomenon in tube type and capacitive tuned radios when heat affects the physical spacing of the capacitor plates. Lest we forget, a good chunk of the low end of the beacon band would have been lost. I believe (to quote the sheriff in Cool Hand Luke) what we have here, is a failure to communicate... unless AE had a second receiver on board. Most military radios employed tuning via the "straight line frequency" method, whereby the dial markings for frequencies were evenly spaced across the dial. This required a different shape of tuning capacitor, and these capacitors were generally a lot more expensive than the straight line wavelength types which were available "off the shelf." Yes, I believe AE's receiver tuned staright line WAVELENGTH. The figures for the original tuning range vs. the modified confirm this. Note the bands listed in the posting by Ric, for the "df apparatus" do NOT correspond with the WE set in any way. In fact... these figures for the bands suggest, to me, the Bendix way of doing things... OK: Either AE had (1) a second receiver or (2) she was NOT USING the Western Electric set at all. The evidence seems to be getting clearer to me, at least. LTM (who's always tuned in) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Much as it pains me to point it out, the evidence for Earhart being able to receive a KGMB broadcast on 1320 (regardless of what or how many receivers she had) comes from official contemporaneous written sources, while the evidence that her Western Electric receiver could not receive that frequency is based solely upon (expert) conjecture. No contest. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:11:42 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station - Military buildup Very good statements you made here, Leslie, YES- The naval IJN buildup was prepared in the late twenties. Japanese were very upset with the 5-5-3 ratio... As soon as 1921-1923 they designed huge ships for the supremacy over the seas ( Kii, Amagi, "number 13" class battleships ). They decided in 1930 not to extend the new naval limitation agreement that would be signed in... 1935 ! Yes, they "cheated"... ( But, for example, USA also "cheated" for the displacement of the Lexington class Carriers ). ALTHOUGH: The main war effort wasn't started before the end of 1937... Just count all the japanese aircraft prototypes that first flew this year( year "0"). Of course, i am not a japanese history expert. Moreover, i guess that that period of time is very indistinct, hazy...Especially from the Japanese side. For example, severals authors said that the "Asian co-prosperity Sphere" was just a thought, until japanese justified their conquests invoking it. Debate is still open. For me, the commitment was the symbol of the Germano-Italo-Japanese "tripartite" agreement in september 1939...Assuming that one point of view could be worth another. I cannot see why the japanese could have been especially concerned by AE flight, 500 miles away of theirs farest dominions. End of that thread for me... thanks for your patience Ric, RENAUD DUDON ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:19:17 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Colorado's catapult Yes, Bob is right, my 1944 jane's fighting ships of WW2 indicates that Colorado only owned on catapult over her quarterdeck. I guess that 15 minutes to launch the second plane would be a mimimum in calm waters. RENAUD DUDON *************************************************************************** From Ric And yet the ship's logs make it clear that she had at least two and probably three rails and could get all three planes in the air within 4 minutes. Ahh, the perils of historical research. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:31:09 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: KGMB freq I side with you, and Comander Hawaiian SEction. I cited the reference in an upcoming post-in 1937 KGMB was at 1320 with 1000 watts. Does Randy Jacobsen have a different cite or reference or document. Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Randy Jacobson Well well well. You are right. According to other sources, KGMB was 1000 watts as of Jan 1, 1937 at 1320 kHz. I suspect my handwritten notes (not original source material) was to imply that they went to 1320 AND 590 kHz, so that the 5000 Watt signals could be more efficiently broadcast as a Clear Light signal. So...it was in 1939 that they went to 590 kHz! My bad. And Ric: you're beginning to sound like my wife, with your constant correction of errors. Now stop that dear! ************************************************************************ From Ric I'm just trying to help, you big silly. The key to this little puzzle is not the KGMB frequency but Earhart's receiver. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:47:41 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station Re Japanese hostility - And let's not forget the Japanese shot up the USS PANAY on the Yangtze River, December 12, 1937. Bombers also attacked American and British ships near Nanking, which fell on the 13th. "1936, Jan 1. With the expiration of the international naval limitation treaties, the provisions for the maintenance of the status quo of fortifications in the Pacific fell to the ground. Since 1932 there had been rumors of Japanese fortifications and submarine bases." (Fourth Edition "An Encyclopedia of World History", edited by William L. Langer, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1968) Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric From "How Japan Fortified the Mandated Islands" by Thomas Wilds in U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 1955, Vol. 81, No. 4 Aviation facilites in the Pacific islands in 1937 In the Marianas: Saipan - airfield - started 1934 - completed 1935 seaplane ramp - started 1935 - completed 1935 In the Western Carolines: Palaua - seaplane ramp - started 1934 - completed 1936 In the Eastern Carolines (Truk): Nothing In the Marshalls (Kwajalein, Majuro, Mili, etc.): Nothing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:52:43 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station - Military buildup Japanese/American tensions: Those tensions started during and just after WW1. Warfare between those two nations were already being predicted on both sides. Further, negotiations to keep the situation cool between the two nations started at that time, and that would require English by the Japanese...(how many people in the US know Japanese?). Neisei girls (girls raised in America) aided the Japanese military with communications as well. There were many Japanese who watched our 'habits' very closely all the way back to WW1. And you can believe if you want to that they were watching Amelia Earhart and her little excursion close to their territories. And I understand that u do not want to discuss Japanese conspiracy theories on this forum....so I'll stop with it. But I just had to make a comment when u stated that the Japanese couldn't understand the name Earhart and few spoke English. Judy. *************************************************************************** From Ric The scars of the Second World War run deep on both sides of the Pacific and, unfortunately, the anger, paranoia and racism that were the products of that conflict continue to color historical perceptions over half a century later. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:54:01 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Friedell Report Ric wrote: > So BB45 was able to get all three planes in the air in a span of four > minutes. Not bad. Not bad at all!!! I can't see the quarterdeck catapult in my photo of Colorado, but there are two aircraft on the fantail. If that's where the quarterdeck catapult was situated, then BB45 was able to load and launch from that cat in a span of 4 minutes. Very nice. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:37:10 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: 3105 and 6210 Kilocycles in 1937 Both frequencies were widely used by "itinerant aircraft" in 1937, according to the contemporary aviation literature. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, itinerant aircraft were in rather short supply in the Central Pacific in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:34:55 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: KGMB questions > From Mike E. > The 1935 Dept of Commerce list has TWO stations listed for Hawaii. > KGMB is 1320, 500 watts. Yes, you read that right. When you look > at a listing for those years, you see that the 50kw stations were the > uncommon exception. MOST stations were about 1 kw. People > had wire antennas connected to their home radios. A) How long were the wire antennas that people had connected to their home radios? B) How tall was the antenna that KGMB used to broadcast from and what was its max AGL? (AGL = Altitude above Ground Level) LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:37:55 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Japanese Mandates The Japanese were not arming or fortifying their mandated islands in the 1930s. They were doing no more than the US government did on Guam (in the midst of the Japanese mandates) & Midway, that was constructing civilian port & airfield/seaplane facilities, which of course always had the obvious potential for use in wartime by both countries. In fact, Japanese documents discovered after the war revealed that Japanese military commanders in the Central Pacific were highly critical of the 'civilian' adminstrators of the mandated islands because they had failed to begin construction of fortifications & military applications for existing civilian facilities before 1940. (Some of the construction begun in 1940 was as yet incomplete when the Japanese launched the PH attack.) Unfortunately, the US government didn't know the Japanese had no military fortifications being constructed, (because of the veil of secrecy the Japanese maintained over their islands) which certainly didn't calm the fears & suspicions about what the Japanese were up to & the US Navy especially adhered to the theory that any Japanese attack against American interests in the Central Pacific would necessarily come through the Marshall Islands. (At the time of the PH attack, high ranking commanding officers in Washington, insisted the attack was launched from the Marshalls, which was ironic, for at the time the Japanese had only seaplane & submarine facilities operational in the Marshalls.) While the Japanese obviously had some type of civilian radio network established throughout their mandated islands, it has never been documented whether they also had established any military ...'advanced radio listening posts'... in the mandates, to monitor US Fleet exercises & activities, the same as our Navy had established on Guam in the 1920s, to monitor exercises & activities of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Curiously, the US Government also provided facilities for PanAm, which flew scheduled flights from Midway to Guam to the Orient, throughout the 1930s, right up until the PH attack. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:38:55 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Best Range Speed for the 10E I note with interest Birch Matthews "Pilot Question" regarding step up in altitude and 'best range speed". Birch gave the following best range speeds at 10,000 feet and the weights indicated: 11,700 pounds - 135 mph - 356 bhp 10,600 pounds - 128 mph - 306 bhp 9,400 pounds - 122 mph - 256 bhp May I ask (a) are the speeds True or Indicated, and (b) are the bhp figures total or per engine? Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:41:11 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Marie > From S Saddoris > And having worked with my fair share of head-injured in the > Speech therapy department of Rehab wards, I can attest to > confusion, word reversals, slurred speech, poor judgment and > lack of concentration. I don't read "Noonan's" behavior, as depicted by Betty's notes, the same way everyone else seems to be. Perhaps it's because I've been in situations similar to this, though not as life threatening, that resulted in similar behaviors. I read that Earhart and Noonan are working together in an attempt to make their radio do something worthwhile, given their circumstances. Noonan doesn't really want to play though because he either doesn't believe the radio is working or he doesn't believe that they can reach anyone from their location, and he thinks that their time would be better spent evacuating the aircraft. Justification: Line (4)-16: "Will you help me" Line (4)-17: "Will you help please..." Line (4)-18: "all right!" I think those words were an exchange between Earhart and Noonan and not an exchange intended for a radio recipient, and they tell me that Earhart is trying to get Noonan to take this seriously and help. He does help but he does not take it seriously. Line (1)-10: "speak" Line (1)-11: "Uncle" Line (2)-13: "N.Y. N.Y. N.Y." Line (2)-14: "Marie Marie" Line (2)-17: "N.Y. N.Y." Line (2)-18: "Marie" Again, Noonan doesn't believe anyone will hear them so he is showing how futile he believes Earhart's attempts are. Except for the statements consisting of the words "Marie", "Uncle", "Bob", and "Hey Bud", all of what appear to be Noonan's words appear to be coming from a mentally stable person. The exceptions I listed in the preceding sentence I believe may also be from a mentally stable person who is expressing an opinion on the futility of their efforts. It will be nice to see the result of your interview with Betty. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting theory. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:44:40 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter Facts For Cam Warren: I, for one, am always grateful for expert guidance. > I think too much is being made about Earhart's antenna. I would appreciate knowing which aspects of Earhart's antenna can be ignored, and which are crucial. > The > length recommended by Western Electric was ~40' for 3105/6210. > Which, as you can see, is an optimum 1/4 wave for 6210. Does the WE recommendation make any assumptions about loading coile configuration, or does that matter/ > After previous mods, the Pan Am guys in Miami set it up that way. Did the Western Electric recommendation apply to any particular antenna confugration? Or was the antenna configuration irrelevant to the WE recommendation? You seem to be saying that Pan Am adjusted the antenna length to 40 feet. When and exactly how did they do that? Where was the antenna feed point after the Miami modification? What documentation do you have that describes the details of the Pan Am changes in Miami? > Fine tuning was completed at the transmitter. Exactly how was that done? Did Pan Am use Gurr's home-brew loading coil or did they remove it and use the factory-recommended loading coil? What documentation do you have describing how Pan Am "fine tuned" the transmitter? > The effective > radiated power was considerably less than 50 watts even on the > higher channel, not much for 3105. What numerical values correspond to "considerably less than 50 watts" and "not much"? How did you calculate radiation efficiency? Does your calculated effective radiated power vary in the vertical radiation plane, or do you consider takeoff angle to be irrelevant? > Voice reception from Howland vicinity to Miami? Little short of > miraculous! Not to put too fine a point on it, but I thought the topic was propagation from Gardner Island to St. Petersburg. You seem to have solved a very complex problem that some of us are still working on, and I congratulate you for your achievement. I hope you will share the details of your solution with us. I believe that forum members in general would appreciate seeing it. And I'm certain that those of us who are still working on the problem would appreciate seeing the proof that we are wasting our time. > And Bob Brandenburg shouldn't be worrying about the minute > details of Betty's backyard wire. Please enlighten me, and the forum, as to which details of Betty's backyard wire are "minute" and thus unimportant. LTM, who loves to stand on the shoulders of giants Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:45:24 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Pacific Air Pilot > From Randy Jacobson > I've examined all letters (not computerized and indexed as yet)... I would gladly volunteer to transcribe them for you if I were able to type more than ten words per minute. Perhaps some other forum subscribers have the time and ability to help out? Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:19:44 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: The Trial of Cameron Warren Ric wrote: > I leave it to those whom he has wronged - the > members of the forum - to decide whether they wish for him to remain > among us. Ric, if we're voting, I vote that CW be retained on the forum. Reason: it's good for us to be open and to exercise good will, even above and beyond the call of duty. If we're not voting, then please ignore this post. ;o) Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Let's call it seeking a consensus. *************************************************************************** From Margot Still Excuse me, Fearless Leader, for I digress for just a moment. Am I to understand that a reader and follower of the FORUM had information the FORUM was seeking, did in fact KNOW the information was not where the FORUM believed it to be and allowed researchers to waste valuable time and effort searching for said information, all the while knowing they wouldn't find it? And knowing the contents of same information that it would not prove to be helpful in the long run anyway allowed more time to be wasted? As a historian and researcher I am appalled and repulsed that this person is taking up oxygen. Boys, there be heathen among us. I question his motivations at pulling such a stunt. It reminds me of the cruelty of the carrot before the cart animal. OFF WITH HIS HEAD AND THROW IN SOME TAR AND FEATHERS FOR GOOD MEASURE! HE BE FALSE TIGHAR NOT TRUE! LTM, who is equally dismayed, MStill #2332 CE ************************************************************************** From Ric Well no, that's not exactly what he did. Cam answered a question other forum researchers had been unable to answer but instead of sharing the answer with the forum he simply boasted that he knew the answer. Eventually he did divulge the information to Ron Bright and Dustymiss. Ron then shared with the forum. Cam still thinks that he has proven the validity of the return-to-the-Gilberts contingency plan when, in fact, he has established that the whole Vidal Plan B business is nothing more than another anecdote. *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt >The fact that the > recollections were "taped" puts them, by definiton, at least a quarter > century after the events described. Much ado about nothing. I thought we worked out that tape as a recording medium was available within ten years of 1937... (The Germans were using it during the war). Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, let's assume that the interview with Vidal was done in 1947 on one of the earliest available machines. Ten years is still anecdotal recollection. I wonder what year Eugene vidal died. *************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee I share your frustration with Cam's gleeful hectoring of TIGHAR but write it off to someone exercising their First Amendment rights. (I know the Earhart Forum is NOT a democracy, but let's pretend it is.) The problems between TIGHAR and Cam Warren appear to revolve around the "rules of evidence," with TIGHAR's rules being far more comprehensive and rigid than Cam Warren's. Cam's continued promotion of "evidence" that upon closer examination is considerably less than promised, is a serious problem -- for him, not TIGHAR. Simply exposing the charade should be enough punishment to his credibility. Continued exposure of his red herrings would hopefully awaken him to the reality that TIGHAR's standards are higher than his. When his evidence can withstand the TIGHAR Test then we'll accept it. Banishing him only makes him a martyr in the nether world of "other Earhart researchers." Let's not give him that pleasure. LTM, who embraces the First Amendment Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric The forum is as wise as it is compassionate. Cam stays. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:49:53 EDT From: Denise Subject: Skeleton on Norwich City? I've been away a while and haven't read all the back-issues of the Forum so someone may have already picked this up on this, but here goes anyway: You are currently wondering if there may have been a skeleton found on "Norwich City" (Fred Noonan). I think the answer is yes, and evidence for it is already in your archives. Doesn't Dr Emily Sikuli in her interview say that, growing up on Nukumaroro Island, they never went near "Norwich City" because it was tabu. Interesting! And also very suggestive! In Polynesian society, a tabu is a serious matter, and is never placed lightly - not, say, just to keep kids away from a potentially dangerous wreck. It is placed most frequently when something is inexplicable and seen to have a supernatural connection; the most common reason being an unexplained death in some spot; especially a death that is likely to produce a restless and wandering spirit that could be accidently picked up by someone visiting the site and thus be brought back into the community to cause havoc among the living. As Dr Emily is talking about the first generation of Gilbertese colonisers, any death in their number would be in common memory and the person who died would be named. Also, as Emily is a doctor, it is logical to think she would remember a death among her own in natural terms - how and why it happened - and not in terms of a tabu. This means the chances are strong that there WAS a death on "Norwich City" and whoever it was was not one of the Gilbertese colonisers. Try this on for size: while exploring their new island, the newcomers look aboard the wreck (a logical move - useful objects could be found - and don't the Gilbertese use bits of metal in their woodwork? The wreck would have provided that in abundance.) It's during this first exploration that a skeleton is found. In such a situation, the superstitious islanders would immediately back out of there, assuming the person died in the fire that took the ship; a horrible death that would definitely produce a wandering, troubled spirit. The discoverers would instantly cleanse themselves of any accidental attachment and then place an immediate tabu on the wreck to stop someone else accidently transferring the ghost home. This, I think, would be the most logical explanation for "Norwich City" being made a tabu place, but it will need to be proven. I know it is the height of ill-manners to question a tabu, but is it possible to find a polite way to ask Dr Emily if she can find out from her elders WHY they placed the tabu on "Norwich City". I think this might just produce the answer you're looking for. LTM Denise ************************************************************************** From Ric Emily would be surprised to learn that she is a doctor (she left Niku to attend nursing school) and offended at the idea that she would pay any attention to a "tabu" that was based upon superstition. Emily never used the word "tabu" or "taboo", she never suggested that Norwich City was off limits to everyone, and she never said that bones were found on the Norwich City. Emily said repeatedly that the bones were found near the wreckage of the plane. The bones certainly did engender fear among some of the people. Here are some quotes from the interviews: "Some people would not go to that area (where the plane wreck was) to fish because they were frightened." "Fishermen found the bones. They were frightened and they brought the story of them to the Onotoa man (Koata)." "He (Koata) sent people to bring the bones. People were frightened." "People who found the bones near the plane were frightened to touch them." "We were frightened to go close to the plane. Where the shipwreck was, the remainder of the plane was not very far from there." "We were forbidden to go there (where the plane wreck was). I was following my father. When I went there my father stopped me." Ric: Were the Gilbertese afraid of ghosts? Emily: Those who do such are the ones who do not believe (i.e. are not Christians). They are frightened. Those who believe are not frightened. Ric: Were there any stories about ghosts on Niku? Emily: I haven't heard any stories about that. Ric: So the people, for example, were not frightened by the bones that were found. Emily: Yes, they were frightened when they saw the skull. They went straight to Koata. Russ: You said there was a part of the island that was forbidden. Why was it forbidden? Emily: It was forbidden because of the bones of the New Zealanders who died on the shipwreck. They thought the government may send in people to look for the bones. Ric: So there was a place where there were bones from people who died on the ship? Emily: I really don't know that. There were people who used to go on board the wrecked ship. My father also went there. No ordinary people were allowed to go there. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:51:25 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Re: CQD Yes, the radio logs from the Carpathia still exist, as well as the testimony given in the hearings conducted by Senator Smith from Ohio, upon the arrival of Titanic's surviving passengers and crew. They are in the National Maritime Museum in Southampton. LTM, MStill, #2332CE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:52:48 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Rough Landing Says Gerry: > The main point is ... of the 200 people or so that have been > on the Island ... a small amount of those actually climbed > aboard the NC. Of those who did, how many made a > thorough search of the vessel? Says Tom: It may be true that only a few people actually climbed aboard the wreck (though I'm still bemused by all the NC parts we find in the village), but even if it's true, it seems a bit of an academic issue. Even if Noonan's corpse had been sitting there with a "Help, Amelia" note pinned to his chest, it's reduced to atoms now, and the chances of finding any belt buckles, cigarette lighters, sextants, or whiskey bottles he may have had with him in the vast debris field that the NC is today, are virtually nil. Certainly not enough to justify the effort it would take to try to find them. The grave(s) is/are another matter; if he died on/in/around the wreck and AE managed to bury him, or if the colonists found bones and buried them, then the grave(s) is/are the best place to look for them. The chances are good that it's NC victims or colonists buried in them, but the chances of finding something Noonanesque in a grave are a whole lot better than finding something of the kind in the trackless sands of the Norwich City debris field. LTM TKing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:56:26 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station > However, post-war studies confirmed that the > militarization of mandated territories in the NanYo (South Seas) did not > begin until well after the Earhart disappearance (in most cases 1939 and > 1940). Well..... D. Colt Denfeld's archeological overview of WWII sites in Micronesia, published by the Northern Marianas Historic Preservation Officer, indicates that some facilities at places like Aslito on Saipan, though they had civilian functions, were built big enough and strong enough to serve military purposes, and construction on these started before Earhart's flight. Certainly not MUCH militarization, and every responsible study I've seen indicates that there wasn't much, but it seems that there was a LITTLE. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. I should have been more specific. I was thinking more of the Marshalls and Carolines. The airfield on Saipan was completed in 1935. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:59:29 EDT From: Judy Subject: ship on reef re: "Ship on reef"-------Earhart referred to her plane as the "ship" all the way through her notes in 'Last Flight'. ************************************************************************** From Ric So when she says (if she says) "ship on reef" we have no way of knowing whether she means an airplane or a boat. What we can know for sure is that IF she said it she didn't ditch in the ocean. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:02:31 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Re: Climbing on NC Reference: I've seen no indication in the literature (Maude or Bevington) or photos that the initial October 1937 evaluation expedition went aboard Norwich City except to tie a line to her stern for mooring the Nimanoa. Remember Bevington's account: "We sighted Gardner at dawn. A wrecked cargo steamer was up on the reef and in the distance it looked 0.K. The natives were very disappointed as they thought someone had got in ahead of us. The wreck was a cargo steamer; the bows high and dry in the reef while its back was broken in two places and overhung the reef; the ship was about 3000 tons, is very rusty and has been up 20 years. There being no anchorage we tied up to the stern of the wreck, as the wind took us away from it. I boarded the wreck and found the told [hold? JP] to be teeming with mullet; they were so thick that more fish were visible than bottom. The natives easily speared them; lurking in corners were octopus, but of course not of the deep sea size. URL: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html He recorded the natural resources, which is natural for the expedition he was on. He just didn't record any of the things we wanted to know about. LTM John Pratt (2373) *************************************************************************** From Ric I stand corrected. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:06:55 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: RAdio Frequencies After leaving Miami, AE heard the weather report on WQAM but I don't know how far out or WQAM'S frequency. Also a bit later in the flight she tuned her receiver to "around 1300 kilocycles"(pretty close to 1320) and could make out a Spanish station and her name. Nothing else. Reportedly from that point on her reciever was not working well.(Source: Long,p.134). I'll check WQAM's frequency. Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately, Long doesn't cite where that comes from but if it's from AE's notes like the other details on that page it's pretty conclusive proof that her receiver didn't stop at 1200. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:29:52 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: CQD > There are other sources that have discussed this issue, but I can't put my > finger on them now. > > Anyone else? > > Tom I was trying to avoid blowing some bandwidth (and Ric's time) on this one, but since you asked; this comes from "The Titanic, End of a Dream" by Wyn Craig Wade (Penguin edition 1988, first printed by Rawson, 1979). Wade is detailing the New York Hearings conducted by Senator William Alden Smith beginning on 19 April (a week after the disaster) at the Waldorf-Astoria. These words are not Wyn C. Wade's. He italicizes the entire passage but does not foot note it. I think he is quoting a contemporary newspaper account of the hearings. This is a paraphrase of what star witness Herold Bride told the investigation committee: "Thirty-five minutes after the collision, Phillips sent the Titanic's first distress call out over the frigid Atlantic: _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ .. [CQD]. The captain came back to the cabin and asked what he was sending. "CQD," Phillips replied. Bride was suddenly struck by "the humor of the situation." "Send SOS," Bride said. "It's the new call, and it may be your last chance to send it." Phillips chuckled at the sally, and the two operators continued saying "lots of funny things to each other" as Phillips changed the signal: ... _ _ _ ..." Bottom line here is we will never know for sure what was really said, as neither Capt. Smith nor Jack Phillips survived the sinking. I can't think of any reason for Bride to lie. He does give himself credit for suggesting the change (perhaps it was really an order by the Captain), but Bride doesn't claim that this was the first time SOS was ever sent. As a marine radio operator, he was probably aware of the Arapahoe (thank you Bill Leary for that one) and possibly other SOSs in the previous 4 years. What we can be fairly certain of is that the Titanic sent SOS after first sending CQD. Herold Bride's testimony was widely reported in the popular press, and I know of no one who ever disputed it. Several ships heard the Titanic's last call (and probably the Cape Race relay station since the Titanic was working it when she foundered), most notably the Frankfort, the Carpathia and the Olympic. The Frankfort operator may even have had a motive to discredit Bride's story were he able. It seems the Titanic gave a very rude reply to a "stupid" question from the Frankfort; where as the Olimpic (the Titanic's sister ship) received a polite reply to an even stupider question ("Are you steaming South to meet us?") The Frankfort, of course, was a German ship (remember, WWI was only two years in the future), with a wireless operator who worked for Telefunken; vice the American owned, British registered ships with Marconi operators. . _ .. _ _ _ Kerry Tiller #2350 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:35:09 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Hand-cranked generator I can confirm Hue Miller's description of the difficulties involved in hand cranking a generator with an output in the vicinity of 50 watts. The current output is essentially a direct result of the mechanical energy supplied by the arm of the cranker: The mechanical resistance that the cranker's muscles must overcome for each revolution is inversely proportional to the resistance of the output circuit. At this power level, substantial muscular strength, endurance, and energy are necessary to keep the crank turning steadily. In the case of the Electra and its transmitter, given the energy wasted by heat and other factors, the work required would have been very intense (especially over a one or two hour period). That, in addition to my never having heard any evidence that there was a hand crank on board (was there?), is why I've always tended to discount the possibility that any post-loss transmission was powered by a hand cranked generator on the Electra. Especially one cranked by Noonan or Earhart. It was my assumption that TIGHAR had too-- was I assuming too much?. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric In the days following the disappearance there were all kinds of descriptions of what was aboard the Electra by way of emergency gear - some even by Putnam himself - but the truth is nobody really knew because nobody had any communication with anyone in Lae who were the only people who had the ability to know. We have seen no indication that there was an emergency generator aboard. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:42:20 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Hand-cranked generator > From Ric > > And how much did one of those puppies weigh? Well, not that much, maybe 20-30 lbs the bare generator, but then you need some kind of mounting, like a seat- arrangement, and then the power cable is pretty heavy guage, so it adds another 10 lbs. or so. So maybe around 50 lbs. the set. But, even with all that work you're doing, all you can really power from one of these things is a field radio of fairly low power, having only one of the big power tubes, not at all like the current-hungry WE13, with its big tubes, lamps, ballasts. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric For Earhart, carrying a piece of emergency gear that weighed 50 ponds would be like bringing along an elephant in case she needed jungle transportation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:51:04 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Cam Warren I believe that Cam Warren only knew the Vidal information a couple of weeks before he made you aware of it. When you go to Niku, it is several months before the rest of the research world is made aware of what you have found. ************************************************************************** From Ric You miss the point. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:52:06 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Marie One more possible sound-alike for Marie... When Amelia was growing up and spending the school year in Atchison, she was called, "Meelie" by her companions and most people in Atchison who knew her. Fred may have learned that and found it amusing to call her Meelie. She may have told him herself -- and been sorry she had! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:57:18 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Could AE hear KGMB? Dumb question of the week. What time was the Lambrecht photo taken? (From Ric: Certainly on the morning of July 9 between roughly 8 a.m and 9:30 a.m but it's hard to pin it down cloer than that because it could have been taken during the initial search of Gardner or on the way back to the coloardo after searching Carondolet Reef.) Reason for dumb question... State of tide visible in photo... (From Ric: High) Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:00:13 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Japanese Broadcast Station-off topic- Japan began its military buildup early enough that it clobbered China in 1894, then completely flogged the Russians in 1904-5. Immediately after WWII Japan took posession of as many of Germany's Pacific colonies as possible, and Australia barely managed to beat them to Nauru and a couple of other spots. So it's not like we're talking a sudden expansion into the Pacific. In 1937, Japan had been active and had a military presence there for almost 20 years. Between 1934 and 1936 Australia had so angered Japan stuffing them around with tariffs and such that by 1938 we were already worried that Singapore would not be sufficient defence against japanese expansion in the region. All this at a time when WWII had not even started yet. So there were things happening in the pacific in 1937, and there was a military presence in the islands. That does NOT mean I subscribe to the conspiracy theory, but I am in fact in the middle of a political history assignment for University on the subject and have the books open right here.. In fact you could probably stretch a point and blame Australia for Pearl harbour... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Australia has all the guilt it can handle having invented Vegemite. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:02:07 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio drama? Another question is how the Maine listener happened to hear the messages in a band, apparently, where she was listening for an overseas broadcast from Japan. The high frequency broadcast bands were pretty well defined by then to approx. 5.9-6.2, 9.5-10, 11.5-12, 15-15.4, and 17.7-18. It would appear to be a tuff order to fit one of the harmonics ( integer multiples) of AE's 2 channels 3105 and 6210 into these ranges. Per the Maine account, the woman really wasn't doing a whole lot of tuning around. Keep in mind that practically speaking, only the 2nd and 3rd harmonics have enuff power to even be considered, that the higher frequencies are more amenable to low power operation, and that solid daytime reception at long distance requires one of the higher bands. I unfortunately have not yet found a complete listing of HF broadcast stations 1937, but one issue of Shortwave Craft i scrutinized, in the listing of stations heard in NA, has 2 Japan frequencies, 9.5 something and 15.16 something. ( Of course, that does not rule out other frequencies.) Re Mike's account of working a Romanian ham with 5 watts AM, i would ask simply, did either of you handicap your contact, by using a low horizontal antenna, or a home-type radio at your end? Also, did you work this station from the West Coast of NA ? Betty's antenna can't be called an "array". I wager it was not a multi-acre gain type antenna, more likely simply a dipole, which even as simple as it is, is more complicated than the basic straight wire of 50-100 feet most listeners were using, and the radio magazines recommended. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:03:17 EDT From: Ed Subject: Re: WE13C Transmitter Facts Just as a Matter of info. In Warren, NJ AT&T has a large warehouse complex where she stores much of her historic equipment and records. My understanding is that when Lucent was spun off some of the material in Ma Bell's attic was tranferred to Lucent (Western Electric's successor). I have been to the Warren location and it had many surprisingitems (even a WE washing machine). They may have something associated with the radio gear. Just a thought. Best regards, Ed of PSL ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:07:39 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" If the WE 13C transmitter were a significant producer of "harmonics" it would never have been used in aircraft service. The "day" frequency band was double the "night" frequency band. Even with the less stringent radio engineering and design of the 1930s, a transmitter with strong second, third, etc., harmonics would not have been tolerated. From the WE 13C schematic, it appears that not only were the oscillator coils individually shielded, but the entire oscillator coil / capacitor section was RF shielded from the rest of the transmitter. The crystals appear to have been in metal "cans" that had heating elements to keep the crystal temperature constant. There is a photo of Earhart sitting on the Electra's fuel tanks with her hand on the transmitter (it's in the video "The Final Hours" available from SCETV). The cables to the transmitter all appear to be shielded. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric I believe the cables were indeed shielded but I can't imagine how AE could sit on the fuel tanks and put her hand on the transmitter (which was on the floor behind the tanks) unless she was standing on her head. Reminder: anytime you say "would have" it means you are guessing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:08:53 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Hand-cranked generator One more bit of information re Hue Miller's post about hand cranked generators: 50 watts of electrical energy = almost 37 pound-feet/second. This is the equivalent of repeatedly lifting a weight of 37 pounds by a distance of 1 foot, once each second. Add to that the additional watts consumed by the Electra's transmitter in the form of heat loss, and one can get an idea of the enormous amount of work an individual must do to generate that kind of energy with a hand crank. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:17:25 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: instant experts Ric said: " . . . presenting what we have learned in such a way that a newcomer can quickly be brought up to speed. I don't think that is possible. There is no quick way to absorb all of the data TIGHAR has collected -- or rejected! -- over the years. That takes time. Let's avoid the 90's trap of "gimme everything, now!" Learning is a time-intensive process. TIGHAR would be ill-served by any new "instant experts." Continue to encourage new comers to read the FAQs first, then ask questions and express an opinion. LTM, who continues to learn Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric I see what you're saying. I think we need to have a concise summary of the information (clues, evidence, indicators, whatever) we have found that leads us to believe that the Niku hypothesis is worth continued investigation, but simply reading that will not equip someone to be a productive contributor to the investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:21:43 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: CQD/SOS > ... Lindbergh flew the Atlantic nonstop from Norwich > City (or something that sounds like Norwich City) to Paris, but most > people would tell you that he was the first to fly the Atlantic (he was > the 92nd). Um, I've heard 67th: http://www.otr.com/ripley_on_radio.html What's your source for the other 25? ;o) > Likewise, Earhart flew the Atlantic on the 5th anniversary of > Lindbergh's flight and the public perception was that she had duplicated > Lindy's feat when in fact she had flown less than half the distance. I know you know this, but on behalf of newbies, let the record show that Amelia did no flying on "her" first flight across the Atlantic. She was just a passenger. I believe she had not yet earned her pilot's license at the time. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric 92nd or 67th depends on what you count. The higher number includes the South Atlantic and dirigibles. There was a book entitled "The 91 Before Lindbergh" (sorry, I don't recall the author). AE got her pilot's license in 1923. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:28:34 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Back to the Gilberts Whatever the origins of the AE/Vidal conversation about the...'return-to-the-Gilberts'... comment, the fact remains there is no evidence that the subject matter of such comment was actually implemented as a 'Plan-B' , alternative landfall. While we have no concept of exactly what such a 'reversal' of course might have involved navigationally (since no one, except possibly FN, had any idea where they were on the LOP) it does seem strange that whereas Itaska received radio signals from AE all the way _in_ from the Gilberts (assuming that they were, in fact, following their originally plotted course from Lae to Howland), that they would have received no (recorded) radio signals from AE on any 'return trip' back to the Gilberts, especially since AE's diminishing fuel supply would probably have 'splashed' them somewhere short of any of the Gilbert Islands, presumably prompting at least _one_ CQD...SOS...MAYDAY (take your choice) attempt by AE to inform Itaska of their plight &/or estimated position? Looking at my National Geographic Map of the Pacific, clearly shows that the Gilberts are several hundred miles further from Howland & that the Marshalls are even further away from Howland, than the islands in the Phoenix chain. While, according to the TIGHAR hypothosis, AE had sufficient fuel to reach Gardner Island & make a wheelsdown landing on the reef flat, the most negative aspect of such a landfall (to me) was the question of... 'how do we get them located & rescued?'... Assuming (perhaps a big assumption) for the moment that AE had received no further radio signals from Itaska (Itaska recorded no further signals from AE) on the flight from the vicinity of Howland to Gardner Island, AE would have had _no_ assurance that the only known (to her), available source of rescue (Itaska) had ever been able to determine what course AE followed after her last recorded signal, even _if_ she had continued to signal such intentions _after_ her last (only) signal of acknowledgement _from_ Itaska. Now they are situated on an uninhabited island, presumably in the Phoenix chain, with fuel gone or at least insufficient to takeoff again (even if the rising tide & condition of the plane & reef flat would permit such an effort) & _maybe_ not even enough fuel to crank the engine & recharge the batteries to continue any further attempts to transmit a message to any potential rescuer(s). In retrospect, it would seem that the Gilberts might not have been such a bad choice (again requiring a VERY BIG assumption that FN could have navigated them from an undetermined position on the LOP back to the Gilberts), even if they fell short of landfall, they would have been in closer proximity to a populated British mandate, with some boats _probably_ navigating the waters in the vicinity of & between the islands, where rescue would seem more likely than from an uninhabited island, some 350 miles SE of the Howland area, with no establishment of any two way radio communication with the outside world. Guess it all boils down to whether AE's desire to save her aircraft, round-the-world flight & her own reputation was stronger than the obvious risks seemingly (to me at least) inherent in choosing to fly the SE leg of the LOP FN had established for Howland, to an uninhabited, (well off any established shipping lanes) island chain, with no established radio contact to the only known (to AE) rescue vessel that could respond to her distress calls. Naturally, that is just why we all spend such a considerable portion of our waking hours pondering about & seeking to find that one 'smoking-gun' piece of documented, verified &/or documental evidence that the 'mystery' is finally solved! Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric No proponent of the Gilbert Islands theory has, to my knowledge, provided any specific explanation of just how in heck Noonan could have navigated back to the Gilberts if he had wanted to. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:31:24 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Earhart's Receiver > From From Mike E.: > The tuning range of AE's Western Electric receiver, a Model 20B, > had to have been modified if she was to receive the 500 KHz > distress frequency. My apologies for not checking the web site for the relevant statements, but was it stated by the technician that he modified both the transmitter and receiver? The statements I recall indicated that only the transmitter was modified to use 500kc's. That is all she would really need because she could broadcast her receive frequency. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric It's not on the website. Mike may have cited it in the 8th Edition which is, as we speak, being processed for mounting on the website and I can't get at it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:34:41 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Colorado's catapult Take a look at the photo of the Colorado in Strippel's book and it appears that there is just one catapult aft with one of the seaplanes(facing aft) already on the catapult and the two other seaplanes are facing forward, ready to be placed on the catapult.So the first one can be shot off and the next two loaded, but who knows how long that takes! LTM Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't have Stripple's book - just a copy of the manuscript. The catapult question is answered in the ship's log as described in my earlier posting. The seem to have been three catapults and all three aircraft could be airborne within 4 minutes. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:35:19 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: The Vidal anecdote . . . And, in the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that I determined the document was located on Box 40. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:46:24 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Plan "B" From the recent postings from Cam, there may have been a plan "B". Unable to locate Howland, Amelia turns her aircraft in the direction of the Gilberts. Looking on the maps, I see several small islands she would come upon first, Arorae, Tamana, Nikunan, and Onotoa. I have no idea what these islands are like. But considering that these islands were populated by Japanese and American soldiers and sailors (who make no mention of AE/FN/Electra) I have to assume that for some reason Amelia spent her remaining fuel still searching for Howland. Ric would you agree? *************************************************************************** From Ric (big Al Gore-style sigh) In 1937 the Gilbert Islands were part of a British colony. There were no Japanese, American, British or Lithuanian soldiers or sailors anywhere near there. The islands were severely overpopulated with Gilbertese people. The British colonial administrators in the Gilberts were aware of and cooperated with the Earhart search. Itasca and Swan also searched the Gilberts during the Earhart search. Nothing was found. It is also a mistake to think of the Gilberts as a cluster of islands that could be easily blundered into. The atolls are tiny and are separated by miles and miles of open ocean. No, I do not think that AE used up her remaining gas searching for Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:47:38 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Colorado's catapult Referring to a 1944 edition of Jane's regarding the cats on Colorado may produce inaccurate results... most of those old battlewagons went through at least one major refit during the war, and the older ships (probably including Colorado which I think was commissioned 1917) were used mainly for naval gunfire support of landings... yes, they still needed scout floatplanes because these were used for artillery spotting; but the advent of radar also reduced the need for so many scouts. Of course, how much info did the USN release to Jane's in 1944? For what it may be worth... LTM (who sticks to her guns) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:51:16 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Why is this important Ric: I understand the important of determining the configuration of AE's radios and the 10E's antennas, but what is the importance of whether or not she had one or two radios? LTM, having another CRS attack Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric To tell you the truth, it's not - in that it makes no difference at all to the Niku hypothesis. It is, however, a classic example of how we determine what is and is not historical truth. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:59:41 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Norries or Nories? (or Noire's? To: John Pratt, re: spelling of Norries, Nories or Noire's ... I can only quote from a letter to H.E. Maude from Gerald (signed Irish). The letter is 7 pages long and on page seven he briefly comments ... "Did you remember to get me a copy of Norries Nautical Tables in New Zealand - we must have these if we are going voyaging in your boat - also, of course, a chronomoter of some kind - then we shall be set." Letter is dated 20th December, 1939. Maude had a small boat that was according to "Irish" in the same letter ... "By the way, your launch is now completed and in the water once more. She looks very smart with a grey cabin and decks, varnished sides and cream bottom." I can only assume that Gerald and Maude had plans to sail Maude's boat when they met up again. (Maude at this time is in Pitcairn and Gerald on Beru Island. Thus, the exact spelling in the letter is NORRIES, however it could very well be a spelling error??? Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:59:47 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Uncle I just read Frank Westlake's theory about the conversations between AE and FN. His argument for this conversation would/could cause a different interpretation on the word "Uncle" then we have been assuming. How about "uncle" as in "I give up" or "okay, we'll do it your way". I don't know if uncle had the same colloquial usage in 1937, but my current Websters has it as a fourth or fifth definition. *************************************************************************** From Ric Say, I think that's a swell idea. My impression is that the term "uncle" being a slang expression for "to give up or surrender" was much more common in 1937 than it is today. In fact, we don't really use it that way today except as in archaic or nostalgic way. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:03:25 EDT From: Dean A Subject: The Vidal anecdote << I wonder what year Eugene vidal died. >> I believe he died in 1969. ************************************************************************** From Ric So he was still alive at the height of the Earhart conspiracy mania (1960 -1966). Perhaps that prompted the oral history. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:13:53 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: The Trial of Cameron Warren Ric, it may be after the fact, but I vote in the affirmative for Cam to stay. Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Cam can stay. Convicted, but sentence suspended. *************************************************************************** From Andrew McKenna Re: the Trial of Cam Warren. Maybe we will need all those attorneys and jurors after all. To Ric I can understand your frustrations with Cam as he does hold his cards close to the vest, and loves to goad you, which he has successfully done again. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Forum sign up process that says you have to share what you have discovered through your own research with TIGHAR or the Forum. Cam has apparently chosen the path of not sharing his research with us, and only occasionally dropping frustrating hints of what he's got that we don't. He is certainly not destructive or abusive in the way Sactodave was, he just doesn't contribute what he might. I think you will have a tough time justifying kicking him off the air. It is unfortunate but the open nature of the Forum must allow this. You invited us all to the party, you can't throw someone out just because he likes to tease us (you). Now before you get pissed at me, read on. To Cam, What's the agenda? You obviously consider yourself to be an excellent researcher, one who has accumulated a large body of work. Granted, you seem to have reached a different conclusion than the TIGHAR hypothesis, but you don't seem willing to share your ideas and research with the rest of us, so what is it you expect to gain here? If all you want is to goad Ric into flying off the handle, you've done your job several times over. Frankly I can't blame Ric for getting fed up with it. Goading Ric is not the hallmark of a top notch researcher. If I am not mistaken, you should be able to do better. If all you want is to monitor the activities of TIGHAR without contributing, then maybe you should reduce your presence to lurking status. If you are really a serious researcher of the AE mystery, then why be so secretive with your research? If you shared your work, you might actually convince people that the TIGHAR hypothesis needs to be modified in your direction. If you are hoarding all your work for your tell all book, then tell us that so we can see you through the proper perspective. The one way nature of the flow of information from the Forum to you is beginning to bug people. I might suggest that you consider trying to contribute in a more constructive way if you want to be considered a bonafide researcher by the Forum community. As it is, you only set yourself up as an enemy sniper taking pot shots from the dark while the rest of us fortify ourselves against you. Hardly a scenario for serious research. Who do you share your research with? Why not us? Again, I ask you, what is the agenda?? LTM ( who's reaching for the peacemaker) Andrew McKenna 1045CE *************************************************************************** From Dustymiss As one of the players in this Doris Rich - Cam Warren - Plan B - Ron Bright - Vidal - Wyoming puzzle, allow me to say that I think that Cam thought the Plan B information that was missing and eventually found by Cam in Wyoming was not going to be so annecdotal as it turned out to be. It certainly is less conclusive than any of us were expecting, I think. As far as keeping this information for himself - He has that right. He e-mailed me information so I can get a copy of the transcript from Wyoming - It is not secret material - anyone can get a hold of the folks in Wyoming and request a copy of the audio transcript - now that we know where it is, (for a small duplication fee, I'm sure) which I plan to do. Perhaps there has been bad blood between Cam and TIGHAR in the past - but the facts are that he was able to locate the information and told us about it and gave us a way for us to acquire it for ourselves. If you think about it, he did not have to mention that he found it at all. As far as this being an audio transcript - the heading calls it an oral history - often oral histories are conducted with a subject around the time when one realizes that the subject is about dead or senile and a record of the person's life better be done before the subject kicks off - I DO NOT KNOW THIS IS THE CASE - I just speak from experience from working at the museum. So, the recording could have been done in the late 1960's. I believe Vidal died in 1969. Finally, I believe Ric, that you have the right to ask Cam or anyone to share their information with the Forum, but not the right to kick them off or ask other forum members to do so, if they do not. Actions like this (asking us if we should kick someone off, for reasons like this) seem more to be more those of a petulant boy than the actions of a wise leader of an important forum. LTM - Dustymiss ******************************************************************** From Ric Thank you. I'll try to be less petulant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:15:38 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Testing Plan B May I suggest that there is a simple, direct way to test the Gilberts contingency plan hypothesis. The method does not depend on the validity of Vidal's - - or anyone else's - - recollections, but only upon the physical feasibility of such a plan. Here's a brief outline of the minimum essential elements of the test: 1). Define the uncertainty area containing AE's actual position at the time she executed the plan. 2). State, and justify, the estimated fuel AE had at the time she executed the plan. 3). Define the objective of the plan, i.e., to fly to a specific preselected island, or to fly to a general target area and then search for a suitable island. If the latter case, specify the center and radius of the target area, how much time is allocated for searching the area, the area search rate, fuel consumption during the search, and allocated fuel reserve. 3). Define the flight plan, including course, speed, altitude, and fuel consumption for each leg of the plan. Include an explanation of how FN would decide which initial course to fly, given the uncertainty of his starting position at the time the plan was executed, and how any error in his estimate of the starting position would impact the outcome of the plan. 4). Explain in precise, step-by-step detail how FN would navigate along the way. Describe the minimum acceptable navigation accuracy that would ensure success of the plan, and explain in detail how FN would achieve that accuracy. 5.) Derive and present the overall probability of success of the plan, and explain the logical basis on which AE would decide that the plan was a feasible alternative to proceeding to the Phoenix Islands. I propose that, instead of haggling over who said what about what AE may have said was her alternative plan, that the proponents of the Gilberts hypothesis perform the test outlined above and submit their results to the forum. Any takers? LTM, who thinks feasibility proofs are nifty. Bob Brandenburg #2268 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:17:04 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Re: Best Range Speed for 10E In response to the questions from Oscar Boswell related to my prior post ("Pilot Question"): (a) The airspeeds were determined using a model atmosphere I developed for 2-3 July 1937. In other words, I did not use a standard atmosphere. Therefore, the calculations involved air densities hopefully approximating what Amelia Earhart encountered during her flight. Therefore, the speed is a direct measure of the lift and drag forces exerted on the airplane at a given altitude, in this case, 10,000 feet. Thus I would conclude that the results represent indicated air speed. (b) The Bhp figures are for two engines. The method used to develop these figures is found in John Anderson's "Flight." Basically, it requires a determination and plotting of power (Bhp) required as a function of velocity. A line drawn from the origin of the graph to a tangent point on the curve determines the optimum range velocity. This was fine tuned by also plotting the lift/drag ratio versus velocity to be reasonably sure the tangent point was where it should be. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:18:02 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Second Harmonic If the second harmonic of a 3105 kc or 6210 kc signal with a power of 50 watts were attenuated by 18 db vs. the fundamental frequency, the second harmonic would have about 3/4 of a watt of power. If the propagation of harmonics from WE 13C transmitters on the itinerant frequencies 3102 and 6210 was excellent, wouldn't lots of people be hearing lots of harmonics? Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:21:08 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Earharts WE Receiver/ Frequencies heard For what it's worth category re frequencies her receiver could pickup., Amelia said that about 100 miles out from Miami she tuned in WQAM, and heard the announcer giving a delayed broadcast of her take off. A while later she noted that she tuned in a Spanish radio station about " 1300 "and heard her name. That's pretty close to 1320, but don't know the distance or power. Also what is WQAM's frequency? LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:24:37 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Rough Landing To Tom King: This debate is getting more and more interesting ... Tom this is developing into a Maritime Lawyer's view against an Archeologist's view in regards to the NC and what evidence of AE/FN exist today (if any). And the views are not surprisingly different ... yet very much the same. I fully agree with you on the garve adjacent to the NC and that would be top of my investigative list if I were conducting this as a maritime investigation ... simply because it is 60+ years on. I would check that unknown ( and as Ric points out has characteristics of a "non-native") grave. If the grave contains evidence of remains belonging to AE of FN then case closed! They probably did seek shelter on or near the NC and one of them is buried in that grave... GREAT we now have proof positive of what we are looking for! When I put forward my extended hypothosis contribution I knew nothing of this grave that existed. As a result of the extended hypothosis posting Ric then mentioned the very interesting grave that COULD be associated with such an extended hypothosis. In short it seems that the posting has focused attention on the grave... again GREAT! Regarding the village rubble that you question, I can not comment on that since I have not seen it and as such have no grounds to make an opinion. The chances of finding anything on the NC is, without a doubt, a very daunting task especially because of the scenario that you set ( pounding waves breaking up the wreck). However, I speak from experience in maritime investigation and you would be surprised what survives the most catastrophic maritime disaster ... EVEN many years on. Witness the Titanic wreck, I am sure that fellow Maritime Lawyer Chris Kennedy has experienced and/or has access to plenty of documented proof of evidence from maritime wrecks that exist many years after the initial event. The QUEST as I understand it is to prove the hypothosis that the Electra crash landed on Niku. My extended hypothosis posting was intended to paint a picture after the crash landing and accounting for a scenario of events that COULD have happened thereafter. The extended hypothosis was based on survival instincts, the terrain involved, facts obtained from the WPHC files, interview transcripts obtained by TIGHAR and an attempt to pull these threads together and formulate a possible scenario of events ... "post Electra crash". The siginificant point that resulted from this post is the existance of this "questionable grave" ... BINGO that goes straight to the top of my list of investigative criteria. So as you can see ... we share a common interest now on that grave. However, i still see the NC as a possible vault bering treasures of evidence yet uncovered (if of course you subscribe to the extended hypothosis). The only way to eliminate the NC is to at least conduct a search thereto. My vote for time expenditure on Niku in Sept. 2001 would still consist of the grave adjacent to the NC and the NC itself ... in addition to other project designations. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:25:15 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: USS Colorado, BB45 For those who might be interested in the various configurations of the USS Colorado, BB-45, a short history of the ship and photos may be found at: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-c/bb45.htm LTM, Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:34:12 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Vidal transcript Ric wrote: "As with Cam's other revelations, this one sounds completely overblown. The vaunted Vidal source for a Plan B turns out to be not a contemporaneous document at all but an 'oral history' (which is just a polite way of saying anecdotal recollection) of, as yet, undetermined vintage. The fact that the recollections were 'taped' puts them, by definiton, at least a quarter century after the events described. Much ado about nothing." Overblown? Much ado about nothing? Why do I suspect that if Vidal had said "Gardner" instead of "the Gilberts," TIGHAR would be trumpeting this transcript as the Find of the Decade? For that matter, why does it seem that oral history is inherently suspect only when it points >away< from Niku? We do not see the same sort of ab initio disdain directed at the "anecdotal recollections" of Pulekai Songivalu, Otiria O'Brian or Emily Sikuli, among others. Exhibit 1: "In TIGHAR's efforts to find a conclusively identifiable piece of the Earhart aircraft, >>it would be difficult to overstate the potential importance<< of Emily Sikuli's recollections." [Niku IIIP Expedition Report, Introduction, emphasis added] In fact, the Vidal transcript is far more coherent than the garbled recollections of Sikuli, who (for example) claims to remember seeing "very red" rust on aluminum aircraft components. Yet Emily's story is deemed sufficiently believable to redirect TIGHAR's entire search effort, while Vidal's story is dismissed out of hand: "Much ado about nothing." Turning to the substance of Vidal's recollections, the transcript is specific that AE's plan, in the event they were unable to locate Howland, was to head for the Gilberts when she had four hours of fuel remaining. Not three, not five. How interesting that this coincides almost precisely with TIGHAR's best estimate of AE's reserves at the time of her closest approach to Howland! Exhibit 2: "In short, without being there to stick the tanks ourselves, it seems most reasonable to accept that the fuel load aboard the Electra at takeoff was 1,100 US gallons. That fuel load, if managed according to the tables Johnson provided specifically for Earhart, should have left the aircraft with nearly 4 hours of remaining fuel at the time of the last transmission heard by Itasca." [Ric Gillespie, TIGHAR Forum 8/10/99)] I do not mean to denigrate Mrs. Sikuli or the other islander witnesses, but only to plead that all "anecdotal recollection" be subject to the same standards of scrutiny, whether those recollections support the Niku Hypothesis or otherwise. In dealing with anecdote, the primary questions center on: (1) the accuracy of the speaker's memory and (2) the purity of his motives. With respect to question (1), even if the Vidal interview was conducted a quarter century after the fact, this is still 35 years closer to events than TIGHAR's interviews with Sikuli et al. Furthermore, Vidal's recorded recollections are quite precise and do not appear to suffer from the internal inconsistencies and anachronistic external references that tend to betray a fading memory. As for question (2), what possible motive could Gene Vidal have had to fabricate a story about "Plan B" in the context of a private interview with a University of Wyoming grad student? I don't hear anyone suggesting he was on retainer from the Gilbert Islands Tourism Commission ... Cam Warren may not have gone to charm school, but he is not the first or only one to engage in sarcasm on this Forum. And he did >not< hoard his findings, as you suggest. His messages make it clear that Cam didn't begin researching the matter until after Ron Bright's and Dustymiss' efforts came to grief. Once he discovered the true location of the Gilberts reference, he promptly shared that information with Ron and Dusty. I don't see what more you can ask. Cam deserves not TIGHAR's opprobrium but its approbation. In the final analysis, is it so impossible to believe that Earhart, with four hours of fuel remaining, did exactly what she said she would do? LTM Patrick Gaston #2328 ************************************************************************** From Ric It is, and always has been, the most basic premise of TIGHAR's Earhart investigation that all anecdotes are created equal. They are worthless as evidence UNLESS they direct you to a contemporaneous document, photograph, or artifact that establishes their degree of accuracy. With limited resources, choices have to be made about which anecdotes are worthy of further investigation to see if they might lead to something substantive. The abundance of anecdotes, for example, which describe Earhart's capture by the Japanese have been enthusiastically collected and pursued by conspiracy buffs ever since Gervais, Briand and Dinger came forward with their list of witnesses in 1960. Forty years later not one single document, photograph or artifact has emerged to support those stories. So when I get a phone call from someone whose uncle was a Marine on Saipan and found Amelia Earhart's logbook which he then gave to an officer who told him to keep quiet about it, I don't immediately begin searching the archives of the Second Marine Division - not because the story disagrees with Niku hypothesis but because years of research has shown that it is highly unlikely to be verifiable. Unlike the Saipan stories, the investigation of anecdotes about events on Gardner Island have borne real fruit. For example, Floyd Kilt's anecdote about bones being found on Gardner was eventually proven to be true by the discovery of a previously unknown British government file. Until then it was just a legend and we treated it as such. We are excited about Emily Sikuli's anecdote because much of what she told us had already been verified by official British records and there is some realistic expectation that the parts that have not been verified (the bit about the plane wreck and other bones) might be verifiable by documents, photographs or artifacts. Had the Vidal document turned out to be a letter he wrote in 1937 or even 1938, or better yet, a diary entry, it would have carried some weight as a contemporaneous document, but as it is, it is anecdote and therefore absolutely equal to Bilimon Amaron's story of the American woman named "Melia" whom he saw in Japanese custody, or Al Bresnick's account of AE hinting to him that she was pregnant, or Emily Sikuli's tale of airplane wreckage on the reef at Gardner. The trouble is that there is no apparent way to verify the accuracy of the Vidal anecdote. And if we could somehow verify that Vidal was remembering it right, would that justify a search of the Gilbert Islands or the ocean botton somewhere on the way there? Your suggestion that anecdotes can be evaluated for accuracy by assessing the purity of the speaker's motives is incorrect. Very few people who come forward with stories are seeking reward or publicity. In my experience, most are absolutely sincere and have excellent reputations for truthfulness. The majority are passionate that they have important information to contribute. The problem is that we are all subject to the vagaries of the human memory. But, let's give Mr. Vidal the benefit of the doubt and say that his recollection is correct. I'm more than willing to believe that Earhart, with four hours of fuel remaining, might have done what Vidal recalled her saying she would do if someone can show me how she could have done it. Failing that, it seems much more reasonable to assume that Earhart, being ignorant of the complexities of the problem, was simply looking at a map and making an intuitive comment. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:35:32 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: FDR Audio Tapes from within the Oval Office Wombat writes: > I thought we worked out that tape as a recording medium was > available within ten years of 1937... (The Germans were using > it during the war). OK, well, sorry that I didn't pick up on the original thread, but I have something to add.... I seem to remember that FDR had set up tapes in the White House to record all conversations in the Oval Office (this is way-pre-Nixon). At the time, he used movie film as the recording medium. I don't recall the source of this, nor the years it was supposed to have happened -- just that I first read it years ago in the context of the whole Watergate tapes. Thomas Van Hare Historic Wings ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:37:37 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Collecting Tide Data at Niku The Wombat wrote: >If you do want to find what the tide was doing in >1937, and are comfortable that the Canton predictions are close, all you >have to do is take a tide table for Canton with you on TIGHAR IIII. Compare >the Canton times with the Niku times for High and Low. I keep seeing references to tide data on this forum so I guess it is time to jump in. In response to Wombat...in short... Been there, done that. For what it is worth, I directed the collection of tide data at Nikumaroro during Niku III. I asked the crew of our ship to record the high and low tides each day. We then compared the tide data to available tables for Pago Pago and other places. For what is worth, I like the proposal to find out more about the tides at Niku. Go Tideheads! Also, again for what it is worth, I ran some experiments at Niku, and elsewhere in the Pacific during Niku III, to test the ability of an AM radio to pick up broadcasts. I picked up Hawaii (hello KGMB) and other locations and countries. I even co-authored a report on that subject. If some of the Forum Tideheads or RadioHeads want more info on this they can Email me. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:39:15 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Colorado's catapult Ric--This from a record keeping/research lurker... Colorado-BB-45 had two catapults in 1939--Picture in Faheys Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet-1939- First Edition... One catapult removed from over No 3 turret during wartime refit..According to Fantail Fighters-Jerry Scutts-published by Phalanx Publ. St Paul, MN-1995. So- in 1937 she had two and most likely could launch 3 a/c in 5 minutes.... Scary but efficient... Jim Tierney *************************************************************************** From Ric They got it down to four minutes. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:40:10 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Transcribing Letters Well, let me state that I have well over 5 3" 3-ring binders full of correspondence. I have put them in chronological order, and extracted information into a hand-written diary, covering well over 500 pages. The best method of transcription would seem to me to use Optical Character Recognition and computers, but most of the correspondence are carbon copies, and require a great deal of work to read. Sigh...I got a severe case of tendonitis in my right elbow just transcribing the radio messages. You're more than welcome to the job, but any further xeroxing would further diminish the quality of the documentation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:41:23 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Re: Colorado catapult Reference the below URL concerning USS Colorado: http://www.c3online.net/webharbor/museum/bb-45-1.html USS COLORADO (BB-45) Ship's History From: DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN NAVAL FIGHTING SHIPS, James L. Mooney, ed., Naval Historical Center, Department of the Navy, Washington Quote: ...Catapults: None (Two compressed-air catapults installed shortly after commissioning.) .......... also some great pictures showing the evolution of the ship after various refits can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4289/Colorado.html LTM, Bill Conover #2377 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:42:08 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Japanese Mandates Some insight to the behavior of Japanese radio activities may be gained from the books "Double Edge Secrets" and "Codebreakers." Both of which have information indicating that the Japanese were quite adept at using radio communication by 1941. The knowledge that brought them to that point can only have come by observation and involvement in previous years. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:44:21 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Eugene Vidal Searching for Eugene Vidal's death date, I find a note that he was the love of AE's life and used to purchase men's underwear for her (purely anecdotal source, of course): http://www.booknotes.org/transcripts/50442.htm And in the same interview, the observation that after Lindbergh and before Amelia's first flight across the Atlantic, fifteen (15!) of eighteen transatlantic flights were lost: Ms. BUTLER: Well, after Lindbergh, because Lindbergh was in May of '27, 18 planes took off. Both sides of the Atlantic, 18 planes took off. And three made it. A note on Amelia's relationship to Eugene: Ms. BUTLER: Well, it's very difficult to organize a trip like-- of that magnitude. I mean, it was very difficult to organize a trip of that magnitude. Besides the fact that she had to have gasoline shipped to various places around the world, because you couldn't rely on anything, she had to get permissions from every country that she flew over. And, basically, Eugene Vidal really organized the trip for her. He put the Department of Commerce at her-- for her to use. He assigned an ex-Navy pilot who worked for the Department of Commerce by the name of Bill Miller. He basically assigned him to--Amelia to run interference. LAMB: But at the time, she had helped get Gene Vidal the job. Ms. BUTLER: She had helped Gene Vidal--definitely, she'd helped Gene Vidal get the job. She not only helped Gene Vidal get the job, she helped him to keep the job because at one point, Washington being Washington, there were some senators that thought they had a better--better man for the job. Gene Vidal hired AE to help develop direction finding equipment: http://www2.tsixroads.com/Corinth_MLSANDY/rt105.html Vidal and Earhart helped found Northeast Airlines: http://members.aol.com/CaptainQuarters/neahist.htm Born 1895 and died in 1969, according to cached information at http://www.google.com. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:49:40 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Plan B: Off to the Phoenix Islands? I've been in private correspondence with Cam Warren, discussing the Pacific Air Pilot. He relates that information in that document describes possible landing sites on Canton and Enderbury after Navy investigations. Well, except for the 1848 Southern Exploring Expedition, and the May Eclipse Expedition, the only time the Navy really explored the Phoenix Islands was using the Bushnell in 1938/1939. So, does Canton and Enderbury ring a bell? Like being underlined on a map at the Purdue University archives that came from AE's collection? Let's examine this more closely...the Eclipse Expedition did, in fact, explore both Canton and Enderbury, from approx. May 13 to June 9th, 1937. It took approximately 2 weeks to return to Honolulu, so June 23rd might be the return day. Now how did the Navy, if they could, relay information back to the States describing the two islands and ability to land planes? Except for AE's needs, this was not urgent information, and could wait for a written report. So, if it did come in time for AE's consideration, it would have to had been radio'ed in. But, by May 6th, the day of departure of the Navy for Canton, AE's flight was still buried in secrecy and planning. So, the only way for this to have happened is for Navy to radio out to get that info, and relay it back. So, why isn't there any documentation of these messages in the archives? I suspect that they simply don't exist, but it didn't happen for AE's needs. Thus, one has to speculate that the Canton/Enderbury underlinings on the map were indeed made after the fact of her disappearance, and not related to a second plan at all. Does this make sense? ************************************************************************** From Ric I was under the impression that Canton and Enderbury were the two islands of the Phoenix Group claimed by the U.S. well before the Earhart flight. If that's right, then the claiming alone might be enough to prompt the underlining. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:53:43 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Skeleton and taboo Interesting thoughts you made, Denise, but you forgot that severals sailors died in the Norwich City wrecrage. That could explain by itself the taboo. Ric, was the Norwich City destroyed by fire ? I thought it only ran aground... LTM Renaud Dudon *************************************************************************** From Ric There was no taboo, okay? Emily says that only certain people were allowed aboard the ship but there is absolutely nothing about a "taboo." Yes, the Norwich City burned. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:57:03 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Radiograms I obtained from Purdue University five radiograms addressed to Amelia Earhart that apparently contain weather information. Unfortunately, these are in code. I wondered if anyone had ever decoded these messages? If you don't have these, I will be glad to fax them to you for your files. Regards, Birch Matthews *************************************************************************** From Ric Code? No, I've never seen them. Yes, please fax them when you get a chance. Maybe somebody on the forum can make sense of them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:31:02 EDT From: Ric Subject: Imprtant Forum project I'd like to recruit the forum's help in assembling a list of all known instances of alleged post-loss radio transmissions from the Earhart aircraft. We're going to keep this simple - the point being to initially collect just enough information to be able to recognize any patterns that may be there. If patterns become evident we can then go back and fill in with more information as needed. Here's how it will work. Anyone can submit a post-loss transmission according to a set template that I'll set out below. Once a week we'll post an updated list of submitted transmissions on the TIGHAR website so that everyone can see how we're doing and what we have and don't have. Once we have a good start, I'll construct and post (on the website) a color-coded GMT time line so that we can see if there are any instances where various people may be hearing the same message. Okay? So here is the template we'll use. Item One: Day received (if known) according to local time at point of reception. Item Two: Time received (if known) in local time at point of reception. Item Three: Who received it. Item Four: Point of reception (be as specific as possible) Item Five: Frequency (if known) Item Six: Brief description of content Item Seven: Source (exactly where you found the reference. Primary sources only please.) Here's an example - Item One: unknown Item Two: 4:30 p.m. through 6:15 p.m. Item Three: Betty Item Four: St. Petersburg, Florida Item Five: unknown Item Six: sporadic inteligible voice Item Seven: alleged contemporaneous real-time transcription provided by Betty We'll do the conversion to GMT here and we'll also keep track of who is the first to submit each transmission (so that we know who to credit or blame). This could be very interesting. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:32:14 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Carpathia log > Yes, such a document exists. It is in both the Congessional Record of the > United States and in the British Board of Trade records. The Carpathia's log, itself, isn't in either of the inquiry records. References to it (and Californians, and other ships) are. > These records have been published by many parties (including the > U. S. Senate and the British Board of Trade. The full inquires are online at http://www.titanicinquiry.org/ - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:33:41 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Aukaraime, Piles of Sand/Rubble Tom K wrote: >To complicate things further, we have the Maude-Bevington account of "piles >of rubble" (or words to that effect) on Aukaraime South, near/at the Shoe >Site. We've speculated about such a pile possibly being the stuff heaped up >over a shallow grave. Or it could be that Maude/Bev saw the piles of sand/rubble that the Niku III team observed in the area of the shoe site. Someone was digging holes there (I have pictures). LTM Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:35:23 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Exploring the NC > While exploring the Norwich City would appear to us today to be a > lark, I suspect the Kiwis summed up the situation early on and just went > about their duties. Correct me (again) if I'm wrong (again) but; weren't some of the photos TIGHAR has collected taken from on board (looking out through a breach in the hull towards the "dot-dash") the Norwich City? Indicating that they did in fact board her, and may have done at least a little looking around... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric That is correct. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:42:56 EDT From: George Mershon Subject: Loch Ness Wellington I'm just back from the U.K. and visiting Brooklands Museum. If anyone needs to know the proper way to restore a plane, just visit the Loch Ness Wellington bomber. As you recall the Wellington was pulled from the loch after being submerged for over 50 years. The engine will turn, the props are still bent, the orginial tires are still on (one has remained inflated), the fabric skin is gone and not restored and the formally painted metal looks as though it had lived like the fish it had become. I hope other members will someday enjoy my experience. George Mershon *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm delighted to hear that they have taken that approach with "R for Robert". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:04:20 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: military in the Marshalls <<(At the time of the PH attack, high ranking commanding officers in Washington, insisted the attack was launched from the Marshalls, which was ironic, for at the time the Japanese had only seaplane & submarine facilities operational in the Marshalls.)>> and Ric's observation that there were no Japanese fortifications in the Marshalls prior to WWII, this is simply not the case. According to Gregory J. W. Urwin's comprehensive account of the siege of Wake Island, (The Siege of Wake Island: Facing Fearful Odds, University of Nebraska Press, 1997; ISBN #0-8032-4555-6), the Imperial Japanese Navy's Chitoise Air Group, a subdivision of the IJN's 24th Air Flotilla, was the principal air squadron that bombarded Wake Island from December 8, 1941 through December 22, 1941. The 24th was the largest aviation unit attached to the IJN's Fourth Fleet and was based at Roi in the Marshall Islands. I believe that Roi is part of Kwajelein. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric I never said that there were no fortifications in Marshalls prior to WWII. According to the Naval Institute "Proceedings" article cited in my earlier posting, airfields in the Marshalls prior to the Pearl Harbor attack consisted of: Kwajalein airfield with 3 runways begun in 1940 and completed in 1941 seaplane ramp begun in 1940 and completed in 1941 Wotje airfield with 2 runways begun in 1940 and completed in 1941 seaplane ramp begun in 1940 and completed in 1941 Maloelap airfield with 2 runways begun in 1940 and completed in 1941 Jaluit seaplane ramp begun in 1940 and completed in 1941 The point is that there was nothing there in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:05:15 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: CQD However interesting the foundering of Titanic in 1912 is, the AE disappearance in 1937 is a completely different matter. There is a world of a difference between the sinking of an ocean liner after hitting an iceberg in 1912 and the disappearance of the AE in a Lockheed Electra after failing to find Howland Island on a world flight in 1937. The Titanic disaster is fully documented and I suggest that anyone interested in it reads "The Titanic Disaster Hearings" by Tom Kuntz; published in 1998 and prefaced by James Cameron (Pocket Books). The book contains the complete transcript of the 1912 US Senate hearings and contains all the answers to questions asked in this forum on Titanic, CQD and SOS. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:23:46 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Hoaxes (was: Reception) > - Of the ones who had adequate antennas and were listening, eliminate those > who didn't happen to hit that particular frequency, or didn't pay attention > to the woman's voice, or thought it must be a play or a hoax. How likely is it that anyone at that time would have even considered the possibility of a hoax? > In the end it seems pretty miraculous that we have the accounts that we do, > let alone a real-time written record. The very dearth of accounts and their > striking similarity argues strongly that whatever these people are hearing is > a highly anomalous event. Sounds like the UFO report comments I used to hear. LTM (who doesn't know any little green men who perpetrate hoaxes) Michael Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric Wow. Interesting analogy and certainly worth thinking about. How do the alleged post-loss signals from Earhart resemble, or differ from, alleged sightings of UFOs? Off the top of my head: Similarities Reports follow widely covered news story (Roswell Event - Earhart Disappearance). Potential for misinterpretation (aircraft and natural phenomena - March of Time). Some known hoaxes. Relatively few reports but describing the same features. Dramatic implications. Differences One big one comes to mind. Earhart really did disappear and really did have a radio and really could have sent distress calls if she reached land. That Earth is regularly visited by extraterrestials is, shall we say, a somewhat more speculative proposition. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:34:49 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Norwich So much has been said about searching the Norwich for Fred's bones. From what I ascertained from the Forum, nobody of any importance has done this. I'm sure there have been some cursory searches, but by importance I mean a person with proper credentials who reported the search step by step. This task seems very hazardous, but maybe it has to be done. Ric, put this on your list of things to do. *************************************************************************** From Ric Hazardous indeed. The wreck is now just a jumble of jagged, rusty iron on a sharp and slippery reef accessible only at low tide. We'll have to be careful. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:21:41 EDT From: Nick Murray Subject: Re: Colorado's catapult The following web page has some photos of the Colorado: http://www.warships1.com/USbb45_Colorado_pics.htm If you look closely at the first three pictures (all pre-WW2), you can see that there are two catapults: one on one of the aft turrets, and one on the fantail. They also show the aircraft on the catapults, one on the turret catapult, two on the fantail catapult. The last picture shows the Colorado after her wartime refit, and she only has the one catapult on the fantail. Hope this clears up some of the confusion on this issue. Nick Murray (#2356CE) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:28:39 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: KGMB freq I was mistaken about the date of my FCC list; it is 1939, not 1937. The DOC list is i believe, from 1935. Here's the way Hawaii broadcasting looks, per these lists: 1935: Honolulu KGU 940 1000 watt, KGMB 1320 500 watts 1939: KGU 750 2.5 kw, hours limited to protect (!) WJR Detroit 50kw (!), KGMB 1320 1000 watt, Lihue KTOH 100 watts 1500. Yes- the KGU frequency appears to have been changed, and the KTOH power is not a typo. I do not know when KGU changed assigned frequency, but it would seem that reduced power (or no power) at darkness hours, would have ruled out this station as a means of sending any message to AE. Whence comes the claim that KGMB had dual frequency operation? Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:29:25 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: RAdio Frequencies > From Ron Bright > After leaving Miami, AE heard the weather report on WQAM but I don't know how > far out or WQAM'S frequency. WQAM 560 1 kw per 1939 FCC list -H Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:40:02 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: 4th of July Recently I posted a message that I suspected Earhart wanted to arive home on the 4th of July holiday. It was pointed out that if it had been the plan before the crash at Luke Field, there was no likelihood of it being the plan for the second attempt. As I write this I am reading a WESTERN UNION telegram from Earhart dated: 1937 JUL 2 AM 3 50 Header is: FAB55 5/21=TRIBUNE OAKLAND CALIF= Which says: "WE SHALL TRY TO GET OFF TOMORROW THOUGH NOW WE CANNOT BE HOME BY FOURTH OF JULY AS HAD HOPED= EARHART." I can't recall in what context I surmised that she was trying for a 4th July arrival, but it was over the last week or two. Looks like I may have been right though... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The push to arrive home in time for the Fourth of July has long been known and recognized. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:42:34 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: The final catapult posting The catapult question is much to do about nothing and I see no reason to reject the Colorado's deck log. The standard prewar outfit for the more modern WWI-era U.S. battleships including Colorado was two catapults, one on top of number 3 (aft superfiring) turret and one at the stern end of the ship on the quarterdeck. There are pictures of Colorado with this arrangement in May 1927 and in 1942 in Anthony Preston's book Battleships. Note that these aircraft arrangements were not an original design feature but were added in the 1920s. Colorado, as the last U.S. battleship allowed under the Washington Naval Treaty, apparantly was fitted with catapults at completition. Also note that it was standard for U.S. cruisers and battleships to carry more float planes than they had catapults. For prewar heavy cruisers, four planes were often carried while only two ctapults were fitted. The better WWI-era U.S. battleships (Nevada class on) had two major shortcomings by about 1940: they were slow (the top speed was only 21 knots) and their anti-aircraft (AA) armament was inadequate. Adding speed, though technically possible, would be expensive and involve lengthening the ship; this was not pursued. However, the AA fit could be, and was, strengthened. Radar was fitted as well. Some battleships got major rebuilds while other received more modest refits; there were substantial differences between ships of the same class. One constant feature was the removal of the catapult from number 3 turret. Colorado received a limited reworking. As a result, I see nothing inconsistent at all in Renaud saying that the 1944 issue of Jane's shows Colorado with only the quarterdeck catapult. On-line, see http://www.warships1.com/USbb45_Colorado_pics.htm for pictures which support these conclusions. Michael Lowrey ************************************************************************** From Ric This horse is dead. RIP ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:44:25 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Earhart Receiver/ Frequencies Heard WQAM,Miami,Florida was located at 560 AM with 1000 watts.Earhart heard this station, she said in World Flight, about 100 miles out of Miami en route to Puerto Rico when the announce broadcast her takeoff (delayed) and some weather infor.After that it appears that her receiver was not working except intermittently. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Would that be the Western Electric, the Bendix, or the Sony receiver? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:55:52 EDT From: James Scott Subject: Presenting information Regarding your comment about the best way to present information to newcomers, and the ongoing discussion on Betty's notebook, I thought I would briefly de-lurk to make a tentative suggestion. Perhaps we could consider a basic two column list on a web page somewhere just detailing points for and against? It could have different sections headed by specified statements such as: "TIGHAR believes Amelia Earhart was on Nikumaroro at some point" (points 'For' including the parts of the shoe etc) and then maybe a more specific one: "TIGHAR believes AE was on Niku in July 1937" or something. There could be a separate section for Betty's notebook and perhaps an 'Unsure' column about evidence that is currently under investigation and may point one way or another. This leaves people free to make up their own mind about whether they disagree with TIGHAR, agree completely or go along with it up to a point. It also may highlight the areas in which we perhaps need to strengthen the case and it brings together all the various research that has been done. The problem I have is whenever I read any book on AE it all sounds so convincing because you have an author presenting their case. When you hear the other side of the case, for example facts being inaccurate or transcripts put in context, things look a little different. Newcomers to the 'mystery' may find it easier to make up their own mind and differentiate TIGHAR from the other theorists if they can see the unarguable facts set against the few snags we are trying to, well, unsnag. Congrats on the forum - it is a credit to you and your organisation. It is a creation unlike anything else I've ever seen in the world and that in itself is something to be proud of. Regards, James Scott ************************************************************************** From Ric Geez... uh...thanks. We're just trying to figure out what happened to Amelia and Fred. A simple listing of evidence for and against, as you suggest, might work well. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:57:32 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: The last word on "bail out" Here is the Oxford English Dictionary's entry for Bail Out: [Usually so spelt, as if the action were that of letting a bundle through a trapdoor; but also (esp. U.S.) as bail, as if a use of bail v.4, to lade out.] intr. (Of an airman) to make an emergency descent by parachute from his machine. Hence also (rare) n. bail-out. orig. U.S. 1930 C. J. V. Murphy Parachute 272 Some say the pilot *bailed out* the moment he went into the spin. 1932 N.Y. Times 11 Apr. 3/2 He successfully bailed out of an airplane at an elevation of 1,500 feet. 1939 F. D. Tredrey Pilot*s Summer 28 If you bale out and land in water..a smart rap will release the whole lot and you can swim free. 1940 Times 15 Aug. 4/2 He baled out before his machine crashed. 1955 Sci. News Let. 8 Jan. 23 The purpose..was to explore human tolerances during a high speed bailout from jet planes. Randy Jacobson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:36:55 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Bones by the Norwich City I have inserted some comments into Ric's notes: (From Ric: And I have inserted replies to Kenton's comments) Ric wrote: >Recall that we have multiple independent anecdotal accounts of >human remains being found in the general vicinity of Norwich City (Emily and >Bauro Tikana) >by the first settlers. Kar Burns, with first-hand experience in the >environment, is of the opinion that the chances of such bones being from >victims of the Norwich City disaster some ten years earlier are virtually >nil. Is Kar saying that the chances are nil that bones from a Norwich City grave could not have been flushed to the surface by storm wash? I doubt the Norwich guys were buried very deep. O-k, that does not account for the anecdotal 10 sets of bones, but certainly some formerly buried NC bones could have been there. Or is Kar saying that say a large leg bones from a drowned (but not buried ) Norwich Sailor could not survive until 1938-39? (10 years?) ************* Ric replies: My understanding of Kar's comment is that unburied bones, say, from a drowned sailor who washed ashore after the survivors were rescued, could not survive in that environment for 10 years. To say that the bones (or at least some of the bones) Emily referred to were NC bones we have to posit that shallow graves dug by the survivors were uncovered by storm activity at some time fairly close to when the settlers arrived. ************* Ric wrote: >So if bones were, in fact, found in that area, whose were they? And >what was done with them? Emily says they were the bones that Gallagher dealt >with, but we know that is not true. Assume for a minute that 10 sets of bones were not found (10 skulls?) We need to be careful here about totally eliminating Gallaghers bones from the equation. [I realize this flies in the face of statements made on this Forum.] The bones Gallagher found could still, in the end, fit into this story/anecdote. Just because the WPHC file (4439/1940) does not indicate the final resting place of the bones does not mean they were not returned to the island when Gallagher returned to die (as the Kilts story suggests). It does not fit that the Gallagher bones would have been found by the NC (as Emily suggests) but the multiple anecdotal stories could be mixed together. ************ Ric replies: I agree that we can not eliminate Gallagher's bones (that is, the bones he found) from Emily's story. Emily herself says that she never saw the bones. If the only bones she knows about are the ones Gallagher had her father build a box for, then, by definition, they were not found where she says they were found. Tom King has suggested that there were two sets of bones and Emily has combined the memory of them. I disagree that "because the WPHC file (4439/1940) does not indicate the final resting place of the bones does not mean they were not returned to the island when Gallagher returned to die". I think that is exactly what it means. Having seen how meticulous the file was kept and knowing that the investigation continued after Gallagher left Fiji, I can not believe that the bones were returned to Gallagher's custody without a notation to the file. ************* Ric wrote: >So we have what appears to be a Gilbertese grave right smack in the area >where folklore says that the Gilbertese found bones. But the grave is also in a region known to have been inhabitated by natives (as is the shoe site grave and the grave dug in 2000). I think we need some very solid evidence before we start digging up more graves. ************** Ric repies: Like what? Aerial photos and island records do not indicate that Nutiran was ever "inhabited", as in people living there. The area was "worked" after 1949 and strips of land were alotted to island families over on the lagoon side, but not on the ocean side (according to Laxton's map). At least one islander, a toddler, did get buried on Nutiran near where the big equipment shed (at least, that's what we think it was) used to stand, and it may be that some other islander got buried out near the beach. I really, really don't like to dig up graves (as anyone who has been there when we've had to do it can attest) and we only only do it when we have what appears to be an anomalous interment that fits folklore about found bones. This seems to be just such a case. *************** Spading Summary: Any discussion of the bone's anecdotes needs to consider all the sources of bones 1) 3? guys buried from the Norwich 2) dead guys not found from the the Norwich wreck (I believe 8?) and the bones Gallagher found. ************************************************************************* Ric Summary: I'd say that we can forget dead guys not found from the ship wreck and the bones found by Gallagher. The grave on the Nutiran shore is, I think, either: 1) not a grave at all, but a property line marker 2) another anomalous islander grave 3) a reburial of a Norwich City crewman 4) the grave of Frederick Joseph Noonan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:37:53 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: Another Hawaiian broadcast? We've pretty much concentrated on KGMB, its freq and power. Note tho that KGU, another Hawaiian broadcast station was also broadcasting to Amelia. Has anyone checked facts on KGU and if there was coordination between the two stations: time of broadcasts, for how many days, content (what did they ask her to do in response)? The USCG & USN referred to KGMB which tends to put the emphasis there, but I wonder... LTM Bill Moffet #2156 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:42:13 EDT From: Robert Klaus Subject: Re: Marie The suggestion that the name Mary might be mistaken for Marie has a strong historical precedent. The disappearance of the crew of the "Mary Celeste" is one of the classic mysteries of the sea (often appearing on the same unsolved mysteries type program with AE). It has gone into the lore as the "Marie Celeste" due to an error by a reporter in copying down a spoken name. Robert ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting, but if we're suggesting that "Marie" is Fred calling out the name of his wife Mary we have to deal with the fact that her name was Mary Bea and the available evidence suggest that Fred called her either "Mary Bea" or simply "Bea", but not "Mary." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:54:46 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts >From Ric > >No proponent of the Gilbert Islands theory has, to my >knowledge, provided any specific explanation of just how in >heck Noonan could have navigated back to the Gilberts if he >had wanted to. Excuse my navigational naivete, but wouldn't heading due WEST be a good start? (That would involve keeping the sun behind them, just in case it was still morning and their compass wasn't working.) Cam Warren (always a trouble maker!) *************************************************************************** From Ric True. Heading west would be a good start for either you, or me, or AE and Fred getting to the Gilberts - but that's not the question. You're Fred Noonan (or Amelia Eahart, take your pick) and you're running on a 157/337 line of position that should intercept Howland but hasn't and now you've got only four hours of fuel left. You have no idea whether you're north or south of Howland, let alone how far north or south you might be. Just heading west in the general direction of a sprinkle of widely-scattered, tiny islands that are at the extreme limit of your projected range hoping that you'll be lucky enough to stumble upon one of them is tantamount to suicide. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:57:24 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: banishment My interpretation of why Cam Warren was threatened with banishment from the forum is apparently different from some of the others here. My understanding is he wasn't threatened with banishment because he pissed off Ric Gillespie. He wasn't threatened with banishment because he wasted our time. He wasn't threatened with banishment because has differing theories, nor because he is Cam Warren. He was threatened with banishment because he lied. Deliberately. If he has shred of decency or integrity I would expect a full and truthful explanation from him and an appropriate apology. I voted to keep Cam on the forum. But now at least I know the type of person I'm dealing with. LTM, who fears a case of the vapors at this moment! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************F From Ric Let's just drop it, okay? Not worth the bandwidth. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:00:08 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: CQD/SOS > From Ric > > 92nd or 67th depends on what you count. The higher number includes the > South Atlantic and dirigibles. There was a book entitled "The 91 Before > Lindbergh" (sorry, I don't recall the author). OK: ALLEN, PETER. THE 91 BEFORE LINDBERGH. 1984. AIRLIFE, 1st edn, 182 pp, ills, d/w, fine. Describes the conquest of the Atlantic North and South by aeroplane, airship, seaplane and flying boat prior to Lindbergh's epic flight. > AE got her pilot's license in 1923. And I was also wrong about the 5th anniversary flight. She did, indeed, fly part of the trans-Atlantic route solo on the 5th anniversary of Lindbergh's flight. Her first trip across was as a "sack of potatoes" in the Fokker seaplane. God (or the devil) is in the details. LTM, Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:01:24 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Western Electric & WE Archives Perhaps at this point it would be a good idea for someone to visit the WE archives to see if there is a WE 20 receiver and/or 13C transmitter which have been stored and may be available for inspection. Also design specs, operator's manuals, and maintenance records pertaining to the same. WE did the manufacturing for A T & T. Bell Labs was also part of A T & T and did much audio R & D in the 1930's, not just for telephone applications but for motion pictures and radio (A T & T owned coastal utility radio stations) among other things. I find it hard to believe that WE would manufacture an aircraft transmitter that put out a 5 watt second harmonic. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:45:47 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" Harmonics are created in circuitry when a sinusoid is damaged in amplification. It is expected that there be some compression (clipping) in the higher level RF circuits since staying away from the compression means losing significant power output. (Remember that power is related to the square of the voltage.) Also, even order harmonics are related to a distortion of the above center to below center symmetry and odd orders are related to the edge times and the nature of the compression. In most transmitters the output low pass filter network removes the harmonics and it also matches the output device impedance to the antenna impedance. If the antenna impedance is way off the filter performance changes. The aspect of impedance transformation is critical to the ability to get the rated power out. The shielding / cans / heating elements have essentially nothing to do with radiated harmonics. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:48:43 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: China Incident Here is a website address that provides an interesting timeline for US & Japanese relations through the spring & summer of 1937. China Incident - PRELUDE08 Address:http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/Prelude08.html Changed:4:11 PM on Friday, May 19, 2000 Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:51:56 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: "Bob" In searching for some connection to the name Bob used in Betty's notes, I came across a reference in Long's book that refers to Robert W."Bob" Iredale, who is identified as an assistant to Frank Howard, the manager of Vacuum Oil, the company that was to fuel the Electra. Long indicates on page 184 that Iredale filled the plane with 60 gallons of oil and cites the Chater report as documentation in his notes. This obviously is incorrect, as are many of his citations. However he also indicates that an interview with Iredale was conducted 11 Feb 1976. So this is probably a blending of fact, anecdote and assumption. This was the first reference to the name Bob that I could fit into the context of the notes and struck me because of its association with the fuel supply and the close time proximity to the end of the flight. Of interest: Robert W. "Bob" Iredale was Australian and became a pilot around 1941 flying Blenheim bombers out of England. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for actions in those aircraft. On 18 Feb 1944,holding the rank of Wing Commander, he lead Australian Squadron 464-flying the Mosquito -during the highly successful "Operation Jericho"-which was the RAF raid on the Gestapo's prison in Amiens, France ----(Fishman, Jack, "And The Walls Came Tumbling Down" (1982) MacMillan Publishing,N.Y.) LTM, Bill Conover #2377 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:56:09 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: TIDES > Australia has all the guilt it can handle having invented Vegemite. I'll pay that...... In the mean time, does the time and tide height in the Lambrecht photo help us at all with the timing of Betty's notes and the idea that the water may have been rising? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Not very much. We don't know if the tide in lambrcht's phot is approaching high water, at high water, or just past high water, and we can't pin down the time of the photo all that closely - and, of course we don't know what day Betty heard what she heard. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:58:32 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Ric wrote: > No proponent of the Gilbert Islands theory has, to my knowledge, provided > any specific explanation of just how in heck Noonan could have navigated back > to the Gilberts if he had wanted to. A 180deg change of previously maintained heading? The Gilberts were early enough in the flight that if they changed direction by that amount the chain should have stretched across their paths... Ah! but the winds, the winds,....... And the circling... and the flying up and down the LOP.... To turn back with any chance of success Fred had to know where he was.... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:59:38 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Re: Skeleton and taboo Ric wrote: "There was no taboo, okay? " huh, sorry Ric... I forgot to state: " That could explain by itself an hypothetical taboo". LTM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:00:51 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Transcribing Letters > From randy jacobson > > Well, let me state that I have well over 5 3" 3-ring binders > full of correspondence. I have put them in chronological order ... > covering well over 500 pages. At 10 words per minute, 300 words per page, 500 pages, two hours per day, that would take me about a half-year. The same numbers but at 80 WPM would take someone only a couple of weeks, but I guess that would depend on how hard they are to read. If someone wishes to volunteer, maybe you could release only a half-binder at a time to minimize any loss. Or, as I've seen elsewhere, scan the documents at a high resolution, stash them on a web server somewhere, and ask for transcriptions to be e-mailed to you. When someone volunteers for a batch, mark them as being worked on and upload another batch. With this method you may get several volunteers and no risk of lost documents. This idea is from . Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:03:47 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Radiograms If these are the same ones I have, one of them reads: ********* 21 tutilla 0810 29 earhart lae 41 008 76812 08201 11981 11981 60011 fanning and chrismas island unrecorded itasca ********* There are corrections in the typing of tutilla and the last digit in the first group "11981" is 1 & 2 overtyped (corrected). If Birch's telegrams (AWA Australia RADIOGRAM on red letterhead) are the same ones I have, then I believe this code is standard Met Forecast code similar to what we use today and should be easy enough to figure out. If I get an area forecast for a flight today, I'll have better abbreviations, but a year (before the new simplified system) ago I would have got something remarkably similar to that telegram. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I've gotta believe you're right. I wonder if anyone still remembers the conventions in use back then? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:08:42 EDT From: Dean A Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts It is my understanding that Putnam thought A.E. probably was somewhere in the Phoenix Islands vicinity, if she was still alive. I would assume that if anyone knew of a "plan b " he would have. I know of no evidence that he ever intimated that there was a contingency plan if she missed Howland. I would think that A.E. would have informed him if there was any sort of a contingency plan. So, unless there if much more substantive evidence I would not put much stock in a "back to the Gilberts" plan. I would also think that not much thought went into the "what if we miss Howland" scenario. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:13:00 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Radiograms Those same radiograms are also in the National Archives. They are not in some "secret" code, but are a sequence of numbers relating to weather information in a standardized form. Wind, direction, velocity, barometric pressure, amount of rain- fall, that sort of thing. Randy can probably translate them. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:37:17 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Radiograms I've been able to decode the Purdue weather radiomessages, and are now in the CD Volume. The codes were standard coding for weather reports from ships at sea. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:39:54 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Plan B: Off to the Phoenix Islands? I wondered about the claiming of Canton and Enderbury by the US gov't prior to 1937, and it really is in doubt (that is, the US claims being valid). Enderbury was colonized by the US in late 1937 or 1938 by Richard Black and company, as was Canton, primarily as part of the island grab that was going on. Even Richard Black was kept out of the loop until just before the ship sailed. The Brits, of course, started colonization of Canton a few months earlier. After this, there was much wrangling by the US and Great Britian, and eventually a Condominum was signed agreeing to joint administration of Canton. I have seen no documentation anywhere in the records (of which there is a lot about both of these islands) that deal with Earhart or any information forwarded to her or from the Division of Territories and Island Posessions of the Dept. of Interior. Now I do know that Bill Miller talked frequently with GPP and AE, but Miller was with the Bureau of Air Commerce, but he was not in contact with the DTIP after the first attempt (he was in New Zealand from March through late June). Again, nothing makes sense about the timing of either GPP or the general public being aware of Canton and Enderbury until well after AE's disappearance. The first public awareness was from the National Geographic article. *************************************************************************** From Ric Puzzling. Very puzzling. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:41:57 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: FDR Audio Tapes from within the Oval Office The FDR white house recording system existed but was definitely experimental and relatively short-lived. I'm reasonably sure it used wire recording. I doubt it was based on optical film. As I've mentioned in previous posts, magnetic tape machines were used for broadcast work in Germany starting in the late 1930s. However, practical magnetic tape technology was generally unknown and completely unavailable in the States until 1946 (and then only on a few german machines "liberated" following the war), and commercially produced machines didn't start appearing until late 1947, when Ampex produced its first 12 machines for ABC, which were essentially copies of the machines found in german radio stations in 1945. Forum readers may rest assured that there is nil possibility that a tape recorder was ever involved with any suspected Earhart post-loss transmission. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric I believe the speculation was with regard to the earliest possible date of the Vidal interview. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:44:10 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Crystals I'm not knowledgeable about radio, so maybe the Radio Rangers can explain. I think I see the arrangement in the Electra: 1. The radio receiver was tuned (manually and interactively) to specific (but poorly-indicated) frequencies over certain wavelength bands. 2. The radio transmitter had a fixed primary frequency, determined by crystals. 3. The primary transmission frequency was modified (doubled) to achieve an additional frequency to roughly optimize day/night propagation. Let me ask if this is typical of the radio technology of the time: transmission frequencies determined by crystals. If so, it seems reasonable to focus on the crystals for a moment. 1. Were these crystals for these specific frequencies rare? A. How many such crystals were available for hoaxes? B. Does this mean that there were few or many other radios capable of transmitting on 3105 and/or 6210? 2. Who would have access to these frequencies? A. I think I gathered that these are frequencies for "aircraft in transit". Does this mean that aircraft in general were authorized to use these frequencies, without specific authorization? B. Did aircraft owners generally have these crystals available for use on cross-country flights? C. Did purchase require documentation of authorization? D. Were the crystals liscensed, numbered, or tracked? 3. Would other people have routine or easy access to these frequencies? A. If these were assigned aircraft frequencies, would any pirates or mischievous hams have the means to broadcast hoaxes on these frequencies? B. Did most aircraft operators transmit and receive on the same frequency, (noting the diference between the transmitter and receiver technology) requiring that support facilities such as airports also transmit on these frequencies? C. Would ordinary ham radio operators also chat with passing airplanes on these frequencies? On the other hand was the Electra transmitter a special technology to reduce size and weight for aircraft use? A. If so, were amateur transmitters commonly tunable? Commercial transmitters? Military transmitters? B. If so, were frequencies assigned or did transmitters just stay in specified wavelength bands? In summary, did the radio technology and regulatory structure of the day significantly limit the possibility of hoax transmissions, or was opportunity for that behavior widely available? LTM John Pratt (2373) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:46:17 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" >From Janet Whitney > > If the WE 13C transmitter were a significant producer of "harmonics" it would > never have been used in aircraft service. Janet, not strictly true. It all depends how you define "is". Oops, i mean "significant". For the era 1938-50 many military aircraft were flying with radio transmitters whose 2nd harmonic was only down 15-25 dB from the fundamental. This is only a handful of watts for the second harmonic and even less for the third, however the standards today are much tighter. > The "day" frequency band was double > the "night" frequency band. Even with the less stringent radio engineering > and design of the 1930s, a transmitter with strong second, third, etc., > harmonics would not have been tolerated. --I have thought about that too. But consider that how much the harmonics got out depends on the antenna characteristics too. So even if you have a machine that generates a respectable harmonic power, if the antenna (because of its impedance at the harmonic) disfavors the harmonic, that harmonic power is reduced drastically further. So what i'm thinking is that not every plane flying was jamming out 2x, 3x, etc. etc. (Technical aside: for example, if the antenna is 1/4 wave for the fundamental, it has a low resistance, and is current- fed, but at the 2nd harmonic, it's very high resistance, and a mismatch.) > From the WE 13C schematic, it > appears that not only were the oscillator coils individually shielded, but > the entire oscillator coil / capacitor section was RF shielded from the rest > of the transmitter. The crystals appear to have been in metal "cans" that had > heating elements to keep the crystal temperature constant. --The shielding has next to nothing to do with harmonic production. Harmonic production is from the nonlinear operation of the power tubes. The wave they produce is not a sine wave. It has components of harmonic power up to many times the fundamental. Ric's quoted text about westcoast stations picking up mid-Pacific aircraft better on the third harmonic than the fundamental just about blew me out of the water. However, i regrouped today and i think i can ratioanalize-explain this to my liking. Try this: #1 The statement does not specify voice or telegraphy. I suggest planes flying those wide reaches would be likely to have CW equipment and an operator onboard. ( The old saying used to be that "CW is 10 times as effective as voice" ). It would not surprise me totally, that an overwater route, with power effective power levels of 1 to 5 watts approximately, could reach from the Pacific to the west coast USA. After all, ham low-power communication enthusiasts are doing the same thing today. But not with AM voice, rather with CW. #2 okay, even if a message from a crashed plane is heard on the west coast, that path so far is overwater, and to stations with ideal equipment and antennas. It's a much longer haul and tuffer grade, to reach to the eastern USA, and to nonprofessional receiving setups, over a path with much more attenaution. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:47:13 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Second Harmonic > From Janet Whitney > > If the second harmonic of a 3105 kc or 6210 kc signal with a power of 50 > watts were attenuated by 18 db vs. the fundamental frequency, the second > harmonic would have about 3/4 of a watt of power. We don't know, at least i don't know, the actual figure. 3 db either way makes quite a bit of difference. > If the propagation of harmonics from WE 13C transmitters on the itinerant > frequencies 3105 and 6210 was excellent, wouldn't lots of people be hearing > lots of harmonics? I don't know that we are saying propagation was automagically excellent. Maybe some are. I think it "depends". Depends on the antenna also. Also, 3/4 watt on ~18 MHz is a lot more effective, distance-getting-wise, than 3/4 watt on 6210 and 9315. [ technical aside: the "3rd harmonic scenario" in that Gov't text Ric quoted, does make sense, if the antenna on those craft over the Pacific were using 1/4 wave resonant antennas. Such an antenna is not 1/4 but 3/4 wave at the 3rd harmonic - an excellent long distance antenna. ] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:56:33 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Collecting Tide Data at Niku > From: Kenton Spading, 1382CE > > Also, again for what it is worth, I ran some experiments at Niku, > and elsewhere in the Pacific during Niku III, to test the ability of an > AM radio to pick up broadcasts. I picked up Hawaii (hello KGMB) > and other locations and countries. I even co-authored a report on > that subject. I would just add the caveat that in those days, as is apparent from the station lists, radio stations mostly ran much less power. 50 kw was the exception, and only seen in money markets. I don't know what reception sounds like from Niku today, but i would think in 1937, reception of radio on the AM broadcast band would be nonexistent except for optimum hours, i mean darkness hours. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric The pertinent question is whether KGMB could be received at Gardner and the Colorado's report of clearly receiving KGMB when it was in the immediate vicinity of Gardner answers that question. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:58:40 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Rough Landing Well, maybe maritime lawyer Chris Kennedy, who has actually seen the wreck of the Norwich City, can comment on how likely he thinks it is to be a treasure vault. The NC and Titanic are simply not comparable. Titanic has been preserved as a fairly intact hulk by virtue of being completely submerged, with little exposure to water movement, obviously no exposure to wind, and experiencing very slow oxidation. NC has been in the world's possible earthly environment for preservation, exposed to heavy weather and a cycle of submergence and emergency that accelerates oxidation; the result is that there's literally nothing left of the hull (except, presumably, portions immediately adjacent to the keel from the vicinity of the engine room forward for an indeterminate distance. Of course, the superstructure and all decks are also gone. When we were on the island in '89 the bow was still more or less intact, collapsed back so that it pointed at the sky. By '97 it was gone. There's nothing visible in place but massive engine elements. No offence, Gerry, but I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Fiji of finding anything associated with FN and AE in the debris of the Norwich City, even if anything thus associated was ever there. LTM (who says I've just guaranteed that the next time somebody walks across the NC debris field she or he will find Noonan's ID bracelet) Tom KIng ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:02:58 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radiograms I just found in my stack 2 booklets with lists of weather message stations and, apparently, the code formats. It looks like a lot of work to take the strings and break out the individual data items. If you want to give me a string or 2 and the station, or kind or originating station, i will have a crack at it, and if the information i have seems to fit the format in the data you have, i can send via paper or email, the coding system. These booklets are from - - 1937. Ah, serendipity. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric We must live right (no...that can't be it). I suggest you work directly with Birch and with The Wombat (who has jpgs via Purdue). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:06:22 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Warren and Rollin I see that Rollin Reineck nicely defended the timely evidence production of Cam Warren. On the other hand, did Col Reineck ever produce the original or copy of the inter-office memo written by Col H.H. Richards in Australia in which Earhart reportedly says she is "turning north" and then say she was "running out of gas" to Army personnel on Howland (Lt.Cooper)? LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric No, but he did tell us what it was and what it said. He did not say, "I know and you should take my word for it." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:06:34 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Important forum project So would it help if all 650 of us, who haven't already done so, go to our local library and check the newspaper archives for reports of people claiming to have heard Earhart in July 1937? Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric I would say probably not. Bill Moffet has already volunteered to handle the messages referenced on the Research CD and in the Herald Tribune. ************************************************************************** From Shirley Walter I have been taking the post-loss messages on the research CD and writing them down by Z time and local time.(local time being where whoever received them was located) Will putting these together by date and time and then trying to establish sameness be of help? Have been following this very closely and believe Betty to be genuine.(I do hope so.) LTM Shirley Walter 2299 *************************************************************************** From Ric What will be most helpful is to use the format I set out in my original posting. If you'd like to share the load with Bill Moffet you can email him at moffet@erols.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:12:38 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Aukaraime, Piles of Sand/Rubble Kenton, you and I agree that we should take another look at the surface irregularities at Aukaraime South, but it was my distinct impression that they were most probably associated with coconut planting. Remember that the site was pretty thoroughly worked over for planting purposes, some years after the Maude-Bevington visit. TKing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:15:28 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Gilberts misunderstanding Ric, I think you missed by point. If AE/FN did go to the Gilberts, why wasn't their bodies or aircraft wreckage found. Surly these islands were well scrutinized and searched all during WW II. Since nothing was found, she must have aborted "Plan B" and continued looking for Howland. The locals, soldiers, sailors from both sides must have covered these atolls many times. *************************************************************************** From Ric I did misunderstand you. Sorry. You are correct that if AE did make it back to the Gilberts it is amazing that nobody noticed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:17:15 EDT From: Marty Kpy Subject: 3 Colorado catapults Ric, Bob, Renaud, Mike, Ron, et al: Use the Yahoo search engine, type in "Uss Colorado" and you will find about 12 websites showing a plethora of photographs of the ship, the catapults and the aircraft, from 1927 until the end of WWII. There were several configurations used. The one in the late 30's utilized three catapults, which would account for the 4 minute launch time for three aircraft. LTM Marty 0724C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:50:19 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Vidal "anecdote"/ Origin of ? Patrick Gaston resurfaced the long running forum discussion,hot at times, over what is evidence,proof, standard of, etc. And some of his arguements were cogent. I don't think they will carry the day,however, for the Gilbert and Noonan story. I think Vidal's "oral history" is suspect, but for a different reason. First an apparent semantic problem. I think that Tigar uses "anecdote" with a pejorative connotation,that is an "ancedote"is "worthless" unless it directs you to something physical that could "establish a degree of accuracy" That is probably true in finding "conclusive" proof. But strickly speaking, an anecdote is a "little known, entertaining fact of history or biography". There is no negative inference to its truth or accuracy. It stands alone, take it or leave it. Ancedotes are indeed just "recollections" that should be evaluated like all evidence, the witness' credibility,time gone by,perception, motives, contemporaneous reporting, and as you point out, the vagaries of all memory recollections Tighar's position is simpy that some additional artifact,document,photograph,etc. is necessary to support the ancedote and provide some measure of accuracy. Most Tigharites can live with that. Others obviously have a different standard. There are of course lots of reasons to believe Vidal: his closeness to Amelia professionally and perhaps as a "lover", his longtime professional help in the World Flight route, preparation at Hollywood, his reputation, his rather detailed account,etc.,all tend to support his anecedote. But there are more reasons to doubt his recollection. Specifically, during the immediate post-lost search for Amelia in and around Howland, the Gilberts, and Marshalls, I have yet to see an author or reference to Vidal claiming during the initial critical hours of search that" hey guys, Amelia told me just before she left that she would head to the Gilberts if she had four hours of fuel left if she missed Howland". Vidal would have notified the Coast Guard within the first hours of her loss . As close as Vidal was to Amelia,personally and professionaly it is odd that she never told another soul-George Putnam, Clarence Williams, Jackie Cochrane,et al.,-that if she missed Howland she head to the Gilberts. No corroboration there. At the end of July 1937,Vidal did meet with Roosevelt and Undersecretary of State Welles and convinced them to do a "thorough surface search " of the Gilberts.I think he said he had "secret" or some non-disclosable source that indicated she was in the Gilberts.He didn't mention the horses mouth. Never did he say that he had a conversation with Amelia in her living room while looking at the charts and that she expressed a specific contingency plan to plot back to the Gilberts to find a "nice sandy beach" to land on. So there goes the necessary corroboration,at a minimum, to believe Eugene. And you might add, just where in the Gilberts!. I don't know about the navigational difficulties of reversing course and heading back from the vicinity of Howland to the Gilberts that makes it the worst possible choice,as you contend.Maybe you can explain. Note: A possible source of the " return to the island "ancedote of Vidal is contained in Butler's book when she describes a conversation between Gene, Gore and Amelia on the way home from an army-navy game (1936). Asked what part of the Flight she worried most about, she responded Africa. But Gene and Gore said landing in the Pacific would be more dangerous. Amelia said, "Oh there are always islands...wouldn't it be wonderful to just go off and live on a desert island." And Gore added,Amelia and Gene discusssed survival techniques on an island, including how to make a "sunstill" to get fresh water.(Any sunstills on Niku) There, in all probability, is the genesis of the fly back to the Gilbert story that began in the fall of 1936 and when Vidal is recalling "options" 10-20 years later,he "recalled" the return to paradise theory. LTM,Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Last things first. Your theory about the origin of Gene's recollection is interesting. If it dates from 1936 it certainly is not specific to the Gilberts because at that time she was planning to come at Howland from Hawaii. If she really did say, "Oh there are always islands...wouldn't it be wonderful to just go off and live on a desert island." it must rank as one of history's great ironies. About "anecdotes." Our use of the term is not pejorative but we use it in the scientific sense rather than the popular meaning of "little known, entertaining fact of history or biography." In science, "anecdotal information" means information that was not gathered as part of a contolled scientific study. For example, there is an abundance of anecdotes that attest to various individuals having psychic ability but no such ability has ever been demonstrated in a controlled study. In the particular case of historical investigation, anecdotes are vital as the starting place that may lead to the development of genuine evidence. Certainly all of the considerations you list: >the witness' credibility, time gone by, perception, motives, etc. need to be taken into account in considering whether a given anecdote may be worthy of attempts to verify it's accuracy, but the crucial and fundamental point that prevents the researcher from getting lost in a forest of folklore is that no story, no matter who tells it, can be accepted as fact purely on its own merits. As for the practical problems of the "back to the Gilberts plan" I'll try to explain them in a separate posting in a way that's easy to understamd. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:11:59 EDT From: Ric Subject: the Gilberts Gamble There are 16 islands in the archipelago know as the Gilbert Islands. They are distributed along a line that runs for about 425 nautical miles in a roughly northwest/southeast line some 500 nautical miles from Howland Island at the southeast end and 600 nm at the northwest end. The islands are not, of course, distributed evenly along that 425 mile line but are bunched in three groups - the Northern, Central, and Southern Gilberts. Each of the "bunches" is separated by about 60 miles of open ocean. Within the Northern and Central Gilberts, the individual atolls are generally less than 25 miles apart. The seven atolls of the Southern Gilberts (those closest to Howland and laying across Earhart's direct route) are more widely scattered, averaging more like 50 miles apart. Now, we're somewhere - we don't know where - along a line that runs 157/337 degrees and passes through Howland Island. We know that we should have passed over or near one of the atolls of the Southern Gilberts during the night but that's just a supposition. Even if the weather was free of clouds, it was dark, the islanders don't have electricity. Chances are we coudn't see anything down below and certianly not enough to idenfitify a particular atoll. All we know for sure is that Howland did not appear on schedule, so we must now be somewhere other than where we intended to be. We have fours of fuel left, enough to go another 520 nautical miles - maybe a bit more if we were bucking a headwind on the way out and could pick up some tailwind going back west. We decide we're going to turn back for the Gilberts. On what heading? The reciprocal of the one we followed to get here? If we're south of where we should be and we just reverse course we could easily pass south of the whole Gilberts chain. Should we head due west? Remember that the Gilberts chain angles off to the northwest. If we're north of where we should be we won't have enough gas to get there. What if we get lucky and pick a heading that takes us toward the Southern Gilberts (the only ones we can theoretically reach)? We'll have to be lucky enough to hit an island right on the nose because we'll be just about out of gas when we get there. In short, as an alternative to running on the LOP (which, after all, is what she said she was doing) heading back for the Gilberts would be incredibly stupid. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:13:57 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: A question of Oil I was looking at a copy of the Bureau of Air Commerce "Aircraft Inspection Report" for NR16020 dated 19 May 1937. I noticed an entry on the report that indicates the Electra had 4 oil tanks with a combined capacity of 80 gallons. However, in reading Charter's report he cites the chief engineer's report as stating "Oil drained from both tanks." and further indicates that "After the oil tanks were drained on June 30th the Vacuum Oil Co. report that they filled into the tanks 60 gallons of Stanavo 120 0il, and this was carried during the test flight before mentioned. " I am sure this has already been addressed and I just missed the info, but is it the Bureau report that is incorrect, or has Chater made an error in reporting? LTM. Bill Conover #2377 ************************************************************************** From Ric That issue has not been addressed and it is an apparent discrepancy. I can't explain it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:17:33 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: WQAM History I expect I'm not the first with this: (From Ric: You are the first.) From the history page on the WQAM website "WQAM Radio History (Sorry. The neat 1930s logo didn't paste. Check the website.) "The following article is from the June 1997 issue of Popular Communications Magazine. Reprinted with permission. "It Was America's Southernmost Broadcaster "WQAM - On the Move "By Alice Brannigan "In January of 1923, the Dept. of Commerce issued a broadcasting license to The Electrical Equipment Company, 42 North West 4th Street, Miami, FL. The auto and radio sales/service company was owned by W.W. Luce. His new station, WQAM, was authorized to operate with 250 watts on 833 kHz. WQAM was the southernmost broadcasting station in the U.S. "For whatever reason, within a few brief months, WQAM had cut its power back to 100 watts. In those days the government was driving stations crazy by constantly reorganizing their frequency assignments. This was the Dept. of Commerce's inept attempt at dealing with the rapidly expanding service, though regulations governing broadcasting were virtually non-existent. By early 1924, the government relocated WQAM to 1140 kHz, but by July they again ordered a move to 1000 kHz. By the end of 1924, the station had been told to shift to 1120 kHz, only to be sent back to 1140 kHz in July, 1925. By that time, WQAM was calling itself the 'Pioneer Broadcast Station of Florida." "Stations were not universally pleased with their newly mandated frequency reassignments. During this period of no radio regulation, it was a common practice for stations to ignore federal assignments and simply use their own favorite channels. In November of 1925, WQAM reportedly ``jumped" to the unauthorized frequency of 1050 kHz, using 1 kW, though still authorized for 1140 kHz with 100 watts. WQAM was still Miami's only year-round broadcaster because WIOD-WMBF shut down during the summer. "In the spring of 1927, the newly-formed Federal Radio Commission assigned WQAM to 930 kHz, permitting the station to operate with 750 watts. By November, WQAM was shifted to 780 kHz. In late 1928, WQAM was moved to 1240kHz. By early 1929, the new licensee became the Miami Broadcasting Company. They increased the power to 1 kW and moved the studios to Miami's Postal Building, 327 North East First Avenue. The Western Electric transmitter was relocated to the fifteenth floor of the Realty Board Building, 600 Biscayne Blvd. When these changes were completed, WQAM shifted its dial position to 560 kHz. "In January of 1932, WQAM's transmitter was moved to the top of the Miami Daily News Building. In 1938, it was again moved to the water's edge at Biscayne Bay and 14th Street, where a new 224-foot self-supporting Blaw-Knox vertical was installed. The station's slogan became 'The Voice of Tropical America." "In 1941, WQAM received a permit to increase its daytime power to 5 kW, and this was completed in November of 1943 with the addition of a Continental 315-B transmitter. In 1947, a new 380 foot tall Lehigh self-supported vertical radiating antenna tower was installed on a pier extending out into Biscayne Bay at 1425 North East Bayshore Ct.,just south of the Venetian Causeway's Miami terminus. ....." URL:http://www.560.simplenet.com/html/wqam_history.html Does it matter? The Westlake posting may have the key: "The statements I recall indicated that only the transmitter was modified to use 500kc's. That is all she would really need because she could broadcast her receive frequency. Frank Westlake" LTM John Pratt (2373) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:18:16 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Uncle More linguistic input: I recall seeing examples of the expression "uncle" used sometimes in the 30s and 40s as slang, as an address for an "acquaintance who is older than or senior to me". william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:20:20 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" I've long been skeptical of the idea of Amelia having been heard on some harmonic frequency -- and that's about the only way a signal could have got to the distant locations of the alleged transmissions heard. I'm unwilling to completely rule out 6210 kc but a higher frequency would be much more believable, Thinking of that, to me, strange antenna configuration, and feed point, and Joe Gurr's modification, I'm sort of having second thoughts -- well...second questions It's interesting to consider that a "frequency multiplier" (doubler, tripler, whatever) is just an RF amplifier (operating class C, of course) with the output (plate) tank circuit tuned to the desired harmonic, 2nd, 3rd, whatever. The final amplifier of the WE transmitter would produce a fair amount of power at a harmonic frequency if its output circuit/antenna had a definite resonance at that harmonic frequency. A considerable amount of power would also be expected at the fundamental frequency. Itaska was hearing her pretty well on 3105 kc. With the direct connection of the antenna to the output circuit of the transmitter, the Antenna is essentially a part of that tuned circuit. May it be that in tinkering with the top "V" antenna length, Joe Gurr created a situation in which the antenna looked pretty good to the 2nd or 3rd harmonic of one, or both, the intended transmitter frequencies? To me, that antenna seems pretty strange. If it was a straight wire, it would be sort of like an off-center-fed "Windom" antenna. Bent back on itself at that rather acute angle, and so close to the metal airplane, I don't know what it may look like electrically -- what it may look like to the final amplifier. If the transmitter was tuned up using only the antenna current ammeter, a lot of the indicated current could be at some harmonic frequency and one would not know that. This ammeter works by heating effect and doesn't care what the frequency is. Strong harmonic radiation may not have been typical of that WE transmitter, but it may have been a characteristic of this particular installation. Perhaps nobody thought to check for harmonic radiation -- no reason to expect it. The total output circuit seen by the transmitter appears so complex that I doubt it can be evaluated on a theoretical basis with much confidence. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:30:15 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Testing Plan B I don't want to sound like I'm pushing any particular hypothesis. I greatly appreciate all efforts to look into the Earhart mystery - Niku, down at sea, crashed on land somewhere else, or whatever, as long as it may reasonably contribute to ultimately solving the riddle. However, in response to Bob's post, I think it feasible from a navigational standpoint that the Gilberts could have been reached (without knowing where you are at the start), at least to a level of certainty which is as good as following a DR of 157 for 350+/- NM to Niku. I want to call attention to the general E-W alignment of the sun LOP's east of the Gilberts before and roughly at the potential ETA of the flight - somewhere in there is quite a good so called "course line" for FN. I believe that by the 2nd to 3rd hour, advancing prior LOP's en route to estimate a fix, FN would have had a pretty good idea where he was. Given the layout of the Gilberts, he probably also could have chosen a target zone considerably wider than Howland or Niku. Not trivial, but neither is finding Howland or Niku. Fuel is another issue entirely, and I won't speculate on that one. Is it worth pursuing in greater detail? Not really, this forum has a very specific and different objective, which is fair enough. However, politely turning the tables, it would be great if even the Niku hypothesis could be laid out with this kind of detail. How about in the upcoming 8th edition? Tom MM *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll leave it to the Celestial Choir to comment on your suggested navigation to the Gilberts. The Niku hypothesis has been calculated and recalculated, questioned and kibitzed, and shown to be reasonable in infinitely more detail than Bob Brandenburg has suggested somebody do for the Gilberts hypothesis. The 8th Edition, when complete, will have more than you ever wanted to know about the Niku hypothesis. The first chapters of the 8th Edition went up on the TIGHAR website this week and those who have purchased a copy have received their access information. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:48:15 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Hoaxes (was: Reception) One of the most common explanations of this phenomenon is "hysteria". (And mass hysteria) Numerous examples have been documented beside the UFO stuff. The Seattle windshield pitting in the early 60's was a classic example. Thousands of mysterious "pittings" were seen and documented-bottom line-hysteria -not real .Another Example:Walter McMenany,AE's friend, hears Amelia's morse code on 6210 with the letters L A T and later her voice and call sign six hours after she went down, but none of the three SFCoast Guard stations with much better and sensitive equipment heard a peep. Another variable in your upcoming matrix is to compare the post loss messages intercepted in the US and elsewhere is with the radio traffic of the Itasca,Swan,etc. Some researchers say there is a very close time connection between the two,but noone has so documented that theory. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Our study will include ALL indications of post-loss transmissions from Earhart as best we can identify them. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:43:08 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Vidal Collection/ Transcript Probably the last word on this subject. Assist. Archivist Carl Hallberg ,American Heritage Center, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, provided this clarification today,19 Oct 00. All of his efforts are documented. The Vidal transcript at the American Heritage Center consists of only pages 94-103. Noone knows how many pages in total. Of the nine existing pages, only pages 94-97 deal with Earhart and her last flight.Pages 97-103 are Vidal's recollections about early aviation. The interviewer is not identified but does address Vidal but Vidal never addressed the interviewer. (I'm not sure this transcript is in question and answer form). Hallberg and his assistant conclude it is not possible to document the interviewer or the date. Hallberg adds that ilt appears from the last page, that other "participants" are being quizzed.(Maybe a radio show) The last comments come from a man named "Hugh" who was on the Air Corps Procurement Board. Maybe some forumites know when the Air Corps Procurement Board was formed and who" Hugh"is (and it ain't Hugh Hefner), Cam writes that he could not find a source/doc in the Goerner collection. I don't think it is worth the effort to pursue the Vidal ancedote. Noone found poor Amelia in the Gilberts and for that matter anywhere else-so far. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:47:03 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Loch Ness Wellington I had the opportunity of visiting Brooklands some time ago. I saw the Wellington bomber there. It's a beautiful aircraft and the way it is kept shows the genious of its design and of its designer. It is eant to show all the details of its geodetic structure,the brain child of designer Barnes Wallis. Few people notice that next to the Wellington bomber is one of the special bombs also designed by Barnes Wallis to breach the M=F6hne and the Sorpe dams in Germany. The exhibit further includes the incredibly simple device Barnes Wallis invented to try out his idea of a ricocheting anti-dam bomb. All of the artefacts in the museum are genuine, none has been remanufactured. By the way, Brooklands used to be called Weybridge airfield and was home of the Vickers aircraft manufacturing company throughout WW II. The runway is still there but the airfield is closed now (they tend to close all historical airfields in the UK) and what once was famous Weybridge airfield where the first VC10 jet liner still took off in the Sixties is now simply referred to as Brooklands, the name the place had before Vickers settled there and the real estate was a still a centre of British car racing... By the way the Brits keep a second Wellington, one that is completely restored in WW II colors. It is on on exhibit at the Bomber Hall of R.A.F. Museum at Hendon, you guess it : on the site of another airfield that has been closed. LTM (who loves old airplanes) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:54:00 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Marie Robert Klaus wrote, >...the "Mary Celeste" ...has gone into the lore as the "Marie Celeste" due >to an error by a reporter in copying down a spoken name. Based on my experience of having read many 1930s and 40s era newspaper reports on microfilm in libraries, and then comparing them to later more scholarly historical accounts, this is exactly why I think the use of "Marie" in the broadcast increases the probability that it's a hoax: A bogus broadcast would have almost certainly used bits of news reports in its content, and mistakenly reporting "Marie" instead of the correct "Mary Bea" would be a typical error for a sloppy, harried news reporter of that era. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric So the sloppy hoaxer gets Fred's wife's name wrong but he knows that the Putnams have two homes and that in order for Fred to get out of the airplane without opening the cabin door he would have to climb over AE and he knows that not running the battery down would be a primary concern. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:01:03 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: transcribing letters Fronk Westlake writes: >>At 10 words per minute, 300 words per page, 500 pages, two hours per day, that would take me about a half-year. << Each binder is on the order of 500 pages...so instead of 6 months at your rate, count on 2.5 years! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:06:00 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Pre-TIGHAR, bones on Niku In regards to Mr. Marlow relating a story in the 1970's which included information about bones on Gardner (Niku) Island......Ric wrote: >The significance of this anecdote is that in the 1970s, long >before TIGHAR began its investigation and at a time when the popular notion >was that Earhart had been captured by the Japanese, there was story floating >around the islands that Earhart and Noonan's bones had been found on >Nikumaroro and that the plane was in the sea (not on land)...... Indeed, a 1970's bones story mentioning an airplane is a new and earlier take on the issue in the post post-Funafuti era (lets be careful, Emily is not the first to bring aviation into the picture). Anyway, as long we are on the subject of pre-TIGHAR bones anecdotes, lets review what Goerner had to say about it. TIGHAR has brought the Gardner/Niku bones stories out of the depths of anecdotalville.... but other researchers (to include Goerner) had been sniffing around the edges of the story since the 1960's. On May 29, 1968 Fred Goener reported the following: Tarawa Administrator informs that remains found on Gardner Island were those of a "Polynesian Male". The "planter", actually the director of the colonists, made no attempt to remove remains from the island. (word "no" underlined by Goerner) The gentlemen in question died of peritontis on Gardner and is buried in a marked grave there. There is a "women's high-heeled shoe" involved in the story some way, but it has been corrupted over the years. I will check further when I visit Tarawa in November. The phrases above that are surrounded by parens are as Goerner wrote them in his notes. As a side note Fred and/or Dorais also spoke with Kilts after the Kilts story hit the AP wire. Later, in a 1990 letter to Ric, Goerner dicusses his November 1968 investigation of the bones story (when Fred was in Tarawa). Fred interviewed a former WPHC guy named Mr. Roberts as well as some former Gardner/Niku residents. The interview revealed that there indeed was a legend regarding a Polynesian skeleton being found on Gardner/Niku along with women's high-heeled shoes. LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric Is there any reason to think that what Goerner was told was not just a corrupted version of Isaac's dismissal of the bones? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:06:55 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Another Hawaiian broadcast? KGU was a daytime/early nighttime station only, and had much less power than KGMB. I don't have my notes at hand to tell what the frequency was. The colonists on Howland and Baker listened avidly to KGMB and KSL (out of Salt Lake City) late at night. KSL was a Clear Light station at the time (probably still is!). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:09:14 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: FDR recordings Tom Van Hare has a good memory! In 1982, UPI & AP carried stories about FDR having a mic hidden in a desk lamp which recorded conversations in the Oval Office over an 11 week period in 1940. On the tapes FDR discussed such varied topics as the extra-marital affairs of Wendell Willkie & NYC mayor, Jimmie Walker & in October of 1940, was heard to exclaim: ..."This country is...ready to pull the trigger if the Japs do anything... That's the first time any damn Jap has told us to get out of Hawaii !!"... (referring to a telegram sent to Roy Howard at Scripps-Howard newspapers, by the chief of the Japanese press association, wherein said telegram proclaimed the only condition for avoiding a war was US recognition of Japan's supremacy in the East & demilitarization of Wake/Midway Islands & Pearl Harbor)... he further stated he was worried that the Japs, Germans & Italians had gone on for five/six years without once misjudging foreign opinion... "And the time may be coming when the Germans & the Japs will do some fool thing that would put us in... That's the only real danger of our getting in... is that their foot will slip"... According to the UPI & AP reports,the device had been custom made by RCA & recorded sound on a motion picture film & could be activated from a switch in FDR's desk drawer or by White House stenographer, (the late) Henry M.Kannee, who generally turned it off & on from the White House basement... the recordings were later (1947) transferred to phonographic discs & stored at the FDR Library at Hyde Park. (The device was removed in the Truman Administration.) The existence of the secret recording device was discovered by a U. of Washington historian (Robert Butow) while doing research at the FDR Library, in 1978. American Heritage Magazine published transcripts from the tapes in its Feb/Mar issue. FDR had his staff look into ways of recording conversations (years before the advent of modern tape recorders), due to his concern over being misquoted during press conferences, which in those days were always held in the Oval Office. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:17:27 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Bones by the Norwich City > Ric replies: Having seen how meticulously the file was kept and knowing that > the investigation continued after Gallagher left Fiji, I can not believe > that the bones were returned to Gallagher's custody without a notation to > the file. I agree with your assessment that IF the file was kept meticulously, THEN an entry *** WOULD HAVE BEEN *** made it in when the bones were moved. But note that you (and I) are predicting people's behavior on the basis of what "would" be likely or expected. Strange things do happen. The evidence shows that the filing system broke down. There is no final entry on the disposition of the bones, but the box and the bones are gone. What we don't know is when the breakdown in the meticulous filing system took place (while Gallagher was alive, during WWII, or during post-war upheavals). LTM. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric The WPHC filing sytem certainly never "broke down" but continued efficiently right up until the shut down of the Western Pacific High Commission. The file on the bones was certainly active and being meticulously updated well past Gallagher's departure from Suva. The most probable reason for the absence of a final entry about disposal of the bones is that, at the time the WPHC shut down in the 1970s, there had been no activity on the matter since 1941 and no official disposition of the bones. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:24:40 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts > From Dean A 2056 > > It is my understanding that Putnam thought A.E. probably was somewhere in the > Phoenix Islands vicinity, if she was still alive. From what source? > I would assume that if > anyone knew of a "plan b " he would have. I know of no evidence that he ever > intimated that there was a contingency plan if she missed Howland. I would > think that A.E. would have informed him if there was any sort of a > contingency plan. I don't recall this being discussed, but what did GP do when she went missing? What did he say? What did he suggest? What was his emotional state? Can we learn anything from his actions at that time? I agree with Dean: if anyone knew, he could be expected to know. But from what I've read so far, it seems that no one was aware of any contingency plans of any sort. It would appear that was AE doing that adolescent-immortality thing: pretending nothing could go wrong. > So, unless there if much more substantive evidence I would > not put much stock in a "back to the Gilberts" plan. I would also think that > not much thought went into the "what if we miss Howland" scenario. When the flight was re-created, and when it's been second-guessed, what did other aviators plan when they face that particular stretch of Pacific with that sort of performance in their aircraft? LTN (who carries band-aids all the time) Mike Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric In the interst of getting more postings posted I'll let somebody else look up the sources, but they are abundant. GP and Mantz were both adamant, even after the Navy had given up, that AE had probably made it to one of the islands in the Phoenix Group. That's the reason Mantz was pressing Mrs. Roosevelt to let him get his hands on Thompson's report - which in turn prompted the Morgenthau conversation that has been so ridiculously distorted. Mary Lovell's book "The Sound Of Wings" does an excellent job documenting GPs anguish over the loss of his wife and his subsequent efforts to get somebody to look for her in the Phoenix islands. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:28:53 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Rough Landing To: Tom King, No offence taken at all Tom. The essence of debate is to reach some sort of common ground and hopefully answering questions put forward in such debate. First, my reference to the Titanic was not a direct comparison Titanic/Norwich City. The reference to the Titanic was in regards to items that exist in or around a wreck site for many, many years. I have already alluded to the fact that finding anything would be a daunting task, I do not subscribe however to "there is a better chance for a snowball in Fiji" point of view. I have heard such statements before and wreck findings have sided with the snowball in the end. There is no bigger "snowball" scenario than the Earhart disappearance in general ... yet an open mind and willingness to explore all logical possiblities must exist in order to reach a conclussion. The bottom line is that checking the NC for "evidence" not "snowballs" would be a daunting task, as I have agreed to that 3 different times. However, there is more CHANCE for evidentual proof and reasoning behind the possibility that AE/FN had an association with the NC than other site designations offered for time allocation in earlier posts, Thus, I still stand on my vote ... garve near NC ... NC itself ... other site designations. This is one man's opinion. Regards Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:32:16 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Plan "B" re: "The Gilberts as cluster that could easily be blundered into".....THAT could be a very possible answer...Earhart/Noonan just blundered into Niku. And, flying over the ocean on a clear day, how far can you see? Judy ************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps you could familarize yourself with the hypothesis that is the basis for this forum. It's on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:35:07 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Vidal transcript Ric??? why can't we have it both ways, she landed on Gardner, struggled for awhile, he lost his sextant and she, her shoe parts and benedictine bottle....then the Japanese picked them up for interrogation and a search of the plane for films or notes....like any prudent military would? Judy ************************************************************************* From Ric I suspect a hoax. McGee? Is this really you? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:36:48 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Crystals My understanding is that radio transmitters for amateurs could be of variable frequency, depending upon capacitors, coils, etc. However, their frequency stability was quite variable, and only the crystal controlled versions of transmitters had good stability, thus reliability for tuning purposes. *************************************************************************** From Ric I understand that crystals are also good for channeling. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:40:18 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Evidence Lacking I've seen no evidence that the WE 13C aircraft transmitter was NOT well-designed and well constructed. I've seen no evidence that the WE 13C was a source of "harmonics." I 've seen no evidence that 3105 kc and 6210 kc were NOT widely used by aircraft and ground stations in 1937. I've seen no evidence that the Pan Am radio techs in Miami didn't know what they were doing. Similarly, I've seen NO evidence that Fred Noonan suffered head injuries during the Electra's crash. (Didn't Jacqueline Cochran Odlum have a psychic vision about that which she reported to George Putnam and which George Putnam reported to the Coast Guard?) What's going on here? It seems that your modus operandi is to repeat something (seemingly almost anything) over and over until you believe it. But that doesn't make it real, true, or valid. *************************************************************************** From Ric Can someone please help Janet? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:50:22 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: banishment Ric, why is heading West looking for a sprinkling of islands when you cannot locate Howland and you only have 4 hours of fuel left tatamount to suicide? To continue on over long empty water spaces with four hours of fuel and no land on the map is tatamount to suicide. Some land is better than no land. Judy *************************************************************************** From Ric Judy, you're wasting everyone's time. Go read the material on the website. Let me know off-forum if there's something that you don't understand and I'll try to make it clearer it for you, but until you have a better handle on what we're doing here please just be quiet. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:51:56 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: KGU HONOLULU/Broadcasts Bill Moffet queried what did KGU Honolulu broadcast during the post loss crisis. A review of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin from 2-19 July disclosed only a few reports. According to one release,whose date I can't make out, KGU made repeated broadcasts telling Earhart that the Itasca was searching for the plane and that she should shoot flares at nite. A second broadcast,apparently on 2 July, the station broadcast that Earhart had been found after hearing the Achilles report. The station expressed regret. I will check frequency and power. The newspaper reports that KGMB was coordinating broadcast signals with the Itasca so listeners wouldn't get confused. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:58:05 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: TIDES > From Ric > > Not very much. We don't know if the tide in Lambrecht's phot is approaching > high water, at high water, or just past high water, and we can't pin down the > time of the photo all that closely - and, of course we don't know what day > Betty heard what she heard. Low Tide to High Tide about 6 hours (12 hours high to high). If you can get the time of the photo within an hour or two using.. Time planes launched? Time planes retrieved? (Failing that endurance of planes?) Then find: Weather conditions on the day (If it wasn't blowing a gale, then it was very near high tide) It should give a pretty tight window on time photo was taken. High tide should be within an hour either side of the photo time. If we can nail the photo time within an hour it might give about a 3 hour window to compare with "Betty's' notebook. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, but it's not really 6 hours. It's more like 5 hours and 50 minutes or sometimes 5 hours and 45 minutes, and the transmissions Betty heard could have occurred on any day between July 3rd and July 8th. With that kind of slop it doesn't take long before you can be 6 hours out of whack which makes all the difference in the world. In other words, it's not possible to constrain the variables enough to yield a meaningful answer. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:00:39 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Collecting Tide Data at Niku Ric wrote: > The pertinent question is whether KGMB could be received at Gardner and the > Colorado's report of clearly receiving KGMB when it was in the immediate > vicinity of Gardner answers that question. I think we worked out that Gallagher was listening to radio on Gardner only a few years later.... Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Gallagher had his own personal receiver on Gardner. We have no way of knowing if he heard anything on it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:04:19 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts The more I read this alternative plan stuff, the more it bothers me. All the contemporary literature I've seen says Amelia's only worry was missing Howland "a tiny speck in the ocean" or similar stuff. There had to be a backup plan. Looking at the pictures as she flew around the world, she was always laughing and smiling right up to and including Java. In fact it appears that at Java she and Fred were happier than at any other point in the trip (check the body language in the photos). They were almost in each other's pockets in the Bandoeng pictures. By the time they were photographed in Darwin they looked a little more concerned (Amelia could be seen frowning more often). Fred was a navigator. It was his profession. I don't believe Amelia would have had much to say about the backup plan except as a chance remark ("I'll head back to the Gilberts if I can't find Howland"). If I am setting off today on a flight in Australia I will plan for an alternate destination just in case I can't land where I want to. If I was setting off from Lae to Howland I'm very sure I would plan the same thing! It is the navigator who gets an aeroplane across thousands of miles of ocean - not the pilot (unless the pilot is also a very good navigator - remember Amelia had already missed a large country once!). It is the navigator that plans the details of how and where and when. I think we're looking at the wrong person for details of an alternate. Who would FRED have told? Did he have any close confidantes? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, his wife, and he wrote several letters to her during the trip, most of which have never been seen by any researcher and are being tightly held by his wife's family. Drives me nuts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:05:22 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: FDR Audio Tapes from within the Oval Office Ric wrote, >I believe the speculation was with regard to the earliest possible date of >the Vidal interview. Oops, I must have missed the originating post. The earliest possible date for an interview on magnetic tape in the US would be 1946, however the circumstances make this unlikely, since there were only 2 or 3 working tape recorders in the US (captured german machines). The big radio networks acquired large tape machines from Ampex during the late 1947 through mid 1948 period. Somewhat smaller machines began slowly appearing at local radio stations in 1949. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:29:20 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Rollin's Web For Ron Bright That letter between a Colonel and Lt. General, both Army intelligence concerning "turning north" can be found in my article in the June issue of Air Classics and is also on my web page ameliaearhart.org ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:30:41 EDT From: Pete Subject: Progress and Problems Thanks to Lab Mid-Term tonight, I had some extra time in the Library at school. Progress: (aka "the good news") Volume 7, Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, has schematics for an antenna tuner, a transceiver, and a power dipole antenna. The shematics for the transceiver could be altered enough for just transmit capability, and at the 50 watt output power. The tuner will let me use any antenna type. Problems: (aka "the bad news") 7th edition-sixth printing (1991), Reference Data for Engineers Radio, Electronics, Computer, and Communications ISBN 0-672-21563-2 lists the freq band of 3025 to 3155 Khz as reserved for Aeronautical Mobile use. The 6200 to 6525 Khz band is listed for Maritime Mobile. Tolerences for 1605-4000 Khz is stated as 100 parts, with parts in 10 to the sixth power for less than 200 watts. 4000 Khz-29.7 Mhz tolerance under 500 watts is 50 parts. Tolerances were supposed to get tighter on transmitters after Jan '90. Their source: Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunications Union, Geneva 1982, Appendix 7 I'll sit down with a copy of the transceiver schmatics later with one of the Instructor's at school, and see what components I can eliminate. Still want to test both those freqs, right? I'll leave the antennas alone until I hear back from the Choir. Theory Mid-Term tomorrow, maybe I'll get more time with those circuit books. If I get the opportunity this weekend, I'll get into the main library downtown and hunt microfilm records of July 1937 for other intercepts. Jacksonville is far from St. Pete. Anyone in Pensacola? TC Pete (who'd rather have a radio-controlled blimp with TV camera search NC) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:32:19 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: KGMB reception I have a question regarding the whole KGMB/Gardner thing. You wrote: > The pertinent question is whether KGMB could be received at Gardner and the > Colorado's report of clearly receiving KGMB when it was in the immediate > vicinity of Gardner answers that question. The first part is certainly fair enough. Have we, however, determined that the AE's plane's receiving ability was comparable to that of the battleship? It the plane's antenna were less capable, merely because the Colorado heard KGMB would not necessarily mean that AE/FN could do so. Michael Lowrey *************************************************************************** From Ric I invite any of the Radio Rangers to comment on this. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:33:12 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: An apology Yesterday on this forum I called Cam Warren a liar. I was wrong and I should not have done that. I apologize to Cam and the forum for my unacceptable behavior. LTM Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:35:25 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: banishment "If you're somehow referring to the Vidal affair, most all the negative responses from TIGHAR folk were the result of not reading my postings very carefully" Perhaps I didn't read your postings "very carefully" so I was left with the distinct impression that you had contemporary evidence of AE's Plan B. The gist and tenor of your postings led many to assume -- wrongly, obviously -- that contemporary evidence existed of a Plan B. When the facts were presented later my impression was that your postings were deliberately misleading. I probably jumped to an incorrect conclusion. Nonetheless, I still feel I was misled regarding the information you had. The whole matter could have been avoided if you had told the forum as soon as you knew it, that the data was from a transcript of a 1960-era interview of Vidal. I apologize for my remarks and look forward to your future participation on the forum. Dennis McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric To save Cam the trouble, I'll point out that we do not know that the transcript dates from the 1960s. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:40:49 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Titanic/AE > However interesting the foundering of Titanic in 1912 is, the AE > disappearance in 1937 is a completely different matter. Only superficially. > There is a world of a difference between the sinking of an ocean > liner after hitting an iceberg in 1912 and the disappearance of the > AE in a Lockheed Electra after failing to find Howland > Island on a world flight in 1937. If you mean the physical characteristics of the disaster, of course. However, the reason we come back to Titanic on this group, and occasionally AE on the Titanic group, is that they're illustrative of each other. Because... > The Titanic disaster is fully documented "Extensively" would be a better word. "Fully" implies all the facts are known, and they'aren't. These two disasters are illustrative of each other because they show the issues related to historical research into "well known" events and especially the dangers of taking the word of experts and eye-witnesses to events too seriously. I'd say Titanic is a better example because we have far more witnesses, experts and records AND the ship has been found, allowing us to put at least some of the testimony and hearsay of these people up against some of the actual facts. When we consider the error rate on such a well documented and witnessed disaster, it should give us pause when we work the Earhart disaster. > and I suggest that anyone interested in it reads "The Titanic Disaster > Hearings" by Tom Kuntz; published in 1998 and prefaced by James > Cameron (Pocket Books). The book contains the complete transcript > of the 1912 US Senate hearings and contains all the answers to questions > asked in this forum on Titanic, CQD and SOS. Good book (I've got it), but it's abridged or, as Mr. Kuntz himself says "edited." And Mr. Cameron is on record as saying he's a movie maker, not an historian and those of us who are deeply into the disaster heartily agree. Everyone knew where Titanic sank, but it took a long time to find her, and she isn't where she's "supposed" to be. Everyone knew she sank intact, but she didn't, and it turns out, if you research it, that we really should have suspected that years ago. THEN it turns out that some people DID suspect it years ago. Heck, there's STILL some debate about whether it broke up at the surface or not. This one data point could be the subject of entire books on experts vs. witnesses vs. who was where, what could they see, what couldn't they see and on and on. No, I disagree. Titanic is very relevant to the disappearance of A.E. in that it gives us hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of how to conduct research carefully. - Bill *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll agree with both of you. The modern investigation of the Titanic disaster, especially because the ship has been found, holds valuable lessons for any historical researcher. As a "mystery", however, Earhart wins hands down. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:41:46 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Norwich I don't mean to be contrary about all this, but I think it's a collosal waste of time to devote serious effort to searching the remains of the Norwich City. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:43:13 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones by the Norwich City >Ric Summary: I'd say that we can forget dead guys not found from the ship >wreck and the bones found by Gallagher. The grave on the Nutiran shore is, I >think, either: >1) not a grave at all, but a property line marker >2) another anomalous islander grave >3) a reburial of a Norwich City crewman >4) the grave of Frederick Joseph Noonan I agree, except that 3) could be either an original '29 burial or a later reburial. Either way, I think the grave (at least) is worth excavating if it's permitted by the Kiribati government. There also may be other things worth close inspection/excavation in the vegetation line back of the Nutiran beach. This area (but not the shattered remains of the NC itself) is worth a lot closer study. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:44:58 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts You realize, of course, that what we're now doing is speculating about what Noonan "would have" done. Probably a fruitless exercise. TK ************************************************************************ From Ric A classic example of an untestable hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:47:05 EDT From: Paul Clark Subject: Re: Japanese Mandates A Marine named Pete Ellis was dispatched or volunteered for a highly sensitive mission into the Japanese mandated islands in the early 20s. I believe one of his goals was to determine the extend of Japanese fortification and preparedness. Further he assisted in producing a war plan, I believe "Orange" that anticipated the type of war the US would need to prepare for in order to defeat Japan. His findings helped guide the Marine Corps/Navy to initiate the early training of amphibious warfare throughout the 30s that later came in handy in the early 40s. He died mysteriously while in the Pacific. Speculation ranges from some sort of Japanese assassination to alcoholism. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:51:53 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Forgotten and unexpected wrecks Maybe someone did, and was too busy or too distracted to make much of a point of it at the time. An idea: is there, buried in some obscure report from a Coast Watcher or from a submarine-launched reconn of a potential invasion target, a mention of finding a crashed Lockheed? There's no way to know, of course, unless someone happens to mention it to spomeone who knows TIGHAR, but ... Betty appeared. No, I have no idea how to track this one any further. Except, perhaps, to place a note in those lists of WW2 reunions. Mike Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric Patrick Gaston wants us to send a team to the Gilberts in search of anecdotes. Well, as a matter of fact, three of us will be going to the Gilberts (now the Republic of Kiribati) in February to do archival research and collect anecdotes. We'll keep an ear out for stories that might support Plan B. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:53:27 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: sun stills Actually, what interested me most about this positing was the reference to a "sunstill" for gathering fresh water. Could the sender of the posting discuss this in greater detail? I once used to watch a British television show for kids called "Blue Peter", in which a simple device for obtaining fresh water from saltwater was put together. Basically, what you did was collect some salt water in a pan or something similar, and then rig a small, transparent plastic-like cover slightly above the pan and put the whole thing in the sun. As the sun evaporated the water, the salt was left in the pan, and the (now fresh) water collected on the underside of the covering and you drained this off and drank it. Pretty interesting, actually, and I am wondering if this "sunstill" is the same basic thing. Something like this may have been able to put together from things at hand once the Electra landed on Gardner (although the covering may have been a problem--perhaps some plexiglas from an Electra window!?!), and, if the account is true, if Earhart knew about sunstills, generally, it may greatly have prolonged the ability to survive. To date, we have been relying upon rainwater and well-digging to generate fresh water, but I have never forgotten this contraption I saw on t.v. as a possible alternative. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:57:57 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Vidal "anecdote"/ Origin of ? Tom King and I are writing an article about a search for AE on a ficticious island in August, 1937. The search starts from this meeting between Vidal, FDR, Summer Wells (State Dept.) and Marvin McIntyre. Apparently, GPP hears of this reef to the ENE of Tarawa, and says Capt. Hundley knows of it. After a couple of weeks, Hundley does go, but funds absolutely nothing. BTW, I like your interpretation of the Vidal story, and why it was not expressed early on in the search! It makes sense to me that the story is apocryphal. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:00:06 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Gilbert Islands? In the context of the Gilbert scenario, I think the belief that AE had "planned" to head there is unfounded. AE seemed to have an extraordinary amount of courage, as is evidenced by her various flights. But she strikes me as one who had "reckless bravery" and thus a level of confidence that the circumstances just did not warrant.I believe this may have been caused by her having walked away from numerous crashes with no serious injury and with having never had a major problem on one of her flights that put a serious stress level on her.She always "made it" or "got through". In a word, she was lucky. I don't see her as having formally worked out any type of "plan B" for the Pacific crossing. If that mind set had been in operation I do think she would have also had other alternates planned for the prior legs of her flight. A nav error of a few degrees or a socked-in airstrip can be just as much of a problem when you are crossing desert or jungle as can missing an island. You may be on land if you come down, but you can still be just as lost and in just as much trouble. AE seemed to be the type that simply "winged it". If a problem arose she figured out what to do at that time. Sort of like a "don't sweat the small stuff" outlook. It would not surprise me if her comment to Vidal--if he recalled it correctly--went something like: GV: Amelia, I am really concerned about the Pacific leg to Howland. What if you can't find the island? AE: Oh don't worry, if I can't I'll just turn back and head for the Gilberts. I do have a 4 hour fuel reserve you know. or something like that. Probably more of a "blow off" answer to reassure a friend than a well formulated back-up plan. Niku makes sense to me because it fits with a last minute emergency plan. Baring fuel exhaustion that caused a water landing or FN losing his cool, lighting up a smoke and blowing the plane to Mars, I can see a realistic navigational decision being made to follow the lop south to find somewhere to land. The odds are with you in that case. Doing a 180 from an unknown point and heading off into the expanses of the Pacific hoping to find the Gilberts seems like too much of a long shot for even AE to take. LTM, Bill Conover #2377 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:04:01 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: A question of Oil >>That issue has not been addressed and it is an apparent discrepancy. I can't explain it.<< Sixty Imperial Gallons = about 72 US Gallons. *************************************************************************** From Ric Chater doesn't specify in this instance, so it could have been Imperial gallons, but why not top off if the capacity was 80? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:04:42 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: 3 Colorado catapults For Marty, Thanks, Marty. I checked out the websites that were posted within the past few days, and the photos there clearly tell the story. But the Colorado's deck log really settled the issue early on. LTM, who says always trust the deck log. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:07:11 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: WQAM History > From John Pratt > The Westlake posting may have the key: > "The statements I recall indicated that only the transmitter was > modified to use 500kc's. That is all she would really need because she > could broadcast her receive frequency. I wouldn't put much faith in my recollection. I only recall the letter saying something about her ability to send code on 500kc's, which would be a transmitter modification and not a receiver modification. But from what I gather from this forum, the transmitter was crystal controlled, which means there would've been only a few channels available. I know two of the slots were filled with 3105 and 6210 but I haven't been paying enough attention to remember how many there were and what the remaining slots were filled with. And try as I might, I can't see the relationship of WQAM's antenna's power levels, and frequencies to Earhart's radio. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Just three frequencies/crystals - 3105, 6210, and 500. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:14:38 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Hoaxes (was: Reception) Do I understand that your post-loss matrix will include, say in right columns, transmissions from the Itasca,other ships,KGMB,KGU, that might well correspond to the content/time of Earhart's alleged transmissions ?. From some obsure sources, do you have Arthur Monsees (SF),Charles Miguel (Oakland),Ray Mahoney (Cincinnati) and Ray Havens (Great Falls) ? All amateurs. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeeeouch! Including all the transmissions made during the search would be a huge load. Let's worry about the reception of alleged post-loss signals first and then see if there are particular times of activity that are worth trying to explain. Those names are not familiar to me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:16:04 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Testing Plan B For Tom MM: Sorry, Tom, but > I think it feasible from a navigational > standpoint that the Gilberts could have been reached (without knowing where > you are at the start), at least to a level of certainty which is as good as > following a DR of 157 for 350+/- NM to Niku. The rules of the proposed test require a detailed proof of feasibility, i.e., the actual navigational procedures and expected results. The rules are stated for a good reason - - supposition and intuition almost always lead to the wrong answer in situations like this. > I want to call attention to > the general E-W alignment of the sun LOP's east of the Gilberts before and > roughly at the potential ETA of the flight - somewhere in there is quite a > good so called "course line" for FN. The LOP's were not generally oriented E-W. Recall that the LOP through Howland was oriented 337-157. As the sun moved eastward, the LOP would tilt somewhat further to the west, but not nearly enough to provide a course line. Consider also that not just any course line would work, even if FN could get one. he needed a course line to a known island, but that required knowing where he was to begin with. > I believe that by the 2nd to 3rd > hour, advancing prior LOP's en route to estimate a fix, FN would have had a > pretty good idea where he was. Given the layout of the Gilberts, he > probably also could have chosen a target zone considerably wider than > Howland or Niku. "I believe" and "probably also could" don't get a passing grade on the test . The test rules require proving that it could be done. LTM, who is a tough grader. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:18:05 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: the Gilberts Gamble >From Ric > >In short, as an alternative to running on the LOP (which, after all, is what >she said she was doing) heading back for the Gilberts would be incredibly >stupid. Ric: Wouldn't you characterize flying 3/4 around the world and not confirming that you had an operating direction finder and knew how to use it as INCREDIBLY STUPID? LTM, Who has done some incredibly stupid things, too! Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Somehow I don't think that "Amelia Earhart was incredibly stupid." is a testable hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:20:25 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" For Greg: There is NO low pass filter in this transmitter. No harmonic filtering of ANY kind. Nada. Nil. Zip. As we say in the trade: "this thing could possibly put out power from DC to light." Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:21:28 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Marie Ric wrote, >So the sloppy hoaxer gets Fred's wife's [pronunciation] name wrong but >he knows that the Putnams have two homes and that in order for Fred to >get out of the airplane without opening the cabin door he would have to >climb over AE and he knows that not running the battery down would be a >primary concern. You think that's strange? Let me tell you a story about a British civil servant posted in the central Pacific named Gerald Gallagher... william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:32:56 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Ric wrote: "You're Fred Noonan (or Amelia Eahart, take your pick) and you're running on a 157/337 line of position that should intercept Howland but hasn't and now you've got only four hours of fuel left. You have no idea whether you're north or south of Howland, let alone how far north or south you might be. Just heading west in the general direction of a sprinkle of widely-scattered, tiny islands that are at the extreme limit of your projected range hoping that you'll be lucky enough to stumble upon one of them is tantamount to suicide." Let's add to that scenario. Although your line of position >should< have intercepted Howland, it didn't. So your dead-reckoning estimate of the Electra's progress also was off. You have a line of position, but that line must fall either east or west of Howland. If you are 50 miles "long", i.e., east of Howland, continuing on a 157 heading takes you into the Phoenix Group. You might hit McKean, but you will pass well to the east of Gardner. If you're 50 miles "short", you also will miss Gardner and fly into oblivion. Nothing in the opposite direction (337 degrees) but open water. You know next to nothing about the Phoenix Islands and you can't be sure anyone will even think of looking for you there (remember, you don't know if anyone heard your "157/337" broadcast. There seems to be something wrong with the radio....) On the other hand, stretched out behind you on >both sides< of your intended flight path are the Gilberts, which are more numerous and no more widely scattered than the Phoenix Group. They are inhabited and under resident British administration, greatly enhancing your chances of rescue if you can reach them. It's a long shot, but with four hours of fuel remaining and a slight tailwind you just might make it. So you put the Electra into a 180 and head west, maybe even a little south of west You may not be able to make Tarawa, but Beru, Nikunau and Arorae are within the realm of possibility. And once you get out of these damn clouds, Fred may be able to get his bearings again. Doesn't sound particularly suicidal to me, even without a preconceived Plan B. I admit it's strange that GP never mentioned a "Plan B," but he might have bought into the "low on fuel" transmissions allegedly heard by Itasca and figured there was no way she could have made the Gilberts. Also there were some post-loss intercepts that, if memory serves, pointed toward the Phoenix Group. GP seems to have been genuinely frantic and you can't blame him for grasping at whatever straws were out there. Certainly the Phoenix Group was closer; for that matter, McKean was even closer than Gardner. If Fred had charts, and if he believed his LOP ran through Howland, and if the sole consideration was finding the closest landfall, then wouldn't it have made sense to alter course slightly toward McKean (and beyond that, Orona) rather than continue doggedly following an LOP to the southwesternmost island of the group? Ah, well, we can speculate endlessly -- that's what makes it so much fun. LTM Pat Gaston P.S. I find it difficult to handle Kar Burns' observation that unburied human bones from the Norwich City disaster would not last 10 years in the Niku environment, as you have found a collection of fragile bird bones that certainly have been around for 10 years and may even date to the Gallagher era. *************************************************************************** From Ric Last things first. Photos of the bird bones shown by Kar to an expert in such things (there are experts for EVERYTHING) indicate that the scatter and appearance is typical of a dead bird that has been scavenged by coconut crabs. The bones probably weren't very old at all when we saw them in 1996. Also, the environment at the 7 Site where the bird bones were found is sheltered and quiet while the Nutiran shoreline is the most-pummeled part of the whole island. You have some basic misconceptions about the LOP. Just because they didn't see Howland doesn't mean that Fred's LOP did not intersect Howland. In fact, AE's message that they were running on the line is an excllent indicator that Fred believed that the line DID intersect Howland (otherwise, why chase it?). Accurately placing the LOP on the map was the one thing Fred could do with considerable accuracy - within 10 miles. What he couldn't know was how far north or south of Howland they were. The one thing - the ONLY thing - he can do that will virtually guarantee landfall of some kind is to run southeast on the LOP. What makes you think that heading back west will get you out of "these damn clouds"? There's a scattered deck at about 2,500 feet (like there is just about every day out there). Heading west is not going to change that. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:36:01 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: A question of Oil I'm not sure Chater is the last word on fuel/oil replacement, but I don't recall what Iredale (the Stanavo rep) said. However, 60 imperial gallons = 72 US gallons. And maybe AE didn't think she really needed 80 gallons to get to Howland, where there was more on hand to "top off" as required. (Weight saving, you know!) Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Chater may not be the last word, but he's the last word we have so far. Whatever Iredale recalled years later does not trump Chater's comtemporaneous letter. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:37:51 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Evidence Lacking Janet Whitney wrote, >I've seen no evidence that the WE 13C aircraft transmitter was NOT >well-designed and well constructed ...was >a source of "harmonics." ...that 3105 kc and 6210 kc were >NOT widely used by aircraft and ground stations ...I've seen no >evidence that the Pan Am radio techs in Miami didn't know what they were >doing. Well designed, operating-to-spec 1930s era transmitters threw off all sorts of harmonics (especially octaves) and artifacts. These were normal and variable characteristics: Antenna applications weren't uniform and spurious harmonics do vary with antenna configuration. >Similarly, I've seen NO evidence that Fred Noonan suffered head injuries >during the Electra's crash... Clearly there is no direct evidence that Fred suffered a head injury. What has led you to believe that anyone has claimed that there is? There is no evidence that the Electra "crashed" anywhere per se. There is circumstantial evidence that, if AE and FN landed on Gardner (however hard or soft the hypothesized landing), AE survived longer than FN. Head injuries to FN are not required in the Niku hypothesis. >It seems that your modus operandi is to repeat >something (seemingly almost anything) over and over until you believe it. >But that doesn't make it real, true, or valid. I think you're mistaking repetition of technical material in the pursuit of evaluation and elimination for some sort of conviction or conclusion. My own opinion is that Betty heard someone claiming to be Earhart, but it probably wasn't Earhart. I also know that my opinion has zero impact on the true identity of the person Betty heard that summer afternoon in 1937. This leaves me open to further evidence or a convincing analysis that could cause me to change my mind. LTM (who was known to repeat herself) wwg ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:50:06 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Norwich Tom King wrote... >I don't mean to be contrary about all this, but I think it's a collosal >waste of time to devote serious effort to searching the remains of the Norwich >City. It is my understanding that today the NC is a dangerous, open nest of heavy, twisted, oxidized and collapsed metal that has been steadily churning and dissolving for the better part of a century. A very cautious and minimally invasive survey of the NC debris field, looking specifically for aluminum, makes sense. A detailed search of the wreck for small artifacts by such a remotely and expensively placed crew seems to me to be a recipe for frustration and potentially disastrous medical emergency. wwg 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:48:12 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" Joe Gurr was probably not the radio "wizard" AE thought him to be, and his well-intended antenna improvements somewhat bizarre, but presumably that was all rectified at Miami by the Pan Am techs. "Optimizing" the antenna would be more than an amateur fiddle. Appropriate test equipment would be used, such as (most likely) a Standing-Wave Ratio meter, with which transmitter and antenna were precisely adjusted for maximum output on the desired frequency. Definitely the result would minimize, even totally eliminate, any effective harmonic radiation. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric You're guessing. You have no idea what Pan Am did. Pan Am technicians fiddled with her radios. That much is mentioned in newspaper accounts. It's reasonable to assume that they tried to correct the damage that Gurr had done. It's also obvious from the photos that they did not change the screwed up antenna length. You don't seem to realize that everytime you make one of your pronouncements about what somebody would or wouldn't have done more and more people learn to pay no attention to them. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:51:47 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Gilberts misunderstanding For Rick Seapin: The "Plan B" theory is that AE headed for the Gilberts. Few people think she actually made it. Ric is correct -- the chances were extremely slim, probably slimmer than our (always optimistic) heroine wanted to admit. It's also true that if any wreckage eventually washed ashore, it would likely have been indistinguishable from WW2 aircraft wreckage. It may have been "noticed", just not recognized for what it was. This is exactly what TIGHAR speculates may have happened with the NZ survey crew on Niku. I do not think it would be pointless to spend a few days nosing around on the easternmost Gilberts with a tape recorder and an interpreter, seeking anecdotal accounts of pre-war aircraft wreckage. I admit the chances are not good of finding anyone alive today who might be able to clearly distinguish between the pre-war and war eras. Still, TIGHAR found Emily .... LTM Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:52:56 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Fred's letters Did I understand you correctly when you said Fred's letters to his wife are in the custody of her relatives? And that they will not show any of these letters to a legitimate researcher? Good grief, what is their problem? *************************************************************************** From Ric Beats the hell out of me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:55:04 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Bones by the Norwich City Also, consider as possibilities for the Nutiran grave: 1.A pre-Captain Cook Polynesian. No old artifacts were found on Gardner/Niku, but how hard did anyone look? There are pre-contact Polynesian remnants on Fanning, and on at least one other of the Phoenix islands. 2.Some early 1800's whaler, who was buried ashore rather than at sea. 3.A non-survivor from the John Arundle planting era (1890's) 4.A victim of foul play, buried after the settlement was abandoned by some passing yachtie (OK, this one is far-fetched, but there was a famous murder on Palmyra). LTM (who loves murder mysteries) Daniel Postellon Tighar ?# ************************************************************************* From Ric Guess we'll just have to dig the sucker up. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:56:31 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" Mike E. wrote; >There is NO low pass filter in this transmitter. No harmonic filtering of >ANY kind. Nada. Nil. Zip. > >As we say in the trade: "this thing could possibly put out power from DC to >light." The intent of my note was to draw attention to the output stage and the coupling to the antenna as the key items involved in harmonic suppression. Janet had talked about shielded cables and such and had stated that the radio had low harmonic output for these reasons. Her logic did not make sense. I have a copy of the book with the schematic in it. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:03:12 EDT From: Lapham Subject: Online source for Navy ships/Colorado etc. Ric: I know the question has been answered on the "Great Colorado Catapult Contrversy" but i thought you and the other posters and lurkers might benefit from a online US Navy site.WWW.navsource.org/Archives.Lots of good info on US Navy ships,pics,specs,dates of refits with major mods listed. Regards,Lou,the sometimes lurker,Lapham ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:12:39 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: More on Radios Interesting idea, brought up in Frank Westlake's posting, that maybe the only component of the AE radio setup modified for 500 KHz was the transmitter. Normally, I'd dismiss this out of hand... here's why: The 500 KHz frequency was not only a distress channel, but also a "calling frequency." Steamship companies maintained communications with certain coastal stations and these actually were conducted on "working" frequencies like 418 or 425 KHz. However, the ships all were required to guard 500. So, to establish initial communication, a common "calling" freq was essential ("I'll call you on 500, then we'll move off to 425" etc) and 500 was the logical choice. There was LOTS of traffic on 500, at all times. "Silent periods" were, however, required to be observed... about every 15 minutes, for at least 3 to 5 minutes. During those periods, operators were required to listen for transmissions from ships (or aircraft) in distress. Of course, a distress message could come at any time. If one was heard, everybody on the freq was required to QRT (cease transmitting) at once! Except for the station in distress, and whoever was in direct QSO (contact) with him. Now, it stands to reason that one would want to be able to hear answers to distress calls, does it not? Because that's likely where you're going to get your answers... same frequency! And you need to hear what is going on, on the freq, before you transmit. If you key up on 500 while coastal station KLC is giving out a traffic list that takes 5 minutes to send, no one's going to hear you over KLC, especially with that rig in the plane and its puny signal on 500. Most of the time, emergencies do not occur during the silent period. That is too convenient. And many ships did not carry HF transmitters, let alone with 3105/6210 installed (though AE may not have appreciated this). The commercial HF maritime bands were in the region of 4.5, 8.5 and 12 MHz. I would at first think her receiver HAD to have been modified for 500... she had to have a way to listen... makes perfect sense. But something else sort of bothers me about that scenario. The WE-20 series receivers were NOT designed to copy CW, because they did not include a BFO (beat frequency oscillator) which is absolutely essential for doing this. Morgan lists a "CW Oscillator Adaptor" which was an option for the 20 sets... but we have no direct proof that AE had one. Yet it seems logical that she would have. If she was not planning to copy CW, though, there was no real need for the receiver to hear 500... this was a CW-only frequency... so maybe it is possible that the tuning range of this receiver was not modified.... BUT....!!! I DOUBT IT. I hold that it was indeed modified to tune 500... however this was accomplished. And I believe the way it was done, was by changing the range on Band 2, just like Morgan says.... So if the thing did not tune above 1200 KHz, she could not hear KGMB on the WE-20B receiver. That is it. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Holy Guacamole. Mike, this is supposition stacked on supposition. You're saying that you don't think that Earhart could have heard KGMB because it seems reasonable to you that her receiver would have been modified to receive 500 Kcs and that that would have been done in such a way as to remove her capability to receive 1320 Kcs. If Cam Warren said something like that we'd hang him from the yard arm (again). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:00:48 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Hoaxes Please don't forget the database of radio transmissions to/from the Itasca and Earhart from July 1 through July 7, courtesy of yours truly. During many segments, the Itasca transmissions are minute by minute notations. That part of the work has already been done, including all amateur reports (also in the radio message database, with digital flags for "possible AE transmissions". ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes, your list is the main tool we have for assembling the data, filling in with other accounts from other sources (newspapers, anecdotal, etc.). I'm hesitant to try to include all of the transmissions to and from Itasca, at least on the first go 'round. Let's see what the receptions look like and then we can try to explain them. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:15:04 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Fred's Plan B? Th' Wombat woke me up with this one. From what I've read about the way AE did business, it wouldn't come as a surprise if she didn't have a "plan B" at all. Fred, the professional, on the other hand, may well have had one all along (and didn't mention it to AE because she never asked). OK, Mary Bea's family won't let us see the letters Fred wrote to discover if he mentioned a real plan B, but don't you think if he had mentioned it in a letter to his wife that she would have told somebody at the time? And maybe she did? We know why the Navy went to look in the Phoenix Islands (same reason as TIGHAR), do we know why George Putnam thought the Phoenix Islands a good place to look? I can envision GP and MB consoling each other over their missing spouses, and MB says "you know Mr. Putnam, Fred told me in his last letter that if they missed Howland.........." Do we know what Mary Bea was doing and where she was and who she might have talked to? If I have missed this piece of the puzzle, forgive me. LTM (to whom my father always deferred the tough questions) Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Ric GP did spend time with Mary Bea during the search. Paul Mantz was also right there and they all spent a lot of time at Coast Guard HQ in San Francisco. Had Mary Bea mentioned such a letter/plan it seems odd that we wouldn't know about it. Let's remember that the happy coincidence of the LOP running from Howland to Gardner was just that - a coincidence dependent entirely upon the flight taking place within a fairly narrow window of dates. Had the World Flight been on schedule, the sunrise LOP for the Lae/Howland leg would not have also provided a highway to Gardner Island. Fred could not have formulated that specific Plan B until AFTER the unscheduled maintenance delay at Bandoeng. Whether he wrote any letters home from Darwin, or Lae is unknown. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:23:41 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Titanic/AE Ric wrote: > I'll agree with both of you. The modern investigation of the Titanic > disaster, especially because the ship has been found, holds valuable lessons > for any historical researcher. As a "mystery", however, Earhart wins hands > down. Ah, now that LAST item I agree totally with. In a way, it'll be a bit sad to see it resolved. I recall when Titanic was found a lot of us had a "Oh, wow!" followed by an "Oh, gee" feeling about it. - Bill ************************************************************************** From Ric But nobody said, "Ah baloney! That's not the Titanic!" or "Ballard put it there!" I don't think we have to worry much about ending the controversy even if we solve the mystery. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:33:17 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: A question of Oil Chater probably used 60 Imperial gallons (72 US Gallions). The 80 gallons would be US gallons. That leaves 2 US gallons per tank unaccounted for. Obviously I'm assuming Chater AND the chief engineer were working for the British/Australian branches of the company. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Chater, of course, was working for Guinea Airways. The Stanavo guy was working for the Australian/British part of the company. ************************************************************************* From Jim Harvey Maybe to save about 120 lbs assuming: 1 - a reasonable 6lbs per gallon weight, and 2 - the extra 20 gallons of oil were not critical. Jim Harvey ************************************************************************** From Ric Gasoline weighs about 6 lbs per gallon. Oil is a lot heavier. I like the Imperial gallon explanation better. I can see leaving room for the oil to expand when it warms up but I can't see shorting yourself 20 gallons. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:34:50 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts And Noonan also wrote to Helen regularly.... (I know that's a fact coz it's in Butler's book).. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Who's Helen? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:36:17 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Tighar Matrix/Post Loss intercepts Maybe just Itasca's broadcasts should be included during the post-loss time of 2-8 July. I recall that Thompson unofficially correlated many of the more "valid" post-loss messages with Itasca's calls to KHAQQ, stay on 3105,etc. Just a suggestion. It may explain away most, and something that has never been done. But I know time and expense may limit this matrix composition, which I think is as good of idea I 've seen since your annual Niku BBQ invitation. LTM,Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:37:19 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Evidence Lacking Ric asked: > Can someone please help Janet? Nope. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:38:29 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Tom: The feasibility proof opportunity I offered to the proponents of the Gilberts hypothesis addresses the question of what Noonan "could have" done, as distinct from what he "would have done". The feasibility hypothesis is eminently testable. It is only necessary to answer the questions I posed. Care to guess why no one has taken up the opportunity? Q.E.D. Bob # 2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:05:48 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: A question of Oil I do not pretend to be an expert but I do have some experience with engines. All engines, whether they are aero engines or car engines, hold a certain amount of lubrication oil. However, the manufacturer willl recommend the amount of oil needed for normal operation. That amount is lower than the total amount the carter can hold. In fact, the manufacturers will tell you never to fill the carter to its maximum level, but to the level indicated on the gauge. I rmemember clearly that whatever airplane I flew in the past, instructions were always NEVER TO EXCEED THE RECOMMENDED OIL LEVEL. Therefore I understand that although the Electra's engines could hold 80 gallons, it was probably good practice never to put more than 60 gallons in them. However, as engines are known to use oil over time, the Electra's engines may have needed more than the 60 gallons normally fed to them. I don't know how this was done. How did Lindbergh solve the problem ? I seem to remember that he had an additional oil tank from where he could feed his engine from time to time. I suppose AE treated het P&W's likewise. This could explain why 60 gallons were fed into them for the check flight. What about the amount of oil taken on board for the real long haul Pacific crossing ? How did she feed the engines en route ? What's the information on this ? Herman *************************************************************************** From Ric - The common or garden variety Lockheed 10E came with a total oil capacity of 17 U.S. gallons. - Ms. Earhart's machine was delivered with a total capacity of 74 gallons divided among 4 tanks thusly - 2 nacelle tanks at 9 gals each; 2 wing tanks at 28 gals. each. - The November 1936 inspection report says the airplane carries 66 gallons of oil in 2 tanks of 33 gallons each. - A servicing form prepared for the first WF attempt and dated March 3, 1937 shows the airplane as having a total oil capacity of 76 gallons in 2 nacelle tanks of 38 gallons each. - The inspection report for May 19, 1937 (when the airplane came out of the repair shop) shows 80 gallons in 4 tanks but does not specify the location or capacity of each tank. Go figure. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:11:29 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Uncle Who am I to venture to express an opinion on American slang ? With a "Dictionary of American Slang" on one hand and knowledge of five European languages on the other hand, I'd like to say that the expression "uncle" exists in some form in other languages as well to address a person colloqually, normally older than oneself. The expression "nonkel" (almost the same word as in English !) is used in Flemish slang (spoken in Belgium, where many people come from who live in the Detroit area). Italians tend to address any unknown person respectfully as "commendatore", an honorary title just as fictituous as "uncle". And Germans will address anyone over 40 respectfully as "Herr Doctor", even if he doesn't hold an academic degree. I am therefore willing to accept the fact that the word "uncle" could have be used in American vernacular in the Thirties in an other way than the one described in my "Dictionary of American Slang" (Harold Wentworth and Stuart Berg Flexner, Thomas E.Crowell Editions, 1976), which says that the word "uncle" means : 1. a pawnbroker; 2. a receiver of stolen goods; 3. any elderly male negro (in use since before the Civil War); 4. a Federal Law enforcement agent, especially a narcotics agent (underworld and narcotics use). OK fellows, tell me to mind my own business. Can any real American please tell me how outdated my dictionary is ? LTM (who must be fluent in American English) ************************************************************************** From Ric In Scotland, "nonkel", "commendatore", and "Herr Doktor" all translate as "Jimmy." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:19:28 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Searching for Howland The logic of why Earhart would use the LOP to find an alternative landing site to Howland other than the Gilberts also could logically be used to argue why she would use the LOP to continue efforts to find Howland rather than the other Phoenix islands on the LOP. Here goes: The fact that Earhart said "must be on you but cannot see you" indicates to me that she thought she should be in visual range of Howland. Also, the fact that at Howland there is a landing strip, fuel and a support vessel provide powerful incentives for sticking around trying to locate it using the LOP, rather than flying to more distant islands using the LOP. This being so, my thought is that, at some point, Earhart must've thought she was within range of these other islands, but not within range of Howland. Otherwise, if she had faith in using the "fly the LOP" approach this logically (together with a consideration of the incentives mentioned) would argue for continuing to try and locate Howland. It would appear to me to be the case that Earhart thought she must be north of Howland when she turned on the LOP. But how far? She thinks not far. So, she then heads south, expecting to find it, but doesn't. Actually, she was south of Howland to begin with, and by turning south was heading away from it. By the time she realizes her error, she thinks she is so far south that she is beyond range of Howland, and so continues to the other islands that she thinks she is in range of. What do you think? *************************************************************************** From Ric Exactly. It is a common misconception that when AE decides to run down the LOP she is abandoning the search for Howland and heading for an alternate destination. Not so. As you say, it's only much later that she (or rather, Noonan) figures out that they must have been way south to begin with and now they doesn't have enough fuel to get back up north to Howland. ( Don't you hate it when that happens?) Gotta go for the Phoenix group. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:31:07 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: More on Radios You ARE beginning to sound hysterical! And by your own admission, radio is obviously not an area of your expertise. (Nor physics!) Firstly, your putting down the Pan Am radio techs is on a par with your insistence the Colorado pilots were inept. (I think you owe both groups an apology.) Earhart's WE communication system was modified to send/receive 500 kc for a very good and valid reason, as Mike has pointed out. Compromises had to be made, and the loss of a small portion of the upper broadcast band was one of them. Certainly a BFO would be part of the modification. That's pure and simple. And on the subject of antennas, they are adapted to the needs of the TRANSMITTER within the physical requirements. Example; the use of a loading coil if the wire length cannot be precisely matched to the transmitter. the COIL, does nothing for actual radiation, but makes the transmitter SEE a proper antenna length, i.e., resonant circuit. Resonance, if you've forgotten your physics, provides for the maximum transfer of power. (You want to shatter a champagne glass with a high note? You tune your fiddle to the RESONANT FREQUENCY of the glass. OK?) Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall calling either the Colorado pilots or the Pan Am technicians inept. Both groups were operating under considerable handicaps and, I'm sure, did the best job they could. Do I understand you correctly that your insistence that Earhart's receiver was modified to receive 500 Kcs, that a BFO was installed, and that Pan Am technicians were able to correct Gurr's altering of the antenna length by use of a loading coil is not documented anywhere and we should should just take your word for it? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:34:49 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: solar still At first, I doubted the story about AE being told about using a solar still for survival on an atoll. I was able to locate a reference to solar stills being developed in the 1860's and 70's, and used in Algeria. (A Golden Thread, Ken Butti and John Perlin, Cheshire Books, Palo Alto, California 1980). I doubt that she would have had one on the Electra, and it would have been difficult to rig one up on the spot from available materials. You can actually boil water in a "hot box", which is basically an insulated box with a glass lid, then run the steam through a distillation coil, if you want to try it on the next expedition. I think that the simpler boy scout type of solar still was mentioned on the forum a while back. You dig a hole in damp sand,or pour salt water in the hole, cover it with a polythylene sheet, put a rock in the middle of the sheet to bend it down, and put a cup inside the hole and below the sheet to collect the fresh water that collects on the (inside) surface of the plastic. Unfortunately: "polyethylene sheet film ... was developed in Britain in 1938" (The Glass House, John Hix, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974, page 66). Too late to be of any use to AE. I don't know if any other clear plastic sheets were available earlier, maybe cellophane? You might try a simpler medieval alchemist trick called a dew collector. This is basically a pile of rocks (usually white and non-porous) in a collecting basin. If the rocks are cooler than the dew point, dew drips off the rocks and into the basin. White rocks placed around a tree can act in the same way as a limited source of water for a tree or other plant. This might work better in a climate like Scotland rather than Nikumaroro. Recent temps on Kanton were high 86F (30C) low 78F (26C), with a dewpoint of 75F (24C). No dew there. I also suspect that it works better with a long night, when the rocks have a chance to cool off. Nights are approximately the same length all year long in the tropics. If you really want to try a modern dew collector, try http://www2.lib.chalmers.se/cth/diss/doc/9394/NilssonTorbjorn.html for a doctor's thesis. He claims 1.19 liters per square meter of collector in a semi-desert in Tanzania during a drought! Daniel Postellon Tighar#? LTM (who prefers mountain dew) *************************************************************************** From Ric Nonporous rocks are in short supply on Niku. Nothing but coral. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:35:45 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Fred's letters AMEN brother. . . .amen!!!! But I'm still trying!!!!! Will make another attempt next week. I'm all fired up again. . . . Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:37:37 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Another Hawaiian broadcast? > From Randy Jacobson > > KGU was a daytime/early nighttime station only, and had > much less power than KGMB. Per the DOC list 1935, the power was 1 kw on 940, KGMB was 500 watts on 1320. By 1939, per the FCC list, KGU was 2.5 kw on 750, and KGMB was still on 1320, but 1 kw. So the power levels are not that out of line: it was the restricted hours that ruled out KGU as the message station. ( I am assuming your docs show that KGU's freq. change occurred before mid 1937. KGU in 1935 was not restricted hours.) Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric I thought we had established that KGMB was 1 kw in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:39:35 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: Fred's Letters I can understand a family wanting to keep correspondence between a man and his wife confidential, especially if these letters were of a romantic nature. However, I'm sure you have been in contact with them and asked the family if the letters mentioned anything about the WORKING RELATIONSHIP between Amelia and Fred. Also, I presumed you asked if they may be pertinent information in the letters that might shed light on an alternative plan if they missed Howland, etc. Can you illuminate on your conversations/contacts with the in laws? *************************************************************************** From Ric Don Jordan has been in the trenches on this one. I'll let him comment to the degree he feels comfortable. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:42:48 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Plan "B" & Vidal To all those who feel I somehow abused your "rights" - The sequence of events follows: 1) In 1997, following mention of Plan "B" by Goerner and Gordon Vaeth, and curious about what might be in the U. of Wyoming Vidal Collection (as were numerous other authors and/or researchers), I obtained a copy of the multi-paged inventory, and found little of interest involving Earhart, certainly nothing about the Gilberts alternate. (A couple of years of correspondence were missing.) 2) Recently on the Forum someone raised the question about the alleged quote in Doris Rich's AE biography. Rich cited "Box 19" in the Collection. That was unsuccessfully checked out by Ron Bright and Laurie McLaughlin, prompting Ric to suggest Goerner and Rich were making things up. 3) I contacted Rich, seeking further information. At the time, she wasn't sure what was in her notes, then not in her immediate possession. After further prompting, she was able to locate them and promised to send copies of same. 4) Appended to a message to the Forum about some other matter, I mentioned that was satisifed Rich indeed was speaking the truth re the Gilberts alternative. I did tease Ric by saying he should notify his new expedition sponsor. I apologize for failing to add a "smiley face". (At this point, I did NOT know exactly what Vidal had said). 5) Received Rich's notes, and saw they referred to an "oral history". Aha! Maybe we should be looking for a TAPE, instead of a document. U pulled out my copy of the Collection inventory, and read through it all, continuing beyond the bulk of the Earhart material. On the penultimate page, there WAS a reference to "INTERVIEW" and Vidal discussing Earhart. Faintly inscribed in pencil in the margin was a note "Box 40". I immediately called the University and gave them the new reference. The next day I received a call describing the item as a partial transcription. They sent a photo copy of the 3 pertinent pages. I told Ric (who is a stickler for "first hand" evidence!) where he could obtain a copy for his files. Note; my intent was to support Rich's citation, NOT claim that Earhart did fly to the Gilberts, as I am perfectly aware that no wreckage or other evidence turned up there in subsequent searches in 1937 and later. And (except for Item 1 above) this entire business happened in the last few weeks - I was NOT sitting on the information for months or years, as some of you have charged. Of course, those of you who merely skimmed through the Forum, concentrating only on Ric's "snappy comebacks", entirely missed the point, and accused me of various crimes against nature and even lying. There's a lesson here for would-be researchers - I'd strongly suggest to the skimmers to make hard copies of those messages of interest to you and don't act entirely on the basis of what you thought you read (or heard). And heed the slander laws! Let's hope this will end the "Banishment" thread. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:45:57 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Evidence Lacking > From Janet Whitney > > I've seen no evidence that the WE 13C aircraft transmitter was NOT > well-designed and well constructed. I've seen no evidence that the WE 13C was > a source of "harmonics." I 've seen no evidence that 3105 kc and 6210 kc were > NOT widely used by aircraft and ground stations in 1937. I've seen no > evidence that the Pan Am radio techs in Miami didn't know what they were > doing. Janet, i've seen no evidence that you studied the WE13 schematic and undersood it,nor compared the output network to, say, radio equipment of just a few years later, the 1940s. I see no evidence anyone said the WE equipment was poorly designed, or built in some hobbyist's garage. I see no evidence anyone said 3105, 6210 were not used, however i also see no evidence you've even heard of the Berne Lists of Aero stations for those years, and checked the frequency lists to see if there were maybe many other frequencies in use. Okay. I know everyone doesn't have access to a lot of reference material. Here are some quotes that may be of interest on these issues: (Principles of Aeronautical Radio Engineering, Sandretto, 1942) Re the actual power output on 3105, supporting Cam Warren, pg 199: ".....if the this value [ coil figure of merit, and a generous estimate ] is assumed and the values of reactance and resistance are obtained....for the 3 mc. frequency, an efficiency of only 53% is calculated......This means that if a transmitter is rated to have an output of 100 watts into a quarter wave antenna, it will put only 53 watts into an aircraft antenna having characteristics depicted [ DC-3 antenna, which is MORE favorable in this regard than the Lockheed 10E's setup! The 10E's antenna was LESS than 1/4 wave on 3105, so this discussion applies! ].....As has been stated,a transmitter with the performance just described would be very well designed." Re the very basic output circuit of the WE13, pg. 200: "Because of the problems just discussed [i.e. loading short reactive antennae ] it is necessary that every effort be made to keep the output circuit free from extaneous resistance. As a reslult, the common aircraft transmitter output circuit presents a simple configuration. This configuration, almost universally used, is shown on Fig. 176 [ schematic identical to the WE13 ciruit ] Re the WE13's somewhat behind the times limited channel capacity, pg. 289: "Eary transmitters were designed with two-frequency operation as the requirement, however later practices in air transport modified this requirement....one of the first methods [ of changing channels ] was the use of switches. This method was also used in the WE 13-type which was marketed in 1933....it can be seen that the necessary leads to required to select 10 frequencies with this method would make the system impractical..." Now this re harmonic radiation, from "Marine Radio-Telephone Manual", Radio Laboratories Inc., Seattle 1944. Par. 10-10: "One of the simplest types of antenna coupling employs only a tapped power output coil.....This circuit is one of the oldest used and has the ability to produce fair amount of antenna power on quite a wide range of antennas......This circuit is employed in both aircraft and marine equipment and is quite simple in practice and adjustment. Due to the close coupling... it does produce a large possible component of harmonics on the antenna proper. For this reason it hs been replaced in modern practice of marine equipment with methods having some characteristics of reducing harmonics." Harmonics normally wouldn't bug everyone everyday. It's when they mix with, compete with, desired signals that are already weak copy, that there's a potential for trouble. Ric's quote from gov't sources about harmonics from planes transiting the Pacific verifies that harmonics do get out. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:48:38 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" > From Cam Warren > Appropriate test equipment would be used, such as > (most likely) a Standing-Wave Ratio meter, with which transmitter > and antenna were precisely adjusted for maximum output on the > desired frequency. Mike and possibly others will support me in this: in 1937, no airfield technician had even heard of an SWR meter. You are thinking of coax-fed antennas and this was not standard in aircraft til decades later. The transmitters were tuned by more basic methods: transmitter tube current draw, and RF current into the antenna. > Definitely the result would minimize, even > totally eliminate, any effective harmonic radiation. Cam, oh Cam, you do not want to be saying this. This does not make you look good at all. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:52:06 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: FDR Recordings For Don Neumann: The info you reported regarding FDR's recording is very interesting. You mention lots of dates for articles, research, etc. (1978, 1982, Feb/Mar. what year?), American Heritage Magazine? "Transcripts from the tapes ", etc. As you indicated, this was before the advent of magnetic tape recording. Does Amer. Heritage, Feb/Mar. 2000, have all of the story you reported? LTM, Bob Perry #2021 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:54:52 EDT From: Vern Subject: Skipping in from the Pacific >1939: KGU 750 2.5 kw, hours limited to protect (!) WJR Detroit 50kw (!) And we're questioning signals skipping it to Florida and other places on 3105 kc, or 6210 kc, or some harmonic thereof? LTM (who says, keep in mind that was the doing of a government agency.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:03:19 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: More on Radios > From Ric > > Holy Guacamole. Mike, this is supposition stacked on supposition. You're > saying that you don't think that Earhart could have heard KGMB because it > seems reasonable to you that her receiver would have been modified to > receive 500 Kcs and that that would have been done in such a way as to remove > her capability to recieve 1320 Kcs. If Cam Warren said somethig like that > we'd hang hm from the yard arm (again). > Uh.....haven't we pretty much established that AE couldn't copy morse code anyway? [So why alter her rcver so that sho could copy the 500kc CW freq?] Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric My comment turned out to be prophetic. Cam did say that, and some other things, and is now twisting slowly in the wind. In Mike's defense, I will point out that the speculative change to enable the receiver to get 500 Kcs would have been done at a time when it was anticipated that Harry Manning, who did know morse, would be aboard. However, there is still no evidence that it happened. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:05:52 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Uncle As long as we are tossing ideas out, how about this: Page one of Betty's notes. "Uncle" "Oh, Oh" (crying now) maybe it's this (Oh my)" ANKLE" "Oh, Ow," (crying now) Bracing her feet against the rudder pedals, AE could have sustained an injury the same time FN either bounced his head off of the control column, or rebounded and cracked the back of his head against the cockpit bulkhead resulting in a concussion. Marty0724C *************************************************************************** From Ric You're good at this. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:06:58 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: More on Radios Mike, are you sure that ships were not able to send A2 mode, "tone telegraphy", receivable on *any* radio? I have some texts and transmitter manuals, pre-war. I'll have to take a look and see how common that was. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:14:00 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Vidal meeting with FDR Ron Bright writes: "At the end of July 1937, Vidal did meet with Roosevelt and Undersecretary of State Welles and convinced them to do a 'thorough surface search' of the Gilberts. I think he said he had 'secret' or some non-disclosable source that indicated she was in the Gilberts. He didn't mention the horses mouth...." Holy cow, Ron! In late July 1937 Vidal is urging FDR to conduct a thorough search of the Gilberts, and you think this tends to >discredit< Plan B? Guess I beg to differ. As to why Vidal didn't mention the source of this information, your guess is as good as mine but here are a couple of reasons that come immediately to mind. (1) He didn't want to look stupid. ("Vidal, you mean AE herself said she planned to head back to the Gilberts and you're only telling us NOW?!?!") (2) He didn't want to embarrass GP by revealing that AE had confided something to him that she had not even confided, for whatever reason, to her husband. Okay, I admit No. 2 is pretty thin, but we >are< in the realm of speculation here. I would be interested in your source for the Vidal/FDR/Welles meeting. In any event, Ric's statement that a three-person team will be heading for Kiribati in February to do archival research and keep their ears open for any surviving anecdotes is good enough for me (as long as he doesn't send me the bill). If I seem to champion the "back to the Gilberts theory" it's only because I believe it's just plausible enough not to be dismissed out of hand. In our biz, I would say the Vidal transcript and his comments to FDR are enough to get Plan B past a 12(b)(6) motion. Whether it can withstand summary judgment is another question. BTW your research is top-notch and your posts consistently enlightening, which is more than I can say for the efforts of yrs truly. Keep up the great work. LTM Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:36:16 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: QRD or QRT? Something in Mike E's last posting struck me as possibly being related to Betty's notes. Mike E wrote: "Of course, a distress message could come at any time. If one was heard, everybody on the freq was required to QRT (cease transmitting) at once! " On page 57(html) of the notes, the second line reads: "3q rd 36" Perhaps Betty misunderstood and it was really QRT. D sure sounds a lot like T. LTM, Bill Conover #2377 *************************************************************************** From Ric But I wonder how likely it is that she would be familar with that expression. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:43:29 EDT From: Ric Subject: Betty's mom I asked Betty about where her mother was during all this. Here is her response. "I was home alone until Dad got home from work and heard the last part of her cries for help. He did run next door to see if Russ could get it in his short wave then right back. I found out later Russ coudn't get it in his although he had the same kind of set but hardly any aerial." (Her father then went to notify the Coast Guard.) "My Mom was in town with my sister and got home before Dad got back from the Coast Guard. She came in and I was still at the radio to see if any more would come on from Amelia. I told her what had happened and she was so excited, she called Jean in (my sister) who had stayed out to play. Then Russ and Virgie Rodes came over, then Dad got home upset at the Coast Guard because of the way they wouldn't listen to him,and do something for AE. " Betty's parents, of course, are both dead, as are the neighbors. Her sister Jean died a couple of years ago. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:47:30 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Apples and Oranges I read the radio pages in Eighth Edition. Many of the expert assertions about Earhart's radios can be challenged. In general, there is a big difference between the way multiband ham HF transmitters are tuned and the way Earhart's two channel day / night HF transmitter was tuned. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I will believe the radio techs at Pan Am knew what they were doing. Harmonics? Humbug! Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:34:19 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: A question of Oil Oil weighs a bit less than 7.5 pounds per gallon. The Lockheed fueling diagram for AE's plane (which shows fuel tank capacities totalling 1151 gallons) gives oil capacity as 76 gallons, rather than the 80 shown on the Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report. Lockheed's proposals on the airplane indicated an oil capacity of 75 gallons. *************************************************************************** From Ric So whom do you suggest we believe? The 80 gallon figure is the most contemporary to the last flight and follows repairs that made many changes to the airplane. ************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt In what appear to be Earhart's "planning notes" there are regular references to the supplies expected at various airfields, usually somewhere around 500gals fuel and 20 gals oil. i.e.: Para: Gals gas 600, Gals Oil 20 Caripeto or Quiri-Quere: Gals gas 400, Gals Oil 20 Fortaleza: Gals Gas 500, Gals Oil 20 At Dakar however, the note is: Gals gas 1000, Gals Oil 70 change oil, Service man in charge at field - Pajarola or Ravier. Landing strips O.K. Quinn is a Pratt & Whitney man. Correspondent: Nnumber sixteen, M. Doulliet, Paris Soir correspondent, Dakar. Guess what the note for LAE says... LAE: Gals Gas 700, Gals Oil 70 change oil. (Along with a note to telegraph the Commonwealth Authorities to notify time of arrival and a reminder get a fumigation certificate for the plane and the usual correspondent details) It would appear that 70 gallons was available at each of the stops where a oil change was being performed. 70 Gals US is a little over 58 gallons imp. So for whatever reason, 70 US gallons was considered to be the amount required for an oil change. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric That's good information. Chater confirms that an oil change was done and, as we've noted, says that 60 gallons (U.S. or Imp.?) were put in. Seems a fairly safe bet that he meant Imperial gallons which would be 72 U.S. gallons. So whatever the total capacity was it would seem that room was left for expansion. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:40:02 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Testing Plan B 1. No, this was not a submission for the Great Plan B Prize (Is it something like the Longitude Prize?). 2. For what it is worth, I don't agree with your claim that the sun LOP will not rotate toward a more E-W alignment as the hours pass during a hypothetical flight to the Gilbert's. 3. Here is a more important issue. I'm sure it looks much different when viewed from the stacks of data at TIGHAR central, but out here in in cyberland it appeared to me that Bob was asking for something at a far higher standard than anything presently available on the Niku proposal. In a year or so on the forum and as an irregular website visitor, I have never seen anything that I could get my hands on that was more than a fairly brief explanation of the problem of getting to Niku. It may have been there, but I sure missed it. 4. I'm vaguely aware of the impending 8th Edition, and from your description it sounds like it has a lot of material of interest. What is the publication schedule? Contents? Sounds like some parts will be out before others? What is the media? If you are taking orders, it might be worth another announcement in case anyone besides me missed it. TOM MM *************************************************************************** From Ric You'll find a full explanation of what the 8th Edition is, the media and method by which it is being published, a table of contents, and how to purchase one at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/8thed_indexnol.html [subsequent note: all materials formerly in the 8th Edition of the Earhart Project Book can be found on the TIGHAR website at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Research.html Most of the articles are in the Technical Papers section.] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:41:42 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: QRD/QRT Hypothosis--She, Betty, would probably not know what it meant. AE was or FN was transmitting QRT, Betty "heard" and wrote QR"D" instead. Had Betty known or recognized the call or signal, she would have interpreted correctly and wrote QRT. Its the principal of the chinese telephone game. Start a message at one end of a line of people and listen to what comes out at the end of the line. Each person "hears" and interprets the message differently based upon their perceptions and knowledge. *************************************************************************** From Ric My question is how likely would it be that Earhart or Noonan was familiar with the term? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:46:12 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Uncle/ankle It is my understanding that one the the methods used by USAF search teams in Vietnam, when examining post loss aircraft scenes to determine whether the pilot was aboard at the time of the crash was to examine his boots. Apparently the bodies reaction to the impending crash is to brace against the rudder pedals. The resulting force of the collision drives the legs into the boots and "blows" out the sides. Thus locating boots with ripped out sides is treated as evidence that the pilot was in the aircraft and a more extensive search for remains is made. Along the same lines, severe ankle injuries, sprains or even a break, could well be the result of a hard water landing. *************************************************************************** From Ric But no radio signals would follow a water landing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:49:43 EDT From: S Saddoris Subject: Re: Uncle Marty 0724C wrote: << Bracing her feet against the rudder pedals, AE could have sustained an injury the same time FN either bounced his head off of the control column, or rebounded and cracked the back of his head against the cockpit bulkhead resulting in a concussion.>> And, thus, AE ditched that shoe with the subsequent swelling of the ankle! That's the ticket! ************************************************************************** From Ric This is getting very strange. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:51:31 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Re: Who is Helen? - from Ric According to Butler in "East To The Dawn", Helen Day Bible was a close Noonan friend in Miami. He spent time a lot of time with her right before the flight left Miami. I contacted Butler to see if I could get in touch with Helen, among other things, to no avail. I also tried to track down Helen in the Miami area, but with no luck. blue skies, Jerry ************************************************************************** From Ric Ah, thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:00:48 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Vidal meeting with FDR The source of the post army-navy game discussion with Amelia, Gene and Gore Vidal,secondary, is Susan Butler's book, page 385-86,which reportedly involved the desire to live on a desert island and write a book,etc.; it also inludes the Vidal's comment about making a "sunstill", but with no details. The primary source that Butler references is Gore Vidal's "Armegedon",page 25, which I haven't seen. There are other references to the 1936 army-navy game elsewhere. The source for the end of July meeting with FDR is Butler,page 416,and Butler cites a Dept of State telegram, National Archives. Well I'm not sure that I'm totally discrediting Gene's recollection of Amelia's alleged express statement that if she missed Howland that she would head back to the Gilberts, but it surely has some credibility problems coming so late in an oral history interview, god knows when. Maybe your right that it was "pillow talk" and Gene didn't want to reveal that Amelia gave him more information than her husband, GP. Independent of Vidal's recollection, and contrary to Tighar's dismissal of this choice, many other researchers agree with you believing that was the case, but since she was further north than calculated, say researchers, she ended up flying northwest and crashed near Mili atoll in the Marshalls.Just ask Bilermon Ameron! Hence nothing will be found in the Gilberts. So we have some credible,albeit suspicious, evidence she intended to reverse and head back west to the Gilberts, but we have no evidence prior to the flight,for example comments to Mantz,Putnam,chart notes,etc and others involved in her flight route, that the Phoenix group , would be a potential safe haven and a nice alternative. What Tighar describes is running on the LOP south looking for Howland until Noonan realises he is wayyyy to far south, and looks at his chart and says whoa lets try Niku, as gas is running low, sort of past the point of no return.Maybe so. Maybe I have a way to verify the Vidal conversation with Amelia and perhaps some confirmation of the return to Gilberts theory. I have a colleague who is acquainted with Gore Vidal in Italy and he volunteered to put me in touch.He should be able to recall when Gene gave the interview to. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric The concept of "credible, albeit suspicious, evidence" is interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:02:27 EDT From: Mike E Subject: Re: More on Radios Hue Miller asked: >>Mike, are you sure that ships were not able to send A2 mode, "tone telegraphy", receivable on *any* radio?<< Never said that. Most ships did indeed send A2, and it was pretty common in transmitter design (for a real walk on the wild side, check out "self rectifying oscillators"!) but that was not done at all times by all vessels or coast stations... A1 (unmodulated CW telegraphy) was the primary mode. My point was that VOICE was not employed on 500. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:08:06 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Shortening the antenna No, Ric, I did NOT say Pan Am techs "were able to correct Gurr's altering of the antenna length by use of a loading coil". (You have been skimming again, and not paying attention in class!) Sorry I don't have the time to explain physics and electronics at the moment (you might try Popular Science, which used to advertise as being "Written So You Can Understand It"!) The only thing Gurr (said he) did (confirmed by Lockheed work orders, was to LENGTHEN the antenna. (I still am suspicious of the parallel "V" he wanted to install on the belly, but you've offered photos that seem to indicate it was NOT installed, despite another Lockheed work order). If it was too long for 6210, all that was necessary was to physically shorten it - a very simple job, requiring one insulator and a short piece of "inactive" wire. (Or 2 of same, if you want to keep things symmetrical). Since the topside (requisite 40') was easily obtained (check your scale drawings), there's no problem there. The addition of an appropriate loading coil WOULD improve transmission efficiency for 3105 in theory, but practically (since we're talking 1/8 wave length for it) probably worth the additional weight and switching requirements. Of course, anything less than the 250' trailing wire was woefully inadequate for 500 kc TRANSMISSION, so, trying to be helpful, Gurr added a HUGE loading coil in series with whatever antenna system you choose to believe (I think a belly one) to provide SOME (very little!) 500 kc capability. That turned out to be hopeless (didn't work enroute Miami) so, for various reasons I don't need to elaborate on, AE ordered it junked. (And of course I believe, in my stubborn, thick-headed way, that she felt confident her wizard new HF/DF would greatly minimize the need for LF/DF.) No, little or none of this is documented (more's the pity!), and you don't need to take my word for it, any more than (as an adult), you don't have to listen to ANY proffered advice. It doesn't bother me! Finally, as for your denial of inferring inferior performance by radio techs or Colorado pilots, that's my reading of your comments. No, you didn't use the word "inept" in either case; let's just say you "minimized their contributions".) Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Cutting to the chase, let me ask our Radio Rangers for an opinion about Cam's insight into how Pan Am technicians may have physically shortened the antenna by creating a section or sections of "inactive" wire, and is that something we might be able to confirm or disprove with photos of the airplane? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:09:04 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Shortening the antenna - correction Sorry, my fault (inept proof-reading!). Paragraph two of my previous message, line three, should read: "probably NOT worth the additional weight . . ." Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:10:18 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: WE 13C Transmitter and "Harmonics" Hue - So I'll bite my tongue (well, a little). Shortly after CB radios came out (the first were called "Benton Harbor Lunch Boxes") SWR meters came on the market for matching transmitter to antenna, using plain old wire as a feed (NOT coax). Used one, it helped a lot. This, admittedly, was the mid '60s, and the frequency involved was 27 mc. (True, a big difference.) So, I shouldn't have slipped and mentioned the device. However, as you correctly mention, there were other good methods for effecting the necessary transmitter/antenna match. (Why do I let myself get dragged into technical discussions? Obviously a no win situation, even when I'm right!) Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:13:02 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Oil and Ankle's I agree that imperial gallons was what the quantity reference probably referred to. The thing that actually intrigued me in this however, was the reference to the number of oil tanks. The BuAir inspection report notes 4 oil tanks with a total capacity of 80 gallons, yet the report of the chief engineer, cited by Charter, states--"oil drained from BOTH tanks". That sounds like only 2 tanks to me. How many did the Electra have? I bring this up only because I am trying to figure out if the data cited is precise or some of it merely a relaying of approximate information after the fact-(along the lines of the statement that the one tank of 100 octane was "about half full"). Though Mr.Charter may have taken his reporting task seriously, I wonder if everyone supplying him with the requested information actually knew exact details. Pumping in oil from drums without a meter (i wonder if they had one) to read the exact amount could result in educated guess work. Dump in one 50 gallon drum and a little more from another till the tanks are full and there you have your 60 gallons. Though in reality you may have added 5 or 10 gallons more. In the context of the final outcome I doubt any of this means much and I don't want to bother the forum with irrelevant questions . It's just my nature to question when I see something that does not fit. After 25 years in law enforcement, that trait has become ingrained in my personality. On a different topic, the uncle/ankle postulation sounds quite interesting. I was thinking along the lines of uncle being merely an incomplete recording of the word "unclear" in referring to the transmissions being heard. But taken as a whole, "ankle" might just fit. LTM, Bill Conover #2377 ************************************************************************* From Ric You're right about the number of oil tanks. It's an apparent discrepancy. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:19:16 EDT From: Ken Knapp Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges Janet wrote: >>Harmonics? Humbug!<< Harmonics are a fact of life in radio communications. For whatever it's worth to the forum, I just performed 2 experiments. First, I checked what was playing on WARM, a local radio broadcaster on 590 khz, about 30 miles away. Then I tuned to 1180 khz on the dial (a harmonic), and noted I heard WARM on that frequency too. I would say WARM's engineers know what they're doing, and I heard the harmonic. Secondly, I tuned my Kenwood TS-450SAT transceiver to 3105 khz. and transmitted (into a dummy load, of course). Signal heard on 6210 loud and clear 1 mile away. Same for 9315 khz. I also listened on 12420 khz, but it was much weaker. My point is, I am running properly designed and tuned modern equipment, as is WARM. If harmonics are present in our signals, then I'll guarantee they were also present in AE's as well. The real question is the strength of the harmonics. *************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting point about 6210 being a harmonic of 3105. Most of the listening for AE by the Coast Guard and Navy seems to have been on 3105 - probably because that's the frequency they had heard her on when airborne. Does it go the other way? That is, could AE be transmitting on 6210 and be coming through as only faint carrier wave on 3105? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:20:37 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: KGMB history OK, I got off my lazy duff, and dug out the letter that KGMB sent me, that contained a historical record of the radio station. Starting in 1931 (only pertinent extracts relating to power and frequency): May 13, 1931: KGMB reduces power from 500 to 250 watts of power to improve modulation. Sept. 25, 1934: Air time from 6-11AM. March 29, 1935: KGMB increases power from 250 to 1000 watts. Aug. 1, 1935: New 1000 watt RCA transmitter Jan. 4, 1936: Another new 1000 watt transmitter June 20, 1939: FCC approved increase from 1000 to 5000 watts and change in kilocycles from 1320 to 590. 1940-1941 (wrong dates): KGMB covers the arrival of the first clipper plane. Assists the Coast Guard in the search for Amelia Earhart. Well, except for the last entry, this might be a definitive document, but now, I have my doubts. At any rate, this information matches all that the forum has brought to the table, including the corrections. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:22:07 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bones by the Norwich City Don't go looking for wedding rings..... It appears neither Earhart or Noonan wore one. Watches on the other hand.. Hmm watches on the same hand.. Noonan wore his conventionally, Earhart wore hers "turned in" with the face on the inside of her wrist.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric ...and neither of them wore earrings. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:24:06 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: BFO? >>Morgan lists a "CW Oscillator Adaptor" which was an option for the 20 sets... but we have no direct proof that AE had one. Yet it seems logical that she would have.<< I think I recall from somewhere that there was a morse key floating around out there that belonged to Earhart's set? If that is the case it might lend credence to the theory that the set was able to handle CW correctly. That raises the questions.. 1. Is there definitely no suitable oscillator for producing a proper carrier wave? 2. What is involved to create a decent carrier for telegraphy without a BFO? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:33:49 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gilberts misunderstanding Pat Gaston wrote: > I do not think it would be pointless to spend a few days nosing around on > the easternmost Gilberts with a tape recorder and an interpreter, seeking > anecdotal accounts of pre-war aircraft wreckage. I admit the chances are > not good of finding anyone alive today who might be able to clearly > distinguish between the pre-war and war eras. Still, TIGHAR found Emily If you look at www.ameliaearhart.org you'll find that this was done for the Marshall Islands and conclusively proved that Earhart landed near Mili atoll and she, Noonan and the aeroplane were rescued by the Japanese. I'm not sure poking around the Gilberts with a tape recorder would have found similar tales, but I wonder.... if you ask enough people if they saw an aeroplane... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Interview methodology is extremely important. In 1949 both U.S. Army Intelligence and the United Press conducted independent investigations in the Marshalls following allegations that Earhart had been there. They found no one who could corroborate the story. However, in the wake of Goerner's 1966 best-seller, fact-finding expeditions to the Marshalls by amateur sleuths found no shortage of witnesses to Earhart's capture. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:34:52 EDT From: Pete Subject: Re: crystals I have to go with Randy J on the crystals. page 876 of Electronic Principles, 6th ed, P Malvino PhD "The frequency of any crystal oscillator tends to change slightly with time. This drift (italics his) is produced by temperature, aging, and other causes. In a crystal oscillator, this drift is very small, typically less than 1 part in 10 to the sixth power per day. ...Stability like this is needed in frequency and time standards," ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:40:28 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Letters to Helen > From Ric > > Who's Helen? "In both places where they were Fred wrote happily to Helen, besieged with invitations of hospitality...." "As they crossed the Equator ... they were so busy that Fred forgot to dunk her with the thermos of cold water... He wrote to Helen of this part of the flight: 'Those routes took us across miles...'" "But from reading Amelia's account, and more to the point, from reading a letter Fred wrote to Helen at this time...." "The letter to Helen is seven pages long and Fred makes no mention of Amelia.... Other than a good companion" (In the above letter Fred apparently discussed some instrument problems with "Helen") "Staffed by native cooks who set before them 'an astonishingly splendid lunch', as Fred wrote Helen..." (It appears Fred wrote this letter - above - on the evening before the flight left for Darwin) "Butler's researching zeal is admirable. She tracked down a raft of new sources: an unpublished biography by the journalist Janet Mabie; the diary of Earhart's cousin Lucy Challiss, who lived with her in Rye, NY for a time; *letters that Fred Noonan, the navigator on the last, doomed flight, sent to a woman friend;* ...persuasive evidence that Gene Vidal, the head of the Bureau of Air Commerce under Franklin D. Roosevelt and the father of the novelist, wasn't just Amelia's friend and business partner, as previous biographers maintain, but a lover as well. The mountain of new material it marshals guarantees "East to the Dawn" a permanent place on the shelf of Amelia Earhart references." *** References from: http://www.easttothedawn.com/index.html Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric It would be surprising if Ms. Butler does not have copies of the letters she cites. With her book already published, I wonder if she would share them in the interest of history? I'm quite sure that she won't share them with me. She doesn't like me very much. Anybody out there on good terms with Susie? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:41:36 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? QRT is an international radiotelegraphic "word" which means "stop transmitting." Notice I say, RadioteleGRAPH.... There is a whole list of dozens of such "Q-signals" which are used in CW work to enable operators who speak different languages to communicate. The meaning of the Q-signals is the same in any language (by and large; there are a few, few exceptions). Almost all commercial radiotelephone procedure, and this includes aviation in 1937, would NOT use Q-signals. Ham operators indulge in "Q-speak" on voice, but they are the only ones. Listen at night on international aviation HF channels like 5595 or 5625; you'll never hear anyone "say" a Q-signal. You almost certainly would not have heard one in the 30s either. I doubt AE was familiar with these, especially if she did not know/care for Morse. Something else to memorize. Most CW operators use these things like a second language. LTM (who is fluent in many languages including Momspeak) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:48:15 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: AE's receiver, Modified Holy kilocycles, Batman! When I made the post of yesterday regarding AE's receiver, I was merely thinking out loud regarding an angle Frank Westlake mentioned -- that AE might have had her transmitter modified for 500, but not the receiver. Ric, I believe you missed my point entirely. I was trying to show why it would not make sense to do that... but at the same time, trying to justify it. And my conclusion was (reread my post and you'll understand): To modify the transmitter to SEND on 500, without modifying the receiver to HEAR on 500... That makes a much sense as a submarine with screen doors! It just would not have been done that way. Either that receiver was modified, or she had some other receiver on board that did have a band covering 500. It makes absolutely no operational sense. Especially in a situation involving potential emergency transmissions. Like I said: in the 30s, many ships and shore stations did not even work HF at all. Much maritime traffic was carried on in the 400-500 KHz range. You'd have a far, far greater chance of getting help, if someone who heard your transmission could call you on the distress frequency. If they could not contact you because they could not transmit on a frequency you could hear, well, too bad. What happens in many emergency situations is that one staion will hear the one in distress, and once the frequency is cleared of traffic for the emergency, other stations can hear... and may be called upon to relay traffic. Much, much confusion would result if the communication were split between LF and HF. I repeat... either the WE receiver could tune to 500, or she had another one that would. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric I can happily accept that as expert opinion. I understand that you're not asking anyone to accept it as fact. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:49:44 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Searching for Howland The original plan for the flight from Lae to Howland seems to have called for 17hours and One minute in the air.. That would have given them a huge reserve of fuel to look around. Interesting that the Planning was for a flight time including "one minute". It seems a bit fussy to me. Th' WOMBAT (who rounds his flight plans off to the nearest half hour) ************************************************************************** From Ric Source? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:50:34 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: "Bob" Seems to me "bob" may be what the airplane is starting to do now that the water is rising... ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:59:39 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Ankles and shoes Speaking of ankles reminds me of shoes. Ric, is there any distinct "wear" pattern on the sole and heel fragments found on Niku. Amelia's shoes wore exceptionally (I mean really badly) on the outer edges. Chances are even the replacement heel would show this as well as the sole. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Most people's shoes wear most on the outside of the heel but, yes, the Cat's Paw replacement heel is asymmetrically worn. In fact, it originally had "traction plugs" on the outside for just that purpose - to prolong wear - but the traction plugs are gone and the outside of the heel is severely worn down. The sole is too fragmented to tell for sure but does seem to show more wear on the outside edges. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:04:53 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Challenging ideas Janet whitney wrote that she thinks every statement in the radio pages in the 8th Edition can be challenged... Well, that's what this Forum is about: Challenging things, making us think further, making us re-evaluate. Maybe we'll see something in a different light and several more pieces of the puzzle will fit. However, I must respond to some other things. What this harmonic theory is, is just exactly that: a THEORY. We are testing that theory now. I will admit, I am not convinced of the veracity of it... but the evidence, mostly technical, looks pretty interesting and to a degree compelling. But the jury is still out. Janet seems to feel that I and others are trying to liken the problem of the antenna, and the transmitter design, to some equivalent problem in the modern era involving ham radio equipment. NONONONO...NO.... NO. I think the technical aspects of this case have been presented pretty well, by Hue Miller, Bob Brandenburg, and myself. I have even tried to explain some things to her off forum, but we still keep coming back to this sticking-point. It matters not whether an antenna is operating on the ham bands, or on 3105/6210, or 42 MHz or any other frequency... if it is a nonresonant length (as AE's was) it must be tuned to compensate for its shortcomings if it is going to radiate power. AE's radio had a limited capability to properly match, or tune, the antenna. The design of the unit was one which definitely encouraged harmonic radiation and a mistuned antenna further aggravated the potential for doing so. Some of us do indeed have considerable practical experience in this field, including antenna design and operation. There is much, much more involved here than one will ever get out of a book alone... though a good book is the best starting point for sure... but the real world is the true schoolroom. Harmonic radiation: It could have happened... it probably did happen, almost undoubtedly did. Whether the signals got all the way from Niku to Stateside remains to be proven. And the genuineness of Betty's record has yet to be proven. As for what was done to the radio in Miami: Janet says even if Gurr got it wrong, the PAA guys must have fixed it... well, I am afraid the facts are not known. We have no idea what was actually done to that radio in Miami. It all depends on one thing: WHO DID THE WORK? Did the guy make a thorough investigation? Or did he assume, as a lot of tech would, that if it was working when it came in, it just needed a cursory check? After all, the receiver received (we think), the transmitter transmitted -- hey, the RF ammeter said there was power going to the antenna. How familiar was the tech with this radio, this antenna, this aircraft? Did he know the antenna had been modified? Did he check the freqs? In the 30s there was one way to test for harmonic radiation -- using an absorption wave meter. Spectrum analyzers were years away. Even if he used a frequency standard to check the transmitter, those things were by nature capable of misleading you. Sure, you'd read the freq you wanted to operate on; but there was no real way to differentiate between harmonics and the "real" freq because the standard compared them ALL to the same point. (Been there, done that... I have used one many times when I did not have access to a freq counter. By the way, those did not exist in the 30s either.) If the work was being done gratis, was it squeezed in among real work, i.e. PAA stuff? How much time did they have? And remember, anything done to an aircraft required filling out lots of forms for the Bureau of Air Commerce. Now, if NOTHING was actually DONE... if no screws or knobs were turned ... why waste time filling out all the paperwork? It'd be really interesting to discover something in the Pan Am Archives pertaining to this situation. LTM (who always keeps lots of paper in the cabinet because no job is finished till the paperwork is done) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:07:06 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: U.S./Japanese tensions Just another footnote to history ... In February of 1983, the AP in Washington, DC reported on an FDR memo that surfaced during an inquiry by the Commission on Wartime Relocation & Internment of Civilians, which was conducting an investigation of the entire internment episode, in 1983. Seems that FDR issued a proposal in an August 1936 memo to Adm. Wm. Leahy, then CNO, in which he said: ..."One obvious thought occurs to me ... that every Japanese citizen or non-citizen on the Island of Oahu who meets these Japanese ships or has any connection with their officers or men should be secretly but definitely identified & his or her name placed on a special list of those who would be the first to be placed in an internment camp in the event of trouble."... It also seems that the military had already been working on a similar proposal to present to FDR, prior to his memo to Adm. Leahy. Naval Intelligence documents in the archives showed the military responded to FDR's proposal by stating that ..."Lists of suspects _are_ maintained by those responsible for military intelligence"... Other documents uncovered show that the Navy was worried about Japanese surveillance in Hawaii as early as _1925_, but felt little could be done about such activity, short of putting the entire island chain under military control or closing the port to commercial traffic, which they agreed would not be a very _practical_ solution to the problem, even though..."The Joint Army/Navy Policy-Advisory Board has for years suspected espionage activities on the part of the indicated nation in the Pacific, which are inimical to our national defense"... the Board also pointed out specifically, that Japanses naval officers arriving in Hawaii exhibited..."special interest in the west coast of Hawaii, which embraced four excellent _landing_ places & populated almost entirely by individuals considered apathetic or hostile to US interests"... Seems as though the relationship between Japan & the US was far from pacific (in the Pacific) in 1937. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:08:18 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? Ric asked: > But I wonder how likely it is that she would be familar with that expression. Perhaps her lack of familiarity is a positive thing here: if she knew what it meant, she'd probably have written "3 QRD 36." Or have filled in the blanks with something that she knew what likely to have been said in the context of a sentence that included QRD or QRT. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:09:28 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Another Hawaiian broadcast? > From Ric > I thought we had established that KGMB was 1 kw in 1937. I have to bow to anyone else's documentation on this. My docs are for 1935 (500w) and 1939 (not 1937, sorry) at 1 kw. Either way, this is about the very least power you would want to use for a long distance AM transmission across that distance. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:10:42 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: FDR tapes >From Bob Perry >For Don Neumann: >The info you reported regarding FDR's recording is very interesting. You >mention lots of dates for articles, research, etc. (1978, 1982, Feb/Mar. >what year?), American Heritage Magazine? "Transcripts from the tapes ", >etc. As you indicated, this was before the advent of magnetic tape >recording. Does Amer. Heritage, Feb/Mar. 2000, have all of the story you >reported? The information concerning FDR's recording device was obtained from newspaper clippings, in our local newspapers, dated: Thursday, January 14, 1982 , with New York (UPI & AP) bylines. So, I would assume that the American Heritage/February-March issue referred to would be the 1982 publication, an advanced copy of which may have been obtained by the news services. (I've not had a chance to check with my local library to see whether they have copies of back issues of the publication that old.) Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:13:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Testing Plan B If the weather permitted celestial navigation I know of no reason Noonan could not have navigated back to the Gilberts with at least the same degree of accuracy with which he navigated to Howland. If our famous duo reasoned this out they would have picked the odds on favorite -- SE to the Phoenix group for the same reasons Ric just pointed out -- Far, far less chance of missing the Phoenix than the Gilberts. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:16:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fred's letters Ric, the letters probably contain private and personal comments the family doesn't want public. I could understand that. What about just asking them if there are any comments regarding specifics of the flight that might be useful such as a mention of an alternative plan? If any such comments exist they could zerox only those parts keeping all the rest private. Possible? and how many times have you already tried them on this? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately, the situation is a lot more difficult than that. We're dealing with an elderly woman who refuses to even consider the question. She may or may not have any idea what is actually in the letters. It seems to be a matter of principle with her. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:17:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts << The one thing - the ONLY thing - he can do that will virtually guarantee landfall of some kind is to run southeast on the LOP. >> Yeah! Why is this so hard to understand? Everyone wants to put the Electra in some mythically large expanse from which no one could pick a decent starting point. To be true, Noonan would have had to be a hopelessly bad navigator. The accuracy and expertise of his skills are known and AE's "We must be on you" or words to that effect show that at least THEY thought they knew closely where they were. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:19:10 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence Lacking Ric asked: <> I doubt it. Janet wants proof of a negative in most cases. Anyone knows negatives cannot be proven. As to her other comments, it has already been suggested she go to the web site and bone up before posting. I suppose that will never happen. Some folks hate to be confused with facts. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:20:49 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Testing Plan B Bob wrote: << "I believe" and "probably also could" don't get a passing grade on the test . The test rules require proving that it could be done.>> Right, of course but to me the test is, "Were there adequate celestial bodies available for Noonan to use and could he see them?" The answer to the first part is yes -- not just the sun. The answer to the second part we will never know. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:25:44 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: NC wreckage & radio triangulation With all the recent discussions about searching for Noonan bones and other artifacts on the Norwich City, it occurs to me that many folks on the forum seem to think that there is actually something there resembling a ship to search. This is not the case and I would urgre you to visit the 8/23/99 Niku IIIIP research bulletin and take a good look at the last picture at the end of this bulletin. Nothing there but rusted scrap metal beaten to death by mother nature. The odds that there might be some intact artifact there to find are pretty slim in my book, not to mention the hazards of climbing around on that stuff. Niku IIIIP Expedition Report, Part 1 http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/bulletin8_23_99.html Next thought. With the discussion of post loss radio signals, and the renewed interest in the possibility some of them might be genuine, it might be time to go back and review something that I found interesting in the old Earhart project books, namely the triangulation of those post loss signals and the surprising locale of their focal point. I don't think there is anything on this on the website, as it was early on in the Earhart Project before the Web page came to be, but I think it would be interesting to take another look at it especially with all the historical radio experts on the Forum. As long as we are looking into the veracity of post loss signals, lets keep and eye out for those reports that also include a bearing on the source. Will be real interesting to see where they point. LTM (who enjoys triangulating) Andrew McKenna 1045CE ************************************************************************** From Ric the reason we have paid less attention recently to the bearings taken by Pan Am is that, upon examination, there really was no "triangulation". On no occasion were bearings taken on a single transmission by more than one station. We'll log the transmissions heard by Pan Am along with all the others and see what we learn. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:30:23 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: deciphering Betty's notebook--maybe The following is admittedly very long shot on filling in the blanks between the written words in Betty's notebook. The words "uncle" and "Bob" both appear on the same page, though apparently by different speakers, if I'm understanding the notes correctly. Were either AE or FN known to use the phrase "Bob's your uncle," a British slang phrase meaning "everything's OK" which originated in the late 1800's. NOTE: a discussion of origins of the phrase can be found at www.jerrypournelle.com, the website of Byte magazine (now Byte.com) columnist and science fiction author Jerry Pournelle. On one hand, AE or FN using a slang phrase for "everything's OK" would seem to be at odds with the dire straits described in Betty's notebook. On the other hand, I think I remember reading on the forum recently that AE was known for biting sarcasm, and both she and Fred could've been in enough contact with UK folks in previous adventures (hers in the air, his at sea) to have picked up the phrase which, in my meager experimentation with it, seems to grow on you. On the gripping hand (tip of the hat to author Pournelle) if AE or FN were known to use this curious phrase, it's presence in an alleged post-loss message might help to validate the authenticity of such a message. Once again, this is a really, really long shot, but serendipity has struck before... LTM, (whose nieces and nephews all have an uncle Bob) Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:32:23 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Pan Am Airlines & Lockheed Electras According to Thomas Emmert's and William Larkin's series of articles about Lockheed Model 10, 12, and 14 Electras, which appeared in the Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society, about 95 Model 10's and 19 Model 12's were delivered to customers before May 1, 1935. Ten Model 10's were delivered to Pan Am subsidiary airlines in Cuba (PAA/Cubana) and Mexico PAA /Aerovias Centrales) in 1934. At least one Model 10 (Earhart's) had its radios and antennas serviced and modified by PAA radio techs in Miami. Were the Electras flown by PAA/Aerovias Centrales and PAA/Cubana routinely flown to Miami for A & P and radio service, modifications, etc? Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:38:43 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Testing Plan B > From Tom MM > 2. For what it is worth, I don't agree with your claim that > the sun LOP will not rotate toward a more E-W alignment... Considering that, I'm reminded of the "58" "338" notations in Betty's notes. It's been stated here a couple times, I think, that the LOP through Howland would rotate counterclockwise as the days progressed. It seems to me though that since it is past the summer solstice that, as the sun progresses further south, the sunline would shift clockwise. It would move from 157/337 to 158/338 and so forth. I'm just asking for a re-think on this, or perhaps a reply telling me to study harder. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:44:31 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Oil tanks etc Most of on the forum understand the need for oil in an airplane engine, i.e. just like in our cars. However, our cars have a single "oil tank", the crankcase, holding a mere 4-6 quarts. Maybe for the uniformed you could explain briefly why the Electra needs 2 or 4 tanks; why it needs so much; and how all of that oil is circulated and used. That's a big order, but I think it will help us understand the discussion of 60 gallons vs. 80 gallons. LTM, who changes oil regularly Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric "That's a big order..." nah. I'm getting so I can explain anything in a few sentences, whether or not I actually know the answer. Unlike car engines, airplane engines "use" (that is, burn, throw, and otherwise consume) oil even when they're running right. Big ol' radial engines use LOTS of oil. Earhart's Electra carried lots of oil so that she wouldn't run out. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:45:41 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Electra Delivery Typo... About 95 Model 10s and 19 Model 12s were delivered by May 1, 1937 (not 1935). JanetWhitney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:46:54 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Lae-Howland/ Alternate landing Bill Conover said that apparently Amelia didn't have any alternate plans for landing on prior legs of the world flight. In Amelia's World Flight book,p. 28 , she comments on the complexities of preparing flight charts,compass courses,changes, distances,airports,etc. In the final form they contain details about "airports, service facilities, prevailing winds...(and) emergency landing possibilties and the like". (emphasis added). So it seems that as a routine flight preparation, Amelia would have looked around Howland area for an alternate, most likely something close (Baker) ,or if things really went bad, she had charts of the Marshalls, Phoenix, and Gilberts. The charts I've seen her hold up with various planners,seemed to include half the south pacific.She clearly expressed her concern over finding a "fantastically tiny target". I would be stunned that she didn't foresee some alternate course. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:49:25 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Oil Would the oil situation (i.e., less than capacity) have any impact on range or endurance? David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Only if she was so short that she didn't have enough. I don't think we any indication that that was the case. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:50:07 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Banishment I take exception to Mr. Warren's recent posting on banishment from the FORUM. This is an open forum with a long standing history of open and shared information. Any demonstrated hesitancy on his part to share information would and should be met with resentment and/or hostility. As a historian and researcher I personally find it appalling. LTM, MStill #2332CE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:58:08 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Bob's your uncle Here's one that I haven't seen but we'll need our British or English forum friends to translate the very popular idom "and Bob's your uncle". Something like our "you got to be joking ??" or disbelief?? Anyway that hits two words with one bird. No stranger than some of the other forum entries. Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm familiar with the expression but have always heard it in the context of an explanation about how something works, as in - you put some ice in a glass, pour in a bunch of gin, add some tonic water and a wedge of lime and - Bob's your uncle - you've got a gin and tonic. It's pretty hard to see it used in the context of the situation described in Betty's notebook. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:00:03 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Letters to Helen Wombat, I would guess that you must have conflicting loyalties with Reineck and Butler. Reinke believes Amelia went down and was captured by the Japanese while Butler dismisses that notion as nonsense based on her interview of Aoki. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:49:36 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Proving a negative > From Alan Caldwell > ... Anyone knows negatives cannot be proven. This is a gross simplification. Some negatives are hard to prove. Some are impossible to prove. If the universal form of the statement, as given above, is true, then, by application of itself to itself, it asserts that it is itself unprovable. That makes it strictly a matter of faith. Here is an example of a negative that may be provable: "Earhart's plane did not splash down in the Pacific Ocean." If the any-idiot-artifact (the McGuffin) is found on Niku IIII, then it will prove a negative--in fact, a whole host of negatives: Earhart was not captured by the Japanese, she was not seen by so-and-so, and she never wrote the "Love to Mother" letter. If the McGuffin is not found, then the question will remain open (for those who doubt the compound evidence of the shoes, the bones, the aluminum pieces, and the corroborating stories about wreckage, airplane cables, bodies, etc.). Here is an example of another two negatives that may be provable: "Earhart's plane did not make a relatively safe landing on Niku and therefore did not make any post-loss radio transmissions." These two conjoint negatives could be proven by the discovery of the McGuffin on the floor of the Pacific by one of the splashdown groups. The class of negatives that are notoriously difficult to prove are those that follow the pattern, "There are no abominable snowmen," "There are no alien spaceships visiting the earth," "There are no ghosts," or "There is no God." The inability to prove these negatives derives from the limitation of the human mind, but it is a fallacy to reason from these cases to others that are not strictly analogous. Back to the case in point: the question of the signal strength generated by AE's transmitter on various harmonics can only be bracketed by certain abstract considerations. If the McGuffin is found on the floor of the ocean, it will prove that Betty's transcript derived from some kind of hoax; if the McGuffin is found on or near the reef where Emily claims the airplane parts could be seen, then, as Ric has said, the transcript (and other similar reports) may represent a strange and unusual confluence of variables: battery/generator power, weird antenna configuration, disruptions in the ionosphere, etc. Since there is no record of all of the conditions affecting the alleged transmission, no controlled experiment can be done either to validate or invalidate Betty's notebook. In that sense--but not as an application of a universal principle--I do not think anyone will be able to prove that Betty did not hear Earhart. Nor do I think anyone will be able to prove that she did. LTM. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll take the bait. A statement like "Earhart's plane did not splash down in the Pacific Ocean." can only be proved by establishing the veracity of a positive statement (i.e. that the airplane ended up someplace other than the Pacific Ocean.) However, as you have pointed out, a statement like "there are no ghosts" or "there is no God" is different. I can disprove them by producing a bona fide ghost or god, but the best I can hope for in attempting to prove their truthfullness is my own inability to locate spirits and dieties. Moving right along, let's consider the less philosphical question of proving or disproving the validity or invalidity of Betty's notebook as a record, however imperfect, of the words of Amelia Earhart. I agree that there is no way (at least, that is apparent to me) that the notebook by itself could establish that premise. We could possibly disprove the hypothesis by finding some aspect of the event that was beyond the realm of possibility or by finding the notebook of a hoaxer whose broadcast script matches Betty's notes. I think the only way to approach this is to develop a positive hypothesis that attempts to explain the post-loss messages in general, accepting that some were hoaxes or misunderstandings, but positing that a goodly number (whatever that means) were genuine. That hypothesis would then be tested by examining all of the post-loss messages that can be found and looking for some pattern that could only be present if the messages were genuine. For example, let's say we plot out a timeline showing all the messages and find that we have a random distribution of time and freqency with no better than random occurrences when different people hear something at the same time on the same frequency. That would pretty convincingly disprove the hypothesis. Or - let's say we find that there are definite bunches of reports clustered around a specific time and all on the same frequency. That would be a pretty good indicator that most of these folks are all hearing the same thing - perhaps the same hoax. But what if these bunches all happen to be at times and places and frequencies where signals from Earhart are at least theoretically possible and that such confluences are relatively rare? In other words, what if the only people who hear the presumed hoax also happen to be people who actually could have heard Amelia? In a case like that we'd have to say that either the hoaxer was operating from someplace in the Central Pacific, or these people were really hearing Amelia. Comments? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:54:26 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Earhart post-loss msgs/Bearings As you know CDR Thomnpson discredited every post loss transmission except for the one at Wailupe .Only amateurs heard those transmissions, not official navy radio stations and ships,he said. Strippel cites in his book that for the "final evidence" for the Coast Guard that those amateur receptions were not genuine, he cited the San Francisco District Communication Officer Frank Johnson who plotted all the reciprocals of the g reat circle bearings the high frequency direction finders had taken on the disputed " Earhart" signals. The line connected Hawaii, SF, (Wyoming),Chicago, and New York. At the time of the west coast reception of the "Earhart" receptions, it was evening or early morning in the Northeast, time of peak radio traffic and long distance propagation. Strippel doesn't cite a refernce but maybe Coast Guard archives have that Johnson study. Frankly your forum radio experts would have to translate that significance re bearings, peak traffic, etc to the Earhart intgercepts. Maybe this will help radio analyses. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:05:20 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Bones by the Norwich City > From Ric > > ...and neither of them wore earrings. Did either of them have any metal surgically implanted after an accident? (Was that done in 1937?) No, I'm not suggesting anyone crawl through that wreck; just casting about for a different way to identify whatever has been found. Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not aware of any surgically implanted metal (yes, they did that in those days). Noonan may have had a dental bridge. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:06:54 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: More Apples and Oranges Why is someone comparing a ham transceiver (Kenwood TS-450) with a triple conversion receiver that was manufactured in the early 1990's and has a sensitivity on the order of 0.25 microvolt and an effective noise blanker - to someone's unknown home shortwave receiver of the 1930's? Janet Whitney ************************************************************************ From Ric I wasn't aware that anyone was. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:11:15 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Bob's your uncle Ric wrote: << I'm familiar with the expression but have always heard it in the context of an explanation about how something works....>> A Brit writes: That's it exactly - to denote that some physical task requiring a series of steps is really very straightforward after all. An idiom from my parents' generation (I'm 45). To me it's redolent of wartime defiant cheeriness, but I don't know its precise origin - it sounds like a music hall catchphrase. LTM Phil 2276 ************************************************************************** From Ric Can't find Howland? Need a place to land? Just run down the LOP to the first island you come to and Bob's your uncle. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:13:24 EDT From: Janice Brown Subject: Banishment & More Commenting on two recent threads... First, I'd like to mention that sometimes it is the "friction" in our lives that makes life interesting. If we didn't have some friction in this forum, it might become boring (or maybe not!) :) :) If Amelia Earhart didn't have some friction in her life, and also during her trip around the world, and ensuing flight from Lae, then she might not have crashed, and oh well we wouldn't be reading each others threads (smiles again here). After reading literally hundreds of posts in the last few months, I trust Ric implicitly to make a decision as to how to handle posts. Since he is the moderator, he ultimately makes the decision to ban or not to ban, regardless of any one else's recommendations -- I trust his judgement. I would hope that everyone participating will wait until after their morning coffee before posting, and assume firstly that the writer intended his/her post with respect and humor. If not, well then once an apology or acknowledgement is made, lets accept it and move on. Regarding Janet Whitney, well for those of us who saw her early posts and became a bit frustrated that she didn't seem to be reading our replies... I've become more accepting of her sometimes one-sided posts as she does raise some interesting issues, and certainly offers opportunity for some educating responses hehe. PS: I marvel at the remarkable minds in this forum... Your thoughts make for intriguing reading :) LTM Janice Brown #2364 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:17:08 EDT From: Ken Knapp Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges > From Ric > > Very interesting point about 6210 being a harmonic of 3105. Most of the > listening for AE by the Coast Guard and Navy seems to have been on 3105 - > probably because that's the frequency they had heard her on when airborne. > Does it go the other way? That is, could AE be transmitting on 6210 and be > coming through as only faint carrier wave on 3105? That is an interesting point. Unfortunately, according to the radio theory I learned, it doesn't work that way. But, just to be sure, I repeated my experiment, transmitting on 6210 and listening on 3105. Nothing heard. By the way, when compiling the post loss signal reports, there is something we need to keep in mind regarding the reported frequency. Not only was the dial resolution poor on many receivers of that era, but the receivers themselves were subject to something called image frequencies. This is inherent to the design of single conversion superheterodyne receivers (which most of that era were). Lets say that the intermediate frequency amplifiers of the radio were designed for 455 khz. You would be able to tune a signal of 3105 khz at 3105 on the dial OR on 3560 khz (3015+455=3560). Or, depending on the design of the radio you might be able to tune it on 3105 on the dial OR 2650 (3105-455=2650). I bring this up so that reports of reception on seemingly impossible frequencies aren't disregarded on that basis alone. Unfortunately, in order to determine the possible dial positions a signal can be received on, we'd need to know the make and model of the receiver. 455 khz was pretty much standard, but others were used. Ken *************************************************************************** From Ric <> Bummer. One more convenient explanation shot to hell. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:30:19 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Shoe wear. What if...If we assume...Some thing to think about. To what extent would walking on coral or coral sands accelerate the wear on ones shoes? If accelerated wear results from walking on coral or coral sands, might this explain the severely worn condition of the shoe recovered by TIGHAR? Did the previous owner wear the shoe while walking about Niku Island? If we assume that the recovered shoe parts were in fact Amelia's, and we assume that she survived the landing on Niku, an indication of the rate of wear in that environment would indicate the minimum time during which she survived ,or a minimum length of time Amelia was capable of moving about the island. If the amount of wear on coral or coral sands was severe, and Amelia moved about frequently while wearing the shoes, the amount of time Amelia survived would not be too long. At least four or five days or two weeks at best. If Amelia was in good health and injury free and, if she found the Norwitch City cache intact with water supplies, Amelia would be encouraged to remain close to the cache. As a result, the length of her survival would be increased from days or weeks to months and the wear on her shoes reduced due to her lack of activity. It's anybody's guess as to what the wear on the recovered shoes might mean. Ric, while on Niku Island, did members of past TIGHAR expeditions note excessive wear on their shoes or boots? LTM (who likes no shoes during a walk-about along the beach), Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric Niku is murder on shoes. Not only is the coral rubble on land abrasive but if you go out onto the reef flat (after fish, for example) your feet have to be protected, and the salt water, sharp coral, intense sun and high temperatures just eat up leather shoes or boots. That said, the fact that the shoes whose remains we found were severely worn means only that they were probably worn for a fairly extended period of time (several weeks to several months, but not several years) on Niku or in other environments similar to Niku's. In other words, they're consistent with shoes one would expect to find discarded on such an island so I don't think that the wear issue is very useful other than being one more clue that is consistent with, but not unique to, Earhart being on the island. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:41:17 EDT From: Ed Subject: Re: Proving a negative I feel that the effort to better understand/possibly validate Betty's intercept is certainly worthwhile. The discussion in this message of the finding of evidence on Niku piqued my interest in the planning of the next expedition. From my perspective it seems that Tighar's priorities from a resource (including forum resources) view must be focused on a plan that "will" produce evidence. For example, in addition to the fuselage, engines, etc., an inventory should be developed of what we know was on the plane and all members of the team informed of what these search targets are while there. Does an expedition plan exist now that you can share with the forum? What type of priorities for the search have been set? Any schedule? I ask not from a critical perspective but one whereby the forum can contribute. Evidence is the key, producing verifiable evidence must be the priority. Forgive me if you may have already communicated this to the forum or via the website and I haven't seen it. It's there, positive thinking, some luck, and planning will find it! LTM Ed of PSL *************************************************************************** From Ric You'll find a brief outline of the work planned for Niku IIII and a map showing the targeted areas at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Expeditions/NikuIIII/NikuIIIIsumm.html The team does not search for items that are known to have been on the Electra. The team searches for ANYTHING that is at all anomalous to the environment. We try not to disregard anything until we feel we understand what it is and why it is there. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:48:08 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Re: Lae-Howland/ Alternate landing Thanks for the input.But you know, barring any documentation to the effect that alternate plans were formulated, I must still hold to my opinion. A commentary attributed to AE in "Final Flight" --given the fact that it was put together by editors after her demise, is not really proof of such planning. In fact, we do not even know for certain if that is what she thought or if the statement attributed to her was actually her's. It is impossible for any of us to know her thought process. We can only venture opinion based upon how she performed and acted, along with her public statements and writings. However, the statement in "Last Flight" is rather inclusive in it's scope.It states how a flight should be planned. The problem is it does not say, "In planning this adventure I spent many weeks with my navigator reviewing charts, headings, weather reports and formulating alternate plans should anything go wrong at any point". And I think that there would have been something, somewhere, to document the fact that she had - even if it was only to tell GP or Manz. Yet when she was missing, nothing from either of them was forthcoming other than GP pushing for the Phoenix Group. And lets not forget Manning. If there was a detailed plan for alternate sites he absolutely would have known. At least as far as the first flight was concerned at any rate. Yet what was his input on finding her? I am sure AE did consider what she should do should something go awry and probably had that thought more than once. However I still believe that AE's concept of an alternate plan was that when an emergency arose she would make a decision on what to do at that point. I just don't to see any hard support for a series of planned out alternatives. But as I said, that's just my opinion. LTM Bill Conover #2377 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:27:50 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Proving a negative Ric wrote: << I'll take the bait. A statement like "Earhart's plane did not splash down in the Pacific Ocean." can only be proved by establishing the veracity of a positive statement >> Thanks. You beat me to it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:30:10 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Electra as the McGuffin The Electra (McGuffin) can't just be lying on the ocean floor near Howland (say at 1 Degree North, 177 Degrees West). In the best tradition of Hollywood (Steven Spielberg and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" comes to mind), the McGuffin has to be hidden in a strange and dangerous place. Island populated by natives. Secret reconnaisance mission. Missionary figure who the natives worship. Skeletons that vanish. Japanese preparing for Pearl Harbor attack. Inept bureucrats in Washington and the Coast Guard and Navy. FDR and Eleanor involved. Special Agents operating outside normal channels, headed by Harrison Ford, try to find McGuffin. Meanwhile, back in the USA, a teenager listens to swing music on her father's radio. Harmonics. Secret messages. Can Betty help the Special Agents decode the secret messages and find the McGuffin? Stay tuned. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:32:29 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Testing Plan B > From Tom MM > Ric and Bob: > > 1. No, this was not a submission for the Great Plan B Prize (Is it > something like the Longitude Prize?). > > 2. For what it is worth, I don't agree with your claim that the sun LOP > will not rotate toward a more E-W alignment as the hours pass during a > hypothetical flight to the Gilbert's. Tom, I didn't claim that the sun LOP will not rotate to a more E-W alignment. You said: > I want to call attention to > the general E-W alignment of the sun LOP's east of the Gilberts before and > roughly at the potential ETA of the flight - somewhere in there is quite a > good so called "course line" for FN. I understood you to be saying that the sun LOPs prior to and roughly at ETA were generally oriented E-W. Sorry if I misunderstood. I said: "The LOP's were not generally oriented E-W. Recall that the LOP through Howland was oriented 337-157. " I also said: " As the sun moved eastward, the LOP would tilt somewhat further to the west, but not nearly enough to provide a course line." I should have said as the sun moved WESTWARD. My mistake. But the fact remains that as the sun moved westward, the sun line LOPs would tilt toward the west, but not sufficiently to provide a feasible course line. > 3. Here is a more important issue. I'm sure it looks much different when > viewed from the stacks of data at TIGHAR central, but out here in in > cyberland it appeared to me that Bob was asking for something at a far > higher standard than anything presently available on the Niku proposal. It might appear that I'm using a higher standard, but I'm really not doing that. I'm only asking for the minimum essential elements of a feasibility proof. I think you will find that the 8th edition presents an exhaustive analysis of the feasibility of reaching Niku, an analysis which meets at least the standard of the feasibility proof requested from the Gilberts proponents. The Gilberts hypothesis is superficially attractive if one limits the discussion to generalities. But in reality, it is a very complex hypothesis with multiple constraints that are bounded by the laws of physics and which cannot be ignored. Those constraints do not become apparent until one attempts to answer the questions I have posed. When one does confront those constraints, however, the feasibility of a Gilberts Plan B fades like the Cheshire Cat. I hope this helps to clarify things. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:37:28 EDT From: MagikButterfly Subject: Bones What ever happened about the bones taken to Fiji in the early '40's...that could have been Earhart's? ************************************************************************** From Ric You'll find lots of information about that on the TIGHAR website. A good place to start would be http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/15_1/bonesearch.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:40:01 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Bob's your uncle With all of the mind bending,mind boggling,and some bizarre interpretations of Betty's notebook entries, maybe we should go back to the good old fashion scientific methodology of Joe Gervais, who as you know figured that Amelia landed in the Phoenix, because if you rearranged Guy Bolam's name (Irene Bolam's husband) you could come up with the eight Phoenix Islands starting with Gardner,etc. Sort of a code or anagram thing.I believe he was also able to come up with lat/long that corresponded roughly to Hull Island. Soooo if we rearrange St Petersburg...we could come up with Saipan,Tarawa...etc. It maybe solvable yet. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:42:22 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Testing Plan B Alan Caldwell wrote: > If the weather permitted celestial navigation I know of no reason Noonan > could not have navigated back to the Gilberts with at least the same degree > of accuracy with which he navigated to Howland. > > If our famous duo reasoned this out they would have picked the odds on > favorite -- SE to the Phoenix group for the same reasons Ric just pointed out > -- Far, far less chance of missing the Phoenix than the Gilberts. Alan brings up a good point-if the weather permitted celestial navigation. The route chosen was right in the intertropical convergence zone, a region noted for much stormy weather conditions. I often speculate if Fred got the neccessary minimum of shots to get a decent DR along the way. I'm putting together some universal plotting charts together from the position reports to see how they may have ended up along the route. More on that later. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:44:26 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Not only AE and FN seemed to have known they were near Howland. Didn't the Itasca radio operators hear her loud and clear as well, indicating that if they were not over the island they were at least in the area ? ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, but defining "in the area" is the tricky part. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:46:39 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Earhart's watch Can somebody please explain why AE wore her wrist watch turned in ? *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll take a guess. She could see the time without removing her hand from the control wheel. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:50:02 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? If Q-signals were not used in aviation in 1937, how did aviators request a QDM? As I understand it this was in fact what she expected from Itasca. And when did aviation language like QNH, QFU, QDM, QDR, etc. enter the aviation language? Put simply : how did they obtain a QNH before take-off ? ************************************************************************** From Ric When did aviators EVER use Q-signals in voice communications? Must be different in Europe. I grew up in aviation and started flying in 1965 and I had never even heard of these terms until just now on the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:10:10 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Shortening the antenna > From Cam Warren > > Sorry I don't have the time to explain physics and electronics > at the moment (you might try Popular Science, which used to > advertise as being "Written So You Can Understand It"!) Cam, as it happens, I do have a passing acquaintence with both physics and electronics. So I hope you won't mind filling in some details for me. I'll try to keep up with the technical details. > The only thing Gurr (said he) did (confirmed by Lockheed work > orders, was to LENGTHEN the antenna. Wasn't the antenna feedpoint moved also? What effect did the new feed point location have on the antenna and feed line impedance as seen by the transmitter? > If it was too long for 6210, all that was necessary was to physically > shorten it Was the antenna too long for 6210? What fraction of a wavelength was the antenna at 6210? How would shortening the antenna affect its performance on 3510? > Since the topside (requisite 40') was easily obtained (check your scale > drawings), there's no problem there. I assume you are referring here to the design intent of the transmitter. But what antenna configuration did the transmitter design anticipate? Was it a vee configuration with an off-center feed? Or was it a straight end-fed wire? Are the two equivalent in terms of feedpoint impedance? If not, what are the differences? > Of course, anything less than the 250' trailing wire was > woefully inadequate for 500 kc TRANSMISSION, so, trying to be > helpful, Gurr added a HUGE loading coil in series with > whatever antenna system you choose to believe (I think a > belly one) to provide SOME (very little!) 500 kc capability. > That turned out to be hopeless (didn't work enroute Miami) > so, for various reasons I don't need to elaborate on, AE > ordered it junked. Are you stating as a fact that AE had Gurr's loading coil junked at Miami? Does your belief that Gurr's coil was used with a belly antenna imply that Gurr was mistaken in his May 1982 letter to Fred Goerner, in which he said "I improvised a loading coil and resonated the top antenna system"? For Ric: > Cutting to the chase, let me ask our Radio Rangers for an opinion about Cam's > insight into how Pan Am technicians may have physically shortened the antenna > by creating a section or sections of "inactive" wire, and is that something we > might be able to confirm or disprove with photos of the airplane? The Pan Am techs could have shortened the antenna, as Cam suggests, by inserting "inactive" wire. It would be done by cutting the antenna to the desired length and then filling the space between the ends of the antenna and the vertical stabilizer attachment points with "inactive" wire separated from the "active" wire by insulators. The added insulators would have to be about the same size as those used to attach the original antenna ends to the vertical stabilizer points, and would be at least as visible in photos. So if it happened at Miami, then post-Miami photos should show the new insulators. LTM, Bob Brandenburg #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the antenna feed point was changed. Prior to the Luke Field wreck the dorsal vee fed into the fuselage at a point on the top of the fuselage just above and forward of the starboard side cabin window. The wire then ran down the interior cabin wall to the transmitter. When the airplane came out of the repair shop in Burbank in May the feed point had been altered so that the wire came down from the antenna and fed into the fuselage way down on the starboard side of the airplane just opposite where the transmitter was installed on the cabin floor. There are lots and lots of good photos of the airplane after it left Miami and the insulators on the dorsal vee are easy to see. There are two insulators right up close to the forward mast and others right up close to the attach points on the vertical fins. There are no insulators elsewhere on the wire. Cam's hypothesis is disproved. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:21:47 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Fred's letters I'd like to jump in here for a line or two on this subject. I've tried every trick/idea in the book to break the letters loose. I had a personal meeting with the lady and her husband to discuss just what it is that I was looking for. I even gave them a list of questions, and asked them to read the letters in private and see if they could answer any of the questions. Questions like: Did Fred mention anything at all about the flight from Lae to Howland? Is there any mention of radio trouble, anywhere, at any time? Is there any mention of personal equipment on board that wasn't when they left? . . . . and on and on. The response was, "There's nothing in the letters that can help you, it's a closed book!" And yet, in one of the letters they did let me read (Ric has a copy) there were several bits of new information and some of it did not agree with history, or what Earhart had to say about the same event. The part about Clara Livingston is quite puzzling it itself. I have not given up hope on this! It is still a pet project of mine. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric I know somebody is sure to ask.... In "Last Flight" AE describes how she and Fred stayed with woman pilot "Miss Clara Livingston" while in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The book gives the impression that Miss Livingston came forward and offered her hospitality because AE was a fellow female aviator. Fred's letter to his wife makes it clear that Fred had known Clara "for more than seven years" and that the invitation was based upon that friendship. Just an example of how "Last Flight" colors the story to make sure AE is the star. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:27:24 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: The LOP (again) >What Tighar describes is running on the > LOP south looking for Howland until Noonan realises he is wayyyy to far > south, and looks at his chart and says whoa lets try Niku, as gas is >running low, sort of past the point of no return.Maybe so. As I understand celestial navigation, the one thing Noonan should have been pretty sure of is his Latitude. He should have had a very good idea how far north or south they were from sun shots. The thing he should not have been able to place was his longitude because of the head/tailwinds etc. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Nope. I don't pretend to sing in the Celestial Choir, I just book the hall, but here's the way it has been explained to me (many, many times). The sun comes up in the same spot relative over a wide range of latitudes, so a sunrise LOP gives you no useful latitude information (you already know that you're not, for example, up near Midway). It does, however, give you rather precise longitude information because the Earth rotates west to east and the sun becomes visible along a specific longitudinal line at a specific time. The line, of course, is at 90 degrees to the sunrise and is not exactly in line with the lines of longitude (337/157 as opposed to 360/180), but it is predictable and precise. Once Fred gets his initial LOP at sunrise and advances it through his intended destination, he can continue to take observations as he goes along to confrim that he's making the progress he predicted. This is known in the trade as "shooting speed lines." The result is that by the time he reaches the advanced LOP that falls through Howland he's had several opportunities to confirm that it's accurate. Ten miles was his demonstrated standard but whether he was north or south (i.e latitude information) was not something he could know. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:07:13 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Searching for Howland >> The original plan for the flight from Lae to Howland seems to have called >> for 17 hours and One minute in the air. > > From Ric > > Source? Purdue flight planning papers.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Any date for that estimate? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:10:27 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Banishment Margot Still wrote: > I take exception to Mr. Warren's recent posting on banishment from the FORUM. > This is an open forum with a long standing history of open and shared > information. Any demonstrated hesitancy on his part to share information > would and should be met with resentment and/or hostility. As a historian and > researcher I personally find it appalling. Then why aren't you jumping on me???? I have information on the Earhart subject, and can't share it with you. Most informed people know why. . . Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric Since you brought it up...perhaps you'd care to inform some more people. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:11:48 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Loyalties > From Ron Bright > > Wombat, > > I would guess that you must have conflicting loyalties with Reineck and > Butler. Reinke believes Amelia went down and was captured by the Japanese > while Butler dismisses that notion as nonsense based on her interview of > Aoki. Actually I don't really have "loyalties". I'm fascinated by the TIGHAR search, and I might be disappointed if it turns out Earhart didn't land on Gardner. On the other hand, if someone dredges her plane up out of deep water somewhere, I'll still be interested. As an occasional pilot, this is one of the world's fascinating aviation mysteries and some of the documentation I've seen is amazing. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:12:40 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Oil Autombile engines have an oil pan (wet sump) where the parts are bathed in oil. Radial engines used a dry sump and spray and force the oil on to moving parts. Residual oil is returned to the holding tank The oil was maintained in a (tank) reservoir separate from the engine. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:18:17 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Reineck's "Last communication from Earhart". I just finished reading Reineck's 22 page article on the web. Very interesting, so when are you going to start searching the Yellow Sea? ************************************************************************** From Ric I guess you weren't yet on the forum when this was discussed. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:34:20 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Noonan/ Inflight Death in the Electra? I just received the entire transcript(4 pages) from Univ of Wyoming that mentions the Earhart saga. You have already posted the excerpts but I have found a couple of additonal interesting excerpts that will continue to add to the mystery and probably fuel more speculation about Noonan. And Vidal. First, the interviewer asks "Gene ,you knew Amelia Earhart quite well,didn't you". Gene answers with an incomprehensible statement. "Yes. We were good friends for 12 years...(and) I first knew her in 1930..." Well AE disappeared in 1937,we think, so does that give a clue that the interview was in 1942. Can the forum figure out this addition.Shouldn't he have answered " seven years". He goes on to describe Amelia..."...a tomboy...yet was like a little girl in some respects...wrote poetry...under another name..." and other insights to AE's personality. The interviewer then asks Gene if he" knows anything about the last flight." "Yes,I know quite a bit about it. It's a shame there were so many wild reports as to what might have happened to her. It really was not so complicated." He describes how he helped her with the pre-flight preparations and that her only "worry" was not to miss Howland, and that her plan was to head for the Gilberts when she had four hours of fuel left, and land on a beach. Now here is the kicker. "She was dependent upon her navigator to locate the plane's position with reference to Howland..."Because she changed her messages to the boat [the Itasca] from " ' we' "to " ' I' " and seemed quite helpless in locating Howland, we can almost assume something had happened to the navigator or his equipment. The navigator sat ...in the rear..and she could barely see... and ...would have to crawl over the gas tanks...to get to where the navigator sat. However she couldn't leave the controls." So do we have a incapacited ,or dead navigator? Did she change her pronouns? Could explain why AE couldn't figure out where she was or how to get to where she wanted to go. The Itasca radio log doesn't indicate a shift in pronouns from "we" or "us" to "I", and the last (officially reported) message says "We are on...." So does that mean that there were additional messages from Earhart after the 08:44 message, in which she changed pronouns and we Earhart researchers have never seen. Or was Vidal nuts.His remark comes well after the official Itasca log was released. Vidal ended with the "keeping in mind her thoroughness, she must have turned back to the Gilbert Islands...as she planned to do...." No mention of an other alternate and the Gilbert Is threads through this transcript. The Univ of Wyoming could not shed any further light on the interviewer, the time,circumstances,and where the rest of this transcript is. The copy of the transcript that I have is typedwith a standard typewriter and used quotes on the interviewer's questions and on Vidal's responses. This suggests that it was taped,but doesn't eliminate that this was a transcription of shorthand. There doesn't appear any other reference to estimte the time of interview except the top line says, "I left Chng-tu(sic) on the next plane." Thus the interview took place after Chng-tu. So the archvist was correct. This transcript leaves us with more questions than answers. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't follow how Vidal's statement "We were good friends for 12 years...(and) I first knew her in 1930..." indicates that the interview was done in 1942. It either suggests that Earhart survived until 1942 or that Vidal had his years or addition messed up. As you note, the Itasca log documents no pronoun change so either Vidal was privy to radio messages we don't know about or he didn't know what he was talking about. It does seem to be the case, as we discussed in the context of the "last communication" Rollin Reineck wrote about, that there was a rumor going around official circles about messages being heard that were not included in the Itasca log. The more we learn about this Vidal interview the less credible his information becomes. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:35:14 EDT From: Robert Klauss Subject: Re: Oil In Flight Engineer school I was taught that oil dripping from the cowl was a good thing, "The only time the engine doesn't leak any oil is when it doesn't have any oil." LTM (Lubricate The Motor), Robert ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:43:40 EDT From: Jim Van Hare Subject: Re: Challenging ideas >From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > > Whether the signals got all the way from Niku to > Stateside remains to be proven. And the genuineness of Betty's record has > yet to be proven. I just went to http://www.spaceweather.com/java/sunspot.html and checked the sunspot activity for July, 1937. It turns out 1937 was near the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle. At these times radio tends to travel longer than typical distances, it can be very spotty as to what frequencies carry at what time of day, and this can vary rapidly. Interestingly we are today at about the same point in the cycle as when AE disappeared for anyone who wants to do some experimenting. While receivers were less sensitive than to day, broadcast congestion and man made noise was less too. Also long wire antennas were accepted as the normal instead of the super sub-miniature things frequently supplied to casual listeners today. Good chance the signal made it that distance and maybe not to other locations. Jim KC7RKL ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:45:31 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Proving a negative Let's say the Maine listener was listening to a favorite morning music broadcast from the Orient. That assumes a station located in the radio bands 9400-10000, 11500-12000, 15000-155000, 17600-18000. Folks have happily speculated about the meaning of phrases and numbers in the Betty logs, but no one has ventured an explanation of how this reception from the AE plane really would have worked, from the output tubes of her transmitter to the lady's home radio in Maine. What do YOU think is the liklihood this was an authentic AE transmission? What kind of light does that conclusion cast on the source of Betty's reception? It would be *very* illuminating to learn the frequency range, even approximate, where Betty heard this. Hoaxers pick frequencies where they know they'll be heard, where they'll get some attention, raise a ruckus. Putting this on the air in one of the higher bands has some advantage: there are going to be many folks tuning around in there for interesting broadcasts, and for a low power transmitter, you'll get out better, via skip; and it's harder to DF ( i.e. be caught ) because the local -coverage ground wave/ direct wave, necessary for DFing, does not go out nearly as far. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:55:47 EDT From: Pete Subject: Niku vets needed While working up the specs on the LTM, the old Cargo Agent/almost Boarding Agent crept in. LTM is no good in Samoa in a crate. Having looked up the NOAA buoys, they're monsters. The TRITON series have 4,200 pound anchors. I've e-mailed NOAA/NODC about info, especially the old ODAS buoys. I also e-mailed a Dr. Raymond Schmitt at Woods Hole Institute for advice. Why yes, I am taking advantage of being a college student and not identifying where said buoy is to be. Thus: LTM will be restricted in size to a diameter where the crating does not exceed a standard pallet. If not crated, LTM's solar panels will attempt to draw ambient light into the batteries with no way to shunt overcharge to ground. If batteries disconnected, LTM will require further assembly, likely enroute Niku and therefore taking up more planning time than the antenna/mast attachment. I call the Niku vets on recollections of A) Dockside facilites in Samoa that could lift a pallet onto the decks of Na'ia. I'm trying to hold the total weight of LTM/packing/pallet to less than 200 pounds, I've carried loads like that and more up a Navy gangway, and can't say I enjoyed the experience. B) Characteristics of the Niku reef. To allow the "po' boy" anchors a chance I may need some chain to go into the reef. Nylon line, even the braided, can quickly be cut away by the coral. I've been off-forum with Kenton regarding the tidal data. If LTM is NOT to collect it, (and be nice if NOAA would put an old one of their buoys outside the reef), then LTM may be sited within the lagoon, semi-protected from storms and still test those freqs. Right now college student has to build for at least 2 years with chance of being shoved onto the reef. NC shows what a reef can do. Installation of LTM will mean: Loading time at Samoa dockside, antenna asssembly while enroute Niku, diver time to place anchors. Sing to me oh Choir! I can build it, get it to Samoa (NOTE: Crowley line does not go there), let the atmosphere provide ducting (uh, sunspot activity not monitored in 1937, 50 watts might not even hit Mexico) Shell construction about to commence. By IALA rules LTM is a Special Purpose Buoy. With the solar needs and storm protection., I can conform to the Rules with a shape not normally used...hexagon, strongest structure known in Nature for lightweight. Please ask any merchant Captains available about sighting a yellow buoy of that shape that appears to be yellow and white striped what they would think of that lookout report. NC is the "wreck of Niku", causing another by misidentification will probably result in a great deal of "hesitation" if Niku 5 if needed. TC Pete (who is real close to picking up a rivet gun to start on the shell) *************************************************************************** From Ric I've tried to be nice about this but it's not working. Am I the only one who thinks this is insane? I have no intention of putting my people at risk humping a 200 pound piece of technology that we don't need and don't want all the way to Niku, somehow onto the island, and then across the island and into the lagoon. Please forget it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:00:33 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Magazine excerpt The following is excerpt from a Letter to the Editor of "Flight Journal" magazine and appears in the December 2000 edition. The letter was about the Lockheed 12A. I thought it may be appropriate in view of the recent discussions on the forum. LTM, who reads too many "av mags" Dennis O. McGee #0149EC "It's worth mentioning, I think, that [Lockheed 12A] NC18955 was repatriated from Canada, initially as N60775 (not 60755), and was subsequently reregistered by movie stunt pilot Paul Mantz as NC16020 -- no doubt, in an effort to evoke the Earhart image for profit. It later crashed and burned, thus promoting the yarn in "Amelia Earhart Lives" that the Electra had somehow survived. Author Klaas [not further identified] apparently didn't know the difference between an L10 and an L12A "Another 12A with a phony Earhart link was NC17342. A picture of it "crashed" at "Bur" was published in a "classic" av rag a few years ago. Its editors, who were notorious for circulating misinformation and inventing "facts" -- claimed that it crashed at Burbank with Earhart aboard. In fact, it was a circa 1939 studio still of a fake accident staged for a film. The 12A had been wheeled into a pair of trenches to make it look as if it was on its belly. "Among the surviving L12As is the one palmed off on Disney as the "Casablanca" film-classic Lockheed in which Bergman flies off into the misty night. I think it reposes in the Orlando theme park. Anyway, the real "Casablanca" L12A was NC17376. Disney's is N71K -- once the FAA's NC1. In its younger days, it was piloted by Gene Vidal, Gore's father." John Underwood Glendale CA *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dennis. Interesting stuff. It was Joe Gervais, not Joe Klaas, who misidentified the wreck of N16020, and it was TIGHAR member Frank Lombardo who researched and exposed the Air Comics photo of the Electra Junior supposedly wrecked by Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:01:33 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: More Apples and Oranges > From Janet Whitney > > Why is someone comparing a ham transceiver (Kenwood TS-450) with a triple > conversion receiver that was manufactured in the early 1990's and has a > sensitivity on the order of 0.25 microvolt and an effective noise blanker > - to someone's unknown home shortwave receiver of the 1930's? I think the comparison was made from what is known (contemporary equipment) to what is relatively unknown (AE's radio system). I think the point the author was making is that strange things do happen in the reception of weak signals. It is not "proof" that Betty heard AE, but (at least to some of us) it is a suggestive analogy that under some atmospheric conditions, a weak signal may have reached Florida and may have been heard by a young woman one afternoon in July of 1937. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:12:09 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: More Apples and Oranges > From Janet Whitney > Why is someone comparing a ... Kenwood TS-450 ... to someone's > unknown home shortwave receiver of the 1930's? I assume you are referring to Ken Knapp's message in which he states: "My point is, I am running properly designed and tuned modern equipment, as is WARM. If harmonics are present in our signals, then I'll guarantee they were also present in AE's as well. The real question is the strength of the harmonics." Obviously he wasn't comparing his Kenwood to "someone's unknown home shortwave receiver," he was comparing the technology in today's equipment to the technology in Earhart's radio. My guess is that he was replying to your comment: "Unless someone can prove otherwise, I will believe the radio techs at Pan Am knew what they were doing. Harmonics? Humbug!" Believe what you wish but please don't expect us to believe it too. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:13:20 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges Ok, I'll jump in on this one (with what little I know about it). Frequency doubling (modulating a signal at xHz and then doubling it to 2xHz before stepping up the power and applying it to an antenna) is sometimes used in transmitters (notably shortwave) to generate the final frequency. Sometimes they do this to provide additional transmit frequencies. I don't know if the Earhart W.E did that, and if it did, whether a significant carrier at the primary frequency could have been radiated. Ironically, frequency doubling is also sometimes applied in transmitters for the purpose of minimizing the radiation of spurious harmonics, especially in adjacent frequencies. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:14:31 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: More Apples and Oranges Janet Whitney wrote: >Why is someone comparing a ham transceiver (Kenwood TS-450) with a triple >conversion receiver that was manufactured in the early 1990's and has a >sensitivity on the order of 0.25 microvolt and an effective noise blanker - >to someone's unknown home shortwave receiver of the 1930's? I certainly wasn't! Never made any such claim. Where did you get the impression that anyone was? LTM (who likes tangerines) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:15:50 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges Actually, Ken, the image freqs in this case are 910 KHz up or down, not 455. And the most likely image to be heard will be the one on the high side of the signal you want. LTM (who believes in ghosts) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:17:25 EDT From: Ken Knapp Subject: Re: More Apples and Oranges > From Janet Whitney > > Why is someone comparing a ham transceiver (Kenwood TS-450) with a triple > conversion receiver that was manufactured in the early 1990's and has a > sensitivity on the order of 0.25 microvolt and an effective noise blanker - > to someone's unknown home shortwave receiver of the 1930's? I wasn't comparing the receivers. I was demonstrating the feasibility of harmonics from the TRANSMITTER. My point was: If a properly tuned modern transmitter generates harmonics, then it was certainly possible with AE's transmitter. It was in reply to your statement of : "Harmonics? Humbug!". Also, you need to understand the difference between reading what someone wrote about equipment and actually owning and operating it. You quoted the sensitivity of the Kenwood in FM mode. I was using AM mode, where the sensitivity is 2 microvolts. Big difference. Besides, sensitivity is misleading. Signal to noise ratio is much more important. Also you used the term "effective noise blanker". I have yet to own a receiver, including the Kenwood, which had a noise blanker that really "blanked" noise. In short, I think research involves a bit more than reading radio specifications out of ads in back issues of QST. Ken Knapp ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:19:03 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Lae-Howland/ Alternate landing > From Bill Conover > A commentary attributed to AE in "Final Flight" --given the fact > that it was put together by editors after her demise, is not really > proof of such planning. And any proof of planning would not be proof of the actions they ultimately took. All we can hope to do in this discussion is to separate the probable from the improbable. I think it's probable that the "Plan B" was actually considered at some point. I think it is also probable that each island they overflew was considered as a possible, and perhaps primary, emergency landing site until they became closer to the next island. The choice of a landing site would have also been dependant upon the type of emergency that they may have. But once Noonan had calculated and projected a line of position through Howland, and they were close enough to this LOP for it to be a viable option, I think it is probable that an alternate would have been chosen from the islands on that line. I think it has been shown that this behavior is consistent with Noonan's past behavior. So considering not the possibilities, but rather the probabilities and the facts, I think the best place to look for them is along the LOP. The Phoenix islands are not only consistent with the probabilities but they are consistent with the facts and with the evidence that TIGHAR has been finding. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:23:10 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Rescue from Niku From Alan Caldwell << The one thing - the ONLY thing - he can do that will virtually guarantee landfall of some kind is to run southeast on the LOP. >> Yeah! Why is this so hard to understand? Everyone wants to put the Electra in some mythically large expanse from which no one could pick a decent starting point. To be true, Noonan would have had to be a hopelessly bad navigator. The accuracy and expertise of his skills are known and AE's "We must be on you" or words to that effect show that at least THEY thought they knew closely where they were.>> The simple logic of flying SE on the LOP until connecting with one or more of the Phoenix chain islands is inescapable, however there still remains the question: ...how do we get AE/FN located & rescued? There is presently no _evidence_ to support the proposition that AE/FN ever received any further radio messages from the Itaska (following the last message Itaska received from AE/FN) or subsequently received any radio signals from the approaching USS Colorado or the Lexington Task Force. Additionally, the USN & USCG insist no _bonafide_ radio signals were received from AE/FN following the last message received by Itaska. (Rollin Reineck's website insists that there was at least one message that was intercepted on Howland by US Army personnel indicating AE/FN had turned North on the LOP.) We have no _evidence_ to support any basis for determining just what actual knowledge AE/FN had concerning the Phoenix Island Chain, but the general concensus of _opinion_ seems to be that they _would_ have known that it was very sparsely populated (Lt. Lambrecht expressed great surprise that Hull Island was inhabited) & well off any known shipping lanes, making rescue by the Itaska (the only known (to AE/FN) vessel close enough to effect any rescue) highly questionable, _if_ they received no confirmation that Itaska was _still_ receiving their radio signals. (presuming they _did_ continue to signal Itaska on the flight SE to the Phoenix Chain.) Perhaps this scenario provides additional importance for continuing efforts to 'decode' the 'Betty' notes (if shown to be a bonafide transcript of a legitimate broadcast from AE/FN) for some possible, obscure clue to just what the actual post-landing situation was, on whatever landfall the flight terminated. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:30:38 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Proving a negative > From Alan Caldwell > > Ric wrote: > << I'll take the bait. A statement like "Earhart's plane did not splash > down in > the Pacific Ocean." can only be proved by establishing the veracity of a > positive statement >> > > > Thanks. You beat me to it. Agreed. But establishing a positive ("AE landed on the reef near Niku") does prove a negative ("AE did not land in chartless waters"). This, in turn, shows that the assertion "No one can prove a negative" is false. Some negatives can be established; some cannot. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric That's just a semantic game. Every positive hypothesis can be stated as a negative and vice versa. What then is the characteristic that distinguishes the genuine negative, unprovable hypotheisis? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:36:00 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Electra as the McGuffin > From Janet Whitney > ... Stay tuned. LOL! I'm hooked. I won't move my radio dial from whatever frequency it is that is bringing me the story of Raider Ric and the Niku Diggers. ;o) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:40:44 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Earhart's watch Wearing the watch on the inside of the wrist also protects against breaking the crystal if you're a klutz. I always wear my watches turned to the inside, but I don't remember when I started to do it or why. I do find it easier to fix the strap through the buckle by holding the watch face against my stomach and lacing the band and buckle, but that may be a consequence of my clothing habits rather than the cause. Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric I was once told that accordion players always wear their watches reversed so that the face doesn't rub on the strap of the instrument. I'll ask Betty if she recalls hearing any accordion music. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:46:22 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Shortening the antenna > Prior to the Luke Field wreck the dorsal vee fed into the fuselage... In case there is a misunderstanding, the feed point of an antenna is where the lead-in wire (usually coax) is physically attached to the antenna. The feed point affects the characteristics of the antenna, i.e. radiation pattern, wavelength, etc. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric My radio ignorance showing again. By that definiton, the feed point does not seem to have been changed relative to the fuselage of the airplane, but of course the change in overall antenna length may have meant that that same location had a different effect. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:48:49 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Electra's Antenna According to the antenna and RF transmission line textbooks I reviewed at the engineering library, single line (wire) antenna feeds have been used from Marconi's time to today...especially on ships and sailboats. When using a single line (wire) feed, the feedline is supposed to be connected to the antenna at a point where the characteristic impedence of the feed line matches the resistive impedence of the antenna. This will allow the line to be matched to the antenna and to operate without standing waves. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:51:39 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? Some Q Codes (QFE, QNH and maybe a couple more) were common in the United States when I went through pilot training in 1954. When I was stationed in Europe in 1955, there were a host of Q Codes in use, so many that our equivalent of the Enroute Charts listed them. One that comes to mind was QSY which translated to, "change frequency." I don't know when they disappeared from the scene, but when I returned to Europe in 1993, the only remaining Q Codes in use were the venerable QFE and QNH. LTM (who has a great memory for events 45 years ago) ************************************************************************** From Ric When you say they were "in use" do you mean that the letters would be spoken in radio transmissions in lieu of what they meant? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:53:17 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: Earhart's watch By having the face of your watch on the inside of your wrist, this helps prevents damaging the crystal. Also it looks macho. ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes folks, the Earhart Forum can build a thread around ANYTHING. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:54:42 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: AE's watch When I was a lot younger, working on a farm or other labor intensive endevors, I also wore my watch on the "inside" of my wrist. My watch, maybe because my wrists tend to be thin, always "rolls" to the outside an becomes difficult to read. It also tended to protect the crystal which was then, prior to plastics, always subject to breakage and damage. It seemed that it worked although I never kept records. Off point triva question #1, why do cataloges nearly always depict watches showing the time as 10:10 ************************************************************************** From Ric (I don't believe this.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:59:01 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Electra as the McGuffin Quiet day at the office, Janet? I've come up with plots for novels, but this one is worthy of Clive Cussler. Send me your address (mine is ), and we'll exchange plot ideas. By the way, you left out the Japanese Navy and the Nazi spies. On a slightly more serious note, does anyone know if there's been any interest in an Earhart movie that uses this sort of thing? Sometimes a persistant scriptwriter can make contacts no one else has found yet. Let's leave out "Flight to Freedom." Much of the action was in the part of California populated by the movie set, and someone there might know something but be less than interested in revealing it to a non-member of their community. LTM (who always enjoyed "Tales of the Gold Monkey") Mike Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric The word on the street is that "I Was Amelia Earhart" is slated for release in 2003. Probably no Japanese but plenty of sex in the sand. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:17:48 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: The AE Lives anagram Janet, if I sounded even the least bit sarcastic, I'm sorry. This really is off-topic, but do real humans ever take seriously those anagram games? Was Gervais serious? LTM (an anagram of TML) *************************************************************************** From Ric Gervais was serious. Here's how it went: (I can't line it up like he did because the formatting won't translate on everyone's email, but...) Take selected letters from the names of the islands in the Phoenix Group - Gardner enderbUry sYdney Birnie phOenix hulL cAnton Mckean - and you get GUY BOLAM, the name of Irene Bolam's (really Amelia Earhart's) husband. It gets better. Now take the number representing the position of the appropriate letter on each name, like this; Gardner 1 enderbUry 7 sYdney 2 Birnie 1 phOenix 3 hulL 4 cAnton 2 Mckean 1 and you get 17213421. A meaningless number? Hardly. This is obviously intended to be 172 degrees 13 minutes west, 4 degrees 21 minutes south - the coordinates of (gasp!) Hull Island! The place where the Electra must have landed! (Never mind that that position is actually out in the middle of the ocean several miles north of Hull.) The man is a genius. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:18:53 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Electra as the McMuffin Again, Janet is on to something. Let's get McDonald's involved and instead of searching for a McGuffin, let's get them to start a project to help "locate" the McMuffin (Electra). They could turn this in to a BIG contest nationwide -heck, worldwide. It could include maps and educational materials about the search and the winner would get an all expense paid trip to Fiji or some other exotic out of the way place! And TIGHAR would get some of the proceeds to help fund the search! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:22:59 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: "Informed People?" For Don J. Please define '"informed people". I understand if there is information that Richard deems confidential for the time being as in the case of 'Betty', but obviously he is not aware of the information in your possession from his comment. This flaunting of unshared information is exactly what I was making reference to in my posting regarding Cam Warren. It is non productive and I question your motivations. LTM, MStill #2332CE *************************************************************************** From Ric Actually, Don HAS informed me that he has information he is not at liberty to disclose and has explained why. He gave his word to the people who told him that he would not tell anyone else. I have to respect that. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:28:33 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: simple addition Ron Bright said: First, the interviewer asks "Gene ,you knew Amelia Earhart quite well,didn't you". Gene answers with an incomprehensible statement. "Yes. We were good friends for 12 years...(and) I first knew her in 1930..." Well AE disappeared in 1937,we think, so does that give a clue that the interview was in 1942. Can the forum figure out this addition.Shouldn't he have answered "seven years". "We were good friends for 12 years [prior to her death in 1937, i.e he met her in 1925?] (and) I first knew her in 1930 . . ." If the numbers Vidal gives are correct and the interview was in 1942 then Vidal must have been in contact with AE at some point during the previous five years while she was dead. Have Muldar and Scully been notified of this? LTM, who is no math wizard Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:33:49 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Searching for Howland >>> From Ross Devitt >>> The original plan for the flight from Lae to Howland seems to have called >>> for 17hours and One minute in the air. >>From Ric >> >>Source? > > Purdue flight planning papers.. > > Th' WOMBAT > *************************************************************************** >From Ric > > Any date for that estimate? It's the estimate for the East to West (First) Flight - the planning chart is in AMELIA, MY COURAGEOUS SISTER. ************************************************************************** From Ric Well heck Wombat, that's for the Howland to Lae flight that could expect tailwinds. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:43:25 EDT From: Janice Brown Subject: Re: Earhart's watch Ric. your guess makes perfect sense. However, I wear my wristwatch that way and I've never flown a plane. Years ago I was a nursing assistant (I read Amelia was one also for a while). It was a routine to take pulses several times a shift, and during the late evening and night shifts it was my habit, and that of many of the nursing staff to disturb them as less as possible by taking a pulse with the patient's hand in the normal prone, palm down position. Having one's wrist watch on the inside of the wrist allowed you to take a pulse this way and still read the second hand. I don't, of course, know if Amelia's watch had a second hand. But years later I still wear my watch this way. Janice Brown ************************************************************************** From Ric An interesting possibility, except that (as I recall) the wrist watch was pretty much an invention of the First World War and the needs of officers in the trenches. They only became popular with the civilian population after the war - so Amelia the nursing assistant in 1918 would be unlikely to have a wrist watch. (And I have this awful sinking feeling that I have just launched another thread). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:45:43 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Different suffer Ref. page 51, line 10: I understand that there was a ship named the "Drayton" involved in the search. I don't know what time span or where it was, but anyway-- DIFF - rent SUF - fer (I hear you) DRAY - ton OV - er I realize that the word "drayton" doesn't sound anything like "different" except for the same number of syllables, the same emphasis and the same first letter, however, AE may have also misunderstood the name of the ship. The old "Chinese telephone game" again. LTM Marty 0724C *************************************************************************** From Ric Now THAT's a stretch. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:58:09 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Earhart's watch I once asked my father about this. In the mid 60s, it was popular to do that. Look at some WW2 movies: John Wayne wore his watches with the face inward. Dad said that it was -- as Marty says -- to protect the crystal. > From Ric > > I was once told that accordion players always wear their watches reversed so > that the face doesn't rub on the strap of the instrument. I'll ask Betty if > she recalls hearing any accordion music. I know some British accordion players. I'll ask them if they know anything about AE/FN. LTM (who knows that accordions are NEVER stolen) Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Yes, but wasn't there a clock on the panel as well? ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Of course there was clock. The real reason a pilot would wear her watch like that is so people would ask why and she would get to explain why it was vital for pilots to wear their watches like that. Have you perhaps noticed on this very forum that anyone who is now or ever has been a pilot (or played one on television) will miss no opportunity to regale lesser mortals with arcane secrets known only to those of us who have slipped the surly bonds and routinely pat God on the cheek? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:00:02 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Banishment > I have information on the Earhart > subject, and can't share it with you. Most informed people know why. . . > > Don J. > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > Since you brought it up...perhaps you'd care to inform some more people. Inquiring minds want to know. I'd like to know. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:03:45 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Shortening the antenna Regarding the dorsal Vee antenna - and make no mistake, most of this radio stuff goes right over my head - as I sit here reading this post, I am also looking at my Tighar Lockheed "Electra" poster, which I had dry-mounted and hangs proudly on the wall above my computer, there are what appear to be two leads to the Vee - one from the rear of the cockpit leading to the front mast, and one from the area of the cabin leading up to one of the legs of the Vee. Is the wire in front actually a lead, or maybe a guy-wire for the mast, or a ground, or something else? Do the lengths of the two legs of the Vee add together to get antenna length, or is it just a double antenna? Or do the two legs each perform a different function? Sorry if these are stupid questions. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Stupid radio questions are the only kind I can answer. The wire going forward from the mast appears to be merely a guy for the mast. The legs of the vee together make up the antenna length. They do not perform separate functions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:04:48 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: 158-338 It dawns on me that by the time Betty heard the AE broadcast, it was probably at least a day after the landing. I doubt that I would have been able to recall exactly what Fred told me about the sun line, but I bet he drew a line on a chart, and when AE went back to the chart, she did the best she could (blunt pencil?) to decipher the line, and came up with 158-338. Not re-navigation, just a chart made in a moving airplane in a moment of stress. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:05:26 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Watch question Mike M. asked: Why do cataloges nearly always depict watches showing the time as 10:10? So the hands don't cover the brand name. LTM, next question please . . . Dennis O. McGee #1049EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:08:01 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: AE's watch I heard that there was a "tradition" that big desk clocks and that sort of thing always had their hands at 7:20, and pocket watches and wrist watches had their hands set a 10:10. It's to prevent the hands from vanishing twice a day, and to show off the hands. I was told this when I was a wee lad, getting my first watch. About 1955. All of which reminds me of something else: do we know that the clocks on That Electra were keeping perfect time? If the clocks were off, or -- worse -- not in agreement, would not the navigation be a bit askew? Were the clocks set and that setting noted somewhere? Did they check their on-board clocks with anyone after takeoff? > From Ric > > (I don't believe this.) Neither does anyone else, but it'll probably lead back to Niku. Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric Noonan carried at least one chronometer and its accuracy was a matter of much attention and concern. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:14:05 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Electra as the McGuffin Hey, Janet... that's a pretty fair pitch. Just like I'd love to see the students do it in the Screenwriting classes I teach. And she did it all in one minute, friends.... Syd Field would be proud! LTM (who loves Hitchcock, Clive Cussler and Indiana Jones) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From S. Wesley Smith Shame on any of you who trivialize this forum for your own entertainment and your arrogance that it entertains any of the rest of us. While levity is sometimes in order, this recent business smacks of earlier exchanges that belong in an adolescent chat room - not this forum. Please try to restrain yourselves. S. Wesley Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric Why do I get this feeling like somebody has just set off a cherry bomb at the foot of Mt. Everest after a heavy snowfall? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:15:27 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Watch wearing Ric said: "An interesting possibility, except that (as I recall) the wrist watch was pretty much an invention of the First World War and the needs of officers in the trenches." And if the watches had radium dials that glowed in the dark, it would make the officers fairly good targets for snipers at night if the watch was worn faceside-up. By turning the watch faceside-down it would hide the glow of the radium face. True or false? This is not unlike the "three men on a match" taboo also in World War I The story was that if three guys light up cigarettes at night using one match the third guy to light up usually got picked off by a sniper -- it took that long (10 seconds?) for the shooter to focus, aim and squeeze off the round. Since then it has "always" been bad luck to have three people light up using a single match. True or false? LTM, who no longer smokes, just smolders Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:16:02 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Re: "Informed People?" If the reasoning is acceptable to Richard, it is certainly acceptable to me. End of discussion. LTM, MStill #2332 CE ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:32:46 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Proving a negative I wrote: > ... Some negatives can be established; > some cannot. > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > That's just a semantic game. Every positive hypothesis can be stated as a > negative and vice versa. What then is the characteristic that > distinguishes the genuine negative, unprovable hypotheisis? This is not just semantics. If we're going to talk about proof, then we are invoking the laws of reason, and it makes sense (to me) to proceed consistently and thoughtfully in their use. Semantics is essential to the establishment of axioms, formal procedures, and algorithms. No semantics, no logic. It is a mistake to say, "No one can prove a negative." This is a slogan, not an axiom of logic nor the conclusion of a proof. People may wish to invoke it to give rhetorical support to their position--it has a nice ring to it--but it is not a law of logic nor of historical research. Here is a typical dialogue in which the magic wand of the Unprovable Negative is waved over a set of difficulties: NOVA: What do you mean when you say that you cannot prove a negative? KLASS: Let me give an example. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Clause knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole. So you simply cannot prove -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/philipklass.html For lack of a better term, let's call these "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that the McGuffin doesn't exist. I can establish some local existential negatives. I can say with some certitude that Santa Claus, leprechauns, ghosts, and alien invaders are not here in the room with me, because this is a space that I can inspect directly and accurately. There are also no automobiles parked in my bedroom. I am not in a position to say that there are no hair mites in my eyelashes because I lack the equipment to inspect my eyelashes--the problem of definitively declaring either the existence or non-existence of mites on my own body is incapable of resolution through my own personal observations. In the case of Betty's notebook, I can state with perfect assurance that I have never heard low-power voice transmissions skip to my shortwave receiver from a small island in the Pacific. I've never owned a shortwave receiver. I may have played with someone else's once or twice, but with no comprehension of what I was doing. I am not allowed to generalize from my experience that no other human being has ever heard such weak transmissions from the Pacific to North America. I am not capable of observing all possible transmissions and receptions on all frequencies under all possible ionospheric conditions. Since I know the limits of my observational powers, I know I cannot prove this particular negative. And, on the assumption that your mind is as limited as mine, I presume that you cannot prove it, either. If TIGHAR finds the McGuffin, then it leaves open the possibility that Betty heard AE and FN; it raises the probability that others may have heard them, too. If TIGHAR fails to find the McGuffin, the possibility still exists that they came down somewhere else and were able to transmit for a short time. If the McGuffin is located in the depths of the ocean, that establishes a local existential negative with a vengeance: whatever Betty heard, it wasn't AE and FN. But pure logic is of no use in deciding between these three cases. So, to answer your question in your own terms, "the characteristic that distinguishes the genuine negative, unprovable hypothesis" from counterfeit negative, unprovable hypotheses is observability. If I have the power to search the relevant space, I can decide for or against the hypothesis. If I do not have the power to search the relevant space, I cannot "prove the negative." LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************** From Ric The observability test only works if we assume that our own perception of our observational powers is accurate. Example: You're quite satisfied that there are no automobiles in your bedroom because you're confident that you could find one if it was there. It is also easy for me to accept your conclusion because I trust your ability to look around the room and confirm the absence of motor vehicles. Conversely, your hesitancy to make a judgement about the presence of hair mites in your eyelashes seems to be a reasonable recognition of your limited observational powers. But let's pick a grayer example. You've lost your car keys and have searched your bedroom and have concluded that you have proved the negative hypothesis that "My keys are not in the bedroom." Two weeks later the cleaning lady finds the keys behind your dresser. You thought you had proved the negative hypothesis by observation but what you really proved was that you couldn't find your keys. The same applies to the cars in your bedroom. We can talk about gradations of credibility but we can't talk about absolutes. The only way to prove that your car keys are not in the bedroom is to find them (establish the truth of a positive hypothesis) somewhere else. The automobile-in-the-bedroom is, in fact, an example of a true unprovable negative hypothesis because it is nonspecific as to what car we're talking about. We can prove, for example, that my 1991 Toyota VIN number so-and-so i s not in your bedroom by noting that it is sitting here in my driveway, but there is an impossibly large number other cars that could be there. I suggest, therefore, that the test of a genuine unprovable negative hypothesis is specificity rather than observability. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:48:06 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? Ric asked: >When you say they were "in use" do you mean that the letters would be spoken >in radio transmissions in lieu of what they meant? Spoken, as in, "Air Force 12597, QSY (Que Ess Wye) Paris Control 127.6." When there was a lot of static on frequency, typical of HF, then the phonetic alphabet was employed, as, "Queen Nan How, Two Niner Eight Fife." Curiously, the Q-Codes were not universally applied either by pilots or controllers. Maybe they were on their way out in the Fifties. Anecdote: When I was in training for the DC-6 at United, I once made a Q-Code response during a simulator period. The instructor observed that it wasn't used in the airline biz. Skeet *************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. If the practice was on its way out in the 1950s and not "used in the airline biz" by whenever you were training for the DC-6, I wonder when and in what context spoken Q-Codes were popular? I just checked with my Dad who was an Air Force pilot in 1944/45 and he has no familarity with Q-Codes. Do we have any pilots, military or civilian, who were flying and using radios before the war? Are there any surviving aviation radio procedures handbooks from the mid to late 1930s? If we can establish that Earhart should have been familiar with spoken Q-codes then the speculation about the translation of that part of the notebook becomes far less speculative. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:49:44 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: AE's watch > From Mike Muenich > ... Off point triva > question #1, why do cataloges nearly always depict watches showing the > time as 10:10 Theory: it's the most friendly clock face. On the same page which presents this hypothesis, there is also a defense of using "IIII" rather than "IV", which should cheer up the TIGHAR grammar cops (it did me). http://www.ubr.com/clocks/faq/iiii.html There are 13 messages in this thread in alt.horology: >> Forum: alt.horology >> Thread: What happened at 10:10 >> Message 4 of 13 Subject: Re: What happened at 10:10 Date: 07/27/2000 Author: Bruce Robin 10:09 & 8:18 provide symmetry while keeping the hands away from blocking the markings that usually appear below 12 and above 6. The 10:10 is favored because the 'smile' is more friendly than the 'frown'. Car grills are designed that way too. Subject: Re: What happened at 10:10 Date: 07/27/2000 Author: Speed <5l3129@home.com> Timex used to frame their name this way LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:51:06 EDT From: Jim Harvey Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? Ric - Some Q codes are still used in European flying. I've never heard QDM (mag bearing to a station) or QDR (mag bearing from a station) but I hear both QNH and QFE every day I fly here in the UK. QFE is the local altimeter setting that will give you height above a given field (when you touch down, altimeter reads 0), QNH is the local altimeter setting that will give you MSL (when you touch down, altimeter reads field elevation). QFE is the default, so you have to request the QNH if that's what you want. Fairly important detail for IFR approaches (or VFR for that matter!). And if you want that altimeter setting in inches, you'll have to ask for that too; millibars of mercury is standard for altimeter settings. I don't know that these Q codes are related to the old wireless codes, but I suspect they are. Jim Harvey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:19:47 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Lambrecht and Betty I went back and re-read Lambrecht's report recently, after going through the Betty notebook. Do we know if the USS Colorado was on the same clock as the Itasca at the time of the search? (From Ric: No, but it seems reasonable.) According to Lambrecht, the planes scouted at 1,000 feet, at an interval of three miles. He doesn't indicate whether one, some or all the planes checked out each island. On July 9, Friday, the planes took off at 0700, and were picked up at 1030 - 3 1/2 hours. Using Lambrecht's chart at a guide, and guestimating the scale, it seems the total distance they flew that morning was approx 280 nautical miles. That gives them an approximate average airspeed of 80 knots - not counting circling of islands. At 80 kts, they would have arrived in the vicinity of M'Kean [sic] (roughly 47 nm from the ship) about 0735 - 0740. Say 0740, figuring that 0700 was the launch of the first plane, and launch took 4 minutes. Lambrecht reports that McKean only required a perfunctory search (one circle?), and that one circle of McKean Island at fifty feet "aroused the birds to such an extent that further inspection had to be made from an altitude of at least 400 feet", and that this fact applied to each of the other islands they searched. Presuming minimal time at McKean, maybe 5 minutes since it wasn't exactly where they thought it was (it was "...about a half a point to Port..."), Lambrecht is enroute to Gardner by 0745. I guesstimate it is about 68 nm from McKean to Gardner. Arrival in the area of Gardner is therefore about 0835. How does this equate with local time at Betty's house? (From Ric: Assuming that Colorado is using "zone plus 11.5" then 08:35 at Gardner is 15:05 in St. Petersburg.) Lambrecht spends more time at Gardner, because they see signs of habitation. Lambrecht reports "...repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave." This implies to me that Lambrecht is concentrating on the island, not the reef flat, which is under water anyway, as a recent post confirms that the tide is relatively high in the Lambrecht Photo. Lambrecht also goes into considerable detail about how the lagoon would be a good place for AE to have landed. Remember, he's a seaplane pilot. He's probably not thinking about AE's desire to land the Electra intact - get rescued by having fuel brought to her, and flying the thing out (as we discussed some time back on the forum). Therefore, in the area where we believe the plane was probably landed, the reef flat somewhere near the Norwich City, Lambrecht's attention is probably attracted to the shipwreck (he goes into quite a bit of detail about that), avoiding birds, looking for signs of recent habitation, and the Electra in the lagoon. I can see AE and FN suddenly hearing and seeing airplanes "circling and zooming" (Page three of Betty's notebook uses the term "fig. 8" which seems consistent with such maneuvering - and there are a number of "three's" in her notebook - 3 planes?). I'd theorize that AE and FN thought their best bet, failing to be observed directly, was to try to radio the planes (we don't know if they were radio equipped, do we?), so they hurried as fast as they could through the surf to the Electra, which by then is nearly awash. They scramble in, and maybe in their urgency Fred bangs his head getting in. They squander their precious batteries trying to signal the planes for the next hour and a half, but to no avail. They can't run the engine due to the level of the water, which explains why there is no engine noise during the transmissions, but if they don't use the radio they may lose all possibility of salvation. To me such a situation seems plausible, would explain the urgency Betty's notes imply, and in my recollection the timing seems about right. The other factor that jumps out of Lambrecht's report at me, is described in the paragraphs about the afternoon flight, when they actually land at Hull Island. He states that his observer is a Cadet - which I interpret to mean the observer has even less experience in aerial search and rescue than Lambrecht, who probably has nil. I'd be willing to bet that each observer in each plane was a cadet - maybe different ones morning and afternoon - brought along for the experience. As an interesting aside, in the Lambrecht Photo, there is a dot just above the far end of the island (Norwich City end, if my decyphering is correct), which I am going to speculate is one of the other search planes - although it could be just a flaw in the print. Okay, Ric, I'm braced ....... ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric It's a flaw in the print. By the time Betty's notebook begins at 4:30 EST, it's 10:00 at Gardner. If it's July 9 the planes are almost back to the ship. Besides, if the water is deep enough to obscure the plane from view beneath the surf the radio is already trashed, if not the whole airplane. I don't see any connection beween Betty's notebook and Lambrecht's search. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:33:42 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Realistic NR16020 for FS98 You are aware that every member of Tighar uses to contribute by using their own capabilities ( Radio historians, archeologists, historians, engineers,...). Well, one of my hobbies is to repaint and design planes for Microsoft flight simulator... I thought that it could be a good advertising to design a realistic version of NR16020 one this soft. A VERY accurate version was already available for FlightSim 2000: http://daviator.com The guy who designed it is very friendly. But, for the ones who only own Flightsim 98, his wonderful plane is not suitable. That is why i designed it from an older version. Tighar member and members of AE forum may find it at: http://www.simviation.com/fsdvintage%5B35%5D.htm This version includes the cockpit. But it is not REALLY accurate( modern gauges). You may find the genuine NR16020 cockpit at: Aeroswine Research Corporation http://flightsimmers.net/aeroswine/index.html http://www.web-access.net/~airpig/ In the documentation available in the files i made some advertising for TIGHAR and its work. I also noticed that i relied on the schematics and the data gathered by Tighar to redesign this plane. TIGHAR owe full credits for that. I wrote directly this one to you since i know that is out of topic, feel free to send it, or not, to the AE Forum. Otherwise, one thing that we could do is to set a download link on the TIGHAR forum. Of course, that is only a proposal. I know TIGHAR have others priorities ! :o) The screenshot you probably received from Vern was taken from this plane. I am ready to work on every picture you think is worth. Thanks for reading this, yours, RENAUD DUDON ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Renaud. I've posted this in case any forum subscribers are interested but I'll caution that the panel portrayed by "Aeroswine Research Corporation" is not accurate for NR16020 and the specs cited by http://daviator.com are for the generic 10E, not Earhart's. The screenshot Vern forwarded to me was pretty accurate but the engine nacelles are not right, the loop antenna is too small, and there should not be a dorsal vee antenna lead in on the port side. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:37:20 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan/ Inflight Death in the Electra? << The more we learn about this Vidal interview the less credible his information becomes.>> I saw an interview with Vidal which gave me the impression he had a big "I" complex. He may well have embellished his importance and significance to AE and the last flight. I'm not sure I would give anything he said much credibility unless there was independent corroboration. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric I suspect that the inerview you saw was with Gene's son Gore Vidal who is a well-known author of historical fiction. Gore has been interviewed for a couple of Earhart documentaries in which he has all kinds of memories about AE (he was 11 years old in 1937) that don't agree with documented facts. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:41:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The LOP (again) Ross Devitt wrote << As I understand celestial navigation, the one thing Noonan should have been pretty sure of is his Lattitude. He should have had a very good idea how far north or south they were from sun shots. The thing he should not have been able to place was his longitude because of the head/tailwinds etc. >> Actually the sunshots will give FN his Longitude not his latitude. Successive sunshots or speed lines will also give him his ground speed and thus his headwind component. Add drift or latitude to that and he has his actual wind. We continue to focus solely on the sun whereas there were other celestial bodies available (discounting cloud interference) with which FN could not only plot a latitude but a pretty accurate position. He could have plotted his position within 3 miles but there are many factors which could have induced errors making a slightly larger area more likely. If he had no cloud cover to obstruct his celestial there is no reason to believe he was more than a few miles off. NONE. If true, they most likely missed Howland simply because scattered CU made it difficult to spot the island. If there WAS cloud cover then where the plane was is more difficult to determine. The answer would depend on what navigational information FN had and when he had it. For example if his last accurate fix was an hour or two short of Howland the error could be significant due to wind effect. If, on the other hand, FN was able to plot wind and drift from the sea he should have been able to greatly reduce the error. Keep in mind FN was an expert at this not a novice. Also keep in mind he had a lot of possible sources for plotting his position NOT just the sun. There was the moon and planets plus an ability to plot drift. We keep viewing this flight as if FN ONLY had the sun, if that, and that he DRd from half way on the leg and was hopelessly lost. If the weather did not interfere FN had to know where he was and how to get any place else. That means to the Phoenix or Gilbert group or even to the Marshalls had he chose. The question then is which would they have chosen. The easy choice is the Phoenix because they were closest and there was less chance of missing them altogether. This should have been the choice even if they were in weather and didn't have a good position for the SAME reasoning. They would want the most fuel left upon arrival as possible. I can not see any reason to believe they were greatly off course either to the north or to the south. If they were that would mean FN had to have been the worst navigator imaginable or he had no navigational information at all from half way out to Howland. That of course could be true but once he arrived in the vicinity celestial was clearly available again if weather reports were accurate. If his first fix showed he was far to the north or south why would they say they thought they were "right on you?" Why would they then run up and down an LOP? The answer is they knew or believed they were close and not far to the north or south. If this analysis is correct the Marshalls make NO sense at all and we're left with a fairly simple choice of heading toward the closest land and land that is less risky to miss. The remaining possibility is they did something stupid or for a reason we have not yet fathomed. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:52:09 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Earhart's watch > Of course there was clock. The real reason a pilot would wear > her watch like that is so people would ask why and she would > get to explain why it was vital for pilot's to wear their watches > like that.... Well, I guess it takes the historian crowd here at HW to provide the answers to this sort of question. So, to set the record straight on this one, bomber pilots during WWII used to wear their watch with the face turned inward (backwards, on the inside of the wrist) so that they could see the time without taking their left hand off the yoke or having to push aside the cuffs of their heavy sheepskin-lined, leather flight jackets. Try it -- just turn your watch around on your hand tonight when you drive home and then, with your hands positioned on the stearing wheel (ten o'clock and two o'clock like they used to say in drivers' ed), you can just glance down and check the time quickly and easily without having to move your arm. Pretty neat. I do this myself when I fly around the skies these days.... Thomas Van Hare *************************************************************************** From Ric It was a fashion. Some, not all, bomber pilots wore their watches that way just as some (most) took the grommets out of their hats to get that "fifty mission crush" look, and bought RAF-style flying boots (my Dad's are up in my closet). I'll confess that I wore my watch that way when I was a student pilot but by the time I was flying for a living I had gone back to the conventional way. The only time you really need to make frequent reference to the time is when you're doing timed turns (procedure turns, holding patterns, etc.) in which case it's a lot more efficient to use the clock on the panel which you can include in your regular instrument scan rather than change your focus down to your wrist. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:53:05 EDT From: Jim Harvey Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? That's correct, QFE and QNH are used in place of the word they represent. Instead of "set altimeter 29.92" the controller says "set QFE 29.87". "Eagle 21 request QNH" "QNH 29.84" I've seen QSY on enroute charts, but I've never heard that used verbally in place of "contact London Mil on 299.97", for example. Jim Harvey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:53:56 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Electra as the McGuffin You know, I think that Janet has finally put together the perfect plot for the next Earhart novel -- I think that this is far better than, "Fred and I are lost on this beautiful tropical paradise and fall in love." Anyway, I do think that it would make a great Indiana Jones movie! And just think of the potential for funding for TIGHAR!! Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:57:51 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? Ric asked: > When did aviators EVER use Q-signals in voice communications? Must be > different in Europe. I grew up in aviation and started flying in 1965 and I > had never even heard of these terms until just now on the forum. Yes, QNH, etc., are in common usage in Europe -- my flight in England last year had all sorts of QNH and such in it. Basically, I just flew VFR. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:59:43 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: "Informed People?" Margot wrote: >If the reasoning is acceptable to Richard, it is certainly acceptable to me. > End of discussion. Thank you Margot!! When you send E-mail, or post on the forum, you never know for sure where it will end up or who is going to read it. Private is one thing, but a public forum is something else. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:00:43 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Testing Plan B AE's flight to Howland and any possible flight back to the Gilberts or Marshalls would not have been in the Intertropic Convergent Zone, a zone of thick heavy clouds and nasty weather. That zone lied (layed?) approximately 5 degrees N latitude, as evidenced by all the ships and planes that passed that latitude in June and July of 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:03:58 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Searching for Howland Ric wrote: >>Well heck Wombat, that's for the Howland to Lae flight that could expect tailwinds.<< Actually, the times were calculated for still air speed for the plane, according to Clarence Williams. *************************************************************************** From Ric I suspect that they were also calculated before the Kelly Johnson test flights in late February. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:27:06 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations For Hue Miller: Since I am doing the antenna and propagation simulation studies, I assume your invitation to "grind these facts" is directed to me. Unfortunately, I don't see any facts to "grind", but then, I'm having difficulty following your line of reasoning and may be missing the obvious. So please bear with me while I ask some questions. >From Hue Miller > >In reply to a question of mine, elsewhere, re harmonic output >from transmitters, i have been given figures of 15 and 20 dB >down for the 2x harmonic, this from military transmitters of the >time. I am hoping there will be other data coming in on this, too. What is the relevance of the harmonic radiation properties of military transmitters to the harmonic radiation properties of AE's transmitter? Assuming that the figures given to you are factual, do they include any implicit caveats, such as transmitters carefully tuned and feeding appropriately matched and loaded antennas? Should we make the same assumptions for AE's transmitter? Why? Given that Terman ("Radio Engineering", 1947) cites relative power levels for the output of a well designed Class-C harmonic generator ranging from -1.8 dB at the second harmonic to -6 dB at the 5th harmonic, would you say that the figures given to you assume a high antenna? Should we assume a high antenna for AE's transmitter? Why? > But let's say the WE is really bad about harmonic radiation, for >example the 2x harmonic is only 10 dB down. What is the analytical basis for assuming the 2x harmonic is "only 10 dB down". Why not 6 dB, or 5 dB or 3 dB, or . . . . ? Is the radiated harmonic power level solely a function of power input to the antenna? If not, what other factors govern harmonic radiation levels? > So when you do the computer simulations for path, Betty's antenna, etc. etc. >why not factor in an output power of 5 watts? Why 5 watts? Isn't the radiated power along a given space vector a function of the input power to the antenna, the antenna's radiation efficiency, and the antenna's dimensional gain pattern? Did you take those factors into account in arriving at your 5 watt figure? If not, how did you arrive at 5 watts? What factors determined the radiation efficiency of AE's antenna at 3105 and 6210? What were the respective efficiencies at those frequencies/ > Then when you consider the 3x harmonic possibility, imagine what wattage > output would be. 1 watt? less? Why 1 watt? Why less? Why not more? Are you assuming that the antenna gain pattern is invariant with respect to frequency? Are you assuming constant radiation efficiency? If not, what variation versus frequency are you assuming? If radiation efficiency varies with frequency, how much difference should be expected at the harmonic frequencies? How did you calculate the answer? What was the radiation efficiency of AE's antenna at 3105 and 6210? How did the antenna gain patterns at those frequencies compare to the gain patterns at the various harmonics? Could the antenna gain at the harmonic frequencies be enough to compensate for relative input power loss at the harmonics? Why? Could a combination of higher antenna gain and higher radiation efficiency result in higher net radiated power at the harmonics than at the fundamental frequencies? Why? > That reception of Betty's would appear to be a real "DX catch". Why? What calculations have you done that lead you to that conclusion? You have only mentioned output power as a determinant of whether Betty could have heard the signal. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? What about ionospheric propagation loss, atmospheric noise, and the characteristics of Betty's antenna? How do they vary with frequency? Is there a net gain in signal-to-noise ratio at the harmonic frequencies, relative to the fundamental frequencies? Why? > (or more) of other SWLs somehow missing the reception, >where were they? How do you know there were hundreds or more SWLs who missed the reception? How many were listening on the same frequency as Betty at the same time on the day she heard the signal? How do the possible numbers or locations of other SWLs bear upon the feasibility of Betty hearing the signal? > Even a transmission on 16 MHz would maybe have been tuned across by listeners > with the general coverage type receivers of the day. What about transmissions on other frequencies? Would such transmission also have been tuned across? How do you quantify "maybe"? Is there a common set of specifications that characterize "the general coverage type receivers of the day"? What are the values of those specifications? Instead of assuming a generic receiver, why not assume the actual make and model of receiver that Betty used? > To get from one area of interest to another you have to cross the > intervening frequencies. Are you suggesting that every frequency on the dial will be tuned across by every listener simultaneously at any given moment? > Also, the Maine reception was right > in the middle of a shortwave broadcast band. And the conclusion we are to draw from that assertion is . . . ? > So okay, grind these facts. I look forward to your answers and the facts they will bring. LTM, who loves to grind facts. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:40:53 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bones by the Norwich City Ric wrote: > I'm not aware of any surgically implanted metal (yes, they did that in >those days). Noonan may have had a dental bridge. I wonder if it's possible to find out. That would effectively rule out the Niku/Gallagher skull as being Noonan's. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric There's a fairly contemporaneous (as I recall) story about Fred falling in a bathroom in Hawaii in the Pan Am Clipper days (1935/36) and knocking out his front teeth. The bone measurements taken by Hoodless already make it very unlikely that the bones were those of a six foot tall male. However, should there be a skull in the Nutiran grave that has evidence of healed injury to the front teeth, that would be interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:41:45 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: The AE Lives anagram Don't worry, kids (i.e., Gervais), by arranging the letters I can make that list of islands say anything you want it to. Anything. LTM (who fades when numerology, anagrams, and mush-heads appear at parties) william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:43:55 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Earhart's watch No, it's not a new thread. I think you provided the right answer to my question. Reading time from their watch from the inside of her wrist stands to reason. By the way, you have also solved an unasnwered question that kept following me since my Childhood. When I was a 10 year old boy living in Ghent, Belgium, I wondered why the British tank drivers who liberated the city wore their watches on the inside of their wrists. Thanks to TIGHAR now I know : 1. because it was easier to read the time while driving their Sherman or their Cromwell 2. because it protected their watches from being scratched when getting rough treatment. Thanks. Herman ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm glad we solved at least that mystery. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:45:32 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? And QNH and QNE and QDM and QDR or QFU and even QBB... QNH is the barometric pressure corrected to sea level. The first thing you do when switching on the radio after starting the engine(s) is identifying yourself to ATC and ask for the QNH to adjust the altitude indicator. The phraseology is : "Request QNH". The reply would be something like "QNH 1013", followed by information on wind direction and speed. QNH is expressed in Hectopascal, which is the same as the will known Milibars. By the way, 1013 milibars is the standard pressure setting used for cross country flying above 4,500 ft. But when asking for the local QNH at take off it could be QNH 977 or QNH 1044 depending on the whether. The pilot will set QNH on the altitude indicator for take off and change to 1013 mb above 4,500 ft. for cruise. QNE is the barometric pressure at the airport of departure (useful only for take-off since it gives altitude only in local AGL. It's of no use for cross country flying). QDM is a heading received TO a homing station. When a pilot is not sure of his position he can ask for a QDM (Quebec Delta Mike). The ATC operator at the destination airfield can read on a dial from what direction the pilot is sending the signal but not the distance. He will read back a reciprocal course (still from the dial), providing the pilot with a vector to get to the airfield. In fact a QDM is what AE expected to receive from Itasca to get to Howland and which Itasca failed to provide. A QDM is what the ADF provides in aicraft provided with this instrument and flying to airfields equipped with a localiser (which takes over the role of an ATC opearator) A QDM does not provide any information on distance nor of wind correction, however. If a pilot flies the QDM course he will eventually come overhead. However, neither ATC nor the pilot are able to determine the distance and therefore the time to destination. This system was operational ith the R.A.F. during WW II and explains why fighter aircraft could find their base after a dogfight. The system is still in use and helps GA aircraft flying VFR in Europe. Very useful in poor visibility ! QDR : the opposite of QDM. When a pilot wants to get somewhere but is not sure of his position and therefore of his heading to get there, ATC will give him a QDR, which is a course to fly AWAY FROM from the transmitter. It's equivalent to flying a FROM course from an NDB (non directional beacon). As is the case with QDM, QDR does not provide any information on distance or wind correction. QBB is used in meteorology and informs the pilot of where the cloud base is. QFU : the figures on the runway. They indicate the magnetic direction minus the last figure. Thus QFU 27 indicates a runway heading 270 degrees. QFU 29 indicates a runway heading 290 degrees, etc. I don't know when the Q-code system was introduced but it is my impression that it was already in use during WW II. It is still in use today in Europe alongside posh VOR/DME systems that provide wind correction and time to beacon information as well. AE's problem was that she flew around the world at a time when Itasca was unable to provide before het with a QDM. LTM (who hates getting lost like AE) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:46:47 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Watch wearing Did you say WW I ? When I served in the Fifties we were also told never to light three cigarettes from a single match for the same reason. In fact, we were told not to smoke at all during fighting at night as cigarettes would tell the enemy where we were. We were also informed of the 10 second rule. As for officers wearing wrist watches, in WW II most soldiers wore watches. But not in the Soviet army. In the Soviet army only officers wore watches. That is why Russian soldiers robbed any German (whether soldier or civilian) of his watch. Since watches were seen as a symbol of authority in the Red Army, the more watches a Russian soldier collected, the higher his esteem. That explains their obsession with stealing watches from everyone. While Russian officiers wore one wrist watch only, ordinary soldiers had both arms full of them, making them look as important as generals in their eyes... I had an uncle who was a captain in the Belgian army and who had been taken a POW in 1940. He remained a POW in Germany for five years. The Germans only took his pistol. But when he was liberated by Russian troops at the Prenzlau Oflag in May 1945 he was robbed of his wrist watch by his liberators. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:47:58 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: W8AQQ? I've got a favor to ask of Janet: If you've still got access to the 1937 Radio Amateurs Callbook, would you please see if W8AQQ is listed and to whom and where. Also please check for K8AQQ although I don't think K8 was a valid call area. A Dennison, OH listener in July 1937 may have heard either--he wasn't sure of the callsign. Many thanks. LTM Bill Moffet #2156 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:52:38 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Time enroute Ric wrote: > Well heck Wombat, that's for the Howland to Lae flight that could expect > tailwinds. Ok, I'll bite, If it's for the Howland - Lae original flight, why do the charts start on page 1 with "Oakland - ElPaso - 1000 miles - Time, 6hrs 40mins - Total, 6hrs 40mins" and end with "Honolulu - Oakland - No listing for miles - Time, 15hrs 53mins - Total, 188hrs 44mins" "Oakland - ElPaso - 1000 miles - Time, 6hrs 40mins - Total, 6hrs 40mins" The listing for Howland is "Lae-Howland - no miles listed - Time, 17hrs 01mins, Total, 160hrs 11mins" "Howland - Honolulu - no miles listed - Time, 12hrs 40mins, Total, 172hrs 51mins" "Honolulu - Oakland - No listing for miles - Time, 15hrs 53mins - Total, 188hrs 44mins" I've forwarded Ric a copy. At first I thought I was looking at a chart of the progress of the flight, then I saw page 2... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric My apologies. You're correct. My speculation about it being calculated prior to the Kelly Johnson tests is also obviously wrong. 2556 miles in 17 hours (and 1 minute) is a groundspeed of exactly 150 mph, so (as Randy said) it's a "still air" calculation based on the anticipated cruising speed. No mystery there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:57:06 EDT From: Robert Klauss Subject: Re: Earhart's watch During the same period other pilots wore the watch turned in to avoid breaking it on the very close cabin walls. I've talked to P-40 and DC-2 and -3 pilots who kept this habit the rest of their lives. Later, cockpit cabins became roomier (and padded) and watch crystals were made much tougher. LTM (Little Time Machine) Robert ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:57:45 EDT From: Robert Klauss Subject: Re: 10:10 10:10 (on an analog watch) is a happy time. The hands form a smile on the watch face. Robert ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:00:42 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Proving a negative Sure, one can prove or disprove a negative. The expression "you can't prove a negative" comes from our (frequently) intuitive understanding that a negative statement often involves a sweeping assertion and an imprecise definition covering a very wide set. In order to prove a negative, one needs a searchable set and precise, accepted definitions. Finally, the negative statement itself may be irrelevant and not even worth disproving. Examples (reading on from this point is entirely optional): Statement 1: There is no pencil in my pencil cup. I can prove this. My pencil cup represents a very limited set, and a pencil is very easy to define. If I systematically search and inventory every cubic centimeter of the pencil cup, I can describe the contents of the pencil cup (air, an eraser, a paper clip) and arrive at a proof showing that it contains no pencil. The proof will be relevant and worthwhile if I need my pencil and can't find it. Statement 2: There is no alien in my pencil cup. This may be more difficult, depending entirely upon how we define "alien". What is an alien? Can aliens be invisible? Are they small enough to fit in a pencil cup? Are they microbial? Can they exist in another dimension that I can't perceive but which can include the interior of my pencil cup? If the definition of an alien is, "Sentient creature from another planet the size of a field mouse which can render itself invisible to present human perception", I am lost. The best I can ever do is to rationally (and comfortably) state, "There is no evidence of an alien in my pencil cup". Why comfortably? Because in all my past experience, I've never had to factor the presence of an alien in my pencil cup into any decision or action. Even if there is an alien in my pencil cup, its relevance to anything important in my life thus far has been nil. Statement 3: There is no pencil on the planet Pluto. We know what a pencil is (choosing to use the standard definition for this example). We know with some precision what Pluto is. But Pluto is a very wide set, it is very remote to us at this time, and we can't search it. Therefore, I can't prove that there is no pencil on Pluto. I can add, however, that "There is no evidence that any pencil exists on Pluto". Finally, is this question important? Obviously not. The question would probably become relevant only in the unlikely event that an unexplained pencil was found on Pluto, at which time the question would have been answered. I can comfortably survive with this question being unanswered until then. Statement 4: There is no Electra (debris) on Nikumaroro. This is the TIGHAR conundrum. "Nikumaroro" is a very wide set. The relevance of the question itself is not terribly high, but it's interesting, and a wonderful vehicle for teaching the methods and virtues of scientific, rational thought. LTM william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:02:22 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges > From Ken Knapp > >Not only was the dial resolution poor on many receivers of that era, but the >receivers themselves were subject to something called image frequencies. This is >inherent to the design of single conversion superheterodyne receivers >(which most of that era were) Please consider I am not a radio expert, far from, but I do enjoy, old tube receivers. I disagree, that most of the receivers of that era are single conversion, I have seen a lot of Zenith's, RCA's (non Radiola) and Philco's, from the mid 30's with dual IF's and hard to believe some with triple IF's stages. I will agree that most radios that only were broadcast band receivers had single conversion, but many shortwave receivers from that time mid 30's were not single conversion. Regards. Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:06:05 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Electra's Antenna Janet Whitney wrote: >>According to the antenna and RF transmission line textbooks I reviewed at the engineering library, single line (wire) antenna feeds have been used from Marconi's time to today...especially on ships and sailboats. When using a single line (wire) feed, the feedline is supposed to be connected to the antenna at a point where the characteristic impedence of the feed line matches the resistive impedence of the antenna. This will allow the line to be matched to the antenna and to operate without standing waves.<< Janet, back to the books. Look up characteristics of antennas less than 1/4 wavelength. A windom-type antenna with off center feed point is not viable for a less than resonant wavelength. Antennas on such mobile craft are worked as simple wire antennas, the feedwire is indistinguishable electrically from the antenna, and is part of the antenna's overall length. So the length from the feedpoint (probably apex of the V in this case) to the transmitter tap point is all part of the antenna length. The length inside the craft doesn't contribute to radiation, of course, plus it needs to be insulated well or stood off away from the airframe or parts due to the many hundreds or even thousands of volts on it, on the low frequency channels. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric >>(probably apex of the V in this case)<< Nope. Roughly halfway down the starboard arm of the vee. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:14:29 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Challenging ideas Jim Van Hare wrote: >>I just went to http://www.spaceweather.com/java/sunspot.html and checked the sunspot activity for July, 1937. It turns out 1937 was near the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle. At these times radio tends to travel longer than typical distances, it can be very spotty as to what frequencies carry at what time of day, and this can vary rapidly.<< --Which frequencies are spotty? At sunspot maximum, what transmitter power on 3105 or 6210 will produce a signal in FL or ME from an inefficient low antenna during the daytime? Or, do sunspots repeal normal constraints of physics? Let's say you had the Voice of America, or KGMB's transmitter hooked up to a 40 foot horizontal antenna, maybe 8 feet horizontal above the surface. When would this be heard in FL or ME, if operated on 3105 or 6210 ? So, WHAT frequencies, WHAT times? >> Interestingly we are today at about the same point in the cycle as when AE disappeared for anyone who wants to do some experimenting. While receivers were less sensitive than to day, broadcast congestion and man made noise was less too.<< Interestingly, belief in magic seems at the same point. >> Also long wire antennas were accepted as the normal instead of the super sub-miniature things frequently supplied to casual listeners today. Good chance the signal made it that distance and maybe not to other locations.<< Jim, since you have a license, why not load up a transmitter with 50 watts output on 40 meters, or maybe 30 watts out on 80 meters, into a clothesline antenna, and see how many Pacific region stations you can work? Then, try 5 watts on 20 meters and maybe 1 or 2 watts on 15 meters and see how you do. Oh, yes, remember AM, not SSB, and the listener should use an entertainment type radio. These stipulations are actually generous, since the better entertainment type transistor radios are superior to those of the 1930s. And of course, this experiment should not be from the west coast, but at least inland 1500 miles inland or so. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:16:28 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Electra as the McGuffin > From Ric > > The word on the street is that "I Was Amelia Earhart" is slated for > release in 2003. When i was done with my copy of the book, i deposited it in the trash instead of giving it to Goodwill. Sometimes i reckon a particular book should not get any wider recognition with my help. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric But you bought the book and you'll probably go see the movie and that's what it's all about. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:19:07 EDT From: Brian Subject: Electras as mcguffin I was impressed & bemused with Janet Whitney's post...she does have a sense of humour after all. "Chaucito" Brian *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Janet has a sense of humor but I think that everyone missed her point. Janet, I believe, was saying that a simpler, less romantic story is more likely to be true. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:24:17 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: sexual liaison? >From Dennis McGee > >Ron Bright said: First, the interviewer asks "Gene ,you knew Amelia >Earhart quite well,didn't you". Gene answers with an incomprehensible >statement. "Yes. We were good friends for 12 years...(and) I first knew her >in 1930..." We also have to consider the alternative use of the term "knew her" which can allude to a sexual liaison. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric If the interviewer has asked something like, " Mr. Vidal, it's common knowledge that you and Amelia Earhart were lovers. Can you tell us about that?" I'd say you may be right, but in the context of the question that was asked - no. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:25:25 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: more watches I used to wear my watch backwards, so as to read the time while flying or driving (in my teen years, having soloed at age 16); however, on one gambit at the beach I ran up the seawall at Galveston and grabbed the top of the concrete with both hands to pull myself up, thus scratching the pure dickens out of the crystal. Needless to say, I don't wear my watch that way anymore on a full time basis. I do, at times, turn it around when I am driving or flying and want to see it more clearly. But with the fancy, schmancy systems in both cars and planes today, I can check my odometer, mileage, gas mileage, direction and distance to empty at the push of a button, so who even NEEDS a wristwatch today? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:26:45 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Searching for Howland A followup... I have the original chart for the East-West flight now and guess what? Howland to Lae 17hrs 01min. But the West - East one shows the same time! Looks like at that stage of planning they just reversed the direction and used the same times. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** from ric it's the "still air" time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:38:36 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Get thee to a convent (or monastery) . . . Judging from clarity, logic, and persistence of Ric's and Marty Moleski's comments on proving a negative, it appears they were both raised by a family of Jesuits. LTM, who avoids negatives Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric LOL! Oh Dennis, if you only knew! For my part, I'm the product of about 300 years of rabid Presbyterianism. The only Jesuits my family ever knew were the ones they probably burned. I'll let Marty tell you who he is, if he should care to do so. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:01:06 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Different suffer Ric wrote: "Now THAT'S a stretch" Yes, I agree 100%! I groaned to myself after re-reading it. However, I believe that the old "If you throw enough of it against the wall, some of it is bound to stick" method, works once in awhile. I can't be the only one on the Forum mulling over these nonsense phrases, so-- "Let's get to throwing, people!" LTM Marty 0724C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:09:05 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Proving a negative > From Ric > > The observability test only works if we assume that our own perception of > our observational powers is accurate. That is correct. We who send funds to TIGHAR are relying on your observational powers to tell us whether or not the McGuffin is on Niku. If you don't believe in these powers, you'd better give back the money. The same observational powers are at work in determining the structure of atoms, the qualities of the periodic table, the laws of biochemistry, and the other finds of natural science. Why should I accredit other people's observational powers but doubt my own? > Example: You're quite satisfied > that there are no automobiles in your bedroom because you're confident > that you could find one if it was there. Correct. If you don't know how to run this test, then perhaps we could get Pat to take over TIGHAR. ;o) > But let's pick a grayer example. You've lost your car keys and have > searched your bedroom and have concluded that you have proved the > negative hypothesis that "My keys are not in the bedroom." Two weeks > later the cleaning lady finds the keys behind your dresser. You thought > you had proved the negative hypothesis by observation but what you really > proved was that you couldn't find your keys. The way that she proves me wrong is by the correct use of her observational powers. This does not prove that we can't rely on such powers. It proves that I must be careful when I make claims about things that are more difficult to locate than a car. > ... We can talk about gradations of credibility but we > can't talk about absolutes. You just made an absolute statement. If you really believed what you said, you wouldn't have said it. > The automobile-in-the-bedroom is, in fact, an example of a true unprovable > negative hypothesis because it is nonspecific as to what car we're talking > about. We can prove, for example, that my 1991 Toyota VIN number > so-and-so is not in your bedroom by noting that it is sitting here in my > driveway, but there is an impossibly large number other cars that could > be there. You've changed the case that I imagined. I only said "a car." If you want to make up a different case, that's fine, but it doesn't affect the point that I made using my case. Let me generalize: the standards for deciding on whether a negative is true or false vary with the object sought. Cars, unlike Santa Claus, leprechauns, aliens, or God, occupy space/time and are composed of matter/energy. We know what cars are and we can confidently declare whether or not they are in a bedroom or not. The McGuffin is like the car. I think you are right to go searching for it because it won't hop out of sight the way leprechauns do. > I suggest, therefore, that the test of a genuine unprovable negative > hypothesis is specificity rather than observability. I don't think it is either/or, but both specificity and observability. In order to decide that something does or does not exist, we do have to be able to specify what it is that we are trying to observe. (That is how Aristotle justifies the principle of identity and non-contradiction. You can't deny the principle without using it to specify what you deny.) Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is an excellent example of proving a universal negative: >INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM >Goedel's thesis initially about number theory but now found applicable to all formal >systems that include the arithmetic of natural >numbers: "any consistent axiomatic system does include propositions whose truth is >undecidable within that system and its >consistency is, hence, not provable within that system". The self-reference involved >invokes the paradox: "a formal system of >some complexity cannot be both consistent and decidable at the same time". The theorem >rendered Frege, Russell and >Whitehead's ideals of finding a few axions of mathematics from which all and only true >statements can be deduced >non-achievable. It has profound implications for theories of human cognition, >computational linguistics and limits artificial >intelligence in particular. (Krippendorff) http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/INCOMP_THEOR.html This kind of negative is not the kind of universal existential negative we've been discussing, but it does show that people who know how to prove things can prove a negative. Turing showed that you cannot predict in general whether algorithms will return an answer or not (Turing's Halting Problem: http://fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/other/undint.htm). In posing and proving this negative, Turing invented an imaginary computer which is still used as a model for thinking about what computer can and cannot do. The solution of Fermat's Last Theorem turned on the proof that a certain class of multidimensional forms did not exist, but I do not have room in this margin to show you the proof. ;o) Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure the rest of the forum will thank us if we return to speculating about the meaning of "uncle". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:10:22 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: 10:10 "Off point triva question #1, why do cataloges nearly always depict watches showing the time as 10:10?" Actually most timepiece ads used to the show the hands at 8:20 (reciprocal of 10:10?) because, according to legend, that was the precise hour and minute when Abraham Lincoln died. The tradition has been abandoned over the past 20 or 30 years. Us Ex-Newspaper Guys (especially those of us who share a birthday with Old Abe) are chock full o' such trivia. LTM Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:15:02 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges Most superheterodyne receivers (nearly all) in the 1930s were indeed single conversion types. The sets may have had several STAGES of intermediate frequency amplification (I-F) but those stages were all at the same frequency... 455, 262, 175 or 96 KHz, maybe others. Big difference between several stages of I-F amplification, and dual conversion... in a dual conversion superhet, you have TWO I-F amplifiers operating at different frequencies. The first might be 455 KHz... only a one stage amplifier. The 455 KHz is then converted, let's say, to 50 KHz. There will be several (2 or 3 maybe) stages operating at this frequency. (Each stage uses a tube, of course) The advantage of dual conversion is mainly to get greater selectivity in the amplifier... it's easier to build a real sharply selective I-F at a low frequency... way easier at 50 KHz than 455. But if you use too low an I-F at the outset, the problem of image frequencies rears its head. Dual conversion is a compromise to improve image rejection. AE's WE 20B receiver used a 96 KHz I-F. That caused problems with images. See the 8th Edition. Again, I do not recall seeing a receiver from the 30s that used dual conversion (Hammarlund Comet Pro, Super Pro; National HFS, HRO; Hallicrafters sets etc ALL were single conversion and I am pretty certain NO home radio would use it because of the expense!). I may be wrong but I don't think so... This is off topic, I know... 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:16:38 EDT From: Bob Krebs Subject: Film "I was Amelia Earhart" And then yet another version (wrong) will be out there and go round and round vis-a-vis the 1943 film Flight to Freedom, and the connection will be made for future generations of Amelia watchers to go off on the wrong tangent yet again... Bob Krebs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:18:42 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Back to the Gilberts As usual, Don Neumann hits the nail squarely on the head. Granted that the Phoenix Group was closer than the Gilberts. Granted that, by sheer happenstance on the morning of July 2, 1937, FN's sun line (if advanced correctly through Howland) ran into or near Gardner. Granted that following the 157/337 LOP would have been a perfectly logical thing to do, if distance-to-landfall was the sole or even chief motivating factor. By definition, then, any decision to head for the Gilberts would have been motivated by factors other than sheer distance. Assuming that Earhart felt both island groups were within range (even if just barely so in the case of the Gilberts), then Don has capably identified some of those potential factors. In essence, TIGHAR's theory assumes the following thought process: "I don't care where we land, Fred. Just find the closest island and get us there before we run out of gas!" The Gilberts theory assumes that AE looked beyond the exigencies of the moment: "Yeah, Fred, I agree the Phoenix Group is closer but there's nothing there and who's going to find us? I think we have enough fuel left to get back to civilization." Either decision is defensible, depending upon the situation as it appeared to Earhart at the time. I do not pretend to know which one she made. Nor is the Gilberts theory likely to produce a McGuffin, as hardly anybody thinks they actually succeeded. Anecdotal accounts of a low-flying, fork-tailed airplane or mysterious wreckage washing up prior to the war are probably the best that can be hoped for. A word on Vidal: Thanks to Ron Bright, we now know that the interview transcript does contain internal inconsistencies which tend to depict a flawed or failing memory. However, the fact that the Gilberts are mentioned repeatedly indicates to me that this particular recollection was fixed pretty firmly in the old boy's mind. Let's not write off Gene just yet. LTM Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:23:36 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Get thee to a convent (or monastery) . . . Dennis McGee wrote: >>Judging from clarity, logic, and persistence of Ric's and Marty Moleski's comments on proving a negative, it appears they were both raised by a family of Jesuits.<< Ric replied: > LOL! Oh Dennis, if you only knew! For my part, I'm the product of about > 300 years of rabid Presbyterianism. The only Jesuits my family ever knew > were the ones they probably burned. I'll let Marty tell you who he is, > if he should care to do so. I went to Canisius High School and Boston College (before Doug Flutie), then entered the Jesuits in 1973. I got sober and was ordained in 1981. "Proof" is something that has concerned me since I took St. Thomas Aquinas as my patron saint in 1965. ;o) (Rev.) Martin Xavier Moleski, SJ, Ph.D. Canisius College 2001 Main Street Buffalo, New York 14208 (716) 888-2383 moleski@canisius.edu http://www.canisius.edu/~moleski/ http://zeus.rcwizard.com/~mxmrcpix/ *************************************************************************** From Ric Dennis, did you think I would debate the nature of truth with just ANYBODY? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:24:35 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Ham Callsigns Since I'm not a ham, it would be better for those who are to obtain information about old ham callsigns. The information is available from the Quarter Century Wireless Association, http://qcwa.org. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:30:18 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The LOP (again) > From Alan Caldwell > > Keep in mind FN was an expert at this not a novice. Also keep in mind he had > a lot of possible sources for plotting his position NOT just the sun. There > was the moon and planets plus an ability to plot drift. It's worth noting that at the time FN thought he was on the LOP, it was daylight and he had just the sun and moon for celestial navigation. If by "plot drift" you mean he could have made crude "seaman's eye" estimates of wind speed and direction by observing waves from the cockpit window, I agree. But such estimates would hardly be accurate enough for navigation. If by "plot drift" you mean using the drift sight on board the Electra, I recommend a thought experiment in which you mentally step through the detailed procedures FN needed to follow in order to use the drift sight. I promise you it is a VERY instructive exercise. Ric and I did it about a year ago. LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ************************************************************************** From Ric As I understand it, the moon was in a pretty awkward place for it to be used that morning and shooting the sun for "speed lines" would be Noonan's best method of confirming his groundspeed, but I dont see how that would give him "drift" information. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:38:18 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Still More Apples and Oranges The so-called "Windom" antenna is a ham antenna that was invented by a ham named Windom in the late 1920's. The antenna used on Earhart's Electra is a Marconi antenna, which has been used for the past century, especially on ships and aircraft. The Vee antenna as used on Earhart's Electra was in common use on Model 10, Model 12, and Model 14 Electras. Check out the photos from the 1930's. This was not a wire ham antenna that requires a separate antenna tuner to tune the antenna over a wide range of HF ham frequencies. The possibility that there COULD HAVE been problems with the Vee antenna installed on Earhart's Electra doen't necessarily mean that there WERE problems with the Vee antenna. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric We know what frequencies Earhart could transmit on. We know what antenna lengths are optimal for transmitting on those frequencies. We know how long the vee antenna was. We know it was the wrong length. Ergo, there were problems with the vee antenna. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:39:08 EDT From: Bob Brandenberg Subject: Antenna and Propagation Simulations For Hue Miller: I just noticed that my response to you mentions "high antenna" in at least two places. It should read "high-Q antenna". Sorry for any confusion. LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:39:47 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? I was somewhat over enthusiastic in explain the Q-code. It IS QFE of course, not QNE. But then, who worries about QFE ? What you want to hear is QNH. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:49:54 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: W8AQQ? Clarification on the matter of K8AQQ/KHAQQ: As mentioned previously, no stateside ham radio call signs began with K in 1937. They were all W-number-letter-letter or W-number-letter-letter-letter. It'd be easy to misunderstand KHAQQ as K8AQQ. REAL easy. Hmm... looks like we may have another candidate signal. Any details please, Bill Moffett....? Can you cite the news article or whatever? As for ham calls beginning with K, these were all overseas. And the number associated with them was always the same as the closest US mainland 'call area." All Pacific Island calls in 1937 began with K6, because California, the W6 area, was deemed closest and the islands were under the same FCC administration as California. Alaska was K7, adjacent to the W7 Pacific Northwest area. Caribbean possessions were K4, being adjacent to the W4 Southeast call area. W8 and W9 were in the Midwest and landlocked except for the Great Lakes. I am fairly certain there would have been no K8 calls issued, nor K9s, in 1937. (And there was no W-zero call area, also in the Midwest, until after WW2, in case some may wonder about this.) By the way, the Philippine Islands ham calls began with KA, followed by number and two or three letters, in 1937. For those who came along after the war, Hawaii prefixes were changed to KH6, Guam to KG6, Alaska to KL7, Guantanamo Bay Cuba to KG4, Virgin Islands to KV4, Puerto Rico to KP4 etc... sometime in the mid to late 40s. No US mainland ham calls were issued with a K prefix until around 1950. An observation... people in the 30s who were not hams, but listened to short wave, often did not know exactly where the ham bands were located on the dial; and given the free-wheeling dial calibration of a lot of these radios that comes as no real surprise. People heard lots of things on the radio that they may have ascribed to "ham radio operators" but in fact were something entirely different. Maybe that could be another reason more people who may have heard AE did not recognize the signal for what it was. LTM (whose calibration is always right on) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Charles L. Russell of 226 Grant St., Dennison, OH reported to the Adjutant General of the U.S. Army that on July 6: "I RECEIVED MESSAGE FROM SOME LONE STATION AT 3:31 A.M. (EST) SAYING THAT: "THIS IS WHAQQ OR PROBQBLE (sic) W8AQQ TALKING, "WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE. SOMETHING ABOUT COLD WEATHER OR THEY HAVE A SEVERE COLD AND ALL IS WELL SO FAR, WE HAVE SENT OUT MESSAGE FROM TIME TO TIME BUT NO RESPONSE, LOOK FOR RED KITE, FOOD SUPPLY AND WATER. THERE WOULD BE A ROAR AND THEN TOP (stop?) OF MOTORS OR SOMETHING, SIMILAR TO OCEAN SOUNDS. THE STATIC OR OTHER SOUNDS THAT INTERFERE WITH RADIO BLOTTED OUT EXACT WORDS, BUT IT MAY BE EARHART, SOUNDS LIKE A MAN AND AT TIMES LIKE A WOMAN FAINT VOICE, AND ANOTHER VOICE AT TIMES TALKING IF OTHER PERSON WITH THEM.; PS: I HAVE A SPARTON SEVERAL YEARS OF AGE, AND GET STATIONS OF THIS NATURE AT TIMES EARLY IN MORNING FROM SHORT WAVE BUT VERY FAINT.AND FROM ONLY A FEW MINUTES AT TIMES, SOMETIMES DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT WORDS, AS WELL AS TELEGRAPH SOUNDS, SOME I CAN GET AT TIMES, FROM TELEGRAPH TOTS (sic) AND DASHES. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:54:14 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: QRD or QRT? > From Ric > Are there any surviving aviation radio > procedures handbooks from the mid to late 1930s? I believe the ARRL web site discusses the history of the Q-codes. I have a 1958 reprint of their 1930 notebook page that lists the Q-codes. This page was originally copyright 1930 by Lefax, then again in 1942 by Lefax. The reprint date is July, 1958, but I doubt that changes were made for the reprint. And I don't know what changes, if any, were made between 1930 and 1942. The document is titled "Radio Telegraph Code" by the American Radio Relay League, 1942. Here's part of the section describing the Q-code: "Q" Code "In the regulations accompanying the existing International Telecommunications Convention there is a very useful internationally-agreed code designed to meet major needs in international radio communication. This code follows. The abbreviations themselves have the meanings shown in the '"answer"' column. When an abbreviation is followed by an interrogation mark (?) it assumes the meaning shown in the '"question"' column." I'll just list the abbreviations: QRA-QRD QRG-QRQ QRS-QRZ QSA-QSB QSD QSG QSJ-QSM QSO-QSP QSR QSU-QSZ QTA-QTC QTE-QTJ QTM QTO-QTR QTU QUA-QUD QUF-QUH QUJ-QUM The statement "This code follows" indicates that it is the complete code. The document also shows other radiotelegraph codes, abbreviations, and message formatting that I don't think is relevant but I'll send Ric a copy if I ever find a copy machine. In view of ARRL's comments above and the comments in this forum on the Q-code being used in Europe but not in the US, it appears that Europe may have adopted it for aviation to help overcome language difficulties. Was English the official language of aviation in the 40's? Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall there was a movement in the 1940s to make German the official language of just about everything but it was ultimately unsuccessful. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:09:43 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The LOP (again) > The remaining possibility is they did something stupid or for a reason we > have not yet fathomed. > > Alan Butler wrote that on several occasions Earhart told GPP that she had "personnel problems" and it was assumed that this inferred that Noonan was hitting the bottle. I haven't seen the relevant documents in the Purdue collection though. Perhaps they were arguing as Noonan tried to press the idea that his skills were vital to this part of the trip and without him she wouldn't make it. It is documented (by Earhart) that Earhart overrode at least one of his navigational decisions before and they ended up where they shouldn't have. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder what it's going to take to kill that myth. Randy Jacobson's analysis of Noonan's chart for that flight, now at Purdue University, leaves little doubt that Earhart's description of the events is grossly oversimplified and not at all accurate. Likewise, there was never a reference to "personnel problems". Earhart made one reference to "personnel unfitness" as a contributing factor to the delay in leaving Lae but it is more logically interpreted as "crew fatique" than "Fred is drunk." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:11:26 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Earhart's watch > Later, cockpit cabins became roomier (and padded) and watch crystals > were made much tougher. Actually, my first watches had a "glass" not a "crystal". The watch glass was very susceptible to damage (as I found out). Eventually I forked out a whole lot more money for a watch with a "crystal" glass and it lasted until one of my horses stood on it... th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I trust you weren't wearing it at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:12:46 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Vidal "anecdote"/ Origin of ? Randy Jacobson says: > After a couple of weeks, > Hundley does go, but finds absolutely nothing. Actually it's Handley, who risked his neck to search for Earhart, and later lost his life to the Japanese after the invasion of Tarawa. And he FOUND nothing at the location of the legendary (not exactly fictional) island of Katagataman. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:10:57 EDT From: Mike E Subject: Re: W8AQQ? It is only a short leap from "K8AQQ" (which was not a valid ham call in 1937 unless an overseas station and none of those would have been K8; K-calls stateside came into use around 1950-51) to "KHAQQ." 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric Very short indeed, but the guy never said he heard K8AQQ. He said he heard W8AQQ. Maybe he heard just -8AQQ and because it sounded like a call sign, and call signs start with W, he assumed that it started with a W. But that's a longer leap. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:23:34 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Norwich William says: > A very cautious and minimally invasive survey of the NC debris field, > looking specifically for aluminum, makes sense. OK, but why look any more carefully for aluminum in the NC debris field than anyplace else on the Nutiran reef? We have no reason to think that the airplane wound up in the ship, but it certainly may have wound up distributed in itty bitty pieces all over the reef flat. A very careful search for aluminum throughout the area makes sense if it can be done in a cost-effective manner, but I don't see any reason to give the NC debris field itself any special attention. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric I would say forget about aluminum on the reef flat. If there was ever an environment designed to promote corrosion in aluminum, that's it. Alternating washing with salt water and exposure to air - forget it. Long gone. However, the "steel pieces" Emily reported seeing on the reef are a different matter. There were steel pieces in the Electra - some of them quite beefy (gear legs, for example). Emily says the wreckage she saw was north of the shipwreck. We know from the distribution of NC wreckage that storm events push debris on the reef flat southeastward toward the lagoon passage. The shipwreck and it's associated scatter of debris lie between the place where Emily says the airplane wreckage was and the lagoon channel. It is not at all outside the realm of possibility that one of those long steel pieces that Emily saw was driven southeastward by subsequent storms and became mixed in with NC debris of the same color (red). I think we need to take a close look at the NC debris to make sure that there isn't non-NC debris hiding in the jumble. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:14:25 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Lambrecht and Betty > From Ric > By the time Betty's notebook begins at 4:30 EST, it's 10:00 at > Gardner. If it's July 9 the planes are almost back to the ship. > Besides, if the water is deep enough to obscure the plane from > view beneath the surf the radio is already trashed, if not the > whole airplane. > > I don't see any connection beween Betty's notebook and > Lambrecht's search. Well, we don't know where the Electra was when Lambrecht searched the area. It could've been under the rain squall at Canton -- the only area Lambrecht could not see -- or on some other island at the time. Earhart could've been trying to catch-up to the rescue flight and crashed on the reef at Gardner after Lambrecht overflew it. Is there anything yet that would eliminate the 9th as the day Betty heard the transmission? Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric Strictly speaking there is nothing that dates Betty's notebook any more precisely than sometime in the summer of 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:36:38 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Noonan's Watch Speaking of watches, Noonan does not appear to be wearing his wrist watch at Lae on June 30,two days before takeoff.(See Courageous Sister,p.276). .Before Lae,he was wearing his watch in photos at Karachi and Jakarta. So maybe he left his accurate wrist watch to cross check with his chronometers at Lae. What man takes his watch off during the day.(If its a Timex and still ticking ...) LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric The photo in Amelia My Courageous Sister is erroneously captioned (as are many of the photos in the book.) That shot was taken on June 29 immediately following AE and FN's arrival from Darwin and it does appear that Fred is not wearing a watch on his left wrist. However, another photo taken during that same photo op shows that Fred with a watch on his left wrist. Both photos are included in the Lae Gallery on the TIGHAR website at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html In the photo where Fred is taking a drag on his cigarette (which is the full frame of the photo in the Courageous Sister book) there is quite clearly no watch on his wrist. In the next photo you can just see a black band beneath his left cuff. In the original print, under magnification, you can see both the band and the watch face. Notice the position of Fred's hands in that shot. It's entirely possible that he has just buckled on his watch. Thanks for bringing this up. I had never noticed it before. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:51:46 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Accurate NR16020 for FS Ric wrote: "The screenshot Vern forwarded to me was pretty accurate but the engine nacelles are not right, the loop antenna is too small, and there should not be a dorsal vee antenna lead in on the port side." OK. I will be pleased to comply and to rectify...excepting for the engines nacelles, since i can't modify the 3D model... I didn't own the soft that enable to modify directly MDL file. I just could modify the aircraft skin and the flight dynamics. For technicals reasons it is very difficult to modify a model(MDL) file that had been already released. Since the base i used was originally a L10A, i cannot render the bigger NACA nacelles in 3D at the moment. But i could modify the picture pixel by pixel... If a "flightsimmer" forum member could show me how to do otherwise i would be most glad. If you have some close up of the panel on which i could work... Well just send me it ! I already have the ones that were available on the Tighar website. Enjoy the plane. Again, Thanks, LTM( who couldn't help remembering that, in France, aviation fuel is 1$24...per litre !) *************************************************************************** From Ric We still have many questions about the final panel layout of NR16020. I believe Jon Watson has done quite a bit of work on that. The errors on the panel you referenced are pretty basic. The landing gear and flap levers were not on the panel but on a central column below the panel. The data plate was not on the upper left but on the lower right of the panel. There was also another entire "tray" of instruments and controls across the base of the panel which included the radio remotes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:57:33 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: north or south? >Ten miles was his demonstrated standard but whether he was north or >south (i.e latitude information) was not something he could know. >LTM >Ric Though no _evidence_ exists that he did, _if_ FN _had_ included a deliberate 'off-set' into his calculations, would he not then have known whether they were North or South of Howland on the LOP.... assuming that AE accurately maintained their proscribed course & they encountered no significant wind deviations & FN's chronometers were properly timed? Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric That is correct. If Noonan had used an offset he would have known whether he was north or south, but in employing an offset he would, by definition, be abandoning any attempt to fly directly to the island and thus there would be no occasion for AE to say, "We must be on you..." and no reason to fly "north and south" on the line. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:01:06 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: the AE Lives! anagram >A meaningless number? Hardly. This is obviously intended to be 172 >degrees 13 minutes west, 4 degrees 21 minutes south - the coordinates of >(gasp!) Hull Island! The place where the Electra must have landed! >(Never mind that that position is actually out in the middle of the >ocean several miles north of Hull.) >The man is a genius. > >LTM, >Ric Not to mention that Hull Island was found to be inhabited (by Lt. Lambrecht) at the time by native workers & a British overseer, none of whom ever heard of AE/FN or their world flight! Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, it would take another genius, Jim Donohue, to solve that conundrum. In his book "The British Connection" he reveals that the British overseer (John William Jones) was a secret agent. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:01:54 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations Bob, that was an awesome post. I haven't any idea what it was about but I liked it. I wish I knew that much about whatever the subject was. Just giving you a friendly hard time, Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:14:46 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations > From Bob Brandenburg > > Unfortunately, I don't see any facts to "grind", but then, I'm having > difficulty following your line of reasoning and may be missing the obvious. > So please bear with me while I ask some questions. Alright, you are working on these issues. To date, we have seen copious parsing of Betty's notations, and no more substantial suggestion of how these supposed intercepts could occur, except the like of "propagation was good in 1937". Remember "exceptional claims require exceptional proof" ? > What is the relevance of the harmonic radiation properties of military > transmitters to the harmonic radiation properties of AE's transmitter? > > Assuming that the figures given to you are factual, do they include > any implicit caveats, such as transmitters carefully tuned and feeding > appropriately matched and loaded antennas? I used these figures only as comparative, ballpark figures for HF transmitters with simple output networks, from the same approximate era. To the second part, yes, same as the WE13 would have been tuned. > Should we make the same assumptions for AE's transmitter? Why? Read above. Can you suggest why the ballpark figures here are extraordinary? Are they a magnitude out? > Given that Terman ("Radio Engineering", 1947) cites relative power levels for > the output of a well designed Class-C harmonic generator ranging from -1.8 > dB at the second harmonic to -6 dB at the 5th harmonic, would you say that the > figures given to you assume a high antenna? Which figures do you think are closer to some ballpark starting point, my examples or your Terman figures for harmonic generator, i.e. circuit designed to maximize harmonic energy? How does a high antenna relate to discrimination against harmonic energy, delivered to the antenna? > Should we assume a high antenna for AE's transmitter? Why? Relevance? >> But let's say the WE is really bad about harmonic radiation, for example >> the 2x harmonic is only 10 dB down. > > What is the analytical basis for assuming the 2x harmonic is "only 10 dB > down". Why not 6 dB, or 5 dB or 3 dB, or . . . . ? I do not have the math to analyze the effects of conduction angle, coil Q, and impedance matching on the actual figure for harmonic output. Do you? Do you think -3 dB would be a realistic figure, in our range for simulation? > Is the radiated harmonic power level solely a function of power input to > the antenna? If not, what other factors govern harmonic radiation levels? Clearly, no, and you know this. >> So when you do the computer simulations for path, Betty's >> antenna, etc. etc. why not factor in an output power of 5 watts? > > Why 5 watts? What do you suggest as a starting point at 3rd harmonic? 20 watt? 10? What? > Did you take those factors into account in arriving at your 5 watt figure? > If not, how did you arrive at 5 watts? I am suggesting a starting point. > What factors determined the radiation efficiency of AE's antenna at > 3105 and 6210? What were the respective efficiencies at those frequencies/ I am sorry, i am not taking a quiz, and i will spare the general readers discussion of antenna efficiency factors. > Then when you consider the 3x harmonic possibility, imagine what > wattage output would be. 1 watt? less? Let's you suggest your own favorite figure, and start with that. I'll give you a whole magnitude more to work with. Will this sway the feasibility? > Why 1 watt? Why less? Why not more? > > Are you assuming that the antenna gain pattern is invariant with > respect to frequency? > > Are you assuming constant radiation efficiency? If not, what variation > versus frequency are you assuming? > > If radiation efficiency varies with frequency, how much difference > should be expected at the harmonic frequencies? How did you calculate the > answer? > > What was the radiation efficiency of AE's antenna at 3105 and 6210? > > How did the antenna gain patterns at those frequencies compare to > the gain patterns at the various harmonics? > > Could the antenna gain at the harmonic frequencies be enough to > compensate for relative input power loss at the harmonics? Why? > > Could a combination of higher antenna gain and higher radiation efficiency > result in higher net radiated power at the harmonics than at the fundamental > frequencies? Why? Now, you tell me how much gain you expect from a wire antenna, on a landed plane, at the frequencies being discussed, i.e. from 3 to maybe 18 MHz. I respect you for doing the heavy lifting as far as numbers. However, i ask you: you are suggesting also, with a mathematical reinforcement, that the circuit of the WE transmitter, plus antenna gain, or directionality, somehow enabled such an extraordinary reception, from the Pacific to the east coast of the United States. Look, i'll give you 25 watts third harmonic, say 50 watts if you want. You do the math. I'll just say from my experience, and plentiful readings from radio ham and listener literature from the 1900s to now, that I am *very* skeptical of such claims. >> That reception of Betty's would appear to be a real "DX catch". > > Why? What calculations have you done that lead you to that conclusion? See above. I am also *very* eager to see the results of your computations. Perhaps they will *prove* Betty at home, did really receive over an extended period of time, via her family's home radio, a message from AE. When that is proven, there is even a greater challenge, and that's how the Maine listener heard the AE messages on a frequency not related to AE's transmitter. > You have only mentioned output power as a determinant of whether Betty could > have heard the signal. > > Are there other factors that should be taken into account? What about > ionospheric propagation loss, atmospheric noise, and the characteristics of > Betty's antenna? How do they vary with frequency? > > Is there a net gain in signal-to-noise ratio at the harmonic frequencies, > relative to the fundamental frequencies? Why? If i fail your quiz, is the viability of your (plural) thesis substantiated? >> (or more) of other SWLs somehow missing the reception, >>where were they? > > How do you know there were hundreds or more SWLs who missed the reception? --Sorry, i have not quite completed the list of names. Familiarity with the radio listening hobby and literature of the times suggests a good many people tuned in to listen to shortwaves, many more than today. AE's signal was not the only signal transiting the Pacific. You have numbers of aircraft, ships, and hams doing local work, or trying to reach out as far as possible. From the records of time, including DX reports in literature of the time, we can get an idea of what actually was achieved in the realm of reality. In addition to this, we have suggestions Divine Providence somehow especially smiled on this one effort. I know you have your department. But let's not, i suggest, divorce the computations from the whole picture. What do YOU think of the content of the messages heard by Betty and the Maine listener? How do you rate the veracity of the Maine reception? > How do the possible numbers or locations of other SWLs bear upon the > feasibility of Betty hearing the signal? So, there were what, no other listeners within a several mile radius of Betty, even during "prime time"? > What about transmissions on other frequencies? Would such transmission also > have been tuned across? Okay, my turn. WHAT other frequencies? > How do you quantify "maybe"? > > Is there a common set of specifications that characterize "the general coverage > type receivers of the day"? What are the values of those specifications? If you really need these, i will deliver, after some time to round up same. Will this really help you? > Instead of assuming a generic receiver, why not assume the actual make and > model of receiver that Betty used? (Digression limited) What is magic about the Betty receiver? We can be sure at best, it was within certain limits bounded by the technology of the day. If you need them, a range of specifications can be developed from the service literature of the day. Forgetting external gingerbread, and loudspeaker quality, there were only few templates for home receiver circuitry. >> To get from one area of interest to another you have to cross the >> intervening frequencies. > > Are you suggesting that every frequency on the dial will be tuned > across by every listener simultaneously at any given moment? Obviously not, so why even mention that? However, the suggestion is that the Betty reception occurred over a spread of time, and not just in "message-over and out" format. Some have asked if the mic button was locked down. Prime time hours for listening, Betty was not the only listener scanning bands, her receiver and antenna were not magic (unless one wants to suggest another conspiracy theory) >> Also, the Maine reception was right >> in the middle of a shortwave broadcast band. > > And the conclusion we are to draw from that assertion is . . . ? Okay, ball in your court. You explain how such frequency, in defined SW broadcast bands, as i listed, related to any energy transmitted from AE's transmitter, please. > I look forward to your answers and the facts they will bring. Here's how i see it, and finis for me: People are so entranced by this shining possiblity of poignant AE messages being heard by just plain folks at home, in a case of extraordinary, freakish reception, that they are working, really working, to justify the scenario. This includes stretching the phyics of it to the max, and downplaying glaring problems in the scenario, and investing the content with all kinds of imagined meaning. In one year this whole thing will have blown over. ( Sorry, no mathematical proof of that figure either.) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:15:37 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Transmitter simulations I suggest that for the AE transmitter characteristics, it might not be so difficult to do a simulation, at least for the condition where the antenna appeared as a 1/4 wave or multiple, i.e. resonant antenna. We would need to determine the antenna impedance, and simulate it with a load resistor and additional components to simulate the reactive component. A vacuum tube transmitter, a former marine radiotelephone with the loading coil disabled and using only the main, large tapped tank coil, is loaded into the antenna simulator. The voltage across the actual load resistor is measured using a frequency selective voltmeter. Do-able? Yes. Realistic? Your input? It would be interesting to compare to forthcoming computed values. In western Washington or Oregon, i can supply the above equipment, and perhaps some time, to trying this out. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:17:30 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: More Old Ideas Considering how TIGHAR re-invented the Gardner Island hypothesis in 1988 long after the Navy's 1937 search, contemporary opinions may be valuable in other areas as well. What did they say about harmonics and possible radio reception? Two messages (excerpts) from MSG9.PDF on the Earhardt Project Research Library, Volume I. From: COMFRANDIV Action: ITASCA Info1: RDO WAILUPE Action2: COMHAWSEC Info2: COM12 Info3: COM14 Info4: COMDT CG Text: COMMERCIAL STATIONS REPORT RECEIPTION [SIC] FROM MIDPACIFIC OFTEN BETTER ON THIRD HARMONIC WHICH MAY ACCOUNT FOR REPORTS OF PLANE BEING HEARD ON 10 MC AND 16 TO 18 MC FROM VARIOUS POINTS ON COAST PERIOD RECEPTION BETTER ON COAST ON 6 MC DURING EARLY MORNING HOURS FROM ABOUT 0500 TO 0900 PST PERIOD Header1: Z NRUI QUAX V QUAC Q NPM KATY QUAH TORY P GR X From: COMFRANDIV Action: ITASCA Info1: RDO WAILUPE Info2: COM12 Info3: COMDT CG Info4: COM14 Text: REFERENCE EARHART TRANSMITTER PERIOD DUE TO DESIGN OF TRANSMITTER FOLLOWING FREQUENCIES ARE HIGHLY PRACTICABLE ODD HARMONICS OF THE 3105 CRYSTALS WHICH THE ANTENNAE WILL BE RESONANT ON WITHOUT CHANGE OF THE DIAL SETTINGS 9315 COMMA 15525 AND 21935 PERIOD OTHER POSSIBLE HARMONIC POINTS 12420 AND 18630 I think I see the following. 1. Reception on third harmonics were a recognized phenomena. 2. They asked about the particular transmitter and from information received expected harmonics at specific frequencies. It seems someone in the San Francisco staff was thinking like the Forum. Perhaps he should be made an honorary member. LTM John Pratt (2373) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:18:58 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Timeline Clarification Looking back a bit, ------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:24:27 EDT Subject: Re: the Search >From Don Neumann Rick Seapin said: ...'I just received, from Ebay, a New York Times newspaper. It is dated, July 6, 1937. Interesting verbiage follows: Itasca sees flares _281 miles north of Howland_ ...later determined to be meteors.... /Operators at the Wailupe Naval Station heard, "_281 north Howland_ ...call KHAQQ...beyond north...don't hold with us much longer...above water...shut off'... Would it have been possible for the Wailupe operators to have confused a radio report from Itaska about the 'flares' with what said operators believed was a message from the Electra, given the similar reference to... 281 MILES NORTH OF HOWLAND...? Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric The phrases heard by Wailupe do not match anything said by Itasca about the "flares." ------------------- It's worse than that. The "flares" messages from Itasca were about 19 hours after the "281 miles" message was received by Wailupe. In fact Itasca was already searching north of Howland because of the "281 miles" message, when the meteors were sighted. The "281" message was a CW signal heard by three radio operators at the Naval Radio Station at Wailupe, East of Honolulu, between 1130 GMT and 1230 GMT on July 5th. Wailupe heard the Itasca message about seeing flares 0845 GMT July 6. Here's another reason for Ric's tabulation. LTM John Pratt (2373) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:22:49 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Proving a negative > From Ric > > I'm sure the rest of the forum will thank us if we return to speculating > about the meaning of "uncle". LOL! Of course, you can't prove that ... :o) Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Sure I can! Rather, I can test the hypothesis. If I speculate about the meaning of "uncle" and the forum thanks me, then I'm right - or as they say down at St. Mary's "Bingo!" :o) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:24:46 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: 10:10 > From Patrick Gaston > Actually most timepiece ads used to the show the hands at 8:20 (reciprocal > of 10:10?) because, according to legend, that was the precise hour and > minute when Abraham Lincoln died. The tradition has been abandoned over > the past 20 or 30 years. While searching for internet anecdotes to confirm this, I found the following: :Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead :horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in managing church :business we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the :following: : : 1. Buying a stronger whip. : 21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position. One site says: War Department, Washington, April 15. Major Gen. Dix: Abraham Lincoln died this morning at twenty-two minutes after seven o'clock. Edwin M. Stanton Secretary of War. Sorry for the long URL. It's cached at google: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:starship.python.net/crew/manus/Preside nts/al/alobit.html+time+abraham+Lincoln+died&hl=en&client=googlet Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric S. Wesley Smith is gonna have a cow. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:26:13 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Proving a negative > From Marty Moleski > > Cars, unlike Santa Claus, leprechauns, aliens, or God, > occupy space/time and are composed of matter/energy. That's a rather wild assumption. Do you have proof or even evidence that Santa Claus, leprechauns, aliens, and God do not occupy space/time and are not composed of matter/energy? > From Ric > I'm sure the rest of the forum will thank us if we return to speculating > about the meaning of "uncle". He's giving in to her request for help. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:27:30 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: The Marty and Ric Show If anyone thinks I'm going to referee a debate on existentialism between a rabid Presbyterian of Scottish ancestry and a Polish/Russian (?) Jesuit priest-professor . . . do I look THAT dumb? I'm outta here! LTM, who promises to forever do good and avoid evil Dennis O. McGee #1049EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:38:55 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts > From Patrick Gaston > In essence, TIGHAR's theory assumes the following thought > process: "I don't care where we land, Fred. Just find the > closest island and get us there before we run out of gas!" I don't assume that thought process at all, and I doubt that TIGHAR does. It appears that Earhart and Noonan had a relatively good working relationship; she did the flying and he did the navigating. But her past behavior shows that she did not simply accept what Noonan recommended (something during the Atlantic crossing), she thought about it and made her own decision. So I'm not assuming any particular thought process at all. > The Gilberts theory assumes that AE looked beyond the > exigencies of the moment: "Yeah, Fred, I agree the Phoenix > Group is closer but there's nothing there and who's going to > find us? I think we have enough fuel left to get back to > civilization." "Civilization" was at their disposal (Itasca) and would very likely follow them to wherever they went. I think a desire to find civilization would've been very low on the check-off list. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe you have to have been in the position of having to contemplate putting a land airplane in the water with no land in sight to understand how terrifying a prospect it is. You sit in a noisy little room and contemplate your own mortality in very immediate terms. There is no doubt in my mind that at 20:13 GCT and thereafter, AE and FN had one priority and one only - find land before the fuel is gone. Whatever course of action stood the best chance of accomplishing that end is, in my opinion, the only course of action they would consider. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:58:49 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Vee Antenna The Vee antenna was not necessarily "too long." It was indeed longer than in the original installation, after Joe Gurr's modifications. That in and of itself is not the problem. The potential problem lies in the transmitter. Was the tuning network in the transmitter now able to properly "match" to the longer antenna? The problem would concern whether the transmitter tuning could be adjusted for proper resonance in the final amplifier stage, and coupling to the antenna, while maintaining the correct ratio of parameters (inductance to capacitance or L/C) in the circuit to suppress harmonic radiation (and in this circuit that was not possible to completely avoid in any case) or to ensure the transmitter was not tuned to the wrong frequency entirely, i.e. a harmonic instead of the fundamental. The tuning methods and procedures for this radio were cumbersome. If a tech took short cuts, or if he was not sure what value of antenna current reading to expect on a given frequency with the altered antenna, then it is quite possible that excessive harmonic radiation resulted. Notice I did not say it DID result. I said it is LIKELY (in my considered opinion, shared by others, VERY likely). Now please allow me to correct myself on something I posted yesterday. In running thru the list of 1930s superheterodyne receivers (a very imcomplete list by the way), I mentioned the National HFS. I meant to say the National AGS, a receiver used mainly by the Government (Bureau of Air Commerce, CAA etc) in airways communications. It appeared in the early 30s. The HFS was a postwar receiver. Sorry. LTM (who likes alphabet soup) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric I need to be sure I understand this so forgive me if I seem to flog this poor beast. I was under the impression that the "perfect" antenna for any given frequency would be one that exactly matched the length of a full "wave." The lower the frequency the longer the wave. That presents some problems for airplanes that can't accomodate an immensely long antenna. That's why trailing wire antennas were popular. The next best thing is to have an antenna that is exactly a half or a quarter of the optimum desired length. That's what the original 40 foot Vee on NR16020 was intended to accomplish for 3105 and 6210 during the first WF attempt. (The trailing wire was for 500.) Sometime during the repairs the decision was made to save weight by chucking the trailing wire and fudging the length of the Vee to provide some modicum of capability on 500 Kcs. However, now the Vee, at 54 feet, was not a quarter or a half of the optimum length for 3105 or 6210 (and hence "wrong" for those freqencies). The transmitter now had to be "fooled" into thinking the wire was a different length than it was. Is this what you're talking about when you wonder whether the transmitter could be "tuned" to accomodate this antenna length? Have I got this messed up? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:00:09 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The LOP (again) Ric wrote: > but I don't see how that would give him "drift" information. It wouldn't. He had to determine drift by other means. Any observation would have probably been crude but still helpful. Just determining whether he was drifting right or left would have been all he really needed. Any reference point would do if only the sea itself. I've made many trips across the pond and it isn't that difficult to pick a point and make a fair estimate. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:03:02 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Also by going to the Phoenix group as opposed to the Gilberts rescue was closer. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric Rescue by the Coast Guard, yes, but the Gilberts were settled and even crowded while the Phoenix Group were uninhabited except for Hull. Did Earhart and Noonan know that? The guys on the Colorado didn't. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:17:31 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Handley? > From Tom King > > Randy Jacobson says: > >> After a couple of weeks, >> Hundley does go, but finds absolutely nothing. > > Actually it's Handley, who risked his neck to search for Earhart, and later > lost his life to the Japanese after the invasion of Tarawa. And he FOUND > nothing at the location of the legendary (not exactly fictional) island of > Katagataman. Who's Handley? Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric Capt. Handley. A Brit living in the Gilberts. In a nutshell, after the official search failed to find any trace of Earhart either in the water or the Phoenix Group or the Gilberts, Putnam was still convinced that she might be on an island. Somehow (it's not clear how) he got wind of a rumor about an uncharted reef or island that supposedly lay at 174 degrees, 10 minutes East; 2 degrees 36 minutes North and he made a request through British channels offering to pay the expesnes for someone to check it out. He had also put up a $2,000 reward. Handley went and took a look but found nothing but ocean in that area. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:19:51 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: proving a negative >From Ric > >I'm sure the rest of the forum will thank us if we return to speculating >about the meaning of "uncle". Ric: Suppose she said "BOPPED HER ANKLE". Was the term "bopped" in use in the 30's? Might be a sports term like: "Bopped it out of the ball park." OR NOT! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Marty, I win. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:22:30 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Re: The LOP (again) If FN had good celestial opportunites thru the night, and if he seized those opportunities as he should have, comparison of his DR positions and his full fix positions would have revealed the windspeed and direction for each flight leg. If those calcs had yielded consistent results, he could have used that info to estimate a correction for his future headings, especially in an area of steady wind patterns. Of course, we do not know what FN did on the night leg, but given the critical nav aspects of this flight, if he passed up good fix opportunities he was just not earning his pay. He could never count on getting good fixes later, and if he was shut down by clouds, etc, the more recent the last fix, the better off they would be. The presence of the moon for most of the morning (with a good cut with the sun for a full fix) is indeed an important, mystifying, and often overlooked point. It is possible that FN was so confident in his last fix and projected LOP that he was sure he would get them within RDF range of the Itasca, and he bypassed this fix opportunity for the first attempts at finding Howland. It is hard to believe that he would have ignored it when the RDF proved to be a failure. It might have been inconvenient to have to turn the aircraft off of the initial 157-337 runs, but at some point it would become a potential life and death issue and changing the aircraft heading for a few minutes to take a quick series of shots seems like a small price to pay. FN could have noted the heading and airspeed and when sights were complete, brought them right back to where they departed from the LOP. They have to turn 180 degrees anyway to run back and forth along the LOP. One good reason (I think) for not being able to use the moon could be broken cloud cover or a thin high cloud veil just enough to effectively hide the moon. The sun is, of course, much easier to locate in marginal conditions and can be shot, with passable results, thru a certain amount of cloud in a pinch. Lots of "ifs", "coulds", and maybe a little food for thought. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:27:44 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: W8AQQ? > From Ric > Charles L. Russell of 226 Grant St., Dennison, OH reported to the Adjutant > General of the U.S. Army that on July 6: > "THIS IS WHAQQ ... TALKING, "WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY > MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE. Y southeast by X east doesn't make sense. Y south by X east would though. The "one hundred fifty [eight]" is appearing again, so maybe it was "one hundred fifty ... degrees southeast." > SOMETHING ABOUT COLD WEATHER OR THEY HAVE A SEVERE COLD Interesting. "Hold" ... "water"? But that is incongruous with the next statement. > AND ALL IS WELL SO FAR ... LOOK FOR RED KITE, FOOD SUPPLY AND WATER. Red kite? How about "med kit, food supply, and water?" "All is well" implies that any injuries may not have been serious. > THERE WOULD BE A ROAR AND THEN TOP (stop?) OF MOTORS OR SOMETHING, "Pop" of motors? Was Russell's message code or voice? > TOTS (sic) AND DASHES. T again. Perhaps his signal was weak when received. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Russel obviously heard voice if he heard engines. There may have been a kite aboard the airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:30:17 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Earhart/ Post Loss transmissions? Might as well include the post loss message received by Frank Freeds, living about 20 miles east of Yreka,California, who says the heard voice signals on Friday 9 July 37 nitetime coming from the Earhart plane. He recognised AE's voice having heard it before. Earhart said that the plane was down on a reef ,estimated to be 200 miles,south of Howland,and both ok. He added one wing broken. Source: US COAST GUARD OFFICIAL DISPATCH,12 July 1937,from CG FTHUNT RADIO FROM NPM(NAVAL RADIO HONOLULU TO P1W COMDR DESTROYER SQDN 2) To CG Headquarters. Yreka is on I-5 in northern Cal about 100 miles inland from the Pacific and 50 miles south of the Oregon border in about 4000' level of the Cascade foothills. Don't know who Freeds is,most likely an amateur. If you run your finger east from Yreka straight across the map you come right across Rock Springs, Wy. The date of 9 July is my guess because the message is dated 12 Jul and refers to "last Friday" , maybe it was Friday, 2 Jul 37. You might want to add this to your matrix. LTM,RON BRIGHT ************************************************************************** From Ric Will do. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:32:54 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Who Visited Gardner? After reviewing the TIGHAR postings about the skeletons, graves, and other artifacts of unknown origin discovered on Gardner, has anyone considered that the island was visited by pirates? Any reports of pirate activity in the area during the 19th Century and early 20th Century? Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric Not that we've come across. It would be pretty slim pickings for pirates in that part of the world. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:35:58 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Norwich Very true about aluminum on the reef flat, but how in the world do you figure to distinguish between Electra steel and Norwich City steel? OK, so the Norwich City didn't have a radial engine, but aside from that.... TK ************************************************************************** From Ric I may be kidding myself but I think I could spot a gear leg or flap actuator torque tube in a pile of anchor chain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:38:16 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The LOP (again) I agree with Ric that the Sun was FN's safest bet. A line of position (LOP) is a line one reaches at the time calculated when preparing the flight as being the line on which your position will be at your estimated time of arrival (ETA). With no way of checking drift en route, LOP is the only thing to rely on because your watch tells you when you reach it (prvoded your ground speed calculations were right). And in AE/FN's case there was the Sun to ceck. When reachting the LOP, having intentionally headed to a point to the left or to the right of your destination, one will then turn 90 degrees left or right on the line to find the target. There may have been techniques in the days before INS or GPS to establish drift, such as dropping flares or studying the waves, but I feel these were not reliable. I think FN's precision navigation was primarily based on dead reckoning and precise timing of the sunrise which told him exactly what his longitude was, shooting the Sun to kwon his exact latitude, and hourly sun lines that gave a reliable indication of the Electra's ground speed. LTM (who would rather rely on GPS) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:41:37 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations > From Alan Caldwell > > Bob, that was an awesome post. I haven't any idea what it was about but I > liked it. I wish I knew that much about whatever the subject was. > > Just giving you a friendly hard time, Thanks, Alan. I'm just a simple worker toiling in the vineyards of truth. Bob, #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric Just what we need, another Jesuit. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:46:18 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: north or south? I believe we can discard the possibility that FN intended to fly directly to Howland. It would have been a risky thing to do since he was almost sure not to hit upon the island but either left or right of it over the ocean according to drift he hardly had any indication of. Anyone navigating over sea or land VFR as they did (and without GPS) will go for an offset point on the LOP, then make a 90 degree turn to the left or the right when your watch tells you and start watching for the target. In FN's case I'm sure he chacked his LOP with the sun. I'm sure he was experienced to the point that he knew he couldn't count on hitting upon the island on a direct flight. Not with the navigation instruments available in 1937. ************************************************************************** From Ric Would you use an offset if you were navigating to an island that had an NDB? If you used an offset but didn't come upon your destination, at what point in your flight would you say "We must be on you but can not see you"? If you used an offset why would you have cause to run both ways along the LOP? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:51:11 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Proving a negative > From Frank Westlake > That's a rather wild assumption. Do you have proof or even evidence that > Santa Claus, leprechauns, aliens, and God do not occupy space/time and are > not composed of matter/energy? I'm scheduled to see my confessor tonight at 8:00 PM EDT. I promise to repent of making wild assumptions about Santa Claus, leprechauns, and aliens. :o( "Oh ... I am heartily sorry ..." The researcher who brought up those three examples did not suppose that they were spiritual beings. He did say that those who believe in them imagine them to have the power to vanish at will. Hence, no one could ever prove the believer wrong. And in that case, under those assumptions, one could not prove THAT KIND of negative. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Now THAT's what this forum needs - an official, honorary confessor. No more concerns about banishments and so forth. Just confess, do your penance and back into the fray. I nominate Father Moleski. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:52:06 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Marty and Ric Show > From Dennis McGee > If anyone thinks I'm going to referee a debate on existentialism > between a rabid Presbyterian of Scottish ancestry and a Polish/Russian (?) > Jesuit priest-professor . . . do I look THAT dumb? FWIW, all Polish/Canadian on Dad's side; Irish/Welsh/Canadian on Mom's; born in the U.S.A. after Mom and Dad met at U of T and got married. I love TIGHAR and the Forum because the quest to determine what happened to AE and FN stimulates me to think about how we know historical realities. This has become my number one forum, but in times past I've browsed through sites about the search for Mallory and Irvine, the Kennedy assassination, and the loss of the Terror and Erebus on the Franklin expedition (each of which was equipped with a 15-ton steam engine--and neither of which has yet been located). The truth may be out there somewhere, and perhaps it will even be found some day. > I'm outta here! > > LTM, who promises to forever do good and avoid evil Mom always liked you best. ;o) Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:53:33 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: The LOP (again) Re: navigation in the old days in response to Bob's comment below: "If by "plot drift" you mean he could have made crude "seaman's eye" estimates of wind speed and direction by observing waves from the cockpit window, I agree. But such estimates would hardly be accurate enough for navigation." The more research I do with the old boat captains, the more I'm beginning to believe that the boat pilots and navigators were extremely adapt at navigating with "crude" techniques. A short story. I interviewed the sixteenth PAA pilot hired. He was before FN and flew out of Miami. He won a bet once by making landfall after an over water flight within a degree of the objective. He judged drift by looking at wave patterns (they flew low and slow in those days). He says he could judge within a half a degree. He also made the first flight from Hawaii to Canton for PAA. No advanced planning, just jumped into the plane and took off. He was so confident in being able to hit an island he'd never been to, over a trackless route he'd never flown, that he played bridge most the flight. Obviously, he found the island. And he didn't use an angle off approach. I think we have to be careful making judgements from our "more advanced" technological perspective. blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:02:08 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Kites > From Ric > MESSAGE FROM TIME TO TIME BUT NO RESPONSE, LOOK FOR RED KITE... While reading Hue Miller's volley in the Brandenburg/Miller match, I was reminded of an earlier idea I had. The idea is that it is not unknown to use a balloon to hoist a wire antenna for transmissions in remote areas. Kites have even been used as they require less equipment. Is there any indication that Earhart loaded sticks, paper, string, and wire for the world flight attempt? Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric There's a news photo of AE and GP in front of the Electra, dateline March 6, 1936 captioned: "Should she be forced down during her projected flight around the world, Amelia Earhart plans to fly these kites as distress signals to aid searchers in finding her." The kites are about five feet tall and reported to be "very orange." No idea whether they were aboard for the Lae/Holwland flight but they'd be pretty light to carry. No indication that they were to be used to carry an antenna aloft. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:05:59 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Kites >> From Frank Westlake >> "Pop" of motors? Was Russell's message code or voice? > > From Ric > > Russel obviously heard voice if he heard engines. It isn't important, but I was referring to Russell's message to the Navy. > There may have been a kite aboard the airplane. Then all past propagation patterns should be recalculated. For HF and VHF we use to carry about 50 feet of a very thin wire, something smaller than 22 gauge (copper motor wire I think), and improvise all sort of antenna's (antennae?) with it. The entire system with a kite would've been extremely lightweight. Whether it is unlikely or not doesn't matter. It is within AE and FN's abilities to rig such an antenna, the equipment could've been obtained anywhere during the flight, and they could've foreseen communication difficulties from a remote island. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Radio Rangers? What say ye to the prospect of a kite antenna? The kites may have been there. The wind to fly one certainly was. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:10:05 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Earhart's Alternate/Gilberts or Phoenix As mentioned before, Amelia talks about having an alternate landing spot in case of an emergency in her book "Last Flight".Maybe in her own mind but she must have considered one. Anyway this book was posthumously put together, and carefully edited by GP. He depended, see his Introductionin the book, on her narrative of the journey from cable,telephone, and supplemented by further notes which arrived later by mail, along with log-books,etc. He must have made notes of her telephone calls, but I don't know if they exist today. As I understand it, there was somewhat of a brouhaha over a hired freelance journalist (I think Janet Mabie) to assist Putnam in getting the Last Flight out as fast as possible. Has anyone other than Putnam and Mabie such as an Earhart researcher ever seen Amelia' original, unexpurgated notes in toto to see if there are any kinds of references to a Gilbert,Baker, Gardner (Phoenix Is as alternates planned. Rationally and logically, if AE had so indicated either by telephone or in notes, I would see no reason for GP not to have reported it. But Vidal didn't report his inside knowledge of the plan b to authorities at the moment either. GP and Vidal were in constant contact by phone during the early search phase. GPs first thoughts, aided or influenced by Clarence Williams calculations,was she went down in the Phoenix on that LOP. CDR Thompson,however, headed northwest,turned and headed towards the Gilberts.He did a pretty good search of the Gilberts because he was taking into consideration the "drift" factor if she landed in the ocean. But days later, GP also had the Gilberts in mind. A few days after AE was lost, he cabled Dan Roper,Secretary of Commerce, and asked if he could obtain the cooperation of the British and Japanese and search the Ellice,Gilberts, Marshalls and Ocean Islandf area .He then sent the same basic message to SECNAV offering to defray the costs of searching the Gilberts,et al. Mary Lovell,p297, thinks that GPs belief was based on psychic and friend Jackie Cochrane. But we don't know. Then on 18 July, GP, issued a press release from the National Geographic Society, claiming the search in the Gilberts was "incomplete". It seems here he was basing that continued search on the prevailing drift and trade winds blowing from Howland to Gilberts,and not from any pre planned alternate expressed by Amelia.He even mentioned looking some 85 miles from Tarawa to the American Embassy in London for British help.(turned out negative) Don't know why he thought that except from some arcane ,unidentified sources. Again were not sure. Vidal and GP had the "Gilberts" on their minds. This belief could be based on Vidals uncorroborated recollection of his conversation with Amelia relayed to GP, or the pragmatic belief that the wind and current would take the downed Electra to the Gilberts or Marshalls. The third possibility that I would like to eliminate, is if one or both of these Islands were informally identifed to GP in those notes,and documents that Amelia sent to him whether explicit or implicit. So does anyone know where the originals are?? LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, they're at Purdue. I've looked through them and have copies of many. Many researchers have seen them. No Plan B there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:15:20 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Vee Antenna This is indeed a complex subject. Actually you are kinda close to grasping it, but let me clear some stuff up. For the benefit of nonradio people I am keeping it real simple. The IDEAL length for an antenna is one which is a resonant length, i.e. its physical length is at least 1/4 wavelength long. That length will of course change with changes in frequency. 1/4 wavelength at 3105 KHz is about 78 feet. At 6210 (double 3105) this is 1/2 wavelength. Still okay. But remember this important point: the quoted lengths are for an antenna in free space. On an aircraft they are subject to quite a few variables.... but hold that thought for the moment. On an aircraft, unless it's a large one, there may not be room for 1/4 wavelength of wire... was not on the Electra. So we get as much wire out there as we can, then use some kind of tuning network to electrically lengthen the wire, or "fool" the transmitter into thinking it "sees" a resonant length. The antenna on the Electra was originally 46 feet long including the lead-in wire, which is part of the system. That length was kind of handy, though that may have been -- probably was -- a happy accident. 46 feet is way less than 1/4 wave at 3105 or 1/2 wave at 6210. It's just a hair over 1/8 and 1/4 wavelength respectively. These are odd fractions, but still theoretically sort-of, close to resonant lengths, OK sort of... in practice, fractions less than 1/4 wave, and all the odd fractions (except 3/4, for complex reasons) can be hard to tune properly... The object of the game would be, at 3105, to electrically lengthen it to 1/4 wavelength by using the network in the transmitter. Not too hard to do; but you do lose some power that is "eaten" by the network rather than radiated by the antenna. But it was better than 57 feet, which is what the length became after Gurr. The antenna was now about 9 per cent shorter than 3/16 wavelength at 3105 and 3/8 wavelength at 6210. We could call this a nonresonant length. The antenna would now be somewhat difficult to tune, with this transmitter. The output tuning network could have conceivably been unable to compensate for the added length, unless the tuning was achieved at points other than optimum. In this transmitter a delicate balance must be struck between the antenna tuning, the resonance point of the final power amplifier, and the ratio of values in the network (inductance/capacitance). If the L/C ratio is off, the network's ability to reject harmonics and keep them from being radiated by the antenna is greatly compromised. Does this help clear things up? By the way, where things get complicated real fast is that this is a Vee antenna, doubled back upon itself. Also because so much of it is in close proximity to the metal skin, resulting in high capacitance to ground. These factors will have a large bearing upon the tuning, as well as what constitutes an actual "resonant length" of antenna wire for a given frequency. Let's not go there right now. As the old maps said, "Here be dragons." LTM (who always deals in even numbers) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric That's a big help. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:18:23 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: NC Vs 10E parts Ric said: "I may be kidding myself but I think I could spot a gear leg or flap actuator torque tube in a pile of anchor chain." Even after 63 years of corrosion, erosion, encrustation, abrasion, and malformation by from repeated assaults by the waves, and probably occasionally being pooped on by an itinerant snook or blowfish? LTM, who wants to believe Dennis O. McGee , #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah. I've seen the NC debris and I've seen a lot of very cruddy airplane parts. There's a difference. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:31:49 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Thanks to Mike E.! My congratulations to Mike E. the Radio Historian for his clear and concise explanation of the 10E's antenna system. It is the only thing about the whole radio/antenna discussion that I've understood. We should all be so good. Thanks, again! LTM, who has always been a bit off-freq Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:34:10 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Kites Kites were of course used for antennas... one notable example was the World War II "Gibson Girl" (SCR-578, later the AN/CRT-3) emergency transmitter, used in life rafts. It used a kite (or a balloon) to hoist a wire antenna about 250 ft long. The radio transmitted only (no receive), on 500 KHz, 4140 KHz, and 8280 KHz. Morse Code only. Automatically keyed SOS only; but later models had a crude hand key in the front faceplate (but try cranking and keying at the same time... durn near impossible. I played around with one, back in high school, that the Civil Air Patrol had acquired...) One after the other in sequence. To use it the radio was strapped between the thighs, and hand cranked; it put out about 3 watts (maybe). Lord help you if the raft capsized while that thing was strapped between )glub) your (glub) legs.... You'd sink faster than the Scrubbing Bubbles down the drain. It was called the Gibson Girl because of the shape of the case. But the Gibson Girl was not around in 1937. It was a copy of a radio the Germans developed for their pilots. Acquired via the Brits, following the Battle of Britain. The Gibson Girl could not be voice modulated either. Whether AE had SOME kind of energency radio, I have no idea. I can say this, almost unequivocally, though: She was not using any kite to fly an antenna for the radio in the plane. That radio had to be tuned by a technician, using a test set (and AE did not have the test set, and would not know how to use it if she did). There were, as the sticker on the back of TVs used to say, no user-serviceable parts inside. To use any other antenna than the one on the plane, the rig would have to be re-tuned. This was a complex procedure. She could not have done it. At least I REALLY don't think so. LTM (who is not a mechanical ignoramus) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:54:49 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work Interesting that we're seeing complementary postings from practitioners of a couple of "no choice" belief systems (abbreviated "B.S.") that allow for a few "permissable" outcomes, no matter what other outcomes could occur. Is TIGHAR a religion too? Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric Allow me to update the quality of your data. I said I was "the product of 300 years of rabid Presbyterianism." I did not say that I am now a Presbyterian. That belief system encourages individual interpretation of scripture rather than unquestioning acceptance of dogma and I'm afraid that it produced, in me, some unintended results. I consider myself to be free to believe anything that makes sense to me. No, TIGHAR is not a religion. We're not that respectable. TIGHAR is a cult. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:56:22 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Kite antennas Ric, I am going out on a limb and modify that position re the kite antenna and AE. In desperate times, desperate men (and women) do desperate things. This is total anecdote, and leads to total supposition, but bear with me. During my high school days I acquired an ancient WW2 Army handie-talkie radio, that the school got through the Federal Surplus program, to tinker with. It had tubes in it... used big dry batteries... and put out less than 1/2 watt on 3885 KHz. Its antenna was a three foot telescoping whip. Just for grins one day I tried touching the antenna to the school flagpole. WOW. The thing got out like Godzilla! I could be heard clearly, over three miles away. Before, I could almost spit further than it would transmit (actually, a half mile was exceptional range with the original antenna). I doubt the thing was very well matched to the flagpole/antenna... but the point is, the "antenna" made a huge difference. Who knows what they may have tried? LTM (who says size matters) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:58:23 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: W8AQQ? >"WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY >MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE. Is there anything at that location? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I have no idea how to locate that position on a map. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:02:19 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: proving a negative > ** From Ric > > Marty, I win. Yup. ;o) Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Ire ad Gratiam ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:03:29 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Kites Let's take that kite stuff one step further. I Amelia Earhart had become familiar with English slang such as "Bob's your uncle", the what about that other English slang word for an airplane wich is... a kite. She may have meant : "Look for the kite on the beach..." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:07:16 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? What about that story you told us about an unidentified ship following the Niku expedition for several hours and your crew walking about with pipes that had to look like bazookas or soemthing ? I was under the impression you believed the guys on that unidentified ship to be unfriendly. Herman ************************************************************************* From Ric The ship was certainly acting in a strange way and we did worry that they may have had hostile intentions, but the incident happened far from Niku when we were on our way back to Hawaii in 1991. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:18:34 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: north or south? You've got a point there. Still, how much of an NDB did Howland have ? Itasca was in the neighborhood and that was not much help, was it ? Radio navigation being in the pioneering state in 1937 and FN known to have a poor opinion of it, I think he would fly to Howland in such a way that if the NDB was unavailable, he would still be able to find it. I think so because if I had been in his place that is the way I would have done it. I don't think AE had ADF in the Electra or did she ? I am under the impression that she expected to get a QDM from either Howland or Itasca. If there had been an NDB available it would have activated the ADF when within range and AE would have set course to it. But that's not the way it worked. I am convinced that FN trusted his calculations and mistrusted radio and therefore the LOP was the thing to rely on. When they reached it I suppose FN must have had a rough guess as to their position according to his DR and sun observations since he was known to be able to navigate to within 10 NM. Having set course to the Howland LOP and assumed they had reached it looking at their watches (perhaps worn on the inside of the wrist, who knows?) AE must then have confidently signaled : "We must be on you but we cannot see you". Herman *************************************************************************** From Ric No, Howland did not have an NDB (Non Directional Beacon) and the Electra did not have an ADF (Automatic Direction Finder) but the Itasca did put out "non directional" signals upon which Earhart expected to be able take a bearing with her non-automatic Direction Finder. She also expected the Itasca to be able to take a bearing on her with their own DF and then tell her what heading to fly to reach the island. In other words, AE and FN had two radio navigational procedures they believed would be available to take them directly to Howland. The Itasca radio log makes it very clear that they were trying to use those procedures and contains no indication that an offset was employed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:21:33 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 10:10 > Major Gen. Dix: > Abraham Lincoln died this morning at twenty-two minutes after seven > o'clock. Converted to Daylight Saving Time: Twenty-Two minutes after eight o'clock! Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric As a public service and to avoid further postings on this subject let me assure everyone that th' Wombat is joking. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:25:44 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The LOP (again) > From Jerry Hamilton > Re: navigation in the old days in response to Bob's comment below: > > The more research I do with the old boat captains, the more I'm beginning > to believe that the boat pilots and navigators were extremely adapt at > navigating with "crude" techniques. I happen to be an old Navy "boat captain", and I agree with your observation. The Polynesian stick chart navigators may have been the best the at using "crude" techniques. On a personal note, I once navigated a Navy ship from Pago Pago Samoa to San Diego, in pre-GPS days, under complete overcast the entire way. No stars, no planets, no sun lines, no visual landfall, no radar contact with land (until Guadalupe Island, about 250 miles south of SanDiego, off the coast of Mexico) , and no LORAN. Distance from Samoa to radar landfall was about 3800 nmi, and elapsed time was 11 days. Had to navigate by dead reckoning, using wind, waves, and historical current data to estimate set and drift. Made radar landfall on Guadalupe Island within 5 miles and 30 minutes of predicted position and time - - and didn't win the landfall betting pool !!! I had predicted 3 miles and 10 minutes. > I think we have to be careful making judgements from our "more advanced" > technological perspective. Couldn't agree more. The point of my remark about eyeballing set and drift by observing wave tops was that if FN did attempt to get back to the Gilberts, his margin for error was very small, given fuel constraints and the vast expanses of open ocean between islands. Maybe he could do it by seaman's eye, maybe not. If we accept that FN was among the best aircraft navigators of the day, I think these factors would weigh heavily in choosing his end-game strategy. In the Navy, we have a maxim that running a ship aground can ruin your whole day. I expect that the same could be said for running out of fuel before reaching land during an overwater flight. LTM, who prefers dry feet. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:42:34 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Vee Antenna > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > ... The antenna would now be somewhat difficult to tune, with this > transmitter. ... If I remember correctly, the evidence from all transmissions on the last flight shows that 3105 (nighttime frequency?) was working well enough at both ends of the flight (takeoff and approach to Howland), but no one ever heard AE on 6210 on the last flight. If so, this may lend some support to your analysis about the difficulties of tuning the antenna. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************** From Ric Not quite. Itasca never heard anything on 6210 but the tranmsissions heard by Lae were on that frquency. It is however, interesting to note that Lae didn't get anything on 6210 until the aircraft was over four hours away and continued to hear transmissions until the aircraft was over seven hours away . Itasca first got intelligible voice on 3105 at 03:45 local time, four hours from when the aircraft "must be on you but can not see you" at 07:42. Issues of daylight and nightime aside, it would appear that 6210 could only be heard by stations over four hours away and 3105 could only be heard within a "distance" of four hours. In other words, Itasca's experience of not hearing Earhart once she switched to 6210 at 08:43 (when she was certainly quite close to Howland) matches Lae's experience the day before. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:45:36 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Janet Whitney wrote: >>...artifacts of unknown origin discovered on Gardner, has anyone considered that the island was visited by pirates? Any reports of pirate activity in the area during the 19th Century and early 20th Century?<< Who visited Gardner? The TIGHAR web site has a complete description of people known to have visited the island. The place is incredibly out of the way. There are a few possibilities for undocumented visitors: 1. Polynesians, pre-European contact. There is no good archeological data to support this, but there is some evidence for islands within a few hundred miles. 2. 19th century whalers. The discoverer of Gardner was a ship captain from Nantucket. Most of the former US claims to Pacific island and atolls are based on whalers and the Guano Act. You didn't actually have to land on an island to claim it, and there is no record of guano being dug there. Gardner was also known as Kemin, and I can't find out who that was. 3. Blackbirders (19th century Pacific slavers). No incentive, as there is no population...unless that is why it was uninhabited. If so, there should be lots of artifacts to find. 4.Yachties on a lark. This would be a dangerous landing, but people have done stupider things. 5.Even less likely visitors: 18th century Spanish colonials, pirates, aliens, atomic weapons test spies, castaways, Greenpeace. ;) I would like to stress that there is no good evidence for any of these. It is possible that there were other people there, but highly unlikely, in my opinion. Dan Postellon Tighar #2263 LTM (who says it's a terrible place to visit, and I definitely wouldn't want to live there.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:48:50 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: W8AQQ? > From Ric > > Russel obviously heard voice if he heard engines. There may have been a > kite aboard the airplane. Somewhere over the last week I read about a kite aboard the aircraft. Unfortunately I suspect it was in the last 3 chapters of "Butler"... Everything else I have read this week is Purdue material and I'm fairly sure it was not in there. BTW has anyone ever noticed that the hatch over the cockpit of the Electra opened both ways, hinged at the top AND at the bottom? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Not so. The hatch was originally hinged on the outboard side which made it terribly awkward to clamber in and out. The hinge was changed to the inboard side sometime in the fall of 1936. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:52:33 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Norwich > From Ric > > I may be kidding myself but I think I could spot a gear leg or flap > actuator torque tube in a pile of anchor chain. Especially as the gear legs seem to be about 8-10 inches across! After seeing how big the tyres (tires for the Americans) were on the Electra I am far less skeptical about a possible reef landing. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:54:00 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Kites > From Ric > > Radio Rangers? What say ye to the prospect of a kite antenna? The kites may > have been there. The wind to fly one certainly was. It's easy enough to recalculate the propagation pattern for a kite antenna, provided we have the parameters of the wire length and slope. I haven't flown a kite for a long time, but I do recall that kite height and horizontal displacement from the ground point depend on kite size and shape, and wind speed. There's also the matter of allowing for the catenary in the wire, but we could overlook that in a first look at propagation feasibility. Are there any kite experts on the forum who would be willing to estimate kite height and wire slope? For Mike Everette: Assuming that AE/FN had kites, and assuming the kite kit included idiot-proof instructions on where and how to attach the kite, what do you think the practical options might have been? We can discuss this off-forum, if you like. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:14:47 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Still More Apples and Oranges >>From Ric >>We know what frequencies Earhart could transmit on. >>We know what antenna lengths are optimal for transmitting on those frequencies. >>We know how long the vee antenna was. >>We know it was the wrong length. >>We know there were problems with the vee antenna. Well, you've been maliciously concealing information, I guess. Where's your scientifically methodical evidence for the last two statements? And, you've previously stated you were NOT casting any aspersions on the work of Pan Am radio techs who "fiddled with the antenna". You seem to be implying that when they "optimized the antenna for 6210" they wound up "with the wrong length". (And please try to provide an intelligent answer, without attempting to make me "swing in the wind".) Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric As you've probably seen by now, Mike Everette corrected my oversimplified statement about the antenna length and elaborated upon the difficulties that anyone would have in correcting the changes that Gurr made. Who said that Pan Am "optimized the antenna for 6210"? Not me. That the Vee antenna continued to be a problem after Miami is documented by AE's notes from the South Atlantic crossing and Noonan's letter to Pallette written from Dakar both of which confirm that they were unsuccessful in establishing communication with anyone during that flight. Earhart's notes for the Miami/San Juan leg say that she heard commercial stations on her receiver, but the test flight at Lae on July 1st is the only time prior to the Lae/Howland flight that we have any indication that transmissions are getting out. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:35:13 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? > It would be pretty slim pickings for pirates in > that part of the world. Is there any reason to go there? Is it on a route to anywhere? Would finding it be a useful exercise for cadets on a training ship? Thanks for the explanation of Captain Handley, Ric. I wonder if he ever went there. Mike Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric Not that we know of. There's a reason that Gardner remained uninhabited for so long - and is once more uninhabited today. It's not good for anything. No fresh water to re-supply whaling ships or other transients. No guano to attract the phosphate miners of the 19th century. No accessible lagoon to provide sheltered water (as Canton has). No coconuts to speak of until the PISS (the Arundel plantings in the 1890s were a failure). And the surrounding reef makes it a dangerous place to get ashore. The colonization attempt from 1939 to 1963 failed because periodic droughts prevented the island from ever attaining economic viability and once the political reasons for maintaining sovreignty over the Phoenix Group became obsolete (when Canton was no longer needed as an airline refueling stop) there was no reason to continue to prop up the settlement there. By the 1970s the place was judged to have so little value that it was considered as a site for biological weapons testing. Today, with new power and water generating technology, it may be possible to try again to make the island a place where people can live and Kiribati has been considering that possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:46:01 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Kite Flying/Purpose of When was the Russell message received.If Frank's theory flys, so to speak, they must have been flying the kite from the Electra before the morning of 9 July or Lt Lambrecht and observer would have seen the orange kite to be used, said Amelia, for emergency distress signals. Was this make shift wire antenna supposed to be for receiving or sending? Radio experts should comment on the efficacy of such a jerry-rigged unit. I seriously doubt this method was used as even if it didn't work well as a radio antenna, why not leave the orange kit up for its intended use as the distress signal.Reportedly post loss messages were heard past the 9th. If they could have foreseen radio transmissions from a deserted island en route to Howland, why would they leave behind the emergency transmitter? For a few gallons more! LTM R.E.Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric The Russell message seems to have been received around 08:30 GMT on July 6. I don't know whether they had the kites aboard or not, but there's a big difference between the weight of an emergency transmitter (40 lbs?) and a couple of disassembled kites and some string (2 lbs?). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:47:54 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Watches and accordions I just know everyone has been waiting for this. This thread can die after this. I've exchanged e-mail with some British accordion players: I asked them about how they wore their watches, and about any traditions they may have had about Amelia Earhart. I'll admit right here that the last was grasping at air. They do indeed wear the watches "backwards." It is, they told me, so they can know how long they have to play. Nothing more mysterious than that. A couple of them admitted they take their watches off so they won't drop them in the beer. There are no traditions concerning Amelia Earhart, but Fred Noonan, as one of Irish descent, was known to this crew. I know a more literate group of accordion players than the average, I suppose. A music lover -- not an accordion player -- noted that the Discovery Channel had run something about the AE/FN event. In that, he reported, FN was noted as being drunk on takeoff. Apparently, the Discovery Channel is promoting the idea that AE and FN wound up in the Pacific. Has everyone else seen this? Did my correspondent report it correctly? Yes, I did aim them at the TIGHAR site. After that, the discussion faded into an exchange about the Dutch colonies in the Pacific. Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:55:27 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations For Hue Miller: The point of my little "quiz" was to illustrate that this is a very complex issue, and that we need to reduce uncertainty to the irreducible minimum if we are to make any headway toward the truth. Making arbitrary assumptions doesn't help. We need to make assumptions carefully derived from what we know or can logically deduce. > Which figures do you think are closer to some ballpark starting point, my > examples or your Terman figures for harmonic generator, i.e. circuit designed > to maximize harmonic energy? The point of my question was that, since we have no way of knowing the actual spectral power distribution of any harmonics radiated by the Electra's transmitter/antenna, there is no point in guesstimating it at this stage of the analysis. I think the best approach is to assume an ideal harmonic spectrum using Terman's numbers applied to the WE-13's rated output power, and see what happens. If signal reception under that ideal assumption proves to be infeasible, then we're done. But if the ideal assumption results in feasible reception, then we can incrementally lower the assumed harmonic power levels until reception becomes infeasible. At that point, there can be an informed debate about whether the range of harmonic power levels consistent with feasible reception is reasonable. > How does a high antenna relate to discrimination against harmonic energy, > delivered to the antenna? My brain-finger connectivity failed there. I intended to say "high-Q" antenna. > --I do not have the math to analyze the effects of conduction angle, > coil Q, and impedance matching on the actual figure for harmonic > output. Do you? Yep. But we don't know the parameter values, so it's moot. > Do you think -3 dB would be a realistic figure, in > our range for simulation? See discussion above. > What do you suggest as a starting point at 3rd harmonic? 20 watt? 10? > What? See discussion above. >> Did you take those factors into account in arriving at your 5 watt figure? >> If not, how did you arrive at 5 watts? > > I am suggesting a starting point. A better starting point would be to use the spectral assumptions in the discussion above, applied to the antenna gain pattern for the relative bearing and takeoff angle. We have a good model-generated approximation of the 3-dimensional antenna gain pattern at both 3015 and 6210. For example, at 6210, the net input to the antenna (after deducting resistive losses) is about 40 watts. At a takeoff angle of 5 degrees on the main lobe bearing, the antenna gain is about -15 dB, giving a radiated power output of about 2.5 watts. Applying Terman's ideal spectral levels to the harmonics gives correspondingly lower power output levels. > I am sorry, i am not taking a quiz, and i will spare the general > readers discussion of antenna efficiency factors. OK. >> Then when you consider the 3x harmonic possibility, imagine what >> wattage output would be. 1 watt? less? > > Let's you suggest your own favorite figure, and start with that. > > I'll give you a whole magnitude more to work with. Will this sway the > feasibility? I don't have a "favorite" figure. Don't know yet how the harmonic levels will affect feasibility. We need to proceed carefully, using the best estimates we can. Raw guesses only make things more difficult. >> Could a combination of higher antenna gain and higher radiation efficiency >> result in higher net radiated power at the harmonics than at the fundamental >> frequencies? Why? > > Now, you tell me how much gain you expect from a wire antenna, > on a landed plane, at the frequencies being discussed, i.e. from > 3 to maybe 18 MHz. Since the wire antenna is on a metal aircraft, and is close to the fuselage, the fuselage is the ground that the antenna sees, so the gain pattern on the ground or in the air is essentially the same. > I respect you for doing the heavy lifting as > far as numbers. However, i ask you: you are suggesting also, with > a mathematical reinforcement, that the circuit of the WE transmitter, > plus antenna gain, or directionality, somehow enabled such an > extraordinary reception, from the Pacific to the east coast of the > United States. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm asking a question. The antenna model shows that the transmitter antenna gain is significantly higher at the harmonic frequencies, by as much as 15 dB or more on some path geometries. The question is whether that gain improvement is enough to compensate for harmonic spectral power falloff. Dunno yet. See discussion above. > Look, i'll give you 25 watts third harmonic, say 50 > watts if you want. You do the math. I'll just say from my > experience, and plentiful readings from radio ham and listener literature from > the 1900s to now, that I am *very* skeptical of such claims. It may turn out that you are right. But whether you are or not, it's important that we get to the answer in a deliberate, methodical, scientific way. >>> That reception of Betty's would appear to be a real "DX catch". >> >> Why? What calculations have you done that lead you to that conclusion? > > See above. I am also *very* eager to see the results of your > computations. Perhaps they will *prove* Betty at home, did really > receive over an extended period of time, via her family's home radio, > a message from AE. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. I have not decided what the answer is. I'll rely on the facts to tell me that. When all the work is done, I'll give the details to Ric for posting on the TIGHAR web site where they can be reviewed and critiqued by forum members. In a very fundamental way, my work is only the beginning of the process of finding the truth. The informed insights and opinions of forum members will be vital additions which will help illuminate the way ahead. > When that is proven, there is even a greater > challenge, and that's how the Maine listener heard the AE messages > on a frequency not related to AE's transmitter. That issue can be addressed using the same methodology as we are applying in the case of Betty's intercepts. > If i fail your quiz, is the viability of your (plural) thesis > substantiated? I don't have a thesis. The facts will tell me what the answer is. Whether you pass or fail this little (ungraded) "quiz" is irrelevant. >>> (or more) of other SWLs somehow missing the reception, >>> where were they? >> >> How do you know there were hundreds or more SWLs who missed the reception? > > --Sorry, i have not quite completed the list of names. Familiarity with > the radio listening hobby and literature of the times suggests a good > many people tuned in to listen to shortwaves, many more than > today. > AE's signal was not the only signal transiting the Pacific. You have > numbers of aircraft, ships, and hams doing local work, or > trying to reach out as far as possible. From the records of time, > including DX reports in literature of the time, we can get an > idea of what actually was achieved in the realm of reality. In > addition to this, we have suggestions Divine Providence somehow > especially smiled on this one effort. If we're going to grind facts, than let's grind facts. Intuition and supposition have their place, but they don't weigh as much as facts. > I know you have your department. But let's not, i suggest, divorce > the computations from the whole picture. What do YOU think of > the content of the messages heard by Betty and the Maine > listener? How do you rate the veracity of the Maine reception? What I think about those messages doesn't matter. What matters is whether dispassionate analysis establishes their credibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Forum members are working on that problem now. If the Earhart mystery could be solved by using gut instinct and emotional arguments, the matter would have been resolved long ago. But TIGHAR is using the scientific method, which is a harsh task master. It's hard, often tedious, work that requires the practitioner to suspend judgment until the facts are in. But the result is well worth the effort. >> How do the possible numbers or locations of other SWLs bear upon the >> feasibility of Betty hearing the signal? > > So, there were what, no other listeners within a several mile radius > of Betty, even during "prime time"? Hint: the numbers and locations of other SWLs has no bearing on the feasibility of Betty hearing the signal. It does not logically follow that if Betty heard the signals, then others MUST have heard it also. >> What about transmissions on other frequencies? Would such transmission also >> have been tuned across? > > Okay, my turn. WHAT other frequencies? Dunno. I was only trying to follow your argument. You seemed to be claiming that other SWLs had to have been tuning across the same frequency that Betty was listening to, and thus should have heard the same signal. >> How do you quantify "maybe"? >> Is there a common set of specifications that characterize "the general coverage >> type receivers of the day"? What are the values of those specifications? > If you really need these, i will deliver, after some time to round up same. > > Will this really help you? It was a rhetorical question. We know with near certainty the make and model of Betty's receiver. It was a very good shortwave set, and we can readily get the specs when we need them. >> Instead of assuming a generic receiver, why not assume the actual make and >> model of receiver that Betty used? > > (Digression limited) What is magic about the Betty receiver? We can > be sure at best, it was within certain limits bounded by the technology > of the day. If you need them, a range of specifications can be > developed from the service literature of the day. Forgetting > external gingerbread, and loudspeaker quality, there were only > few templates for home receiver circuitry. Nothing magic about the receiver per se. But there is no point in using generic assumptions when we can use the actual specifications for Betty's receiver make and model. The more uncertainty we can eliminate from the process, the more reliable the final result will be. As for the number of "templates", I don't know how you define "few", but you'll be interested to know that the manufacturer of Betty's receiver had at least ten different electronic configurations on the market in 1937. >>> To get from one area of interest to another you have to cross the >>> intervening frequencies. >> >> Are you suggesting that every frequency on the dial will be tuned >> across by every listener simultaneously at any given moment? > > Obviously not, so why even mention that? However, the suggestion is > that the Betty reception occurred over a spread of time, and not > just in "message-over and out" format. Some have asked if the > mic button was locked down. Prime time hours for listening, Betty > was not the only listener scanning bands, her receiver and > antenna were not magic (unless one wants to suggest another > conspiracy theory) Just trying to understand your reliance on the assumption that other listeners must have been on the same frequency as Betty and therefore should have heard the same signal. By the way, how is "prime time" defined for listening? Betty says she heard the signals between about 3 PM and 6 PM Florida time. I've been SWLing for over 50 years, and it has been my experience that "prime time" depends upon which stations I want to hear. >>> Also, the Maine reception was right in the middle of a shortwave broadcast band. >> >> And the conclusion we are to draw from that assertion is . . . ? > > Okay, ball in your court. You explain how such frequency, in > defined SW broadcast bands, as i listed, related > to any energy transmitted from AE's transmitter, please. I'm not aware that anyone has said that there was a relationship. I take it that you claim there was no SW broadcast band that included any harmonic of AE's transmitter frequencies. I'm not familiar with the SW broadcast bands of 1937, but perhaps someone on the forum can provide the details. Clearly, if the Maine intercept was on a frequency that was not a harmonic of AE's frequencies (or more particularly, harmonics of her crystal frequencies) then it would be a tough sell to claim that the intercept was of an AE signal. >> I look forward to your answers and the facts they will bring. > > Here's how i see it, and finis for me: People are so entranced > by this shining possiblity of poignant AE messages being heard > by just plain folks at home, in a case of extraordinary, freakish > reception, that they are working, really working, to justify > the scenario. This includes stretching the phyics of it to the > max, and downplaying glaring problems in the scenario, and > investing the content with all kinds of imagined meaning. In > one year this whole thing will have blown over. ( Sorry, no > mathematical proof of that figure either.) Well, I must defer to your perspicacity. As for me, I haven't noticed anyone being entranced by this possibility. And I don't know of anyone trying to justify it. Neither am I aware of anyone trying to stretch the physics, or downplaying "glaring problems", whatever that means. I am, however, aware of your a-priori dismissal of the feasibility of Betty's reception, without application of the laws of physics and probability. In the fullness of time, it may turn out that you have been right all along. If so, you will have bragging rights, plus the satisfaction of knowing that you guessed the right answer without having to do any real work to get there. As for me, I prefer to take the slower, plodding, deliberate, scientific path to the answer. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:59:11 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: The LOP (again) Ric: My reply to all comments about FN's navagation - AGAIN! AGAIN, EVERYONE SEEMS TO MISS THE POINT! Maps of the time show Howland about five miles from its ACTUAL location. Thus, if FN hit smack on top of his target, he was still FIVE miles from the ACTUAL location. And as has been pointed out, five miles away it would be difficult (bordering on impossible) to spot Howland with the Mark I eyeball. So AE and FN have good fixes (she circles the plane while he shoots fixes on the Sun, the Moon and the morning star). He knows that he is right on TOP OF HOWLAND. BUT IT AIN'T THERE!!!!!!!! We MUST be on you, but we can't see you!!!!!!! HOW PROPHETIC! They are on top of the location that the map says is HOWLAND and it ISNT' THERE! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:02:53 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: The Russell message >> "THIS IS WHAQQ ... TALKING, "WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILES SOUTHEST BY >>FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE. *** REPLY: This is WaiKiKi? *** >> AND ALL IS WELL SO FAR ... LOOK FOR RED KITE, FOOD SUPPLY AND WATER. *** REPLY: FOOD SUPPLY - The survival cache left by the NC survivors? Is there any documentation (log of the rescue ship) that tells what supplies were left? Does the island have any feature that looks like a red kite? Did the NC rescuers leave a red kite with the supplies? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ************************************************************************** From Ric We have no information about what was in the supply cache. The island has no feature (that I can think of) that looks like a red kite. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:08:18 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Question for the Brits A question for British Forumembers: Gallagher, in his 6th October 1940 telegram, refers to the shoe found with the Niku skeleton as a "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal." Those seem like rather mutually exclusive categories to me, unless the upper of the shoe was reduced to the point at which one couldn't tell whether it had been solid or made up of straps. But having once been dreadfully embarassed by using the word "sod" in Southampton to refer to a piece of cut turf, it's just occurred to me that I'm not sure that we all mean the same thing by the word "sandal." On your side of the water, do you understand the term to mean anything other than a piece of footwear whose upper part is made up of some kind of strapping (usually with buckles or, these days, Velcro), leaving parts of the foot bare? Thanks, and LTM, who advises care in the use of language. Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric In the same communication you cite Gallagher says quite specifically that "only part of sole remains." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:16:14 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Circling RE: Circling and Must be on you, but can't see you! AE/FN reach what FN's calculations show to be the approximate location of Howland. But they can't see anything. FN says to AE. Circle while I take some shots on the sun, moon and morning star (among others?). He pulls the calculations while AE circles and reports to Itasca. We are CIRCLING (Itasca copies as DRIFTING?). FN gets the shots and says to AE. We MUST be on it. My shots show we are right on the lat/long as shown on the charts (SHOWN ON THE CHARTS - WHICH ARE INCORRECT!). AE reports to Itasca. WE MUST BE ON YOU, BUT CAN'T SEE YOU! Well, DUH, they are on them - AS FAR AS THE MAP IS CONCERNED - but they can' see them because THEY are 5 miles away! Now here is where the FN drinking comes in. If I was that good of a navigator and was absolutely SURE of my location and it wasn't there, I would probably break out a bottle and start drinking (NOT)! I WOULD take a look at the charts and say something like, lets run down this LOP and see if we spot Howland. If we miss it, there are a LOT of islands southeast of there that we should be able to see, and we will be a WHOLE lot closer to Hawaii once the Itasca shows up with the fuel! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 PS - Has anyone check to see if the person who charted the location of Howland was a chronic drinker? *************************************************************************** From Ric 1. We don't know for sure that Noonan did not have the updated postion for Howland. We do know that the Coast Guard had it. 2. The island should be visible from five miles away. Pellegrino's crew saw it from about 10 miles out. 3. If you're trying to take a celestial observation the last thing you want the pilot to do is circle the airplane. You need a steady, unchanging view of the sun and the horizon. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:19:11 EDT From: Jim Van Hare Subject: Re: Challenging Ideas >From Hue Miller > > Jim Van Hare wrote: > >>I just went to http://www.spaceweather.com/java/sunspot.html and >> checked the sunspot activity for July, 1937. It turns out 1937 was near the >> peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle. At these times radio tends to travel >> longer . . . . . Thanks, but I didn't write that, and I didn't surf to that URL, and I stand in awe of the depth of knowledge evident in these forum postings. As a navigator in Uncle Sugar's Able Fox (try that one with the new phonetic alphabet) my radio and radar and Loran capabilities extended to turning stuff on and off, shaking microphones vigorously when they didn't work, and rather briskly kicking delicate electronic equipment as part of my inflight maintenance procedure. What the hell --- it worked! Jim Van Hare (who also kicks tires when buying a used car). *************************************************************************** From Ric That was probably my error, not Hue's. Sometimes it's hard to keep straight who said what. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:21:37 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Vee Antenna >From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > > The Vee antenna was not necessarily "too long." It was indeed longer than > in the original installation, after Joe Gurr's modifications. That in and > of itself is not the problem. > > The potential problem lies in the transmitter. Was the tuning network in > the transmitter now able to properly "match" to the longer antenna? --That depends on how much longer, of course. The WE13 for frequencies above 6000 employed components to compensate for antennas "too long". ( Per Morgan book: antenna series capacitor of 125 pF for 6000-6500 kc/s tuning unit. Could be replaced by optional 62.5 pF if necessary. This cancelled out inductive reactance of long antenna - and /or, per Sandretto book, raised the tuned circuit impedance for a better match to the output tubes, if necessary.) > The tuning methods and procedures for this radio were cumbersome. If a tech > took short cuts, or if he was not sure what value of antenna current reading > to expect on a given frequency with the altered antenna, then it is quite > possible that excessive harmonic radiation resulted. Mike, i am not trying to be negative, or second guessing, but reading the tuneup procedure in the Morgan book, it honestly doesn't sound that much more complicated than tuneup procedures for any AM boat radio i am familiar with. (Once you have it tuned you have to make sure it modulates, and then perhaps reset plate loading. That's the only additional kink i can see.) --Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:22:42 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Kites Wow. Now we're really getting into imaginative scripting. This would assume AE-FN had in mind some formulae for calculating the correct antenna length, then measuring and cutting the wire. It would help them to have along an airfield technician's volt-ohmmeter and an RF ammeter, for resetting the transmitter antenna tuning. Get the wrong length, and not only does your signal not go anywhere, but you do not develop any signal. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:23:31 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Kites The Luke field inventory, sheet #2, item 28, lists "1-box kite" LTM, Bill Conover #2377 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:26:49 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Kites Ric asked: > Radio Rangers? What say ye to the prospect of a kite antenna? The kites > may have been there. The wind to fly one certainly was. Seems much more likely as solely a signal device, the "red kite" mentioned in the one report. BTW, here are a couple things about the WE13 transmitter that i noticed on the last pass, and thought interesting. ( Your milage may vary): The transmitter power input, resting state, is about 180 watts. That's for 50 watts output. That's because the circuit is one called "screen modulation", actually called a form of efficiency modulation. The idea behind use of this circuit is that it saves weight, by eliminating big modulation transformers. One downside is that it requires more attention to careful tuneup, or else the modulation level suffers or sounds distorted. ( another factoid that militates against successful use of an extemporized antenna.) I also read that the transmitter filament (heating ) current is 10.6 amps. (That means another approx. 120 watts of overhead that adds nothing to signal power.) From cold start, a limiting resistor limited the inrush current to 8.5 amps, and when not talking, this resistor also limited the continuous drain to 8.5 amp. That's regardless of whether the transmitter dynamotor is spinning or not. Probably the 10E had a pretty good sized battery. But it seems that having the radio gear on, even when not talking, put a pretty good load on the battery, which would steadily drain it unless the generator were cranked in. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:34:50 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: More Old Ideas > From John Pratt > contemporary opinions may be valuable in > other areas as well. > REFERENCE EARHART TRANSMITTER PERIOD DUE TO DESIGN OF TRANSMITTER >FOLLOWING FREQUENCIES ARE HIGHLY PRACTICABLE ODD HARMONICS OF THE 3105 >CRYSTALS WHICH THE ANTENNAE WILL BE RESONANT ON WITHOUT CHANGE OF THE >DIAL SETTINGS 9315 COMMA 15525 AND 21935 PERIOD --if the transmitter was less than resonant on the 3105 fundamental, it's unlikely it would be resonant on any harmonic. The 3rd is a definite possiblity. The 7th, and maybe the 5th also, are fine for a theoretical look at Class-C amplifier stages, but (IMO) it's ludicrous to suggest any possiblilty of communication on numbers 5 and 7. > OTHER POSSIBLE HARMONIC POINTS 12420 AND 18630 Your trained government radio technician does not explain how the second harmonic would work. IF the 10E's antenna was 1/4 wave resonant at 6205, it would be low impedance, some where in the ballpark of 30 - 40 ohms. The energy at 12420 would however encounter an antenna of 2 x 1/4 wave, i.e. 1/2 wave, which is a high impedance antenna, as in thousands of ohms. This is called "a severe mismatch". The antenna does not accept power under conditions of great mismatch. > I think I see the following. > 1. Reception on third harmonics were a recognized phenomena. > 2. They asked about the particular transmitter and from information > received expected harmonics at specific frequencies. And take any report, even from experts, with a grain of salt. (yes, inclusive.) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:38:05 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Electra's Antenna > From Ric > >>(probably apex of the V in this case)<< > > Nope. Roughly halfway down the starboard arm of the vee. Sorry to have to ask for a repeat on this, but what was the length of a leg of the V ? The approx. length from the takeoff point to the transmitter? As i see it, we have 2 resonances at least ( the big picture, ignoring capacitive effects for now) : Length1 = one leg of V + 1/2 leg of V + feedlength - effect of "antenna being folded back on itself" The folded back part would add some sophistication to calculation of its resonance point, i would think. But this could be modeled at higher frequency in a mockup. Length2 = 1/2 leg of one V + feedlength I haven't looked at any numbers yet, but it looks like this may make the consideration of harmonics at least more interesting. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm gonna defer to Mike Everette or Bob Brandenburg to answer questions about antenna length. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:43:15 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: "I was Amelia Earhart" I got "I was AE" for $1.99 at the local Border's discount outlet, and as bad as it was, I've never been able to just throw away a book. (which irritates my wife to no end) And besides, there is that note on the acknowledgements page thanking some guy named Ric Gillespie for some factual information. I have a difficult time following a plot when reality, fantasy, and flashbacks to the past are presented in alternating chapters, so you can imagine my irritation when I found the settings changing from one paragraph to the next! Then again, I'm just a poor, dumb infantryman, so the subtleties of fine literature are probably wasted on me. Regarding those "sexual liasons in the sand," if the movie includes the one where it was pitch dark, maybe they could use the line "I must be on you, but can not see you." LTM, who says that THAT was crass and boorish and typical of what is found in juvenile chat rooms. Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************************** From Ric You realize, of course, that you have just opened up all of the post-loss messages to new interpretations. Betty's notebook alone gets an R rating. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:50:58 EDT From: Vern Subject: Harmonic radiation Browsing through the ARRL Radio Amateur's Handbook, I noticed this little paragraph. It refers to three different diagrams of ways to connecta simple wire antenna to a transmitter. One of them is like the antenna connection to the WE 13C( ) transmitter. In this arrangement, the antenna is simply connected to the inductor of the final amplifier output tuned circuit. A series capacitor keeps the high-voltage DC from being present on the antenna, as is the case in the WE transmitter. Of this cirduit, it says: "The system is undesirable because it provides practically no protection against the radiation of harmonics, and it should only be used in emergencies." If the combined lead and antenna, perhaps as a result of Joe Gurr's modification, could support a resonance at one of the possible harmonic frequencies, a considerable amount of power may have been radiated at that frequency. I doubt harmonic power would be as much as at 3105 or 6210 kc, but it might not be much less. Of course, total power delivered to the antenna would be divided among whatever frequencies were radiated. I hesitate to suggest that simply tuning for maximum antenna current may have favored a harmonic frequency. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:52:35 EDT From: Jim Van Hare Subject: reading the waves > From Jerry Hamilton > Re: navigation in the old days in response to Bob's comment below: > > " . . . I interviewed the sixteenth PAA pilot hired. He was before FN and flew > out of Miami. He won a bet once by making landfall after an over water flight > within a degree of the objective. He judged drift by looking at wave > patterns (they flew low and slow in those days). He says he could judge > within a half a degree . . . " Once you get the hang of it, estimating the wind direction and wind speed off the waves is surprisingly accurate. We used to fly 8-9 hour missions out over the Yellow Sea at 1500 feet collecting weather data, and our primitive Loran sets usually didn't work. We learned to "read the waves" and by trial and error adopted the convention of adding 15 degrees and 5 knots to get a close estimate of the wind at 1500 feet. It worked well, as long as we could see the water. I don't believe it would have been very helpful at higher altitudes, though. Jim Van Hare (former USAF navigator, always careful to get lost in a properly professional manner) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:53:53 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: W8AQQ The only thing I could find on the callsign W8AQQ in the 1993 QRZ Database is : Callsign: W8AQQ Class: General Name: OSCAR A KALLIO Effective: 12 Aug 1986 Expires: 12 Aug 1996 Address: 10458 HART AVE City/State: HUNTINGTON WOODS MI 48070 Has anybody the opportunity to check that out ? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:56:25 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Kites > From Mike E. the Radio Historian: > > It was called the Gibson Girl because of the shape of the case. It that's the radio that's shaped like a rectangular 8, designed to be held between your knees, then I've used it. > She was not using any kite to fly an antenna for the radio in the plane. > That radio had to be tuned by a technician, using a test set... Why? As I've said, we used to rig wire antennas with a very fine copper wire. Our method of tuning was to calculate the wavelength and unroll the wire to a quarter wave. While our calculations may have been accurate (and it was very simple math, far below Noonan's ability) our measurements certainly were not. Our measurements were conducted by pacing off an approximate distance. So whether or not Earhart or Noonan knew what they were doing, the fact remains that they could have done it and it would've worked. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:01:02 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Kite antennas > From Mike E. the Radio Historian: > > In desperate times, desperate men (and women) do desperate things. > Who knows what they may have tried? Is there any anecdote about Earhart being very fond of kites as a child? If so, this provides more opportunity for her to have thought about Benjamin Franklin's experiment and to later have considered using the wire as a radio antenna. But it's also something that either of them could've picked up while associating with wireless operators. Does anyone have an immediate guestimate on the range of her radio with a quarter to three-quarter wave aerial at an angle of about 45 degrees away from the prevailing winds? (Are the winds NE, making the direction SW?) Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Prevailing winds at Niku in July, in our experience, are out of the east at about 15 knots. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:02:00 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Cult following Ric said: "No TIGHAR is not a religion. We're not that respectable. TIGHAR is a cult." Too bad TIGHAR isn't a religion; we'd probably have more money. LTM, who says her prayers every night Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:06:53 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work > From Janet Whitney > > Interesting that we're seeing complementary postings from practitioners > of a couple of "no choice" belief systems (abbreviated "B.S.") that allow > for a few "permissable" outcomes, no matter what other outcomes could > occur. Dear Janet, My view is that all humans operate with belief systems (BS). If you have found a way to "prove everything," using no unproven assumptions, you should publish your results. Mathematicians and philosophers of science have been trying to find out how to prove everything for a couple of hundred years now and have not succeeded. Goedel's work suggests that it is impossible in principle. In denigrating my belief system, you merely exhibit your own. I gave some information about my religious, ethnic, and educational background in response to some teasing from Dennis. But in my comments on "proving negatives," I made no appeal to any authority of my own or of my Church. I based my case on public sources and gave some URLs where people could read more about the fruits of others' labors. I make no dogmatic claims about whether or not the any-idiot-artifact (the McGuffin) can be found on Niku. The reasons for which I accept the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church are almost totally irrelevant to the question of whether the mystery can be solved next year on Niku IIII. I love TIGHAR because it is a model of how to do sound historical research. That matters to me because so much of human knowledge and culture is transmitted through history. (You can't prove me wrong about this, because if you try to, you will have to appeal to history to do so.) TIGHAR aims to be educational, not just about AE and FN, but about how to distinguish what is known from what is not. Hauling a bunch of fallible human observers, each with their own BS, out to a speck of land in the Pacific is the right way to test the TIGHAR hypothesis. I've bet $80 so far that TIGHAR is right. I'm gonna plunk down my (OK, the Society's) money for the 8th edition, too. In doing so, I'm making what seems to me to be a reasonable choice. I'm not staking the money on the conviction that the "Betty hypothesis" is true. If the McGuffin is found on Niku, the Betty hypothesis gains credibility in my book, though I would not think it proven by any means. So far as I know, discussing the BS of Roman Catholicism is off-topic in this forum. I apologize for my contribution to thread drift. (But if anyone wants to know what I think on the off-topic topic, you can buy my book from Amazon for an absurdly high price. My publisher will thank you. My provincial will thank you. I will thank you.) > From Ric > ... I consider myself to > be free to believe anything that makes sense to me. Me, too. I believe you guys are gonna bring back the McGuffin next year. > No TIGHAR is not a religion. We're not that respectable. TIGHAR is a > cult. And an addiction. :o( Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:07:36 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Kites as antennas When using kites as antennas exactly how does that work? Is copper wire used instead of string or twine to get the kite aloft, or is the copper wire simply wrapped around the kite and suspended for several feet from the kite? LTM, who has kited a few checks, but never a wire Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:09:53 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Discovery show in Britain Mike Holt asked: >>Apparently, the Discovery Channel is promoting the idea that AE and FN wound up in the Pacific. Has everyone else seen this? Did my correspondent report it correctly?<< Yes misinterpretation of the facts. The program mentioned the pilot of the first trans-atlantic flight I believe in 1928 was drunk at the early stages of THAT flight. The program also mentioned the "presumed drinking problems" that seem to precede any general reference to FN. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:10:52 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Kite Flying/Purpose of > From Ron Bright > ...they must have been flying the kite from the Electra before the > morning of 9 July or Lt Lambrecht and observer would have seen the > orange kite to be used... Assuming that it was flying at the time, the kite was large enough to be spotted from the air, and that Lambrecht was in their area. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:12:06 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Actually, there IS some evidence of prehistoric Polynesian (or Micronesian, or Melanesian) occupation on Niku, though it's very thin, In 1989 we found one fragmentary basalt adze bit, typical of such artifacts found in prehistoric sites throughout this part of the Pacific, on the surface in the village. Trace element analysis showed that it had almost certainly come from a known basalt quarry in Samoa. There was also a flaked core of what appeared to be andesite, found near the landing monument. Certainly not native to the island, quite likely a prehistoric artifact. Both could have been brought in by the colonists, of course, but Dan's right, there's extensive evidence of prehistoric occupation on nearby islands (Manra and Orona), so there's no reason not to think that Niku was at least visited from time to time. There's no archeological evidence that prehistoric voyagers in this part of the Pacific wore blucher-style oxfords, however. I'd guess that they were rare footgear for pirates, too. LTM (who goes barefoot) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:13:05 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Question for the Brits Ric wrote: << In the same communication you cite Gallagher says quite specifically that "only part of sole remains." >> Oh, well, that's what I get for not listening to Mother. I'd still like to be certain that "sandal" meant the same thing to Gallagher as it does to me. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:25:43 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: W8AQQ? > From Ross Devitt > "WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY > MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE. > Is there anything at that location? > > Th' WOMBAT > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > I have no idea how to locate that position on a map. Why can't you do it this way: Plot a point 50 miles directly east of Howland, and then draw a line far down (south) on your map. Then, take a ruler and measure the distance which corresponds to 150 miles. Next, place the left side of your ruler (the pivot point) on Howland and pivot the ruler to see where the 50 mile line and 150 mile measurement on your ruler meet (IF they do)? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I did as you suggest. The lines intersect at a point in the open ocean just a tad west of the LOP about 50 nm west of Winslow Reef. It's conceivable that the flight passed such a point enroute southeastward. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:27:46 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: W8AQQ It could be the original holder... did the database give his date of birth? I know some QRZ listings do this... if the guy is in his 80s at least, this may be a one-owner call sign. But many of the W(#)A(*)(*) guys are now Silent Keys. Had that call listed an effective date post 1993, I'd wonder if it was a reissue; but since it is 1986, it could likely have been issued originally in 1926, 1931, 1936, IF it was renewed near the expiration date. Renewal could have come a little earlier; but I am pretty sure that prior to WW2 and maybe until the 60s at least, they were eligible for renewal only within 6 months of the expiry date (and for many years, one had to "attest" to the fact that he/she could still maintain proficiency in morse code, when renewing...hmmm). Ham licenses carried 5 year terms until some time in the 80s when they went to 10 year. Given the context of the message, I would be more inclined to think what the listener heard was "KHAQQ." Again... hmmm. ... _._ LTM (who has fast hands, on the key) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Any reason not to just call the guy? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:29:31 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Question for the Brits Tom King asked: <> Exactly that, Tom. Might be a buckled shoe with holes punched in it for ventilation rather than mere strapping attached to a sole, but essentially the same meaning. LTM Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:31:00 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: north or south? > Would you use an offset if you were navigating to an island that had an NDB? > If you used an offset but didn't come upon your destination, at what point in > your flight would you say "We must be on you but can not see you"? > If you used an offset why would you have cause to run both ways along the > LOP? If FN used an offset he would not know when he was over destination because he would not know how far off he was. If he could determine that he would have had no reason to offset. It is possible, however, for him to have offset and upon turning onto the LOP shoot a celestial body that would have given him a crossing LOP. If so he would have had a good position and could well have reached a point where the famous statement could have been made. Without reviewing the available bodies of the time I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the odds on that. If an available celestial body WAS in a reasonable position to shoot a cut across the LOP they were going to turn on it was most likely in FNs field of view BEFORE he turned because he would be looking for a celestial body roughly at right angles to his track. If so he again would not have needed to offset. Only if the needed celestial body was in a position where he couldn't shoot it UNTIL he turned will the offset theory be reasonable. Confusing? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:35:09 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: Kites In a later posting I said it "might have" worked. Anything is possible. There are some technical reasons why it might have. If y'all really want to get into that I will... but hold the thought for now. There is also the old standby, PBL "Pure Blind Luck" but obviously they did not have quite enough of that, if it did work. With regard to the walkie-talkie/flagpole trick, all I know is, I did it, I know it worked THAT TIME. Why? I have no real clue. I can make a SWAG approximation but the point is, it worked. And if you want to hear it, I'll explain that one too. But that does not mean it DID work in AE's case. The real trick, as I see it, would have been for them to attach the kite wire to the aircraft antenna in such a way that the strain from the kite would not pull the whole antenna out by the roots... or at the very least, break the porcelain feed thru insulator or tear the mast at the apex of the Vee away. Bob Brandenburg, what say to this? Suppose (AHA! Supposition...! But we gotta start somewhere) one were to attach a 200, 250 or 300 foot wire, flown by a kite, to either the feed thru insulator, or to the apex of the Vee... Suppose again the average angle of the wire to the ground is 30 degrees. With no retuning of the radio... what's this gonna do to the radiation? And we are leaving the original Vee antenna connected too. Remember the ground plane beneath the antenna (NOT "grounded plane" but the earth surface beneath the antenna) is darn near perfect... salt water. Which way do the prevailing winds blow on the island? From the west? That would take the kite over the water from the reef, right? Please, Hue and Janet... we are not grasping at straws; only looking at possibilities. The probabilities come later. LTM (who says nothing is impossible to the person who does not have to do it himself) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Out there on the reef a 300 foot kite antenna is going to be over water (or at least big puddles) no matter which way the wind is blowing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:39:13 EDT From: Ed Subject: NC cache Would the logs of the rescuing ships have any record of what was left? Ed of PSL ************************************************************************** From Ric It's a thought. The "Trongate" log might have a record of what was taken ashore. I think she was of British registry. There's just a chance her logs are in the PRO at Kew. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:41:50 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: Cult following Say HalleLUjah! Send it now while you're alive... it'll be in Heaven when you arrive! Say Ay-MEN! LTM (who says Put your hand on the radio...) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Just what we've been looking for - a professional fund raiser from North Carolina. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:12:19 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Kites For Mike Everette: It just occurred to me that you might gave been asking me to comment on the radiation question rather than the mechanical loading problem, so here's the radiation response. > Bob Brandenburg, what say to this? > > Suppose (AHA! Supposition...! But we gotta start somewhere) one were to > attach a 200, 250 or 300 foot wire, flown by a kite, to either the feed thru > insulator, or to the apex of the Vee... Suppose again the average angle of > the wire to the ground is 30 degrees. > > With no retuning of the radio... what's this gonna do to the radiation? > And we are leaving the original Vee antenna connected too. Dunno for sure, but the antenna model would tell us. Offhand, I reckon it would be some funky (technical acronym for Fundamentally UNKown Yet) combination of a sloping long wire with a pseudo ground plane (the vee wire). My guess is that it would have a higher net gain than the vee antenna alone. Need to feed it to the model to get a useful answer. The lengths and angle you propose seem reasonable to me. If there's no objection, I can run those cases and see what happens. > Remember the ground plane beneath the antenna (NOT "grounded plane" but the > earth surface beneath the antenna) is darn near perfect... salt water. > > Which way do the prevailing winds blow on the island? From the west? That > would take the kite over the water from the reef, right? A sloper over salt water - - should be pretty good. The kicker is what the vee does to the overall performance. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:21:39 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Pirates on Gardner? Wouldn't Gardner be an ideal place for pirates? A pirate crew could capture a ship near Samoa (say) and sail it to an unihhabited island like Gardner. Sink the captured ship and crew in 17,000 feet of water. Divide up the loot. Any reports of ships disappearing under mysterious circumstances within 500 miles of Gardner during the past 150 years? Janet Whitney ************************************************************************* From Ric I must be missing something. If I understand you correctly, your swashbucklers capture a ship and sail it to Gardner where they sink it, thus marooning themselves on a desert island? If you mean that they also have their own pirate ship, why do they need an island in order to sink their prize and divide up the loot? As a base of pirate operations Gardner sucks. You can't get a ship into the protected lagoon and you can't even anchor offshore because the reef drops off too steeply. Our pirate ship has to stand offshore during the day while we're ashore looking for buried treasure, then at night we have to sail out to sea and drift until the next day. You're losing it Janet. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:24:30 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Circling I fully agree with Dave Bush. If Fred Noonan was indeed able to navigate to 10 NM and the 1937 maps misplaced Howland by 5 miles, then in a "best possible case" they were 15 nautical miles from Howland. If Pellegrino's crew could see the island from a distance of 10 miles, then what about AE and FN 15 miles out ? And this is a "best possible case". What if FN did not perform to his 10 NM standard that day ? What if he computed their position at say perhaps 15 NM ? That would have put them 20 miles from where Howland really was. And all that could explain why AE said "We are on you but we can't see you". In fact either the were spot on and the island wasn't there because their maps were wrong. Or they were only some 20 miles or so from it and failed to see it. What was visibility like on that day ? Ten miles or better ? I've never been to Howland, nor have I ever flown over the Pacific, but I do know that one of the most difficult things to spot when flying over the North sea is a big ship dead in the water (because it doesn't leave a telltale wake). A tiny spot like Howland in an immense ocean is something more difficult to find (especially on a hazy day) than a landaus. So, the next reasonable thing for them to do would be to fly up their LOP if FN had intentionally plotted a more southerly offset course, or fly down the LOP if he had plotted a more northerly offset course. Which can explain why AE said they were flying along the 157/335 line. And if FN had indeed plotted a direct as you suggest (and which I still I find hard to believe), it would still have stood to reason to fly up and down the LOP (which was what AE probably said). And I agree with Dave Bush again when he thinks that when at one point in time it was clear Howland wasn't where it should be and that Itasca was of no use, they would not stick around flying in circles until all the fuel was gone but would, having reached a "point of no return", head for the nearest land available. Which was the Phoenix Islands. I think we can forget about the Gilberts. They may have been mentioned by AE at one time but I am convinced that when confronted with the reality, the two acted professionally, looked at their maps, calculated their chances and having lost one gamble already, headed for the surest destination to make landfall, which was the Phoenix Islands. The one thing which keeps puzzling me is why she didn't announce their intention to do so. Even today, when losing radio contact - besides announcing the fact by setting the transponder code 7600- is making a blind transmission to announce your intentions so that the people you know are out there and are looking for you, know what your are going to do and can possibly provide assistance. Today this is standard radio procedure. There were no transponders back in 1937. But I see no reason why a blind transmission would not have been made. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:29:20 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Electra's Vee Antenna Vee antennas were commonly installed on Electra Models 10, 12, and 14 during the 1930's. I have seen photos of at least 30 different Electras with Vee antennas installed. Pan Am owned ten Model 10 Electras that its subsidiaries in Mexico and Cuba flew. Pan Am techs had at least 3 years of experience with Electra Model 10s by the time Pan Am techs modified Earhart's radios. The installation and initial antenna tuning for ALL the aircraft transmitters described in Morgan's 1930 book was tedious. The Collins "Autotune" transmitter's final had to also be neutralized, by the way. The installation and initial antenna tuning for the WE 13 C was straightforward for HF. The Marconi antenna was well-behaved. Marconi antennas have been used for almost 100 years. There is no evidence that Pan Am radio techs did NOT know what they were doing. The Itasca did copy Earhart from at least 200 miles away on 3105 kilocycles. Lae copied Earhart on 6210 kilocycles. Anything that Earhart may or may not have heard on HF in 1937 may have as much to do with radio propagation as with her radios. The WE transmitter and receiver experienced severe operating environments. It would have been an excellent idea for Earhart's radios to have been bench-tested in Darwin, vacuum tubes replaced, etc. However, it is unclear just how often and for how long the 13 C transmitter was turned on during the flight. The entire matter of the "harmonics" started being discussed after TIGHAR's discussion was underway about "Betty's" notebook. One thing that hasn't been mentioned about the "harmonics" is the amount of concomitant audio distortion...which could have been significant...to the point where a 2nd harmonic audio would be mush. Time to drop the "Betty" discussion. It has become entirely speculative. I would like to see a discussion of what TIGHAR hopes to find on Niku and how TIGHAR will go about looking. Janet Whitney (Who is happy that grrls have choices when we visit OUR college's health center). ************************************************************************* From Ric I wonder what THAT was all about. ????? Any discussion of what we hope to find on Niku would be entirely speculative. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:37:04 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Discovery show in Britain Any tv program stating that the first pilot who crossed the Atlantic in 1928 should immediately be switched off, regardless the fact whether it claims the pilot was drunk or not. The first pilot to cross the Atlantic was US Navy commander Read (1919) in a Curtiss flying boat, making technical stops at the Azores and Lisbon before reaching England. The first pilots to fly the Atlantic non stop were British flyers Alcock and Brown (also in 1919) flying a twin engine Vickers Vimy biplane from Newfoundland (Canada) to Ireland. The first pilot to cross the Atlantic non stop linking both CONTINENTS was Charles Lindbergh (1927) who flew from New York to Paris in a single engine Ryan NYP. None of them had a drinking record. None of them made their first crossing in 1928. *************************************************************************** From Ric When Gerry Gallagher said "The program mentioned the pilot of the first trans-atlantic filght I believe in 1928 was drunk at the early stages of THAT flight." he was obviously speaking of Earhart's first transatlantic flight in the "Friendship". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:38:07 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? I do not doubt your findings. But I wonder what will happen in a thousand years when people will visit the Moon and find the little metal sculpture left by Neil Armstrong in 1969 to commemorate Man's first landing on the Moon. Surely they will come to the conclusion that Neil Armstrong was Belgian since it is a historic fact that the little figure he left there was made in Belgium by Belgian sculptor Van Hoeydocnk. Please excuse my patriotic flag waving... LTM (who loves jokes, but the statue WAS made by Belgian Van Hoeydonck) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:39:44 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Kites A good box kite, which is what meteorologists used, flies almost directly overhead. I would expect an angle to the ground of 80 degrees or more. The Selfridge that Selfridge Air Base in Michigan is the namesake for was an Army Air Corps Kite pilot, at least for part of his career. Dan Postellon Tighar#2263 LTM (Who keeps her tail off the ground) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:49:10 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: W8AQQ? > >"WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY > > > >MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE. I'm sorry but I don't understand this. I assume "SOUTHEST" is a typo and it should be "SOUTHEAST." If so I still don't understand it. The explanation doesn't make sense either. If "WE" knew where Howland was and the message refers to "FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND" then they would say they are X number of miles in some direction from Howland. Why would they use a point 50 miles away for a reference point? I agree with Ric's first response. I wouldn't know how to plot this either. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric I know that sailors used to use a system of describing position or direction that employed phrases like "south by east" or "north by northwest" but I don't understand it. I believe it dates from a time before the compass was divided into 360 degrees but was, instead, divided into "points" such as "north; north northeast; northeast; east northeast; east" etc. I'm sure some of our Old Salts can help us out here. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:50:27 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: W8AQQ? > Next, place the left > side of your ruler (the pivot point) on Howland and pivot the ruler to see > where the 50 mile line and 150 mile measurement on your ruler meet If FN determined his position as being 150 miles SE AND that that point was 50 miles east of a line due south from Howland why would he do that? Wouldn't he simply say he was 150 miles SE of Howland on a bearing of such and such? Why go the extra step to figure out how far east of Howland that would be? Plus, how did he know where Howland was from 150 miles out when he didn't know where it was from a few miles out? Why give the position at all? No one is going to go look at that position for them. Why not say he's SE of Howland heading for where ever? A believeable message would have been, "ABOUT 150 MILES SE OF HOWLAND HEADING FOR FIRST LANDFALL IN THE PHOENIX ISLANDS." Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:52:37 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Discovery show in Britain > The program also mentioned the "presumed drinking > problems" that seem to precede any general reference to FN. Gerry, I've listened to all these comments about FN's drinking for some time now. I have never seen any evidence of the significance of his drinking habits or what they were. Noonan was an Irishman as I am. The Irish are not known as teetotalers. During my early flying days I partied like Hell. I was not a drunk nor was I an alcoholic nor was there any connection to my flying duties. In five years in VIetnam I partied with the rest of them -- hard but not while flying or before flights. That was not true of some pilots. Some bent the rules a bit. Most put away a significant amount of alcohol AFTER returning from a flight. If Noonan did no more than we did it's a subject that deserves being put to rest. Even if he was a fall down drunk AE would not have taken off from Lae with him. The only reason this subject comes up is to try to imply FN was too alcohol impaired to find Howland but he navigated right to it. They got there but couldn't visually spot the island. How do we know that? We know it from the strength of their radio transmission and their transmission, "WE MUST BE ON YOU......" So we know they were close but not how close. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:53:47 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The LOP (again) > shooting the Sun to know his exact latitude Herman the sun was in front of the Electra and would only give cuts across track -- longitude not latitude. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:05:19 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The LOP (again) Tom, those were good comments. Lots of speculation as to what FN had available for a good position, of course, but that's the best we can do so far. You also brought up a good point in FN being able to shoot fixes, keep track of the plane's manuevering and still know where he was. Although I belive AE's message did not say "circling" but rather "listening" they could have cirled without FN losing track if he had her do a standard rate or half standard rate turn. It's just a circle and easily plotted. Using AS, time and needle and ball any nav can do that. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:08:34 EDT From: SJW Subject: Re: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work I love it! TIGHAR is a cult. When you think about it - I guess we really are. And, here's to free thinkers. SJW 2299 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:10:18 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: off-topic: cruddy airplane parts Selfridge Air Nat'l Guard Base, just outside the city of Mt. Clemens, MI, has recently expanded their museum. One of the new, as yet untitled exhibits is what appears to be part of the vertical tail assembly from a Mich. ANG F-4 Phantom II. The base had a squadron of them from the early '80's, when the F-106's were finally retired (!) to the early '90's, when they got F-16's. The Phantom tail is packed full of mud, and I'm assuming they pulled it out of Lake St. Clair, which lies about 500 meters east of the main N-S runway. The folks at the souvenir desk didn't have the story on it, but I'm guessin' that the Phantom did something very user-unfriendly so the driver and the GIB punched out and let her go into the drink. Back to being marginally on topic, they also have a couple of very beat up Beech Twins, which, from the highway appeared to be Lockheed 10's. My heart was beating fast until I got closer. :-( Consolation prize; they do have an Electra II, in P-3 Orion form, and in the inside part of the museum, a sextant, complete with dovetailed corners wooden box, but no numbers anywhere on box. LTM (love those museums) Dave Porter, 2288 (who could tell you a hairy story of a missed turn on the way to the Selfridge PX back during the cold war that resulted in being found, in POV and civilian clothes, much nearer to the alert hangar than the Air Police found comfortable!) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:13:51 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Kites & high hopes > From Mike E.: > > In a later posting I said it "might have" worked. Anything is possible. > Please, Hue and Janet... we are not grasping at straws; only looking at > possibilities. Look, if you think the 10E equipment included thin stranded wire to use for kite string, and if you think FN remembered enuff theory to figure within 10% a resonant length of wire (odd multiple of 1/4 wave), and probably most readers of this list probably know more about the chances of that being true than i do, i think that is a wonderful possibility. Certainly a semivertical antenna over salt water would be about the ideal DX (long distance radio) launch platform. Personally, as for computer analysis of this scenario, that is an interesting technical problem, but maybe overkill. The antenna does not need to be perfectly vertical, 90 degrees to the ground plane. Ham antenna books today are replete with designs of "sloper antennas" which employ a wire sloped up to a vertical support. ( The reason for not using the support itself, is that it may be grounded, or not long enough to support resonance at the wavelength wanted. ) These are recommended as "DX antennas". ( The launch angle for the radiated power is low enough that these are efficient long distance workers, and the slope design requires only one support. Of course, the kite aerial has no supports, but the same launch and polarization considerations apply.) My own personal bias is: with antenna as is, probably most reception reports were of bogus signals. It seems likely that both legitimate signals and hoax signals were out there in the same time frame. If the kite antenna scenario is reckoned to be likely ( with some technical proviso about which frequencies were feasible, re matching to the transmitter, but i won't digress to that right now), i would certainly go with the harmonic theory. Actually, depending on where they landed, an antenna up to trees would do almost as well - providing some vertical rise of the wire could be gained. Whether ultimately reckoned, or proven, true or false, that scenario makes one hell of an interesting story, doesn't it? BTW, i am making plans to simulate the transmitter and measure the actual harmonic output. I only intend to do this for 6210 and harmonics, unless someone can convince me that the antenna could resonate on multiples of 3105 also. This is merely anecdotal type factoid, but i happened to look at 10 or so QSL's (radio cards) from Australian, NZ, and Hawaii hams from the 1935-1938 years. These were ones chosen out of a larger stock, selecting for transmitter power below 75 watts. Almost all were for 14 MHz band, and using powers from 15 watts up. Several were for paths from Australia to Louisianna. So long distance with low power was feasible, with the equipment of those days. I did note however, the antennas listed were respectable, like half wave at some height, and all communications were in CW. ( You may raise the legitimate question of whether that really because only CW would get thru, or whether other factors such as personal preferences or financial limitations weighed in.....) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:27:57 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Kite antennas Subject: Kite antennas > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: is total anecdote, and leads to > total supposition, but bear with me. > > During my high school days I acquired an ancient WW2 Army > handie-talkie radio, that the school got through the Federal Surplus > program, to tinker with. It had tubes in it... used big dry batteries... > and put out less than 1/2 watt on 3885 KHz -- BC-611 walkie talkie. Seen in the popular press last year in many Motorola ads, where they touted their long experience in wireless handhelds. > Its antenna was a three foot telescoping whip. > Just for grins one day I tried touching the antenna to the school flagpole. > WOW. The thing got out like Godzilla! I could be heard clearly, > over three miles away. Before, I could almost spit further than it would > transmit (actually, a half mile was exceptional range with the original > antenna). Mike, maybe yours was not optimally tuned up. These should get about 1 mile in open country, less in heavily forested or broken country, even less in town. > I doubt the thing was very well matched to the flagpole/antenna...but the > point is, the "antenna" made a huge difference. --What i am saying in this note is, i don't think you should get your hopes up as to whether such a scenario could be applied to how the kite antenna may have worked. The 611's extremely short antenna with metal case of the handie talkie made this antenna system *extremely* inefficient. Somewhere i saw in print the actual effective radiated power and it was some thing, i swear, like 20 mw. ( That means 0.02 watt ) Because the initial working condition of the 611's antenna was such an inefficient, lossy sytem, i do not think it could be applied, really, to the situation of the 10E worked against a metal ground plane (pun works here) and a kite antenna. We could probably look at some realistic figures for just how this might have worked. I think i will hack at that a little, but not here, other than to state my reservations. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:29:44 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Challenging Ideas >It turns out 1937 was near the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle. At these >times radio tends to travel longer . . . . . Fine. I would add, this is most radically increased at the higher shortwave bands. Regardless of enhanced propagation, i see the major problem being at the launch site, where the issues are antenna effectiveness for long distance work, and just how much power output was available at the possibly-workable higher frequencies from transmitter harmonic output. It seems to me the enhanced path, Betty's home radio, and listener antennas of the 1930s all are consequent issues.. BTW, the one listener reported his radio to be a "Sparton" brand, several years old. We (one of us), if need be, could determine the actual technical qualities of that receiver, from published collections of schematics. As i recall, and i may be mistaken, Sparton wasn't a particularly respected mark, not anything like high end. I'll have to paw thru some of the catalogs. And i am not gainsaying this reception report by this, because this particular report seems to have intriguing clues of veracity. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:40:37 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations > From Bob Brandenburg > Could a combination of higher antenna gain and higher radiation > efficiency result in higher net radiated power at the harmonics than at > the fundamental --That is a very interesting prospect. I hope we can make progress on this question. >> Now, you tell me how much gain you expect from a wire antenna, >> on a landed plane, at the frequencies being discussed, i.e. from >> 3 to maybe 18 MHz. > > Since the wire antenna is on a metal aircraft, and is close to the > fuselage, the fuselage is the ground that the antenna sees, so the gain > pattern on the ground or in the air is essentially the same. --I was conflating into the term "gain" ideas about launch agle versus horizon. Probably i was talking about something i should have called something like "advantage". A 3/4 wave antenna did not seem to me to be so advantageous, compared with what are commonly called "gain antennas". I understand better now the question of gain in these calculations. >> When that is proven, there is even a greater challenge, and that's how >> the Maine listener heard the AE messages on a frequency not related to AE's >> transmitter. > > That issue can be addressed using the same methodology as we are > applying in the case of Betty's intercepts. --Probably i am missing something here. It seems to me that this can be pretty much judged by math that even i can do. >> What do YOU think of the content of the messages heard by Betty and the >> Maine listener? How do you rate the veracity of the Maine reception? > > What I think about those messages doesn't matter. What matters is whether > dispassionate analysis establishes their credibility beyond a reasonable > doubt. Forum members are working on that problem now. --Alright. But forgive me for expecting that you have some dispassionate (maybe preliminary) inklings about the crediblity of certain reported intercepts. > If the Earhart mystery could be solved by using gut instinct and > emotional arguments, the matter would have been resolved long ago. But >TIGHAR is using the scientific method, which is a harsh task master. It's > hard, often tedious, work that requires the practitioner to suspend judgment > until the facts are in. But the result is well worth the effort. --Okay. I am willing to discuss in the interim, and opine, on issues that seem to me to weigh heavily against a possibility. BTW, regarding the question of the sensitivity/ pickup of the microphone in the aircraft cabin, which came up in a couple listener accouunts, what would be the scientifiic method to resolve that? Do we have to reenact or simulate that scenario? >> How do the possible numbers or locations of other SWLs bear upon the >> feasibility of Betty hearing the signal? >> >> So, there were what, no other listeners within a several mile >> radius of Betty, even during "prime time"? > > Hint: the numbers and locations of other SWLs has no bearing on the > feasibility of Betty hearing the signal. It does not logically follow > that if Betty heard the signals, then others MUST have heard it also. --I believe one or more posters seemed to be saying the signal touched down in only certain locales. ( My apology and retraction if i read this into the posts.) 18 MHz propagation does not work like that, or Radio Australia and other broadcasters would have long since concluded that the 18 MHz band did not deliver coverage for the expense. (For 27 MHz and around, that kind of localized skip reception is par.) >> Okay, my turn. WHAT other frequencies? > > Dunno. I was only trying to follow your argument. You seemed to > be claiming that other SWLs had to have been tuning across the same frequency > that Betty was listening to, and thus should have heard the same signal. --Yes. This puzzles me. There should have been, it seems to me, more reported reception. >> Forgetting external gingerbread, and loudspeaker quality, there were only >> few templates for home receiver circuitry. > > Nothing magic about the receiver per se. But there is no point in using > generic assumptions when we can use the actual specifications for Betty's > receiver make and model. The more uncertainty we can eliminate from the process, > the more reliable the final result will be. As for the number of > "templates", I don't know how you define "few", but you'll be interested > to know that the manufacturer of Betty's receiver had at least ten different > electronic configurations on the market in 1937. --My point on this, is there certainly were fewer circuit variations than 10, for circuit variations that really mattered. (RF processing circuits of the radio, not audio power and hi fidelity or pushbutton presets or anything like that.) In fact, i am saying there were 3* basic circuit variations in home entertainment type radios with "overseas shortwave" coverage (as opposed to low frequency "Police Calls" coverage on many sets.), and 1 more for top end home sets. I don't have a statistical breakdown on their ratios in the home - in any case, as you point out, that's moot in the Betty case - i was not aware the specific make of her radio was known. ( *this just relates to RF and IF amplifier count. Won't burden group with that.....) > .....Just trying to understand your reliance on the assumption that other > listeners must have been on the same frequency as Betty and therefore should have > heard the same signal. --Okay. Puzzling to me, that this reception occurred over hours, in the limited subset of the HF SW bands that were "open" during daylight hours, and not more widely reported or recorded. > By the way, how is "prime time" defined for listening? Betty says she heard the > signals between about 3 PM and 6 PM Florida time. I've been SWLing for over > 50 years, and it has been my experience that "prime time" depends upon which > stations want to hear. --I meant, "prime time" also considers what time frame is available to the listener. Not every listener can stay up all night listening for DX stations. I am thinking that in these hours, large numbers of students and day workers would have time to start tuning around. > I'm not familiar with the SW broadcast bands of 1937, > but perhaps someone on the forum can provide the details. --Review of SW listening literature shows the HF BC bands to have been remarkably stable thru the years (considering also the ITU additions in the last decade), compared to changes in other services' frequencies, HF aircraft and ship frequencies, military frequency bands, for example. Some may ask, what about the Japanese broadcaster on 3105? But i point out that this frequency did not qualify as an international broadcast frequency. > Clearly, if the Maine intercept was on a frequency that was not a harmonic > of AE's frequencies (or more particularly, harmonics of her crystal frequencies) > then it would be a tough sell to claim that the intercept was of an AE signal. --Okay, that is really all i want to point out. That reported reception has problems from the git-go. (At least i maintain so.) > Neither am I aware of anyone trying to stretch the physics, or downplaying > "glaring problems", whatever that means. --Glaring problems means how a listener could (pretty reliably, per the Maine listener) report reception on an unfeasible frequency. What kind of light that might throw on similar reception elsewhere. How an aircraft carbon microphone can pick up conversations (even with the engines quieted). Call letters that are fictitious (WOJ) or don't make sense (W4OK) in the context. Such are not just low speedbumps in the road to conclusions. Okay, how do we deal with those in the scientific process? (I have excised large portions of the previous exchange and i want to say it is not really to cast my argument in a better light, more so just issues i want to continue on, am especially interested in, or even just competent (semi) to deal with....) Thanks to Bob B. for a very interesting exchange.... Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:48:41 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Re: : "I was Amelia Earhart" Whew, Glad to see I wasn't the only one to infer that from the notes--I was beginning to worry about myself-- Father Marty, this humble 3rd degree Knight asks absolution--- :) LTM, Bill Conover #2733 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:51:04 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Kites as antennas > From Dennis McGee > When using kites as antennas exactly how does that work? I don't have any experience with kites but I don't think there is an "exactly" with regard to improvising an aerial. But, to give people an idea of the possibility, I'll make up a scenario right now to illustrate it. It's very likely that Earhart is familiar with the need for an antenna to be a specific length. She has had her communication system in the shop many times and technicians have explained at least some of the requirements. When the time comes to improvise an antenna, she measures a piece of wire against the length of the vee antenna and attaches it to the feed-point. She launches her kite, attaches the other end of the wire to the string, then slowly pays out more string until the wire is taut. That's AErial improvisation method #1. I'm not suggesting that we try to come up with more or better methods because it just won't do us any good. As far as we know, Noonan could of had the "Surviving After an Airplane Crash in the Phoenix Islands" handbook in his back pocket the entire flight. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:52:48 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Kites For Mike Everette: > From Mike E.: > The real trick, as I see it, would have been for them to attach the kite > wire to the aircraft antenna in such a way that the strain from the kite > would not pull the whole antenna out by the roots... or at the very least, > break the porcelain feed thru insulator or tear the mast at the apex of the > Vee away. > > Bob Brandenburg, what say to this? Excellent point, Mike. The vee antenna suspension system was able to handle wind loading on the antenna wire in the horizontal plane. But it's not clear how well it could handle a load with a vertical stress component. The forward mast had a guy wire running to the top of the fuselage forward of the mast. If the mast was merely riveted to the skin of the aircraft, I wouldn't expect it to be able to handle much of a vertical load. But if it was well-anchored to a fuselage frame, it might be able to handle the kite load. But hooking the kite wire to an arbitrary point on the vee wire could put an intolerable catenary stress load on the insulators at the ends of the wire. LTM, who thinks too much stress is a bad thing. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:55:51 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Tom King wrote: >>Actually, there IS some evidence of prehistoric Polynesian (or Micronesian, or Melanesian) occupation on Niku, though it's very thin,<< Thanks for the correction. I think that it would be safe to say that the only long-term (more than a year) occupation was the P.I.S.S.and the Loran station, or were the John Arundle coconut planters there for a year or more? Daniel Postellon Tighar #2263 *************************************************************************** From Ric It's not clear from the available historical record just how long Arundel's workers were there but the impression is that it was a matter of months, not years. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:58:59 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner? To Janet Whitney: What on God's earth (or open South Pacific seas for that matter) does the remote possibility of a Pirate attack on any ship within 500 miles of Gardner over the past 150 years and the ludicrous assumption that they sail it to Gardner and sink it have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the Amelia Aerhart Project ... the reason behind this forum? There is no problem with creating scenarios that can invoke positive discussion and debate in regards to AE/FN, if the scenarios are backed by even threads of evidence/facts. However, the last few postings from yourself and especially this last one is RIDICULOUS! You seem to me to be very combative in your postings with regards to the general AE/FN matters ... do you or do you not believe in the TIGHAR hypothesis ... even remotely? Perhaps Ric, it would be advisable to use your discretion to purge wasteful postings from the Forum. It is hard enough keeping up with legitimate and factual postings than to have to read through postings alluding to pirates within 500 miles over the past 150 years !!! With all due respect! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:00:30 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Herman wrote, "Surely they will come to the conclusion that Neil Armstrong was Belgian " Funny. "Ah, c'est ca-- il etait Belge." Seriously, I think the order of magnitude is a little off on that one-- more like 20,000 years to forget that Armstrong was from North America: In a thousand years, the masses of repetitive information we're leaving behind in this age will probably be washing up on the displays of researchers like roman coins on the beaches of Beirut after a storm. That little statue (I'd never heard of it) will probably be in a museum within 100 years. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:01:34 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Discovery show in Britain To; Herman De Wulff ... Ric is correct. I was referring to the flight in which AE was the FIRST woman to cross the Atlantic (as a passenger) in 1928. The program alluded to problems in the initial stages of that flight wherein it states that the flight had to be temporarily aborted and a landing made in Canada whereby AE finds that one of the two pilots with her was drunk when they were scheduled to take off again. It states that AE had to pump black coffee into him ... whether that is true or not is open to debate. But it was in reference to the 1928 AE crossing of the Atlantic. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:05:45 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Circling > From Herman De Wulf > > ... one > of the most difficult things to spot when flying over the North sea is a > big ship dead in the water (because it doesn't leave a telltale wake). I think this is one of those coulda/shoulda/woulda things. What if the Itasca had been moving that morning instead of sitting still? It might have helped AE and FN catch sight of the ship and therefore the island. Sitting still next to the island may not have been the most helpful strategy. > ... I think we can forget about the Gilberts. They may have been >mentioned by AE at one time but I am convinced that when confronted with the >reality, the two acted professionally ... If I understand the Vidal anecdote, he sat down on the floor with Amelia and looked at maps during the early planning stages--it may even have been before the first flight rather than just before the second flight. In either case, it does not sound as though Manning or Noonan were present or involved in the conversation. The Gilberts may have been AE's Plan B that night, or for a while, but (no matter how you date the conversation), a lot of things happened between that night and the last flight. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:07:13 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Discovery show in Britain To: Alan Caldwell, re: FN's drinking Alan I fully agree with you and it is why I made the statement as I did "presumed drinking that precede any general reference to FN" I think the "alcoholic" tag or "drinking problem" tag is on that has never been proven and is somehow an attempt to place blame on an error of navigation. Like you say, he got pretty close by all accounts to Howland even though he was working with flawed references (map had Howland 5 miles out of position). I also can see why the Noonan family would not want to share information with anyone interested in the AE/FN flight when their relative is labelled as a "drunk" ! If he lost his pilots license due to drinking ... that is one thing ... but it seems to me that the "drunk" label is something pinned on him unjustly and unfairly! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:14:34 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Electra's Vee Antenna > From Janet Whitney > ... The Itasca did copy Earhart from at least 200 miles away on 3105 > kilocycles. Lae copied Earhart on 6210 kilocycles. What, if anything, might be deduced from the fact that Lae did not hear anything on 6210 until AE was four hours out and that the Itasca never heard anything from her on 6210? Is it normal for 6210 to have that kind of "cone of silence"? (I refer, of course, to Maxwell Smart, since I know more about that program than antennas.) (From Ric: Tom Gannon, who first brought the Gardner/Mckean hyothesis to TIGHAR's attention, was an Air Force navigator during and after WWII and a lifelong dedicated HAM. He has always said that this phenomenon is very typical of 6210.) > From Ric > Any discussion of what we hope to find on Niku would be entirely > speculative. I can list some things that I hope you might find: 1. undercarriage parts on or near the reef near the NC 2. a radial engine or two with serial numbers intact 3. AE's teeth in the "grave" where the skull was temporarily buried 4. FN's skeleton, clutching a sextant and his flight log Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric 5. pirate treasure ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:18:36 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Compass points > From Ric > I know that sailors used to use a system of describing position > or direction that employed phrases like "south by east" or "north > by northwest" but I don't understand it. I believe it dates from > a time before the compass was divided into 360 degrees but was, > instead, divided into "points" such as "north; north northeast; > northeast; east northeast; east" etc. I'm sure some of our Old > Salts can help us out here. Oll Korrect, and it was still used in the US Navy and US Coast Guard until recently. The compass is divided into 32 points (so named because of the triangular points painted on the face), each point marking an 11.25 degree increment. I'm sure we're all familiar with the eight most common points: N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW Midway between each of those points were: NNE, ENE, ESE, SSE, SSW, WSW, WNW, NNW That gives us 16 points so far: N, NNE, NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW, WSW, W, WNW, NW, NNW Between each of those points the names are a little more difficult to remember, but there is a rather simple naming scheme: NbE, NEbN, NEbE, EbN, EbS, SEbE, SEbS, SbE, SbW, SWbS, SWbW, WbS, WbN, NWbW, NWbN, NbW For example, with NEbN, the 'b' stands for "by" and a direction is written as "Northeast by North" and spoken as "Nor-east by North." The 32 points: N, NbE, NNE, NEbN, NE, NEbE, ENE, EbN, E, EbS, ESE, SEbE, SE, SEbS, SSE, SbE, S, SbW, SSW, SWbS, SW, SWbW, WSW, WbS, W, WbN, WNW, NWbW, NW, NWbN, NNW, NbW. The point system is also used when referencing objects relative to the ship, but instead of compass point names, the following are used: 00- Dead ahead 01- One point on the starboard bow 02- Two points on the starboard bow 03- Three points on the starboard bow 04- Broad on the starboard bow 05- Three points for'd the starboard beam 06- Two points for'd the starboard beam 07- One point for'd the starboard beam 08- On the starboard beam 09- One point abaft the starboard beam 10- Two points abaft the starboard beam 11- Three points abaft the starboard beam 12- Broad on the starboard quarter 13- Three points on the starboard quarter 14- Two points on the starboard quarter 15- One point on the starboard quarter 16- Dead astern And similarly up the port side. Noonan would've been familiar with both sets of terminology, but I doubt he would expect anyone else to be. From memory, no source. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Good memory. Sounds like "WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE" still doesn't make any sense. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:21:39 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work Cult: Definition 5 of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1994, a. great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work...b. a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion." ********************************************************************* From Ric QED Now we just need to figure out where to build the compound. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:35:12 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: : "I was Amelia Earhart" > From Bill Conover > > Father Marty, this humble 3rd degree Knight asks absolution--- :) Dear Bill, It's good to know that you're penitent. But I can't give absolution over e-mail or the telephone. The sacraments require physical participation. You'll have to find a confessor closer to home. :o( The Niku hypothesis requires at least one survivor of the last flight, I think, and is open to the possibility that both survived, at least for a while. No matter how much AE and FN may have contributed to their own suffering, I find the Niku hypothesis heartbreaking. It must have been an awful time for the unfortunate castaway(s). For those who accept the God hypothesis, may we pray for a moment for AE, FN, and all of the other people touched by their life and death. For those who do not accept that hypothesis, let us hope that we may learn something from their last flight that will help us in ours. Marty #2359 Chaplain, Fr. Justin Council KoC ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll add a secular "amen" to that. The true story of the disappearance and demise of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan is looking far more tragic than any of the imaginings of the past half century. It will be a fitting tribute if, in finding Amelia we also find ourselves. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:41:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: compass points That's correct, Ric. Directions would be, for example, North, North Northeast, Northeast, East Northeast, East, and so on around the compass. North Northeast could also be said as North by Northeast. The 150 SE by 50 East statement doesn't fit any of that as I see it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:46:30 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Terence Hugh Gallagher Can you answer a question for me and/or pass this on ? I recall a Forum posting (it could have been a historic posting) in reference to Gerald's brother Terence Hugh Gallagher who died in Malta in 1942. I believe the posting referred to Terence dying as ... "one of 4 killed in a fire in a store during bombing of airbase at Ta' Quali" ... this may not be a direct quote from the posting but something to that effect. My question is where did this information come from and does the reference actually name Terence as "one of 4 killed" ? I also have noted a name in my notes as Fred Gaba (or Guba) who may have been the poster on the Forum. Any help will be appreciated. Regards, Gerry ************************************************************************** From Ric Doesn't ring any bells with me. Can anyone on the forum help Gerry with this? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:47:55 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Circling Herman, the 10 mile comment in regard to FN's navigation means that he could typically navigate to within 10 miles of a target. I don't even know whether that is true or not. Maybe he always was within 5 miles or any other number or maybe he was always right on the button. I don't think there is any evidence to support any particular degree of accuracy. But if one assumes FN had a 10 mile circlular error at worst there is no reason to ADD the five mile Howland error to it. You could just as easily SUBTRACT it. I might also point out that we don't know whether FN had updated charts or in some manner knew of the correct position of Howland so we can't assume categorically that he didn't know. The Itasca had the correct Howland position so it might be MORE likely that so did Noonan. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:35:35 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner If you read various histories of piracy and pirates you will note that pirate crews invariably chose locations to bury treasure, rendezvous with other pirate ships, sail captured vessels, etc. that were like Gardner Island. Extremely isolated. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************* From Ric Submissions like this one pose something of a quandary to your humble moderator. Janet's whole "pirate" thread is utterly without merit but she is an established poster whose submissions some have found useful from time to time. If I simply bounce her silly postings and put up only those which seem to me to have merit then I am not giving the forum an opportunity to form an unbiased impression of Janet's credibility. I routinely bounce clever one-liners (unless they're really funny) and wildly off-topic excursions, and sometimes a new poster shows up who obviously doesn't have a clue about the standards we operate by. Those are easy - but in Janet's case (and a few others) the only fair course of action is to let her have her say. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:40:35 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Pellegreno's Flight to Howland Pellegreno and her crew attempted to relicate Noonan's and Earhart's approach to Howland Island. Except that Pellegreno flew from Nauru. Pellegreno's navigator was William Polhemus, possibly the best navigator in the world in 1967. Despite the state-of-the-art navigation and radio equipment for 1967, accurate charts, and a RDF bearing from a Coast Guard cutter, Pellegreno and her crew had a very difficult time visually acquiring Howland Island. See: "World Flight, The Earhart Trail," Iowa State Press, 1971, pages 154-164. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric That is correct. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:51:54 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Terence Hugh Gallagher > From Gerry Gallagher > I recall a Forum posting (it could have been a historic > posting) in reference to Gerald's brother Terence Hugh... From : Subject: Gerald Gallagher's Brother Date: 1/11/99 From: Fred G. Terrance Hugh Gallagher 6207239, 2nd Bn Royal Irish Fusilliers, one of four killed by a fire in a store at Ta' Qali airfield on 21 March 1942, buried at Pembroke Cemetery, info from Commonwealth War Graves Commission. His parents from Kensington, London. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************ From Ric That's the posting Gerry was takling about. The person who submitted it is no longer subscribed to the forum but I'm sending Gerry his email address so that he can contact him privately. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:54:20 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work > From Ric > >... Now we just need to figure out where to build the compound. Ric, Niku. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************* From Ric Swell. Position available: Cult leader, no experience necessary. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:03:08 EST From: Ron Dawson Subject: big bang theory Ric: Just curious, has much thought been given to the possibility of a catastrophic event, a la TWA 800? Smooth Sailing Ron Dawson 2126 ************************************************************************* From Ric Well, let's see....That would certainly explain the abrupt cessation of radio contact and the rapid disappearance of the aircraft. There was one known similar case shortly after the Earhart disappearance when Pan Am Sikorsky S-42B "Samoan Clipper" blew up in mid-air just short of Samoa killing legendary pilot Ed Musik and his entire crew. In that case a lot of debris was found floating on the ocean many hours after the event and the cause was ultimately determined to be a fuel/air explosion triggered by a leaking fuel tank and the deployment of the wing flaps. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:08:44 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Electra's Vee Antenna > From Janet Whitney > The installation and initial antenna tuning for ALL the aircraft transmitters > described in Morgan's 1930 book was tedious. Tedious for whom, for Janet? It may be tedious to read about, i suppose, if you don't find that interesting, But it's a straightforward job. The technician actually did not need to read a manual, just look at it, it's that apparent what needs to be done. ( I mean antenna peak-up, not install new channels.) > The Collins "Autotune" > transmitter's final had to also be neutralized, by the way. Hmmm....what's the connection (so to speak)? Autotune was one answer to the multichannel demand. Neutralization is not performed every time the set is tuned to a new frequency. > The WE transmitter and receiver experienced severe operating > environments. I would differ a little on this. Challenging environment. However, "I see no evidence" that temperatures were in the extreme high or low range, that voltages could climb dangerously high, and that outside of forced landings, the vibration level was more extreme than the designers had anticipated. The equipment, i believe, was protected from moisture and oil spray. Pardon, but i don't see that it's environment was that much more severe than any industrial communications, including taxicab radios, were exposed to. >It would have been an excellent idea for Earhart's radios to have > been bench-tested in Darwin, vacuum tubes replaced, etc. In the case of transmitter tubes, that might have been quite a spendy option. (Even back then, before W.E.Co. vacuum tubes became collectible) >However, it is unclear just how often and for how long the 13 C transmitter was >turned on during the flight. Probably only intermittently, yes? Altho the transmitter filaments, i suppose, were always on, as long as the transmitter was in standby. However, filament current, as i read, was somewhat limited (80% of full operation) in standby mode, and the series resistor limited inrush current, to ease the strain on the tube filaments from cold turn-on. > The entire matter of the "harmonics" started being discussed after TIGHAR's > discussion was underway about "Betty's" notebook. One thing that hasn't been > mentioned about the "harmonics" is the amount of concomitant audio > distortion...which could have been significant...to the point where a 2nd > harmonic audio would be mush. Here's another thing that hasn't been mentioned about harmonics, data packed with quality: Around 1990 i was living in western Washington, in the greater Seattle area. I was listening one afternoon to the 2nd or 3rd harmonic of a Spokane, radio station - cannot remember which, except that it was in the upper part of the band, so that the harmonic fell in the region of low shortwaves. If you didn't understand the language, you would have to believe the station intended to be there. There was no problem with audio whatsoever. Shortwave listeners, in fact, the hardcore ones, really like to log this kind of unusual signal. Altho in the last couple decades, it appears, the appearance of such harmonic signals has become pretty rare. Last evening i was looking thru some 1930s radio magazines to #1 try to identify the station and frequency that appears in the Maine woman's reception report, and #2 try to determine from reception reports, what bands were open, and how open, for the Pacific to Eastern US circuit, at the hours of reported receptions. In April 1937 "Short Wave & Television", a USA listener reports hearing a Chinese broadcast station on 13.7 something, get this, the 2nd harmonic of their actual frequency, 6.8 something. No distortion reported, apparently pretty good reception. (Yes, a lotta "somethings" in this mention, but at a later date i'll post the results of my investigation, with detail specifics). Nor would the employment of screen modulation in the WE13 have anything to do with undue distortion on harmonics, once the transmitter was satisfactorily tuned up on the correct channel. So, how about crunching them facts? >So, Time to drop the "Betty" discussion. It has become entirely >speculative. I would like to see a discussion of what TIGHAR hopes to find >on Niku and how TIGHAR will go about looking. Janet, what's so sinful, in your belief system, about speculation? Speculations can elicit more facts. Facts can underpin viable theories. I'm sure the topics you mention will get further treatment. -Hue Miller (chock full o' data) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:11:05 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Erroneous Howland postion? Noonan's 10 mile navigational uncertainty was based upon nighttime celestial navigation, shooting LOP's from at least 2 or more targets. For the sunrise LOP, his precision of navigation would be that he could navigate the plane to within 10 miles of the LOP determination, but he would not be able to determine his position along the LOP at all. As for the erroneous Howland position, Bill Miller, when he first worked the Line Islands (Howland, Baker, and Jarvis) colonization scheme in 1935/36, was the one who reported to the CG and US Navy the revised position. Richard Black, his successor, also knew of the revised positions. Bill Miller was AE's technical liason with the US Gov't for planning the first flight. I find it absolutely inconceivable (but undocumented) that he did not provide her with the revised position. It was only "classified" until such time as the US Hydrographic Office could update their charts, which was done in 1938. It was not a true secret or classified piece of information in the strict sense of the word. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:15:22 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Kites as antennas > From Frank Westlake > When the time comes to improvise an antenna, she measures a piece > of wire against the length of the vee antenna and attaches it to the > feed-point. She launches her kite, attaches the other end of the wire to the > string, then slowly pays out more string until the wire is taut. Yes- but does she use the total length of the 2 legs, or the length from the tap (junction on the antenna, to the far end of the other V ? That means, 2x one leg-length, or approx. 1.5 leg lengths. Also, from my kite flying days (way long ago), i am thinking it would be a real hassle to keep up a kite with a relatively short string, like this, unless there was a pretty strong breeze.... Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:16:53 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner? > From Janet Whitney > > Wouldn't Gardner be an ideal place for pirates? A pirate crew could > capture a ship near Samoa (say) and sail it to an unihhabited island like > Gardner. Sink the captured ship and crew in 17,000 feet of water. Divide up > the loot. Modern pirates or pirates from the heyday of piracy? What kind of ship could they capture near Samoa? Probaby not a treasure galleon, or even a freighter carrying Toyotas or Nikes, or even boat people, refugees to torment. Pirates go for the money neighborhoods. I don't think the economies in that area would attract people with this occupation. Idea is sort of a non-starter. (too speculative) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:27:14 EST From: Jim Van Hare Subject: 150 SE by 50 E > From Ric > > I have no idea how to locate that position on a map. > > Why can't you do it this way: Plot a point 50 miles directly east of Howland, > and then draw a line far down (south) on your map. Then, take a ruler and > measure the distance which corresponds to 150 miles. Next, place the left > side of your ruler (the pivot point) on Howland and pivot the ruler to see > where the 50 mile line and 150 mile measurement on your ruler meet (IF they > do)? > > --Chris Kennedy > ************************************************************************* > From Ric > > Okay, I did as you suggest. The lines intersect at a point in the open ocean > just a tad west of the LOP about 50 nm west of Winslow Reef. It's > conceivable that the flight passed such a point enroute southeastward. An alternative interpretation exists: Plot a point 150 miles Southeast of Howland (a 135 degree angle clockwise from North) and then, from that new point, plot another point 50 miles due East (90 degrees clockwise from North). Jim Van Hare ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. That interpretation lands you smack at Winslow Reef. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:29:51 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Kite antennas > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > > This is total anecdote....... > During my high school days I acquired an ancient WW2 Army handie-talkie > radio......... Just for grins one day I tried touching the antenna to the > school flagpole. > > WOW. The thing got out like Godzilla! > I doubt the thing was very well matched to the flagpole/antenna... but the > point is, the "antenna" made a huge difference. I just deleted a paragraph of my own speculation on the reason. Suffice it to say, i think maybe, and maybe as you do, the diminished antenna current with new antenna hooked on, due to some mismatch, is outweighed by the antenna current maximum now being higher in the sky, distributed over a longer length. This effect may even apply to the kite antenna, i'm thinking, if the new add on antenna was that advantageous over the old one. Very interesting anecdote, Mike, thanks indeed for posting it. An interesting one to puzzle over. This is the kind of question that should appear on ham radio tests or CET tests -no memorizing of multiple choice answer is possible. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:31:16 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: compass points > From Ric > > I know that sailors used to use a system of describing position or direction > that employed phrases like "south by east" or "north by northwest" but I > don't understand it. I believe it dates from a time before the compass was > divided into 360 degrees but was, instead, divided into "points" such as > "north; north northeast; northeast; east northeast; east" etc. I'm sure > some of our Old Salts can help us out here. Ric is correct, as usual. This old salt remembers that the compass card was divided into 32 "points" of 11.25 degrees each. These were, going clockwise, North, North by East, North Northeast, Northeast by North, Northeast, Northeast by East, East Northeast, East By North, East, and so on. Just to make it more fun, each point was subdivided into quarter points. For example, the subdivisions between North and North by East were North a quarter East, North a half East, and North three quarters East. A typical course order to the helmsman would be "Steer Nor' Nor'East a half East". By using the information above, it is possible to construct Table 2 of Bowditch. Details are left as an exercise for the reader. There will be a quiz later. LTM, who says that the iron men in wooden ships were those who survived falling from the rigging. Bob, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:35:53 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Now, now, Herman; I didn't say the adze blade was brought to Niku by Samoans; only that it was made of basalt quarried in Samoa. Of course, I Kiribati tradition has the I Kiribati ancestors coming from (actually through) Samoa, so maybe it all amounts to the same thing. Just as Neil Armstrong's ancestors no doubt came from Belgium. LTM (who's never been to Belgium, alas) Tom KIng ************************************************************************** From Ric It's a little known fact that Belgian families often give their children Scottish names just to confuse future archaeologists. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:38:22 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? I was reading recently in Outside magazine an account summarizing the experiences of those 19th century New England whalers who were shipwrecked in the Pacific when a suicidally enraged whale rammed their ship. One of the survivors wrote a book whose title starts with "A Narrative....." and then 3 or 4 more lines of title. I believe the article mentioned a new edited printing of this work. (memory holes due to late-nite hi-speed pass). This "Narrative" was a best seller back in those early 1800's days, and rightly so: of 3 boatloads of castoffs, the reduced crews of 2 boats survived, and this only by having to resort to cannibalism, even the legendary drawing of lots. My point in posting this is that at one point, the sailors encountered land, Henderson Island, an island with food - berries and birds so unused to humans that they did not flee - but little water. The men finally located a spring that was actually under salt water at high tide. The food supply was limited, so after repairs the small boats cast off again for South America, 3 men elected to stay on the island, reckoning their chances better there. These men were eventually rescued also, after the men in small boats were rescued by another whaler. They told that the spring had once run out, and they had to resort to licking stones for the moisture on them. I was quite impressed with the resiliance, perseverence, and ingenuity of these sailors. I wonder - and doubt- whether modern survivors - say, AE and FN - even myself - would do very well in conditions like on that island. Would we be too sqeemish to eat birds, or fish, maybe raw? Would we know where and how to look for water sources? I fear not. Signalling for rescue might become a definite luxury, and too demanding, for someone faced with the apparent total lack of drinking water. Smithsonian some years back had an article on the less known and very small islands inhabited by Polynesians in their dispersion. Some unfortunates, maybe near the end of supplies or otherwise forced ashore, landed on islands with very tenuous fuel and nourishment sources, and compounding that, lack of materials to build or repair sea craft. These small colonies fell into downward spirals; trapped, they eventually died out, leaving some traces of habitation. The "Narrative" mentions that the whaler survivors in a cave on Henderson found the skeletons of 8 persons, maybe survivors of an earlier shipwreck, and who maybe failed to find water. Life could be pretty bleak on some of those nice-looking islands. I *believe* Henderson Island is the one Pitcairners each year make a hazardous voyage to, to harvest some particular kind of hardwood they use for their carvings. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:42:07 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work > From Ric > > QED > Now we just need to figure out where to build the compound. How 'bout we buy a used one? I know of at least two. There's the fire damaged one in Waco, and here in Japan, as soon as the trial of AUM Supreme Truth founder Asahara is wrapped up, there should be one available near Mt Fuji (much better scenery than Waco, Texas). LTM (who is a Congregationalist) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************* From Ric I was stationed at Ft. Hood, not too far from Waco. No thanks. Mt. Fuji sounds nice. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:46:17 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Circling Refresh my memory, but I seem to recall that FN was the navigator on the first of Pan Am's Pacific Clipper flights, and that the situation was similar - long trip over open water with vestigal radio DF capability at the end. In that trip, nothing I remember reading suggests that FN plotted an offset - he flew right to the target, and hit it bang on. And then successfully flew the same trip a number (how many?) of times after that. I have to agree with Ric in this - I don't think FN plotted an offset, I think he plotted a course right to the target. When their radio problems resulted in not being able to home in on the Itasca, and the fact that Howland was charted as being 5 nm from it's actual location, I think that running the LOP and winding up at Niku was the only real option. My only question in this is, how does the actual location of the island relate to the charted location, and hence the LOP? ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric If Noonan advanced his LOP through the "old" position for Howland (and as Randy Jacobson has pointed out, that's a very big if) he would have come up about five miles short (West). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:37:22 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work Ric wrote, re definition of "cult" >QED > >Now we just need to figure out where to build the compound. I can see it now-- "NIKU IX... due to recent advances in desalinization and solar power generation technologies, the establishment of a permanent "research facility"... on a certain uninhabited island in the central pacific is announced... symbolic of the bright future in store for this pristine jewel of the Pacific, approval has been secured to rename the main track that bisects the former colonial village on the island "Ric Gillespie Way"... work begins on "2 star" budget hostel for the rotating staff of researchers ...plans for new AE & FN Memorial Research & Administration Center with residence quarters for project leader... ************************************************************************** From Ric Ironic levity aside, the possibility of an Environmental Research Center at Nikumaroro has been discussed. The world's coral reefs are in big trouble and the one at Niku is still in very good shape as is the rest of the atoll's relatively untouched environment. An archaeological study of the village and "Government Station" as the headquarters of the last expansion of the British Empire is certainly also justified. With cooperation from the Republic of Kiribati and a ton of money the place has real possibilities. All that, of course, is not TIGHAR's knitting but if our work on the Earhart disappearance could act as a conduit for the island's development for scientific purposes that would be a good thing - but the Sir Harry Luke Highway stays the Sir Harry Luke Highway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:46:16 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations For Hue Miller: >>Since the wire antenna is on a metal aircraft, and is close to the fuselage, the fuselage is the ground that the antenna sees, so the gain pattern on the ground or in the air is essentially the same. - -I was conflating into the term "gain" ideas about launch agle versus horizon. Probably i was talking about something i should have called something like "advantage". A 3/4 wave antenna did not seem to me to be so advantageous, compared with what arecommonly called "gain antennas". I understand better now the question of gain in these calculations.<< Just to be sure we are on the same page, when I use the term "gain", I'm referring to the antenna's 3-dimensional gain pattern relative to that of an isotropic antenna (for non-radioites on the forum, an isotropic antenna is a theoretical point source antenna that radiates equally well in all directions), given the same power input to the antenna. The 3-D gain pattern includes, by definition, the effects of launch (or take off) angle and azimuth, as well as other effects such as current distribution along the antenna wires. >>> When that is proven, there is even a greater challenge, and that's how >>> the Maine listener heard the AE messages on a frequency not related to AE's >>> transmitter. >> >>That issue can be addressed using the same methodology as we are applying in >>the case of Betty's intercepts. > >--Probably i am missing something here. It seems to me that this can be >pretty much judged by math that even i can do. Not everything comes down to mathematics. If it did, lawyers would be out of business (OK, I'm braced for the cries of outrage from our legal brethren on the forum ). By the "same methodology", I am referring to the overall comprehensive application of logic and rigor by TIGHAR when addressing the veracity of received information. > --Alright. But forgive me for expecting that you have some >dispassionate(maybe preliminary) inklings about the crediblity of certain >reported intercepts. Sorry to disappoint you, but I learned long ago that it's wasteful of time and energy to indulge in prejudging what I want or hope the outcome to be when evaluating the credibility of reported signal intercepts. I let the facts tell me what the outcome is. Others on the forum are currently searching for the facts. If the Maine intercept, for example, is proven valid, then we have one more useful piece of the puzzle than we had before. If it is proven invalid, then we can put it aside and move on. > BTW, regarding the question of the sensitivity/ pickup of the microphone > in the >aircraft cabin, which came up in a couple listener accounts, what > would be the scientifiic method to resolve that? Do we have to reenact or > simulate that scenario? Simulation is not a silver bullet. It's a last resort, useful only when it's not possible to create a reasonable physical working model. For example, if we had an Electra 10-E and a WE-13 transmitter, we wouldn't spend time with simulation, we would use the real thing to collect empirical evidence. As for the question of microphone pickup in the aircraft cabin, credible simulation would be virtually impossible - - too many undeniable variables such as the actual spectral composition of ambient noise in the cockpit, precise location of the microphone and the people who were speaking, etc. It's far easier to reenact - - produces better, more reliable data, and the experiment can be conducted under rigorous controlled conditions, with multiple iterations to explore excursion cases. >> Just trying to understand your reliance on the assumption that other >> listeners must have been on the same frequency as Betty and therefore should >> have heard the same signal. > > --Okay. Puzzling to me, that this reception occurred over hours, in the > limited subset of the HF SW bands that were "open" during daylight hours, > and not more widely reported or recorded. The signal may have been more widely recorded and reported - - we just don't know about any instances where that occurred. But the experience of Betty's dad -- being dismissed by the local Coast Guard authorities - - might be typical of many other cases that we just don't know about. But the fact remains that whether the signal was heard elsewhere is irrelevant to the question of the validity of Betty's claim. Either her claim is true or it isn't. The truth of her claim is not conditionally dependent on there having been other intercepts of the same signal. > --I meant, "prime time" also considers what time frame is available to the > listener. Not every listener can stay up all night listening for DX stations. > > I am thinking that in these hours, large numbers of students and day > workers would have time to start tuning around. But consider the constraints on membership in the probability space upon which your supposition rests. To mention just a few: of the students and and workers who would have the time, there is a subset who would be interested in listening to SW at all. Within that subset, there is a subset who have the means to listen. Within that subset, there is a subset of those who did listen to SW. Within that subset, there is a subset that listened to the right frequency. Within that subset there is a subset of those who were within an area where the signal was receivable. Within that subset, there was . . . . OK, you get the idea. It's really not hard to believe that Betty is the only person to have heard the signal and to have written it down. But belief is not proof (with apologies to Marty ). >>> Neither am I aware of anyone trying to stretch the physics, or downplaying >>> "glaring problems", whatever that means. >> >> --Glaring problems means how a listener could (pretty reliably, per the >> Maine listener) report reception on an unfeasible frequency. What kind of >> light that might throw on similar reception elsewhere. How an aircraft >> carbon microphone can pick up conversations (even with the engines >> quieted). Call letters that are fictitious (WOJ) or don't make sense (W4OK) >> in the context. Such are not just low speedbumps in the road to >> conclusions. > > Okay, how do we deal with those in the scientific process? At the risk of oversimplifying, I suggest that each of those questions can be stated as a testable hypothesis. The test tools and procedures are chosen to suit each case, and the scientific method is applied using three principal ingredients-- rigor, rigor, and rigor. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:50:46 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Janet's latest... Janet Whitney wrote: > (Who is happy that grrls have choices when we visit OUR college's health > center). > ************************************************************************* > >From Ric > > I wonder what THAT was all about. ????? > Any discussion of what we hope to find on Niku would be entirely speculative. Sorry, I can't help myself - I think Janet has gone waaayyy beyond this time. The forum has gone off into a lot of different (and mostly really interesting) directions, over the years, but we've never gone into the quasi political arena that Janet seems to be trying to take us with her closing comment, and I for one don't want to go there. At least not here, and not with my friends from the forum. Some dogs should be left to snooze in the sun. *************************************************************************** From Ric Don't worry. There's off-topic and there's OFF TOPIC. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:51:59 EST From: Renaud Subject: Compass matters Ric wrote: "Good memory. Sounds like "WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE" still doesn't make any sense." Yes, but SOUTHEAST BY EAST ( sud-est, quart est, in french ) would correspond to the heading 123.75. That is speculative, but the message might indicate a position at 50 miles( or 150 miles ? ) following the 123.75 heading from Howland. Gee...REALLY speculative ! :o) What would that give on a map ? I checked my(school) Atlas...water only water... Other thing: is anyone know were could i have DETAILED maps of the Pacific on the Web ? Thank you, LTM( Who is fed up to rely on her Atlas ) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:01:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work > From Ric > > QED > Now we just need to figure out where to build the compound. No one drink the Kool Aid. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric There's actuallly a funny story (well, now it's funny) from Niku I in 1989 about some concern that the water from a newly tapped tank aboard ship (we didn't have a water maker on that trip) might be bad. Our team doctor advised that we should treat the drinking water we took ashore with a few drops of chlorine bleach just to be on the safe side. Operating on my usually philosophy of "if a little bit is good, a lot is better" I got a bit over-enthusiastic with the bleach and we all spent a day drinking what tasted like swimming pool water. Survivors of that experience have never let me forget it. *************************************************************************** From Roger Kelley I consider it in the best interest of TIGHAR to drop this thread right now. Thanks, Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:02:01 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 150 SE by 50 E > From Ric > > I have no idea how to locate that position on a map. My point exactly... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:07:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Circling > 2. The island should be visible from five miles away. Pellegrino's crew saw > it from about 10 miles out. From what altitude? Earhart was at 1000ft. At that height she should have been able to see Itasca from 5 miles away mostly due to the "unnatural shape", except that Itasca was white I believe (very difficult to see against a blue/green sea). Howland on the other hand was a more "natural" shape and colour and would have blended into any haze quite nicely if they were low. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Pellegrino was at 1,000 feet also. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:12:06 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: W8AQQ The Huntington Woods, MI listing for Oscar Kallio (W8AQQ) is less than a mile from my folk's house in Oak Park, MI. I used to ride my bicycle all over that area as a kid. I probably even delivered a newspaper to his house once or twice, subbing on a route that was a few blocks from my own. Currently, work takes me through that area 2-3 times a week. (Huntington Woods is a very small community and lies along the northern side of I-696, the major E/W expressway through the southern tier of Detroit's northern suburbs) I'll be happy to make a contact if you'll give me an idea of what questions to ask. LTM, who taught me that one should not limit the practicing of one's B.S. to just Sunday morning. (or, in the case of many residents of Huntington Woods and Oak Park; sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************************************************** From Ric Basically I guess we want to know how long Mr. Kallio has had that call sign. If it turns out that he has had it since before July 1937 the next question would be whether he remembers the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. His answer or reaction to that question will tell you whether or not we need to continue the conversation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:14:16 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 150 SE by 50 E My point (in suggesting you see what is there) is that 150 south by 50 east makes sense. 150 southeast by 50 east does not. 150 south by 50 east would by definition be more or less south-south east. The reference cited doesn't make practical sense. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric There's nothing but open ocean 150 south then 50 east of Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:15:14 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Kites > Suppose (AHA! Supposition...! But we gotta start somewhere) one were to > attach a 200, 250 or 300 foot wire, flown by a kite, to either the feed thru > insulator, or to the apex of the Vee... Suppose again the average angle of > the wire to the ground is 30 degrees. I suspect the longest piece of wire onboard had been the trailing wire antenna, which apparently was dumped to save weight. I can't imagine someone dumping a working antenna as a weight saving procedure, then saying "let's take along a couple of hundred feet of copper wire (heavy stuff) just in case we need it. Of course, given time, and the practical knowledge and tools they could have stripped part of the Electra's wiring loom - but really....... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:16:17 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner? > You're losing it Janet. Rubbish! An entirely reasonable hypothesis, perhaps worthy of a new thread... (Or Perhaps this is the conclusive proof to those who thought once that Janet was some kind of computer.....) Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:16:56 EST From: Vern Subject: Fred Noonan mentioned Looking through "Aero Digest" for the year 1936 for whatever might be of interest I spotted only one article that may be of some interest. In the January 1936 issue there is an article by Lt. Comm. P. V .H. Weems, U.S.N. (Ret), on the "Accuracy of Bubble Sextant Observations." Whether it was an octant or a sextant, he spoke of it as a sextant. He made a total of 110 observations (sun altitude) from an open cockpit plane while flying from Maxwell Field to Langley Field. His conclusion: "This series of tests, supported by thousands of other similar observations, proves that bubble sextant errors can be reduced to an extremely low figure when sufficient observations are averaged. Indications are that it is inadvisable to throw away wild shots because the observer cannot always tell which shots are wild, and the law of averages may be depended upon to reduce errors to practicable limits, say below 5 miles, when sufficient sights are taken and averaged." In the last paragraph, he wrote: "The importance of celestial navigation for position finding is indicated by the fact that 90% of the first Pan American Airways' trans-Pacific flight was made over clouds which made direct drift observations impossible. Celestial navigation was used by Navigator Fred J. Noonan, with such surprisingly accurate results, that the 'China Clipper' reached Honolulu within a short time of its scheduled arrival." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:17:45 EST From: Vern Subject: Signals on 520 & 530 kc Just curiosity, essentially off-topic, but aviation related... I think. On my car radio, digital tuning, 10 kc increments, I hear two MCW signals on 520 kc and 530 kc. Can someone tell me what these are? 520 kc transmits "GQ" repeating about every 7 seconds. 530 kc transmits "OJ" repeating about every 7 seconds. I've heard nothing else transmitted during the times I've listened while driving one place and another. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:20:26 EST From: Steve G. Subject: All Ashore That's Going Ashore! The Forum for the last few months has been captivating, although I confess that the radio physics dialog leaves me with the MEGO (my eyes glaze over) syndrome, and the thing about pirates, well, never mind. I'd like to jump back to something that came up a few months ago, namely,the workplan for next expedition. IIRC, you've mentioned that at the beginning and end of each day, there's about a 1-hour process of getting the expedition members to and from Niku and the Naia. Here I go assuming things, but I "ass-u-me" that this must be done with sufficient ambient light for navigation; in other words, you're not waiting until sundown before heading back from Niku in the "commute boat" to the Naia. Thus, the "daily commute" at the start and end of each day appears to reduce the available working time for the expedition by a total of ~ two hours. There are many reasons for everyone being aboard ship overnight, such as group cohesiveness, fresh water and food, bathing, reviewing that day's results and planning the following day's activities, plus preparing any special equipment (diving, photographic) that may be needed. I've not been on a single Tighar expedition and you've **safely** led many teams across the Pacific and back (which is just a few words to type, but is in reality a _stupendous_ accomplishment), so I freely admit I'm naively submitting this question, but I don't think it'll be the most ridiculous thing that's been posted. I was wondering about the possibility of leaving a small group, say four people, ashore on Niku for alternating nights, while the rest of the expedition returns to the ship. Upon arrival at Niku, the expedition could transport ashore a few pup tents, sleeping bags and foam pads, chow, lanterns, water jugs and other supplies. After the initial transport, only water and food for 4 people would need to be replenished each day. (I saw your recent comment about the impracticality of transporting ashore a 200-lb tide-tracking buoy, but I don't think that the overnight supplies for four people would be nearly as cumbersome). After staying ashore one night, this group of four would then return to the ship at the end of the following day, to be replaced by another group of four. The key point is not that they would be ashore to search at night, but that they could continue working during the last hour or so of light at the end of the day and the equivalent period in the following morning, before the "commute vessel" returns with the remaining expedition members. The shore party might do things like completing site surveys, sifting sand through filters at specific locations, preparing for the next day's events, etc. I don't think you'd want anyone cutting scaveola by swinging sharp steel instruments in reduced lighting (I wonder how much cooler these times of the day are). Perhaps at some site there could be some work done by the light of a few lanterns. In any event, if four people are able to safely put in an extra hour of work in the evening and in the following morning, you'd be able to get approx. an additional person's worth of labor done (although this does call to mind the saying that nine women working together can't produce a baby in one month!). By rotating the "overnight crew" there shouldn't be too much additional strain on the team. So, boiled down, my questions are: Is there work that can productively and safely be done by a small onshore group in the available light between the time when the "commute boat" normally departs and sundown/sun-up? What are the typical "aboard-ship" activities at the beginning/end of a workday during an expedition, and what is the timeline ashore for a typical day on Niku? Is there any existing shelter ashore? (I seem to remember postings that there were some buildings still standing from the PISS settlement, but that they're now overgrown and unreachable?) How does the "commuting" process actually work (does everyone fit in one trip or are two trips required; is there some sort of dock or does everyone wade ashore like at Normandy; what are the typical sea/surf conditions)? Finally (and I know this has been a long post, but if the radio guys can do it...), in keeping up Tighar's incredible safety record, what are the things you tell the expedition members to be careful of and what have been the "close calls"? I joined the forum only about the time of the last expedition, so all this may have come up before, in which case, just aim me at the appropriate archives. I suspect I'll hear this idea may be a case of the risks not justifying the rewards, but nothing ventured... LTM (who always tries to put in a full day's work) Steve G., Tighar # something or other ************************************************************************** From Ric Steve, I think you have an interesting suggestion here and I'd like to hear some opinions from team members. To answer your questions: - Typical "aboard ship" activities include writing up the day's field notes, cleaning or repairing equipment, planning for the next day's operations. - There is no existing shelter ashore that would be usable but there is also little need for shelter beyond a simple tarp. - It usually takes at least two trips to get everyone ashore. - There is no dock. The launch must transit a roughly 500 feet long by 30 feet wide channel blasted through the reef to get to the beach. At high tide the reef is submerged and it's just a matter of staying where the water is bluest. You can drive right up to within a few feet of the beach. You still go ashore Normandy-style but with considerably less automatic weapons fire. If there's a big swell running it's a bit hairier and going in through (or rather over) the channel is a surfing experience. Getting out of or into the launch at the beach end can also be interesting. At low tide the situation is a bit different. The water level can be a foot or so below the level of the reef so going through the channel means having sharp, jagged walls on either side. The launch can't get nearly as close to the beach so we use the reef as a wharf and disembark or embark directly onto the reef flat. In really calm conditions it's a piece of cake except that the reef is quite slippery. However, when there's a swell running the channel becomes a chute and the waves come rolling in with a vengence. The launch heaves up and down as the water level in the channel fluctuates with each wave and clambering out of or into the launch onto the reef flat safely requires timing and nimbleness and steady nerves. When the weather is really bad and the swells are several meters high - as they were when we were there in March of '97- well, let's just say that we're not going to do that again. Lessons from close calls: - If an outboard motor quits when you're trying to deal with surf, life can get real interesting. In surf conditions an unreliable outboard is a no go item. - A diver underwater can keep an eye on the sharks with no problem and they'll usually keep their distance, but a swimmer (or diver out of air) on the surface looks like lunch. - Don't wade in the lagoon if you're bleeding. (duh) - Don't jump out of a launch into shallows in the lagoon without keeping a firm hold on the boat. What looks like a firm sandy bottom might be quicksand. - Don't wade in the shallows alone (for the same reason). - When walking through scaevola - even areas that have been "cleared" - it's easy to trip. If you're lucky enough to miss the sharpened stakes left by the machete work, the coral rubble will do a number on your knees and your face. - Don't pet the bunnies and squirrels. If a coconut crab gets hold of you, you'll wish he hadn't. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:26:47 EST From: Ric Subject: SS Narwick? Yesterday we received in the mail a copy of a memoir published by TIGHAR member and forum subscriber Capt. John W. Clark describing his long career in the merchant marine. In it he makes several passing references to the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. after looking through the book I sent him the following email: Capt. Clark, Thanks for sending us a copy of "SSS". I look forward to reading it. In checking the references you made to Earhart I note that on page 496 you say that the sailing directions for Gardner Island mention the wreck of "SS NARWICK." The time seems to have been December 1945. Of course, the name of the ship wrecked at Gardner is actually "SS NORWICH CITY" but the apparent error in the sailing directions is very interesting. If, as early as 1937, the ship was reported to be the "NARWICK", that could explain Earhart's repeated (alleged) tranmsission of "New York or something that sounded like New York" as described in Betty's notebook. Do you, by any chance, still have the sailing directions that were in use in 1945? The earliest sailing directions (H.O. Pub. No. 166) I have are from 1952 and they have the correct name of the ship. I also have the report submitted to the Hydrographic Office by the USS BUSHNELL survey in 1939 which also has the ship name (but not the grounding date) listed correctly. So where, I wonder, did SS NARWICK come from? Ric ************************************************************************** Capt. Clark was kind enought to send the following reply: Ric: During my South Pacific days I often abbreviated many islands, etc. in my notes/logs. Perhaps I inadvertently mispelled NARVICK, and referred to same in my book based on my notes and a more than 50 year old memory. I don't have a copy of the 1945 sailing directions but you should be able to obtain copy from the U. S. Hydrographic office. Incidentally, the current sailing directions only refer to a "conspicuous stranded wreck". Regards, J. W. Clark ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:32:52 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Actually I reminded of the little statue on the Moon rather as a little joke. Neil Armstrong will be remembered as an American and the first man to set foot on the Moon. But that he left behind a little statue is a historical fact. That is was made by a Belgian is also a historical fact. But don't ask me why Van Hoeydonck was chosen to make it. I don't know. I doubt that someone will go back to the Moon to bring it back one day to put it in a museum. It'll probably remain on the Moon for the next few thousand years (I think a number of copies have been made for exhibition in museums). By reminding the little statue I merely wanted to underscore the care that must be taken when drawing conclusions after finding artifacts. When Roman coins are found that is an indication that Romans have been there. But not necessarily that they were lost by a Roman soldier. Roman coins were used throughout the Roman Empire by local populations. Tighar found a piece of aluminum on Niku and Lockheed said it was the kind of metal they used in the Thirties to build aircraft. To Tighar it is an indication that Amelia Earhart's Electra may have landed on the island. But it is no proof. That piece of metal may have come from an other aircraft. It may have brought to Niku by settlers from one of the other islands during the colonization period. It may have come from an aircraft that wasn't even built by Lockheed for all I know. Back to William Webster-Garman's coins. Neil Armstrong didn't lose the little statue as if it were a coin. He left it on the Moon on purpose to mark the historical event, the reminder of Man's first steps on the Moon. History will remember him for it. One day, in a few thousand years, perhaps a space researcher on the Moon will find it, trace its Belgian origin through long forgotten documents in some dusty library and come to the conclusion that there had been a secret link between Neil Armstrong and Belgium. Maybe somebody will discover a conspiracy thread ? Maybe someone will try to prove Neil was in fact on a secret spy mission for the Belgian government ? The only link there really is, is merely that it was made by Belgian sculptor Van Hoeydonck. Don't ask me why. I don't know. He was a well known artist at the time and an expensive one as well. I know because he made some (somewhat bigger) sculptures for the company I used to work for at the time and they had cost a fortune (some whisper that may have been the reason why his little work of art was chosen by NASA as anything cheaper would not have been expensive enough...). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:33:44 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Fallen Astronaut OK guys, my mistake ! It wasn't Neil Armstrong who left the figurine on the Moon but David R. Scott and the mission was Apollo 15. I shouldn't rely on my memory so much any more at my age... If you want to see the figurine go to www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/&5.clsout3.html You'll find it referred to as artifact 88-11894.jpg Dave Scott left the little statue and a plaque on the Moon with a plaque containing the names of all US astronauts and USSR kosmonauts who had given their lives in the race to the Moon until then. The little figurine is called "Fallen Astronaut". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:37:09 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Kites Requesting a clarification: are we saying the kiteset included spooled copper wire, or in this scenario that AE-FN took the wire off something else? If the first case, where someone had already considered that usage, the wire would no doubt be pre-measured. The person who provisioned the wire for that communication use would be aware that a random length would have a similar odds of being a worthwhile effort, i.e. totally random. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no mention of the kite being intended to carry an antenna. It was strictly a visual distress signal. We don't even know if it was still on the airplane and any discussion of it's use to carry an antenna is highly speculative. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:53:27 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations > From Bob Brandenburg > > What is the relevance of the harmonic radiation properties of military >transmitters to the harmonic radiation properties of AE's transmitter? The reason i looked for data on these, is for that period, simple output circuits were used, with less concern for harmonic output levels than in the postwar period. Unfortunately, i found less hard data than i hoped for - harmonics being a concern only when actual trouble, as in interference, was caused. > Assuming that the figures given to you are factual, do they include any implicit > caveats, such as transmitters carefully tuned and feeding appropriately matched > and loaded antennas? Yes. (and "of course", i'd say.) The above question really has two parts: tuning and matching. I think we can hazard an assumption that the WE13 transmitter carried on AE's plane was correctly tuned up. It did work, after all. Tuning will have to be fairly close, or output will fall off very rapidly. Too far off resonance, and the tubes are damaged, or the power fails due to overload. What i want to say on this point is: mistuning the transmitter would do far more to diminish power on the actual transmitter channels, 3105 & 6210, and would be quickly noticed, than it would do to boost harmonic radiation. For example, mistuning of the transmitter output tuning, say to resonate at 6.6 MHz, would much more seriously affect the output at 6210 than it would do to some frequency 6 or 12 MHz away. Nor could one say, maybe it was radically mistuned, tuned to a harmonic, because then the output on the fundamental would be nil. In fact, i would say, given the safe assumption that the transmitter was not tuned to a harmonic, that harmonic output would be maximized by having the tranmitter correctly tuned. Most harmonic power is not developed by the amplifier amplifying discrete harmonics,but by its developing a powerful, complex waveform. Or not? As for loading adjustment, it seems to me that having the antenna takeoff higher on the tuned circuit favors harmonics. That setting on the tuned circuit is the one for nonresonant antennas, i.e. the 3105 channel. If the WE13 transmitter was mistuned: 1. output on 3105 or 6210 would be down 2. voice quality might suffer, sound distorted 3. to some much lessor degree, harmonic output *might* be somewhat higher - but i say, not enough to rule the harmonic-broadcast theory in or out. of course, regardless of which particular harmonic was stronger at the transmitter, the one which was critical for any long distance reach would be the one favored by whatever antenna was in use, and the propagation on the path to the listener. Harmonic output from AE's radio transmitter shouldn't be attributed to some technician's mistake or some maladjustment. It was a function of this circuit acting normally, within its design limitations. *************************************************************************** From Ric >>If the WE13 transmitter was mistuned: 1. output on 3105 or 6210 would be down 2. voice quality might suffer, sound distorted 3. to some much lessor degree, harmonic output *might* be somewhat higher - but i say, not enough to rule the harmonic-broadcast theory in or out.<< 1. "Down" compared to what? We know that the commucications check on July 1st was considered to be successful but we also know that the airplane remained very close to the station. We have some indication of how well Earhart's transmitter was performing on July 2nd 3105 and 6210 based upon the reported receptions by Lae and Itasca. I don't see that we have anything to measure against to know if the performance was "down" or not. 2. You say the one indication of a mistuned transmitter would be that "voice quality might suffer, sound distorted." Chater reports that the Lae wireless operator who inspected Earhart's transmitter found that "TRANSMITTER CARRIER WAVE ON 6210 KC WAS VERY ROUGH AND I ADVISED MISS EARHART TO PITCH HER VOICE HIGHER TO OVERCOME DISTORTION CAUSED BY ROUGH CARRIER WAVE, OTHERWISE TRANSMITTER SEEMED TO BE WORKING SATISFACTORILY". What, other than mistuning, might cause the distortion reported? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:54:34 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations Another quick question from WOMBAT. What effect would "ground" have on propagation of the Electra's radio signal and also on reception. I know from experience that providing a connection to ground - in my case, usually a copper pipe hammered into the ground, or more often, directly to the water pipes of a building, which travel underground - has enhanced both reception and transmission. What would be the effect of the Electra effectively becoming the "pipe" once water was high enough to reach the metal bits? (i.e. over the tyres) Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:00:34 EST From: Nick Murray Subject: Re: 150 SE by 50 E The following website has a chart of the 32 compass points, and their equivalent in degrees and minutes: http://www.landboundary.com/points.html I don't see how this relates to the statement "WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE.", unless it means 150 miles at roughly 135 degrees (southeast), then 50 miles at roughly 90 degrees (east). But this point is in the middle of the ocean. I can't make sense of this statement either. Nick Murray (#2356CE) *************************************************************************** From Ric As noted in a recent posting, that point in the middle of the ocean happens to be Winslow Reef. That might be coincidence, or not. One thing is for certain. Earhart wasn't sending any radio messages from Winslow Reef on July 6th. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:01:47 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Navigation I just got home from 5 days on the road and was greeted by 206 emails, 95 % from the forum. I read with great interest the LOP discussions. I agree that 10 miles was probably FN's usual & average accuracy doing cel nav, and he alludes to just that in a letter to PVH Weems. Even if the charts were 5 miles off I think they could still find Howland if, visibility was not obstructed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:07:21 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Navigation discussion I read with great interest the postings on FN's navigation abilities, chart inaccurracies, offsets, LOP's, etc. I agree that FN's usual & average accurracy was about 10 miles and he alludes this in a letter to navigation guru of the time Mr. PVH Weems. I've personally done enough shots with hand held sextants of WWII vintage including a Pioneer A-7(similar to FN's A-5) and have proved this to be true to myself. It's also true you can do better than 10 miles if you have alot of experience using a sextant and steady eyes & hands although when I was that fortunate I credit it to more luck than skill, but nevertheless it can be done. Fred Noonan was an ace navigator. Drinking on the job? B.S.! It cannot be done folks,,no frigging way. While trying to work up some plotting charts for the Howland leg I have been frustrated in researching what documents I can find, an almost total lack of position reports from which to go on. I can only find one and it indicates they were south of the great circle course at the time. Anybody have anything in that reguard I could borrow? Direct or offset course I cannot determine right now. I am certain of one thing though. I just got back from flying a trip across the pond to Italy & back, re-provisioned myself with clean clothes and then went to the carib & back. Thank God I have the next couple of days off duty free as I am wiped to say the least. Ric: I have to believe that if any miscalculations were made or perhaps tie into this, fatigue played a part in this tragic mystery. Besides pushing the airplane to the limit, they also pushed human limits to the envelope & perhaps beyond with a fast paced & hectic flying schedule, time zone changes, inadequate rest periods for fatigue & body clock adjustments. In addition to fatigue, I highly suspect Fred was having trouble getting enough visibility during the night to take star shots, being as they were in the intertropical convergence zone with its propensity for garbage weather conditions. Inability to get a timely position update would effect the accurracy of DR calculations, although if Fred got at least one good fix per hour that would be sufficient. In fact, one would not want to take too many fixes too close together. Why? If fixes are not sufficiently spread apart a navigator would not be able to determine winds aloft & drift with any real accurracy. Am I correct Alan? One has to not only has to see course devation occur, but also the rate/ mileage of deviation over a given time period to determine winds & drift. One would otherwise end up trying to go from fix to fix(left-right-left-right,etc) using guestimates more than calculations, due to lack of enough raw data. In other words, an error has to be made and judged(calculated from observations & plotting) before one can make a reliable correction. When you are attempting to fly a great circle course over a long distance as this, the navigator will divide up the course into a series of rumb lines, say a couple hundred miles apart or so, or so many degrees of longitude apart as they were heading almost straight west to east. In any case, he would try to plan his routing & waypoints with planned shot times to calculate a fixes at stratigic or convenient points along the way. If it were my trip, I'd use points of longitude at intervals that would get me one good fix an hour(assuming I can get my shots). In between, I'd monitor the progress and look to see which way we were were drifting, note the bearing & rate of drift and calculate a wind at my altitude & make a correction, logging all data on the plotting charts & sight reduction form. Situational awareness is a watchword pontificated by professional aviators. In this case, it was vital. Any lack thereoff could & would be deadly. I gotta believe fatigue had some negative effect in this aspect. Sound familiar Alan? Awaiting comment from the celestial choir. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric The wait-and-see-what-the-error-is-and-then-make-a-correction method is exactly what Noonan seems to have done on other flights. Right Randy? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:14:32 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Terence Hugh Gallagher Thanks Ric & Frank Westlake ... I had all the information in the posting referred to. It was the bit about him being one of 4 killed that day that intrigues me as there must be some specific reference somewhere which mentions him as one of these four killed. Again Thanks! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:35:56 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner Gardner is not a good place for a pirate base. 1. No drinkable water. 2.No "entertainment" facilities. 3.Limited plant life, so no treatment for scurvy. 4. No harbor, so landing would be both difficult and dangerous. 5. No nearby shipping lanes (nothing to steal). 6.No reports of pirate activity in the area. 7. No archeological remains suggesting pirates. If you want pirates, try the Spratleys. Daniel Postellon Tighar #2263 LTM (Aaargh and avast) *************************************************************************** From Janet Whitney Pirates stealing and stripping fishing boats, yachts, etc. and engaging in other illegal activities on Gardner Island and the other uninhabited islands in the Phoenix group (smuggling, bootlegging, etc.) before 1937 could account for the unexplained debris. The period 1914-1930 appears to have been an unsettled time among the various mandated islands and colonial possessions in the region. I can't seem to find a detailed history of the region on the Web. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric Prior to the establishment of the PISS, Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony Lands Commissioner Harry Maude (a name you'll recognize) researched and wrote a detailed history of the region as part of his proposal. Nowhere is there any mention of pirates, missing ships, criminal or unexplained activity of any sort. When the bones were found on Gardner the top people in the WPHC, people who knew the whole region for many years, puzzled over whose bones they might be. Not once did anyone even speculate about pirates or any kind of criminal activity. *************************************************************************** From Oscar Boswell Ric wrote: >...in Janet's case (and a few > others) the only fair course of action is to let her have her say. And remember that it was Janet's irritating comments about her inability to see the missing antenna that caused you to obtain and post a higher resolution scan of the takeoff photo, which showed the apparent damage to the pitot tubes - and so we all learned something, the full implications of which may only become clear later. *************************************************************************** From Ric All true. So - Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of rum. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:37:31 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Kites as antennas > From Hue Miller >> From Frank Westlake >> ...she measures a piece of wire against the length of the vee... > > Yes- but does she use the total length of the 2 legs, or the length > from the tap (junction on the antenna, to the far end of the other > V ? That means, 2x one leg-length, or approx. 1.5 leg lengths. I think if we can determine that an improvised aerial can be constructed and lofted by a kite, and that Earhart could reasonably have had the proper equipment to do so, then we have to accept that she may have done just that. As it appears now, I would say that we should accept the kite aerial as something that could have and may have happened. If we do accept the above then we need to determine if there is a configuration that she could have constructed, within reason, that had the ability to transmit the reported post-loss signals. To do that, I would suggest that we look at any aerial length less than or equal to the standard kite string length. If we determine that she could have -- again, within reason -- constructed an aerial that would cause some of the post-loss signals, then I think the only thing we have gained is that we cannot eliminate those signals by strength alone (if that is a gain). > Also, from my kite flying days (way long ago), i am thinking it > would be a real hassle to keep up a kite with a relatively short > string, like this, unless there was a pretty strong breeze.... If your referring to my "AErial Improvisation Method #1", then the string can be any suitable length. The aerial would be attached to the string only after the kite was flying at a stable altitude, then the string payed out to raise the aerial. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:40:23 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: big bang theory A mid-air explosion has often been used to explain the unexplainable. Such explosions have occurred with certain aircraft types in aviation history. Ric rightly reminds us of the Pan Am Sikorsky S-42 flying boat accident and more recently there has been the TWA 747 disaster. However, there is no indication this ever happened to a Lockheed 10. What's more, it doesn't solve the mysteries Tighar is trying to solve regarding AE/FN because there ARE the Blucher shoes or at least a sole, there is a Benedictine bottle, there are human bones (of a Kaukasian female), there is a sextant box, etc... All on Gardner. If someone wants to pursue the explosion theory, I suggest Tighar gets in touch with a Lockheed 10 pilot. *************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, no Lockheed 10 ever blew up or suffered catastrophic structural failure in flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:46:05 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Erroneous Howland postion? Inconceivable that Bill Miller didn't provide AE with up to date maps? Perhaps. But stranger things have happened. Where I live (and that is not on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific) I remember 1,500 ft ft telelvision mast missing on low altitude aviation maps for five years because the government agency responsible for producing the annual new maps didn't receive a budget to do so. Flyers were supposed to know the mast was there and keep a lookout... Was there an urgent demand for that sort of updated aviation maps of that part of the Pacific in 1937 ? Did such maps exist ? *************************************************************************** From Ric Of course not, but we're not talking about updating maps. We're talking about Miller passing along one of the most crucial bits of information imaginable. I agree with Randy. It's inconceivable that AE and FN did not have the updated position for Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:50:25 EST From: From William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Like Gardner, Henderson has had some stranded visitors through years. It's true that the fresh water supply on Henderson is extremely limited, and that people from Pitcairn visit the island once or twice a year to gather wood for their tourist and mail-order wood carving activities. Similar to Gardner, while there is evidence that castaways, and at least one eccentric, have spent time on Henderson, there is zero evidence that Henderson was ever frequented by pirates. Piracy is a high risk economic activity driven by a perceived opportunity for unusually high profit margins in exchange for unusually low capital investment, the sort of opportunity that is normally available only through the serious violation of property laws or worse. Traveling to and from places like Niku and Henderson entails great expense and some risk. Adding great expense and more risk to an already risky criminal operation that is supposed to require minimal capital outlay doesn't seem compatible with the goals of a marginalized slacker like a pirate. *************************************************************************** From Ric >>a high risk economic activity driven by a perceived opportunity for unusually high profit margins in exchange for unusually low capital investment, the sort of opportunity that is normally available only through the serious violation of property laws or worse.<< How does that differ from the definiton of "Washington lobbyist"? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:52:48 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Position reports I wonder if analyzing other, normal position reports made by Amelia during any of her other trips would shed some light on her final position reports. To help us interpret them. Do we have any documented position reports from her at any time? Might be informative, if nothing else, to see how she made them. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric Randy Jacobson has looked into that is some detail. Perhaps he'd like to comment. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:54:32 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Who visited Gardner? More on Henderson Island is available at http://winthrop.webjump.com/hender.html. Yes, it is the island that Pitcairners go to in order to cut miro wood. This site has a nice 19th century shipwreck account (see Wildwave), concerning Oeno island and Pitcairn. Also a good description of the skeletons mentioned by Hue Miller. For a more academic account of early Polynesian settlements, go to http://www.otago.ac.nz/Anthropology/Pacific/marginal/marginframe.html. The last two references to works by Jared Diamond (Nature 1994 and Discover 1997) mention the disappearing settlements. You might be able to access these on line as well. Daniel Postellon Tighar #2263 LTM (who would rather be whaling) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:06:40 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Caution - No Choice Belief Systems at Work Re "....the island's development for scientific purposes"---This sounds so noble, who could object? I do. This is a real sore spot with me, and I think it would be a shame to see Niku turned into an "Environmental Research Center". There is an adventurous, Indiana Jones quality about the place now (tropical setting, shipwreck, the decaying ruins of a vanished imperial civilization , possible Earhart landing site mystery) that would be lost if there is development (tourist, scientific or otherwise; make no mistake, the tourists will follow the scientists). Also, I have seen other so-called "scientific" development of remote places, such as in the extreme southern tip of Patagonia (ostensibly to study the "vanishing penguin") and in Tierra Del Fuego. Frequently, they become holdouts for New Age wackos and remittance men---no science, place ruined. Folks, there is lots of junk masquerading as "science" in the world, and very little left of the places they used to write great adventure stories about, and make into 1930s movie serials that we all love to see. Why do we want to take away another one? I feel very lucky and privileged to have seen one in Niku, and would wish that it remain that way. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm with you Chris but I also think we have to recognize that Niku is not going to stay the way we know it too much longer. Kiribati has the same overpopulation problems it had when Harry Maude conceived the PISS - only more so. Land is just too valuable in that part of the world and new technology is making it more practical to make places like Niku inhabitable. The trick will be to preserve as much of the wildness as possible and a research center would do that a whole lot better than anything else I can think of except maybe a bird sanctuary, but McKean is already a bird sanctuary (mostly because it's a horrible, hopelessly barren hunk of coral) and I don't think anyone would buy that idea. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:07:32 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Signals on 520 & 530 kc >From Vern: > I hear two MCW signals on 520 kc and 530 kc.... > 520 kc transmits "GQ" repeating about every 7 seconds. > 530 kc transmits "OJ" repeating about every 7 seconds. Apparently you're hearing Non-Directional Beacons (NDB) and you live in or near Kansas City. 517kHz MO Kansas City. GQ NDB. FAA. 526kHz KS Olathe. OJ Johnson Co. Airport NDB. FAA. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:15:29 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Armstrong's statue (off topic) Herman wrote, >Neil Armstrong didn't lose the little statue as if it were a coin. Obviously, my comment about the roman coins washing up on the beaches of Beirut after a storm had nothing at all to do with any idea that Armstrong "lost" the Belgian statue. Instead, I was making a reference to how common roman coins are in some places, so common that many have only nominal value, even 1500-2000 years after they were made. The reference was a metaphor, relating to my opinion about how most (not all) data from this century will be regarded in a thousand years: Common, still not very hard to come by. I stand by my remark that the little Van Hoeydonck statue mentioned by Herman will probably be in a museum in 100 years. I should have added that the museum I imagine would be on the moon, probably on the landing site of Apollo 11. I think it's very unlikely that administrators and politicians would leave all of those Apollo artifacts (for reasons good or bad) to the uncertain mercies of scavenging. There is a precedent for this. Scott's Hut, near McMurdo Base, Antarctica, was the historic staging point for most of Scott's activities there beginning 100 years ago. For decades it remained essentially isolated and abandoned. In the 1950s, when the US government established an official presence at nearby McMurdo during the Deep Freeze I project, people entered the hut and found food tins and other supplies and artifiacts that were astonishingly well-preserved, a startling window into the past. The hut (it's a large hut) is designated an an historical landmark and maintained as a museum. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:16:23 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Fallen Astronaut Herman wrote, >It wasn't Neil Armstrong who left the figurine on the Moon Now I know why I'd never heard of it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:19:09 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: 150 SE by 50 E I note from the discussion of compass points, and the web-site that Nick Murray provided, that there is no such compass point "North by Northwest" as in the famous Hitchcock movie of the same title. I guess it just sounded better than Norwest by North. In any event, could the reference to "150 SOUTHEST by 50 EAST" possible be a typo for southWest (with the "W" omitted)? Would that make any sense at all -- or more sense than southeAst? David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point, but I don't see how that would that make any more sense. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:29:20 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: Kites If such a kite was included and later used by AE/FN, it (the wire) would make a good target for discovery. LTM Ed of PSL ************************************************************************* From Ric True, it might survive, but how would you know that that's what you found? "Son of a gun! Look at this! A length of copper wire. Looks very old. Say, I'll bet AE and FN were using this as an antenna on a kite." I'm not poking fun at you Ed. Just trying to illustrate a classic problem we have out there. We've found LOTS of things that COULD have been from the airplane and a few things that even PROBABLY WERE from the airplane, but we're still dreaming of a smoking gun. ( I kid you not. There was a length of small gage, single filament copper wire tangled on Artifact 2-2-V-1, the section of airplane skin, when we found it.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:55:18 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: W40K The great circle bearings from St. Petersburg to Niku (266.8 degrees true) and Lake Worth (W4OK) to Niku (267.8) put all 3 very nearly on the same great circle. I've spot checked a few other sites (Ascension Island, Los Angeles, San Diego, Honolulu, etc) to see if they might also be on the same GC, but none are. It also is interesting to note that the GC bearing from Lake Worth to Howland Island is 273.7, and the GC bearing from St. Petersburg to Howland is 272.6. Do these facts, when combined with the "W4OK Howland Port" entry in Betty's notebook mean she heard W4OK working the hams on Howland, or perhaps that she heard W4OK trying to reply to AE's signals? Or is it all just coincidence? Dunno, but others may have some views on this. LTM, who doesn't believe in coincidences. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ************************************************************************** From Ric I think we really need to ask Harry Poole to check the Lake Worth paper for that week to see if perhaps a Mr. F.G. Carrol of 711 Ninth Avenue may have reported hearing anything from Amelia Earhart. Wouldn't it be interesting if Mr. Carrol's nickname was "Bud." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:58:28 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: "Norwich City" I spoke to Eric Bevington tonight and asked him if he recalls if the words "NORWICH CITY" was still visible on the ship when he arrived on Gardner in 1937. His reaction was "yes I believe it was but then I am not absolutely sure about that ... but then I do know it was the "Norwich City" so I expect it was still on the ship" Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:59:29 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner I can't disagree, either with your characterization of Janet's posts or with your position on what to do with them. Janet, please, understand that there are thousands and thousands of isolated islands in the Pacific that would be a whole lot better pirate hangouts than is Niku -- unless, I suppose, the pirates were set on kidnapping Amelia Earhart. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:01:11 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: All Ashore That's Going Ashore! It won't surprise you, Ric, to learn that I think Steve's idea is excellent. The two nights that John Clauss, Lonnie Schorer, Gary Quigg and I spent ashore in '97 made for some very productive days, and that with very little preparation (it wasn't exactly a planned event). It also enabled us to save the very expensive GPS base station from unexpectedly high seas -- something to consider if we need to put major equipment ashore in the future. Plus, you just get a whole different sense of the island if you're there full-time, including nights; that has practical advantages in terms of better appreciating the dynamics of the place and what they can do to physical remains, and intangible advantages as well, though I have trouble characterizing them. As for any dangers, I don't think they're any greater than those incurred by getting in and out of boats at either end of the "commute." LTM (who'd very much like to be ashore on Niku) TKing ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:15:56 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Navigation discussion There's been a tendency on the Forum from time to time to characterize the round the world flight as a publicity stunt with no real aviation value, and that all the pre-flight buzz about the dangers of the Lae--Howland leg as hype to build up the suspense to a level higher than really warranted. I wonder if this is really fair, however. The reason I say this is because of all the debate and disagreement on the Forum concerning such "basic" things as how you determine and interpret LOP, how and when you take celestial shots, judge wind speed and direction, etc. etc. Notice that none of this has anything to do with radios or electronic direction finders. Yet, here we are in the year 2000, 63 years after the fact, yet all you technical experts out there are still debating and disagreeing on so many things which one would think to be so basic and "settled". It turns out they aren't so settled now, and were therefore certainly not settled then. The real tragedy of the flight is that so much of the communication equipment aboard the Electra and the Itasca that was supposed to supplement these "basics" was, for whatever reason, unable to communicate as intended, and that for all his celestial observation skills in the "basics", the "basics" weren't enough and Noonan was unable to bring the flight home before whatever happened occurred. Therefore, it seems to me that had Earhart and Noonan managed to actually get the Electra to a pinpoint landing on miniscule Howland after flying so long over water, that, in and of itelf, would have been a considerable accomplishment, and takes the flight out of the category of a mere stunt. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Pan Am had been flying sceduled passenger service across the Northern Pacific for nearly a year before Earhart and Noonan disappeared. They were regularly and reliably hitting tiny islands (Midway and Wake) using exactly the same technology AE and FN were using (celestial and DR to get them close and DF for the final run in). What made Earhart's flight unusual was that she was using a relatively small land plane instead of a large flying boat. The pioneering work in transpacific aviation had been two years before - largely by her own navigator. Earhart's flight was using proven methods and had no practical application for commercial air travel. It was a stunt. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:17:11 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: SS Narwick? I may have many of the sailing directions up to 1952, and will re-examine them for any mention of the name of the wreck. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Randy. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:18:56 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Navigation discussion FN was my kind of navigator: he would monitor the flight with celestial navigation, perhaps once an hour or once every two hours. He would only offer up course corrections when deviations from planned course were sufficiently large, on the order of 50 miles or so, so that a decent enough course change could be made. Changing a course from 076 to 077 degrees really doesn't buy you much precision, but changing from 076 to 081 might. He seemed to plot out future positions based upon past celestial navigational fixes for at least 3 hours into the future (dead reckon) at half hour intervals. By taking another celestial fix at opportune times (between bottles or naps , he has a ready basis for determining how far off course he is. If reasonably tolerable, he lets it go; otherwise advise the pilot to change directions. It is pretty simple, and keeps the navigator from micromanaging the pilot. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:22:31 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: erroneous Howland position? Randy Jacobson wrote: > Richard Black, his successor, also knew of the revised positions. Bill > Miller was AE's technical liason with the US Gov't for planning the first > flight. I find it absolutely inconceivable (but undocumented) that he did > not provide her with the revised position. It was only "classified" until > such time as the US Hydrographic Office could update their charts, which was > done in 1938. 1938, then, FN would have had charts made prior to 1938 which would have shown an erroneous location for Howland. To "assume" that the correct coordinates would have been given to FN (or AE) is a big assumption. NO ONE seems to have the radio frequencies checked out for Itasca vs. the Electra. That is a BIG mistake and one that, unfortunately, continues today with our own military (ie, Navy, Army and Air Force all use their own radio systems and frequencies and can't talk to each other - remember Grenada and the ground pounder who used his cell phone to call back home to ask them to c ontact the other branch of the service and relay his calls!). LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric I suspect you might feel differently if you were familar with how involved and concerned Bill Miller was in helped AE prepare for the flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:24:49 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigation discussion > If > fixes are not sufficiently spread apart a navigator would not be able to > determine winds aloft & drift with any real accuracy. Am I correct > Alan? Doug, you are exactly right. Frequent fixes would jack you all over the place. We typically did one per hour just as you described. This was not in YOUR post, Doug but I want to comment how difficult it is to lay to rest certain statements that are either dead wrong or have no factual basis to support them. The navigation issues have been discussed and rediscussed for a long time and misstatements continue to crop up. For example, long ago someone theorized about the use of a sunrise LOP. That is, without a doubt, the most useless and inaccurate procedure in all of celestial navigation -- for a number of reasons but the most obvious is the atmospheric distortion at sunrise makes the resulting shot unusable. Why this keeps coming up is beyond me. Another issue is that weather prevented or interfered with Noonan's night celestial. Maybe it did but who knows and if so to what degree and was the interference significant. Every navigator has shot through thin overcast at times. Someone show me the documentation that proves Noonan could not get a celestial shot at any given time that he planned on. The sun provided Noonan with an LOP across his inbound course. IT DID NOT GIVE HIM LATITUDE. Assuming he turned SE toward the Phoenix Islands sun shots helped him stay on course but still did NOT give him latitude. Why are people so determined Noonan had nothing but the sun to shoot during daylight hours? I've even seen statements that conceded there might be other bodies to shoot but they were behind the plane too far to be shot. Is there anyone in the forum who is not aware the Electra was capable of being turned? Just push on a rudder, bank gently, roll out and Voila! Celestial objects that were not in sight now are. Amazing. Frustrating. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:26:52 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Lots of Henderson stories at http://winthrop.webjump.com/hender.html The monkey story is particularly bizarre. I doubt it adds anything to the probabilities of people visiting Niku. Proximity to Pitcairn helps Henderson attract people (and skeletons?). Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:29:06 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner One short comment to Janet. I seem to remember that the Pacific got its name because it was so vast and so empty because there was no shipping because there was no trade. Any pirate waiting for a ship to loot out there would be the sort of guy who would be waiting in the Sahara to rob a passer by. ************************************************************************** From Ric No Herman, that's not how it got its name. It just looked peaceful to the guy who got to name it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:30:10 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re Fallen astronaut > ... But that he left behind a little statue is a > historical fact. Photo of same--part of a memorial to fallen astronauts: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo15/A15_MemorialFS.gif > The only link there really is, is merely that it was made by Belgian > sculptor Van Hoeydonck. Don't ask me why. Because he focused on space art? http://www4.artnet.com/library/08/0878/T087862.asp Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:35:14 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: big bang theory Ric wrote: >>As far as I know, no Lockheed 10 ever blew up or suffered catastrophic structural failure in flight.<< Engine failure is always a possibility. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes and crews have been known to become ill or have heart attacks. Lots of things can happen. I wonder if there might be evidence to suggest what actually did happen. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:37:31 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Position reports Don Jordan asked: >> I wonder if analyzing other, normal position reports made by Amelia during any of her other trips would shed some light on her final position reports. To help us interpret them. Do we have any documented position reports from her at any time? Might be informative, if nothing else, to see how she made them.<< Yes, and most of the information is in the 8th Edition. Here's the gist: never in any documented cases where we had both the maps used by the navigator and radio transmissions did the following happen: A position fix provided and determined by celestial navigaton A position fix provided at the time of transmission (that is, we are here at this point now at this point in time) All position fixes were projected dead reckon positions, and were anywhere from 11 to 46 minutes behind the time of transmission. At no radio position report was a time provided when the fix was valid (with one exception, depending upon the ambiguity of the radio message). Pretty sad, huh? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:39:54 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: SS Narwick? I checked my copies of the Sailing Directions, and find the first mention of the Norwich City (or a conspicuous wreck) in the 1940 edition. This fits in nicely with the Bushnell survey of 38/39 timeframe of the Phoenix Island chain. However, the US Navy Hydrographic Office did have the original report of the NC grounding in 1929 in their files. LTM, who is always a conspicuous wreck. *************************************************************************** From Ric So nowhere is the wreck erroneously listed as "SS NARWICK"? Oh well, it was just a thought. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:42:25 EST From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner Ric wrote, >>All true. So - Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of rum.<< My response " You called"? ************************************************************************* From Ric LOL! I shoulda seen that coming, you old pirate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:43:32 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Who Visited Gardner? Ric wrote, >>How does that differ from the definiton of "Washington lobbyist"?<< Badum bump! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:16:03 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Mother 0f All Crazies This one is the ...'Mother-of-All-Crazies'...! Amelia Earhart Memorial Website Address:http://www.usa1.nu/ks/atchison/amelia/index.htm Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the heads-up Don. The actual owners of the website seem to be anonymous but it's part of one of these cheapo you-too-can-have-a-website deals and I've sent the following email to the webmaster. Gentlemen, You have a problem. One of your customers, the "Amelia Earhart Memorial Website" (http://www.usa1.nu/ks/atchison/amelia/index.htm), has reproduced copyrighted information without permission. The document entitled "The Friar Tuck Papers" was taken from The Amelia Earhart Search Forum, a copyrighted service of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) and has been reproduced on the "Amelia Earhart Memorial Website" and is credited to "Tighars Earhart Forum" (sic). To make matters worse, they represent the document - which was intended by its author, Christopher Kennedy, as a joke - to be a serious hypothesis under consideration by TIGHAR. It may interest you to know that Mr. Kennedy is an attorney. At the foot of the document your customer writes: "NOTE: This is the group of people who do the expeditions to these islands to find proof. Their site is well done and includes years of these wanderings among members. If you have the time, they will answer almost anything at least 6 or 7 different ways... Right or wrong?" There seem to be two possibilities here. Either your customers are complete idiots or they have intentionally and maliciously used copyrighted material to libel our organization. I prefer to believe the former and we'll say no more about the matter provided that the offending document is removed from the website not later than Monday, November 6, 2000. Sincerely, Richard E. Gillespie Executive Director TIGHAR ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:29:49 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Kites > From Ric > > ( I kid you not. There was a length of small gage, single filament copper > wire tangled on Artifact 2-2-V-1, the section of airplane skin, when we found > it.) Do you still have that wire? Is/was it literally a solid copper wire, or is/was it copperclad (a copper covering over an inner core of steel)? What is/was the diameter of the wire? This could be important. Bob ************************************************************************** From Ric We sure didn't throw it away. The NTSB laboratory in Washington described the wire this way in its report to us dated March 5, 1992: "2-2-V-1 Wire The wire (shown in figure 11A) was reportedly found entangled on one of the tears of artifact 2-2-V-1. The wire was a single strand of 0.024 inch diameter copper wire that was 34 inches long. Remnants of what appeared to be degraded and hardened insulation were found randomly along the length of the wire. Examination of a portion of the insulation with the aid of a scanning electron miscroscope (SEM) revealed fibrous strands encased in the insulation jacket as denoted by arrows "T" in fgure 11B." I am sending Bob the photos referred to above. As you may recall, the section of airplane skin was found in the washup of beachfront vegetation left by a severe storm which pummeled the western end of Niku between out 1989 and 1991 visits. The wire was jammed into one of the tears along the edge of the skin. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:45:13 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Bevington's recollections of Niku If Gerry Gallagher has developed some kind of rapport with Bevington, maybe he could attempt a more in-depth interview about what he and Maude talked about re the "the signs of human habitation" on Niku in 1938'.As I recall in your interview he could not elaborate beyond that it looked like someone had "bivouacked" or something like that. Maybe his memory can be shaken loose. Were there ropes,any artifacts, lying about?? Or is he too frail,or has he been reinterviewed over this matter.And did we establish were he saw those "signs". Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric As I'm sure Gerry will confirm, Eric Bevingon is a fine gentleman who is friendly and outgoing and eager to help. I hope I don't flatter myself when I say that I established a rapport with Eric when Pat and I spent two days with him in 1992 based upon our mutual experiences on Gardner Island. At that time we had already found the shoes at the Aukeraime site and were, of course, very interested in his recollections about the "signs of previous habitiation" mentioned in his diary. With no knowledge of what we had found or where we had found it, he circled an area on the map very near to the spot where we had found the shoes. Since then I have corresponded and spoken on the phone with him several times regarding that subject. I think we have gotten all there is to get. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:46:06 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Navigation discussion Well, I can't comment as to Midway (I'll ask my uncle as he's been there), but I've been to Wake, and it's really an atoll that covers a large area in comparison to the size of Howland. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:47:13 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: W40K > From Ric > ... to see if perhaps a Mr. F.G. Carrol of 711 Ninth Avenue may have > reported hearing anything from Amelia Earhart. Wouldn't it be > interesting if Mr. Carrol's nickname was "Bud." It might also be interesting if his first name was Fred. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Why? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:48:37 EST From: Tom King Subject: The Fate of Niku Like Chris, I'd love for Niku to stay just as it is, but the fact is that it won't -- PARTICULARLY if it turns out we're right about Earhart. We need to prepare for this eventuality. I've seen some horrible tourist development in the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, including some that was very destructive of archeological resources and the natural environment. There has to be a way to keep that from happening at Niku, even if it suddenly becomes the destination of choice for Earhart buffs. Personally, I'd like to see no on-shore development at all; instead let Lonnie Schorer develop a great offshore floating tourist complex. But these are not our shots to call; the best we can do is make suggestions to Kiribati. LTM (who wonders if maybe we shouldn't promote the idea that she landed someplace else) TK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:50:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: big bang theory We're really back to Occam's Razor here. The Electra certainly may have blown up, but how would one go about testing that hypothesis? The Razor says we try to test those things we can (perhaps) invalidate before we go on to things that we can't. LTM (who prefers Gillette) TK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:56:56 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: W40K Is there anyway to ascertain, where the Ham operator in Wyoming may have been? Might be of interest to see if he could be in the same GC. Regards. Warren Lambing ************************************************************************** From Ric How about 1408 Tenth Street, Rock Springs, WY? (Ron Bright has been in touch with the local paper.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:58:27 EST From: Thomas Hamberg Subject: 150 SE by 50 E quite recently I found this forum and have been lurking since. To contribute to you campaign TIGHARs 2001, I will immediately assign myself. However, here's a suggestion how to interpret the "150 SOUTHEST by 50 EAST". Suppose it is not one, but two points forming a line. Plot a point 150 miles SE of Howland and one 50 miles East. If you connect the two you get a line with the bearing 153-333 pretty similar to LOP 157-337. Could it be that FN had established that they were on this LOP and his estimation of the latitude would be 'somewhere 50mi east and 150mi southeast of Howland'. Thomas Hamberg ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:02:27 EST From: Richard L. Subject: Re: Amelia and the shoes O.k. stop rolling your eyes guy,I know I can't let these shoes go but there was something always bugging me about the whole thing.other than the chances of finding both persons shoes in two different locations must be astronomical improbable(not impossible though). If Fred did die on or near the N.C. and Amelia buried him, why would Amelia take his shoes? Why would she leave one of hers and one of his at two different sites?(the one(s) found at the aukarime site and the one(s) found by Gerald(potential seven site?) The answer to my first question might be to replace hers if she wore hers out,but I don't think their feet were close to the same size. There are probable a million reasons for the second but why would she leave them the way she did - one of each in two different locations? The only other thought that makes sense is the aukarime site is the original search site and some other unrecorded event took place at the seven site One thing I thought of (but cannot find info on the net about) is a Japenese surveillance station at the seven site.I might be stretching that but is it possible?Did the Japanese have such sites at remote islands?With Sydney being U.S. and having an airfield on it they might have used a sub to land a small recon force to keep tabs on it .If history serves me correctly they did do this on some closer to home during the war.much like the coast watchers. What are your thoughts on this subjects? Don't know how valid my theory is but at least I'm not preaching about pirates turning Amelia into a love slave or washer woman and Fred into a cabin boy. LTM Richard L #2376 ************************************************************************** From Ric If the Japanese had been on Niku you might think that the people who lived there might have noticed, not to mention the U.S. Coast Guard station near the 7 site. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:05:00 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antenna and propagation simulations By "down", i mean that output falls off precipitously. The same kind of electrical circuit that tunes your car radio to a station, tuned the output of the transmitter. (Altho the transmitter was in fact broader tuning than a receiver). I mean there's not a lot of allowance for mistuning before operation becomes unacceptable. Your point about the distortion noted at Lae is right on. That - knowing the modulation setup in the transmitter - is a good sign that this channel was out of adjustment and power output also was down (to some unknown degree). Despite my forgetting that fact, i still maintain that this misadjustment would not favor harmonic power production. In fact, i even suggest if the transmitter was mistuned to some degree of diminished effectiveness on one channel, the harmonic power from that channel (2x, 3x....) would be diminished also. Another interesting question that could be tested. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:07:40 EST From: Pete Subject: Cults Uh Ric? if we become a religious group, doesn't that entitle TIGHAR to tax-exempt status? Cargo cults are known, even to the Washington crowd. Seeker of knowledge, asker of the Celestial Choir, Paige of the Radio Rangers and Tideheads. May the will of the Moderator be done! Pete *************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR has had tax-exempt status since it's inception in 1985. We're a nonprofit 501 (c)(3) Public Charity. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:09:48 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Preserving Niku Ric wrote: >>Land is just too valuable in that part of the world and new technology is making it more practical to make places like Niku inhabitable.<< Habitable, as long as the water doesn't rise - which is a maybe a possibility, considering the predicted rise in temperatures. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:18:55 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Pirates on Gardner Any pirates who visited Gardner weren't going to let anyone know they visited Gardner. Same for smugglers, bootleggers, etc. The one thing most pirates seem to have in common is that they visited places so far off the shipping lanes that no one would guess that anyone visited there. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric This is getting out of hand. Forum volume is already a burden on people who are trying to keep up with reasonable lines of inquiry. Starting now I'm imposing tougher posting standards. I will still start from the assumption that everyone is intelligent until proven stupid but Janet has convinced me that, at least on this subject, her views do not merit the forum's consideration. The pirate thread ends here. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:35:32 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Latest conspiracy theory The very interesting aricle TWO IF BY AIR. TWO IF BY SEA, researched and written by Daryll Bolinger is now posted on ameliaearhart.org I urge every one to read the article for new insight as to what happened to Amelia Earhart. My congratulations to Daryll for a truly outstanding accomplishment. and our thanks to Dr, Comcowich and John Romano for all their help in getting the article posted. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:30 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Pitot Tubes > of the takeoff photo, which showed the apparent damage to the pitot tubes - Actually, while going over the pictures from the Purdue collection looking for odd things (like the original hinge opening of the hatch) I found some pictures that suggest at first look that the pitot tubes may have been damaged earlier. Are the Hi Res scans still up? I'd like to compare them. th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/26_Antenna2/26_Antenna2.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:57:39 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Navigation discussion > From Doug Brutlag > > In addition to fatigue, I highly suspect Fred was having trouble getting > enough visibility during the night to take star shots, being as they > were in the intertropical convergence zone with its propensity for > garbage weather conditions. I wonder. All I can find on weather there at that time of year suggests heavy cloud would be intermittent (with regard to the total distance they were flying) and limited to around 9000ft CU TOPS. Satmaps of the area over a period suggest the same thing - that they would be flying through different weather patterns. Ric, do you have the Log of the Ontario details and weather reports for Nauru on the night of the flight? We have a fair idea what they were facing on departure Lae and we know exactly what they had on arrival Howland Area, but we have never discussed what they actually had enroute, and I understand ships do keep those details, and also Nauru suggested visibility should be fine. If the weather was looking doubtful I'd imagine they would have said so. Also, a light that was visible to ships with the naked eye for 34 miles should have been visible for a lot further than that from the air if the cloud cover was intermittent (another reason for wanting weather from Ontario's log). The workings look like a fair sized town at night. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we have the Ontario's log for that day. Thoughout the night the sky condition was described as "bc" meaning "blue sky with detached clouds", what we would today called "scattered clouds." the cloud type was "CU" for cumulus and the visibility was excellent. In other words, it was a typical night in the central Pacific with a scattered decl of cumulus which would effectivley eliminate any visibility of anything on the ground for an airplane at altitude except something they were virutally on top of. As Randy Jacobson has pointed out previously, the Lae/Howland flight did not go through the Intertropical Convergence Zone. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:59:02 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Position reports Randy Jacobson wrote: > All position fixes were projected dead reckon positions, and were anywhere >from 11 to 46 minutes behind the time of transmission. >At no radio position report was a time provided when the fix was valid How do we know? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:02:08 EST From: Raymond Brown Subject: Horizontal visibility at Howland Is. on the 2nd of July 1937. There has been some discussion on the forum in recent days about the degree of accuracy of Fred's navigational methods,that is ,how close he was capable of guiding an aircraft to its objective. Leading on from this people have wondered whether or not Howland Island would have been visible from this distance be it 10 miles,15 miles or whatever. Ann Pelligrino's experience has been quoted .Sighting the island from 10 miles out at an altitude of one thousand feet. Nevertheless, the Itasca's log entry for 0800 on the 2nd of July '37 records the vis. as " 9... prominent objects visible at 20 miles or more." Granted that these kinds of observations are subjective and can vary from observer to observer,however it seems to me that the visibility was pretty good when the Electra was approaching Howland. The glare of the sun would be a problem when flying towards the island while holding their course from Lae,but when having turned to fly along the LOP the sun would have been on side of the aircraft or the other depending on whether they were flying "up" or "down" . LTM Raymond Brown. *************************************************************************** From Ric What does this posting add to our discussion? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:06:42 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: No AP Reporter? With all of the hoopla surrounding the World Flight and AE in general, I'm a little surprised some shit-hot wire service reporters didn't get detailed information about how Fred navigated, what charts the flyers were carrying, what kind of survival gear (and radios and anything else) was aboard the plane, what they ate during the long legs ("Miss Earhart prefers a simple ham and cheese with mustard while the navigator goes for cold chicken or turkey on rye with lettuce and mayonnaise") - you know, the "human interest" stuff. Are we dealing with something like GP had it put in Fred's contract that he wasn't to give interviews (don't want to take away any of AE's thunder)? Along the same lines, AE maybe didn't want the public to know details about what was onboard the plane during the flight so she could sell copies of the book afterward. (Too much exposure in the popular press during the flight could water down the impact of the book, I suppose.) I may have just answered my own questions (which are really rhetorical). Was there even a wire service reporter in Lae? I'm obviously venting frustration over the popular press not being nosey enough, but it just strikes me as odd that we don't know more details (as in common knowledge from contemporaneous sources) about this world headline event (however overstated the importance of the flight may have been). LTM (who is a Lindbergh fan) Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric There was no wire service reporter in Lae or much of anywhere else that Earhart visited on the World Flight. It was 1937. She pretty much acted as her own reporter and the stories she filed were full of personal interest stuff. How does this posting further our research? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:07:57 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Pirates on Gardner I think we are reading Janet wrong about this pirate thread. I think she is just pulling our chain to see what kind of a rise she can get out of us. I suspect she is laughing at any serious responses. Janet, if that is not the case than please excuse my cynicism. LTM (who has a very dry sense of humor) Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric If it was Janet's intention to pull my chain, it worked. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:19:02 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: 150 SE by 50 E Could somebody fill me in on where "150 SOUTHEST by 50 EAST" came from? I must have missed it, and don't see it anywhere in the Betty notebook. LTM (who's getting a little forgetful in her old age) TK *************************************************************************** From Ric It's from a message heard by a shortwave listener by the name of Charles Russell in Dennison, OH at 03:31 EST on July 6. No frequency was mentioned. I RECEIVED MESSAGE FROM SOME LONE STATION AT 3:31 A.M. (EST) SAYING THAT: "THIS IS WHAQQ OR PROBQBLE (SIC) W8AQQ TALKING, "WE ARE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILES SOUTHEST BY FIFTY MILES EAST OF HOWLAND ISLE. SOMETHING ABOUT COLD WEATHER OR THEY HAVE A SEVERE COLD AND ALL IS WELL SO FAR, WE HAVE SENT OUT MESSAGE FROM TIME TO TIME BUT NO RESPONSE, LOOK FOR RED KITE, FOOD SUPPLY AND WATER. THERE WOULD BE A ROAR AND THEN TOP OF MOTORS OR SOMETHING, SIMILAR TO OCEAN SOUNDS. THE STATIC OR OTHER SOUNDS THAT INTERFERE WITH RADIO BLOTTED OUT EXACT WORDS, BUT IT MAY BE EARHART, SOUNDS LIKE A MAN AND AT TIMES LIKE A WOMAN FAINT VOICE, AND ANOTHER VOICE AT TIMES TALKING IF OTHER PERSON WITH THEM.; PS: I HAVE A SPARTON SEVERAL YEARS OF AGE, AND GET STATIONS OF THIS NATURE AT TIMES EARLY IN MORNING FROM SHORT WAVE BUT VERY FAINT.AND FROM ONLY A FEW MINUTES AT TIMES, SOMETIMES DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT WORDS, AS WELL AS TELEGRAPH SOUNDS, SOME I CAN GET AT TIMES, FROM TELEGRAPH TOTS AND DASHES. What is interesting about this message is that it occurs during the same period when several hams heard something suspicious: FOLLOWING BY PHONE FROM MR STANLEY KGMB HONOLULU QUOTE FOLLOWING AMATEUR STATIONS ALL HAVE REPORTED A RIPPLING CARRIER RIGHT ON 3105 KCS PERIOD ONE OF THEM GOES SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE MOTOR GENERATOR DRIVEN RATHER THAN DC PERIOD CARRIER HEARD INTERMITTENTLY 2117 TO 2237 HAWAIIAN STANDARD TIME PERIOD CALLS OF AMATEURS K6OQE OAHU COMMA K6NTY MAUI COMMA ANOTHER OAHU CALL NOT OBTAINED OPERATOR HORNING COMMA AND STATION W6NNR LOS ANGELES AND ANOTHER STATION IN WHITTIER AT 0122 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME. Corrected for time zones, this stuff is all going on at the same time. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:22:36 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: Kites I understand the frustration. What about developing a list of potential smoking gun targets (prioritized). You know, sort of a most wanted list that each expedition member would have. The engines of course, etc. Just some thoughts. LTM Ed of PFL ************************************************************************** From Ric How would that make any difference to what we do on the island? We're going to collect anything interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:26:25 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Dashes? Some time ago there has been a vivid discussion on the forum about the presence of a Morse key connected to AE's radio. The traditional position being that it was probably left back in the US. However I went back today reading Itasca'a radio log on the webb site and found this text : -- KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE RECD WE UR SIGS BUT UNABLE TO GET A MINIMUM PSE -- TAKE BEARING ON US AND ANS 3105 WID VOICE / NRUI DE KHAQQ LNG DASHES -- ON 3105 -/ NRUI2 DE NRUI P AR 0800-3 =BB Aboard Itasca: The ship can not give Earhart a "long count" on 7500 Kilocycles because its transmitter is incapable of sending voice on that frequency, but it does repeat the letter A in morse code (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah), the prearranged signal for homing transmissions from Itasca. Earhart reports hearing the signal but is "unable to get minimum" and again asks Itasca to take a bearing on her. She sends long dashes on 3105. So, my question : How was she suppose to send th long dashes in absence of a key? The radio log does not suggest that she was pushing the 'push to talk' button on the mic. What is your interpretation of this episode ? *************************************************************************** From Ric She had to either be using the push to talk or physically turning the transmitter off and on. The latter is what KGMB asked her to do to send dashes after she disappeared. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:31:23 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: FN and Weems Doug Brulag said: I agree that 10 miles was probably FN's usual & average accuracy doing cel nav, and he alludes to just that in a letter to PVH Weems. This is the first I've heard of correspondence between FN and Weems. Jerry Hamilton and I did quick search of some Weems stuff at his home in Annapolis and some stuff Weems left to the Smithsonian, but we haven't found any direct contact. There have been some references to AE and FN in other Weems letters, but I was unaware FN and Weems exchanged letters. Did I miss something? Does Jham have a copy of this letter? LTM, who some times misses a lot Dennis O. McGee #0194EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:33:51 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: stunt? >From Ric: >...What made Earhart's flight unusual was that she was using a >relatively small land plane instead of a large flying boat. The >pioneering work in transpacific aviation had been two years before - >largely by her own navigator. Earhart's flight was using proven methods >and had no practical application for commercial air travel. It was a >stunt.... Another difference & perhaps the most important difference, was the fact that the PanAm flying boats had trained, experienced radio operators on board & the islands, such as Wake, had trained, experienced radio operators using the Radio/DF equipment to guide their flights home, on a regular basis. Neither AE nor FN could be considered as well trained or experienced as the PanAm radio operators, nor were the radio operators on board the Itaska or Howland as experienced in using Radio/DF equipment to locate & guide aircraft home, on a regular basis, such as were the PanAm personnel. Perhaps a well trained & experienced radio operator aboard the Electra or more experienced Radio/DF personnel on the Itaska or Howland, would have found some way of overcoming the obvious difficulties that AE & Itaska had in establishing any reliable, two-way radio communications, as the flight approached the Howland Island landfall. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Agreed. Let's end that thread right here. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:42:43 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Overnighters "Is there work that can productively and safely be done by a small onshore group in the available light between the time when the "commute boat" normally departs and sundown/sun-up?" Drawing upon my experiences on three TIGHAR expeditions in the north Maine woods looking for Coli's and Nungesser's "White Bird," I think the "overnighter" idea on Niku is a stretch. On my first Maine expedition TIGHAR set up camp in the woods near our proposed search area precisely so we COULD get an early start and work late. It was a good idea but it had its draw backs, primarily we had a tendency to work TOO hard and it didn't allow enough downtime for the crew. Plus preparing and provisioning a hardy breakfast, a stick-to-the-ribs lunch and a strappingly delicious dinner each day for 15-20 people put a big strain on our chief cook and quartermaster, Pat Thrasher, AKA Mrs. TIGHAR. And even though we usually got up with sun, we didn't hit the trail until about 8 a.m. or so, and then knocked off around 4 -5 p.m. Living in the wood is a lot different than camping in the woods, especially if you are not accustomed to it. It sounds the same, but there are big differences. And after dinner bell many of us were too pooped to pop. there was not much sitting around the camp fire until the wee hours singing camp songs. Generally, most of us were in our sleeping bags by 9-9:30 p.m. Luckily, the expeditions were during the two-weeks in July of the off season for horse flys and Noseeums so we didn't have to contend with those problems. On the last two expeditions, we stayed in town and commuted daily to the search area. Yes, the work days were shorter but the crew was also better rested and more alert, which allowed us to work more efficiently and contributed to overall safety. And we ate at a local restaurant and packed in our lunches, so we got to use all of our people for searching and not using them for the care and feeding of the crew. Being on Niku in that heat and humidity for 32-34 hours would be very stressful I would think. Going back to the ship to sleep and rest in an air conditioned cabin (or at least a cabin with a fan) would ease that stress. In Maine, we also had to put up with the weather, which I found offensive! :-) I was lucky enough to pitch my sleeping bag under the only hole is a 20-man tent on the only night it rained. But the food was good. LTM, who dislikes sleeping in wet beds Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric I have generally resisted suggestions that members of the team camp on the island for many of the same reasons Dennis describes. I recognize that there is a big romantic attraction to the idea among some team members and I'm willing to humor that as long as the weather remains good, but I really don't think that we gain anything by it except less bitching. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:47:01 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Position Reports For Randy J. I discovered the same thing you did about AE's nebulous position reports. Without an acurate time over fix the report is a waste of airtime & breath. Not only sad...STUPID! When FN was navigating for Pan Am on the China Clippers, standard PA procedure called for regular position reports every half hour which gave Lat/Long, altitude, speed, wind direction/velocity, ground speed, met report. In addition, the Clippers were given position reports of ships along the route, also on the half hour who could assist in case of emergency. I was going to look at the route in detail by means of universal plotting charts, along with position reports, see how the flight may have progressed and possibily form an opinion if Fred aimed dead on for Howland or flew a deliberate offset, but without timely & accurate postion reporting information it can't be done. Ric, did any of the investigators in 1937 ever comment on the lack of position reporting information and its contribution to AE's demise? I still reguard FN as a master navigator. However I wonder why he didn't see this coming and walk away from a publicity stunt that eventually took his life. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric The report filed by the captain of the Itasca was so scathing about just this issue that the Treasury Department was very hesitant to release it because of the damage it would do to Earhart's reputation. Hence the infamous Morgenthau transcript. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:49:40 EST From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: W40K >> From Frank Westlake >> It might also be interesting if his first name was Fred. > From Ric > Why? Well it wouldn't be anything more than just "interesting", but perhaps Noonan was in the habit of calling people with the same first name as he: "Bud". It was just a thought, I shouldn't have expressed it. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:53:12 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Eric Bevington and obtaining more information from him Re; Eric Bevington and obtaining more information from him: I agree with Ric, I have built up a good relationship with Mr. Bevington, he is articulate, has an amazing memory of his time in the region, is extremely helpful, remembers Gerald with great affection and fondness, tells of amazing adventures in the region (he was there 1937-1963). However, concerning AE ... as Ric says ... there is nothing more there. I spent 1 1/2 hours on the phone to him yesterday speaking about Gerald. He has little or nothing to add to what he has already written about Gardner in his book and/or relayed to Ric. Believe me, Mr. Bevington would happily divulge anything he knew about AE/FN and any other information that he knew ... but unfortunately I believe he has divulged everything he knows already. For the record, Eric Bevington visited Gardner only once October 13-15 1937. He never had the opportunity to return. My conversations with Mr. Bevington have been very informative and interesting relating to the life and times of 3 cadets in the Pacific from 1937-1941 (Eric Bevington, David Werhnam and Gerald Bernard Gallagher). When i asked him last night if he had any other recolections about Gardner or AE he said ... " I have said everything I know about Gardner, my two days there, and Amelia Earhart which is little or nothing at all" So as you can see, Ric is correct ... TIGHAR knows everything that Eric Bevington has to offer on the subject. As a matter of fact Eric Bevington as well as Harry Maude never even knew of the "bones find" on Gardner. A true example of keeping the "tight lip of secrecy" by Gerald who would have ranked these two (Bevington and Maude) as his two best friends in the Pacific. He also communicated with each quite extensively (Bevington by radio and Maude by letter) and never betrayed the "top secret" tag placed on the bones scenario by the WPHC top brass! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:55:57 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Fred, aren't we overdue? A non-navigator question for Alan Caldwell and Ric, One researcher says the "sunline-landfall LOP" reported by AE at 8:44am (157-337) "proved out at 6:36 am" shortly before the "100 miles out" postion estimate by Amelia. By 8:44 the landfall "would have been moved to 153-333". This, he contends, puts her well beyond Fred's "pre-computed sun curve" (angle). Thus she was "flying back and forth along a line that had existed for only a fleeting instant...". Result: she missed Howland,landing northwest on the sea withing 120 miles of Howland. I don't know what that means and the author doesn't give a cite or technical explanation. But it sounds good. And if it were true would the bearing 153-333 at 08:44 substantially change AE's course if she elected to fly southeast (instead of northwest) and cause her to miss Niku or would Niku still be in sight ? I hope this doesn't take Alan over the top. But that's how I understand the Pirates of the Pacific navigated :by "dead" reckoning... LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:03:01 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: 150 SE by 50 E RE Hamberg's bearing Strippel came up with a 153-333 bearing southeast of Howland at 08:44. Interesting. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:11:43 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: No AP reporter Kerry Tiller said: "I'm obviously venting frustration over the popular press not being nosey enough . . Ric replied: " . . . How does this posting further our research?" Regarding Kerry's statement, I think Kerry is applying late-20th century U.S. journalism techniques to early-20th century events. Some believe that the 20th century techniques are too intrusive and would be perfectly happy to revert to the journalistic style and pace of earlier days. Regarding Ric's statement, I see a pattern evolving here. I suspect overwork, being underpaid and unappreciated, getting dumped on, scorned, ridiculed, second-guessed, and continually questioned regarding one's motives and veracity may be at issue here. I recommend a good night's sleep and a visit with the TIGHAR chaplain. Marty, he's all yours. LTM, who knows stress Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Not stress. Rebellion. Several of our most productive researchers and team members are up in arms about the abundance of junk on the forum. I agree with them. The forum is first and foremost a research tool but it's getting so that people who have something well-researched and reasonable to say are hesitant to throw their work into a pot where it will boil along with discussions of pirates and little statues on the Moon. We have too much work to do to accomodate clutter. Fair warning to all. The bush knife is out of the scabbard. Welcome to the Leaner, Meaner Earhart Forum. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:14:23 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: big bang theory > From Tom King > > We're really back to Occam's Razor here. The > Electra certainly may have blown up, but how would one go about testing that > hypothesis? The Razor says we try to test those things we can (perhaps) > invalidate before we go on to things that we can't. How about as a first question: is it possible? Ric's already noted that no Lockheed 10 has been destroyed by an in-flight catastrophe. Michael Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric Of course it's possible but you have missed Tom's point. Discussing an untestable hypothesis is a waste of time.