========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:03:23 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Mocassins v. Oxfords. . I've been perusing the documents and photographs in the Purdue library's on-line collection - and in photograph number XI.A.4.c there's an excellent side view of AE's blucher oxfords. The style she's wearing (according to the ads currently on the internet) is commonly referred to as a moc-toed blucher oxford, due to the stitching around the toe (similar to a moccasin) maybe that's the source of the confusion. Also, it is interesting to note that the heels appear to be built up slightly. There are actually three thicknesses of heel, not just two as commonly found on men's shoes. Obviously we can't know if this was how she bought them, or if it was done after she purchased the shoes. But if she had the heel thickness increased, that could account for the after-market or repair heel. And yes, the rubber part of the heel is very clearly black. Also, in picture XI.A.3.a, which is taken inside the airplane looking toward the cockpit, AE's foot is resting on a tube or bar just aft of the center console, and her shoe is clearly visible. It is very possibly the same shoe that she is wearing in 4c, except that in 3a the heel appears to be very short or worn down. I'm inclined to think she had her favorite flying shoes re-heeled before the trip. In 4c, the heel edges are very sharp and there is no apparent wear at all. Unfortunately, while we can date 3a as being taken pretty early-on in the life of the airplane (due to the panel details, particularly the overhead panel), there does not appear to be a date or location associated with 4c. Perhaps you have more information that would help identify the chronology of 4c. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric The whole issue of "tracking" AE's shoes via datable photos is a fascinating one and we did quite a bit of that back when we were first working with the shoe parts found on the island. Now, with the Purdue photos available on line and better ability to digitally examine photos via Photoshop, we should be able to do a much more comprehensive study. The first step (ouch!) is to begin identifying all the photos that show AE's shoes. You've spotted a couple of good ones. XI.A.3.a , as you've noted, is a fairly early photo. The panel is in it's earliest form and the Sperry Gyropilot is either just being installed or is being worked on. The cockpit door is still installed and the forwardmost fuselage tanks are not yet in place. I'd put the date as not later than October 1936. XI.A.4.c is trickier. That's not her airplane. It's a 10A (small engines) and you can see that the registration on the underside of the wing includes a "V" or possibly a "Y". This has to be one of the ships Lockheed produced for a foreign buyer. I know that there is another shot of AE with this same airplane that shows more of the registrtion. If we can pin down the registration we can get a delivery date and, thus, a not-later-than date for the photo. My hunch is that this photo may have been taken before her own airlane was delivered. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:16:47 EST From: Troy Subject: OX-5s For Ron Bright-- I do not know if they knew eachother (obviously), but I definately know it would be possible. My grandmother, an aviation pioneer OX5'er like Bud Mithchell, had some interest in AE (mostly because she was a woman aviator). I've mentionned before that she never thought much of AE's abilities, but those aviation pioneers were definately cut from a different mold and probably saw AE for what she was. However, I figure if my grandmother, as an aviation pioneer, had interest in AE then Bud Mitchell certainly could, as well. For a little bit more clarification on the OX5 Pioneers, they evidently were a fairly close-knit group of individuals. In order to be a member, you had to have flown the OX5 motor (it was not an engine) before a specific cut-off date (both my grandparents were members, having flown since the early 19-teens; they started organizations such as the first Air National Guard). I can only guess that the cut-off date to be an OX5 Pioneer would be some time in the late 1920's or early 1930's; I believe the organization was not formed until many years later. By my understanding from my grandmother (who held a national office with them for years), the OX5 is the motor found in the J-9 (I think she called it a Jenny). Of course, I have never even seen a J-9 and would not recognize it from any of the other planes she always talked about (The DH Damned-Hearse, home-builts, and others, for example). It is definately a historical aircraft and a bi-plane (I know that much) and she described it as the "workhorse of pioneer aviation". Our aviation buffs on the forum (Ric included) are proabably shaking their heads that someone like me doesn't know what the J9 was....... The only other strong OX5 recollection I have (coming from an oral history I recorded before her death, and subsequently had transcribed) is her insistence that the OX5 was a **motor** and not an **engine**. I never understood what she meant, even though she tried to explain it, because to me a motor is something with a lot of copper wire wrapped around a steel axel. If more informatin on OX5 is deemed valuable, I have contacts in the Southern Aviation Hall of Fame museum who could give more context. I do not see how this would help, however...... LTM (who might be an OX5'er if she were alive today) --troy-- Tighar#something *************************************************************************** From Ric The Curtiss OX-5 was an early, very popular, airplane engine. The distinction between "motor" and "engine" in this case is purely an issue of fashion. Early fliers referred to their powerplant as a "motor". Later, the term "engine" became more popular. The airplane your grandmother is referring to is the Curtiss JN-4 "Jenny" which originally had an OX-5 engine. Later, many Jennys used the more powerful Hispano-Suiza (often call the "Hisso") engine. No need for further OX-5 postings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:24:51 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Lae takeoff I was reviewing the last take-off film again. I noticed, near the end, as the Electra is starting to taxi, the camera pans back and you can clearly see the "Y" shaped tree in the back ground. As the Electra gains speed, the tree is seen again in the background. My question is this, where is the hangar compared to the location of the tree. I know the tree is located near the end of the runway. If the hangar is at the opposite end of the field then the film is a mismatch of splices. Does the supposedly taxi sequence of the Electra represents AE coming or going and on which day? ************************************************************************** From Ric If you'll look at the Research Bulletin entitled "Lae Gallery" at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html you'll see an aerial photo of the airfield taken in 1943 on which we've noted the location of the Guinea Airways hangar in red. As you'll see, it's just about across the runway from the Y-shaped tree. The people who were watching and photographing the takeoff were standing, not suprisingly, out in front of the hangar. The film is not a mismatch of splices and appears to have all been taken on the morning of July 2nd. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:27:43 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Reply to Mr Spading So far I see nothing in Denise's posting to show that the shoe might not have come from the Norwich City. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Try this. According to the manufacturer, the heel was produced in a mold that was not used until the mid-1930s. Norwich City went aground in 1929. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:39:51 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: French guys in L18 Yes, I was serious. I was as serious as any journalist when I wrote down what pilot Henri Pescarolo told me on May 29, 1987. I have the text here before me, including the pictures. Pescarolo had a black beard in those days. The feature was published on May 30,1987. He actually said they were going to carry 36,000 ping pong balls on the flight (I didn't count them...) On second thought, a floating Lockheed 18 will sink if it takes in water through a damaged fuselage. Ping pong balls will float or keep the aircraft afloat (provided they don't escape). On the other hand, 36,000 white ping pong balls floating on an ocean would have been a clearly visible white spot for any SAR party ! One advantage to TIGHAR would have been that had AE carried 36,000 ping pong balls there would have been a good chance some would have been found... LTM (who loves people who take no chances) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:42:33 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Mocassins v. Oxfords. . I'll look some more and see if I can find any other pictures with that airplane - it should be fairly easy to find. By the way, I was pretty sure it wasn't her plane - I noticed the discrepancy in the wing numbers, and it doesn't seem to have any belly antennae. If 4c is an earlier picture than 3a, then she's probably got more than one pair of those darned shoes..... I know that when the plane was first ordered, it was to be equipped with the Lear-O-Scope radio navigation aid, and in 3a the centerpost is equipped with the mysterious "second compass" which I think is actually a readout for the Hooven system (can't prove that yet). Do you have any data that would pin down whether the decision to change from Lear to Hooven was made before or after initial delivery, and if after, when that was? ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric The plane was delivered in July 1936. The Hooven radio was not installed until October of 1936. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:21:21 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Mocassins v. Oxfords. . I had another thought about this airplane - we know that there were 10-A's at one or some of the fields that she visited during the trip, and I'm wondering now if XI.A.4.c was taken somewhere during the flight, not at Lockheed's facility at all. Of course, if we can identify it, and it turns out the plane was delivered somewhere that she didn't go to, that will pin it down. Just as an aside, while looking through some of the photos the other day (and I forgot to note the number of it) I ran across one (AE's plane - I double checked the N number on the wing), but it was fitted with prop spinners. I think it had the Hooven bubble on it too, but I'm not positive. If I run across it again, I'll jot the number down so you can look. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric The guy in the XI.A.4.c photo with AE is a Lockheed executive. I've seen him in other photos taken at Burbank. I think we can be quite sure that this photo was taken in Burbank. NR16020 was equipped with spinners for a brief period in late February 1937 during preparations for the first World Flight attempt - then they were removed. Maybe they tried them to see it they provided a noticable improvement in performance, found that they didn't and so took them off. Just guessing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:21:45 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Spinners and shoes I suspect you're right about the performance testing - but it looks funny, since we're used to seeing it (the airplane) without them (the spinners). I went back and snooped around in the Purdue files and found several photos with the spinners (XI.A.2.c, XI.A.2.d, and XI.A.2.g). The last two show that the Bendix loop is installed, the dorsal antenna is further back than the final configuration, and there are two ventral antennae. Also the dents in the left side of the nose are clearly visible. Any idea how it got those? I've seen them in several photos. I found some more shoe pictures as well, including XI.A.3.c, and XI.A.4.d (which is at the tail, and seems to show the port for the trailing antenna). There are also a couple that show AE in saddle shoes (XI.A.3.e and XI.A.4.a). The heels on the saddle shoes are white and a different style, but they might help you decypher her shoe size. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric (As a reminder, the index of Earhart images on the Purdue webiste is at http://www.lib.purdue.edu/earhart/images/) <<...the Bendix loop is installed, the dorsal antenna is further back than the final configuration, and there are two ventral antennae.>> Yes. That's the configuration of the airplane at the time of the first WF attempt in March 1937. <> There are no dents in the nose. What you're seeing is the reflection of the engine cowlings. Don't feel bad. It's an optical illusion that has fooled a lot of people. <> That's the shot taken in Java that we use to determine the size of the shoes. <> That's the Miami shot we talked about recently where they seem to be swinging the compass. What you're seeing just above AE's head is the hole where the original trailing wire used to be. If the trailing wire was still there you'd see a tapered white cylinder about six inches long protruding from that hole. That installation was removed prior to the first attempt and replaced with a unit mounted on a mast that stuck down out of the belly. That rig was subsequently wiped out in the Luke Field wreck. By the time this picture was taken, the airplane had no trailing wire at all. <> Looks like both shots were taken the same day (AE is dressed identically). The guy with "A.E." on his coveralls in the first shot is Bo McKneeley. My guess is that both of these photos were taken in Miami. <> What you need to photogrametrically measure shoe size (or the size of anything) is to have something of known dimensions in the same photo AND in t he same plane (distance from the camera) as the thing you want to measure. That's what makes the photo of AE standing on the wing ( XI.A.3.c) so good. She's standing on rivets and we know how far apart those rivets are. It's just like she's standing on a ruler. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:24:20 EST From: Verne Shrewsbury Subject: Bud Mitchell? Ron Bright asked: >Would Amelia have known or associated closely with Bud Mithchell the 0X5er > in California; he ended up with a collection of her photos? Sorry I cant help you. The name does'nt ring a bell. Happy landings, Verne Shrewsbury ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:56:26 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Reply to Mr Spading > From Ric > > Try this. According to the manufacturer, the heel was produced in a mold > that was not used until the mid-1930s. Norwich City went aground in 1929. Great, That narrows the possibilities a lot for the TIGHAR shoe parts, but there's no mention of a replacement heel in Gallagher's material. There are possibilities for the TIGHAR shoe parts post dating Earhart, however the original shoe parts (in reference to which I saw no reference to a replacement heel) almost had to come from the N.C. or Earhart. The likelihood of another woman being down there lying under a Ren tree is just too far out. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I'd be interested to know how a woman's shoe could reasonably be attributed to the Norwich City. Gallagher makes no mention of a heel at all. In his telegram to the Resident Commissioner of October 6, 1940 he says "Only part of sole remains. Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal" On October 17, 1940 he tells Vaskess, "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's." Apparently additional shoe parts were found during the "organized search" because later on July 1, 141, after the remains and artifacts arrive in Fiji, Dr. Steenson says of the shoe parts "that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person." What TIGHAR found at the Aukeraime site in 1991 were the fragmented sole of a shoe and a Cat's Paw heel that went with it, a small brass shoelace eyelet, and a different, non-Cat's Paw heel. Our find might be described in the same words Steenson used to describe what Gallagher found - "they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person." It's hard to imagine that the shoe parts Steenson examined included a heel that read "Cat's Paw Rubber Co. USA" and he just didn't happen to mention it. That means that there's probably another Cat's Paw heel somewhere on that island. It's nowhere close to where we found the other shoe parts - we know that much. It would be pretty interesting if it turns up at or near the 7 Site. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:24:40 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Off topic but Interesting TV Program This is off the Earhart topic, but it should prove extremely interesting. PBS is to air a new documentary, "Tesla: Master of Lightning," on Tuesday, December 12. A web site accompanies the documentary: www.pbs.org/tesla/index.html Nikola Tesla was a Serbian immigrant, a contemporary of Thomas Edison and Guglielmo Marconi. Tesla is credited with developing alternating current technology; some even credit him with the invention of radio. Tesla is one of the most fascinating personalities of the modern age. LTM (who never thought TV was a vast wasteland) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:18:56 EST From: Denise Subject: American Jesuits Marty's right. Completely forgot about that. There was another source of American priests: The Jesuits. Abject apologies, Mr Spading. So the Goodwill crate is back on as a possibility, but still with the proviso that we can place an American priest in the vicinity of Nikumaroro during the thirty year period in question. Q. Why am I insisting on a priest for this mysterious benefactor? A. It's just that I've got this idea in my head - possibly wrong - that the Catholics were the only missionary/service types still operating this far afield with foreign nationals. This naturally needs to be checked out. Q. Why am I insisting on an American for this mysterious priest? A. Irish and Australian priests always got these crates through - from memory - the Salvation Army in Australia. It was only the Americans who got stuff in from Goodwill in America. So here's the picture: One American Catholic Priest, stuck in a parish in the back-of-beyond, is so moved by the poverty of the Phoenix Islanders he organises Goodwill to send a crate of second-hand items to them. And it is in this crate that the shoes no one actually wants (including the Oxfords with heels already replaced) arrive on Nikumaroro Island ... to be thrown away into the bushes where Ric finds the heels thirty or forty years later. Is this a possible scenerio? Definitely. Although we can't insist on the shoe-bit, the rest of it is decidedly feasible. I have no idea when this Goodwill business started, but these charity lines were well in place by the late 60s. Presumably they started long before then, with individual priests organising the odd crate now-and-again, but it wasn't until the Columban Fathers, with their more strigent definition of what constitutes poverty, arrived in the Pacific that the practise became so rife. But, since the Columban Fathers didn't arrive in the Pacific until they were tossed out of China in 1952, and they never got beyond Fiji anyway, they wouldn't have been in Nikumaroro in our time-frame ... ... but, as Marty points out, with the Jesuit Order we again have the possibility of this Phoenix Island-based American priest ... Or do we? Tell me this, Marty: Catholics wouldn't waste a perfectly good Jesuit by posting him off to the tail-end of the Pacific, would they? Afterall aren't these guys meant to be the very best the church has? Hand-picked? Brilliant, well-educated and trained to meet the whole world as equals? The Catholic Church's Ambassadors in fact. So why waste one on the Phoenix Islands; a bunch of hardly populated specks in a vast and empty stretch of ocean? From memory there weren't very many Jesuits of any nationality around our Pacific - and certainly none to spare on frivolous, seemingly punative postings - and I only ever remember one of their number being American. So surely, since they were rare things, they were treated as precious and kept in those areas where the population, power and weath was. Marty, tell me if I'm right about this? And if you don't know, how would I check? Wait a second! This particular American priest? (Forgotten his name but I can easily find out.) Could he have been the source of this mysterious and unestablished Goodwill crate from America? Mmmm? Perhaps! Perhaps not! Although he may have been around, he doesn't register with me as a presence in the Pacific until the late 60s, and I certainly don't see him being shipped off to the back-of-beyond. In fact, I don't think he was even assigned to any particular parish. He seemed to travel around a lot ... like god, moving in mysterious ways. And for some reason my mind is connecting him, probably erroneously, with the Australasian Papal Legate. Wait a second. This suddenly changes everything. I could be entirely wrong in my central premise. Rather than having a Phoenix Islands-based priest, we could have a travelling-around-the-Pacific-type priest! Yes! And it looks like we've got one here! Although I'm extrapolating out of far too few facts, with this particular guy there's a chance he was a free-floating priestly-envoy-type, maybe travelling around the entire Pacific on what may or may not have been Australasian Papal Legate business ... If I'm not totally wrong about everything, it is quite possible he may have visited every Pacific Island backwater in the course of his duties and been moved enough by island poverty to organise any number of crates to be sent from home. He's even young enough to still be alive and kicking and perfectly able to tell us about any donations he ever organised for anyone. Marty, can we work together on this? If you have any useful contacts in the Jesuits, I'll find out this guy's name, and you can check out what he actually did in the Pacific. If we can give this Papal Legate thing legs ... and get him - or someone not unlike him - whizzing around Pacific backwaters ... then we can hand it over to Mr Spading, and he can do the hard stuff - whatever that is - to prove or disprove whatever it is he wants to prove or disprove, as the case may be. You like that as a plan, Mr Spading? LTM (who doesn't dare ask Ric what he thinks of it!) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Ric thinks it's a hell of good screenplay. Somewhere along the way could we have the wayfaring benevolent American priest stumble across Amelia Earhart? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:24:04 EST From: Ric Subject: No Forum Monday I'll be tied up all day Monday in TIGHAR's annual board of directors meeting. (Really, that's what they do). The forum will resume on Tuesday. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:18:55 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Jesuits in the S. Pacific The father of one of my friends here at school was once a Jesuit who taught school in the Caroline Islands in the 1960s. The Jesuits sent missionaries to the U.S. Trust Territory Islands after WW II. My friend's father quit the order because he was not happy with what they and the U.S. government did in the Caroline Islands vs. the culture of the people who lived there. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:35:31 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: American Jesuits Denise asked a lot of questions about Jesuits in the Pacific. I'm going to duck most of them in this post. :o( I'll talk to some former missionaries living with me here in Buffalo. I can also check the records of the Jesuit Seminary and Mission Bureau in Manhattan later this week. At present, my province has 28 men in the Marianas, Marshalls, Chuuk, Yap and Palau, and Pohnpei. I can't tell you how long we've been in those territories. I know we had men in the Philippines prior to and during WW II. One of my provincials asked me how I would feel about being assigned to Fiji; I somehow evaded the issue until he finished his term. None of the missionaries I've met mentioned meeting Amelia or Fred. One of them did claim to have seen the Green Flash. Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric For the uninitiated, the Green Flash is a visual phenomenon which occurs sometimes at sunset. Just as the last pinpoint sliver of sun disappears below the horizon it flashes a bright emerald green. This effect can only be seen on a clear level horizon such as you sometimes get at sea, and then only occasionally. I've seen it once despite many, many attempts. On the other The Green Flash sounds like a great name for a super hero. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:36:59 EST From: Denise Subject: Anachronism! Ric says: Somewhere along the way could we have the wayfaring benevolent American priest stumble across Amelia Earhart? Sorry, Ric. Wrong time-frame! LTM (who likes her anachronisms to remain only in the more far-fetched episodes of "Xena; Warrior Princess" ) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:39:40 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: screenplay? Ric said: "Ric thinks it's a hell of good screenplay. Somewhere along the way could we have the wayfaring benevolent American priest stumble across Amelia Earhart?" Indeed. The setting is Saipan, of course, mid-1939 on the cusp of W.W.II. We'll give Mel Gibson his "Ozzie" accent back and put a collar on him and let Britney Spears play AE, who falls for the priest and is consumed by guilt over Fred's injuries that have left him "not quite right." Fred's role would be a sterling opportunity for Danny Glover. The movie would be titled Thornbirds Acquire Lethal Weapons. Ric, you are a genius. And THAT is why we pay you the big bucks!!! LTM, who has a gift for aborting threads Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh, but Fred's apparent disability is only a cover for his secret identity as The Green Flash. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:01:57 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Jesuits in the S. Pacific > From Janet Whitney > > The father of one of my friends here at school was once a Jesuit who > taught school in the Caroline Islands in the 1960s. The Jesuits sent > missionaries to the U.S. Trust Territory Islands after WW II. I have in my hand a book entitled _The Catholic Church in Micronesia_. It is a history of the 70 years that Jesuits have worked in Yap, Pohnpei, Chuuk, Palau, and the Marshalls. It includes tables of all of the Jesuits known to have worked in each region. > My friend's > father quit the order because he was not happy with what they and the > U.S. government did in the Caroline Islands vs. the culture of the people > who lived there. Our documents say that Jesuits are "sinners redeemed by grace." Sometimes grace does not act as quickly as sin. Two stories from a Pacific missionary here in the house: 1. A Spanish Jesuit brother (now dead) was interned during the war by the Japanese. He is said to have heard rumors of a white woman kept prisoner by the Japanese and he associated those with the Amelia Earhart legends. He never claimed to have seen the prisoner himself. This must be a very, very remote source. I don't think my missionary knew the Spanish brother personally. 2. My missionary tells the story of a Jesuit priest, now dead, who received two boxes of clothing donated to his island (Chuuk) after a fierce storm. The donations came from Americans living on Kwajelein. The priest took the boxes to a Mass without looking at the contents. After Mass, they opened them and found that the boxes were filled with high-heeled shoes. The women wore the shoes for a little while just for the fun of it, but they really were of no use whatsoever in the sand. This took place either in the late 60s or early 70s. So at least in some sense, the "evidence" turned up so far cannot completely discredit the hypothesis that some priests may have provided a channel for some American shoes to get into the Pacific. However, the islands of Micronesia are some distance from Niku, way off the beaten path, um, ah, so to speak, of the natives' normal fishing/trade routes. One last irrelevant memory: one of our guys created a concrete boat plant in Micronesia. They produced a few boats, but they took too much maintenance compared to other kinds of boats and the project was abandoned. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting stuff Marty. Thanks. Funny how an unseen white woman prisoner becomes Amelia Earhart. Not hard to see how the stories got started. Those high heels wouldn't even make a very good sound in the sand. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:15:00 EST From: Ric Subject: New acquisition Guess what we got. Last Saturday, local TIGHAR member George Mershon delivered to our offices a "Zenith Long Distance Radio 7-Tube Receiver (AC Chassis No. 5709). This cabinet-style radio was reportedly produced in 1937 and marketed in 1938. The radio that George donated to TIGHAR was picked up at an auction and is, shall we say, a bit rough - but all of the components seem to be present and it has that wonderfully complex Zenith dial. Best of all, we have the original Operating Instructions manual. We're not yet sure what the heck we're going to do with this thing. The first step is to take some photos and scan in the manual for the Radio Rangers to look at. If it looks like this radio should be similar in performance to Betty's "Stratosphere" model we'll see if we can get it restored and up and running. As we've said before, we're not going to be able to prove anything about what happened in 1937 by playing around with an old radio in 2001, but we may get a better feel for what it may have been like back then. That, after all, is the real value of all rehabilitation (return to service) of historical tools whether they be plows, radios , or airplanes. By the way, we've decided to name the radio "Janet." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:16:01 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: American Jesuits I seem to have missed the beginning of this Jesuit thread, but for what it's worth, Fr. Francis Hezel, S.J., who runs the Micronesian Seminar on Pohnpei and was for years the head of Xavier High School in Chuuk, the area's pre-eminent secondary school, is one of the Pacific's best known historians, and he's never mentioned running into Amelia, either. Though I must admit it never occurred to me to ask. TKing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:58:35 EST From: Ric Subject: Thanks from Betty As you will all recall, we were going to make Betty an honorary TIGHAR member but Dennis McGee stepped forward and bought her a full-fledged membership. We sent Betty her membership materials and I just received this reply that I want to share with all of you. ************************************************************************** Subject: From #2382 Ric Got your letter today. I was so pleased, and I wanted to thank all of you for the happiness you have given me. " Tighar People " You are a great group. Betty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:02:59 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: screenplay? >Ahh, but Fred's apparent disability is only a cover for his secret identity >as The Green Flash. Which would explain the presence of the Japanese army (the Amelican Film Steleotype Special Forces) - to catch the Gleen Frash. LTM, who thinks this thread is stone cold dead now, right? Amanda Dunham *************************************************************************** From Ric Right. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:58:39 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Shoes A lot of talk about shoes lately. Priest, Pirates, a "Shoes R Us" on Nikumaroro? I don't know. I do know that about 5000 women were in the military and in the local area of Niku during W.W.II (500 miles?). What was the shoe of choice during this time period (military issue)? The possibility of other non-military women in the area from 1940 to 1950 when the particular shoe in question was popular? *************************************************************************** From Ric My goodness! You know that there were five thousand military women within 500 miles of Niku during WWII? Where exactly was this island of military women? The only place I know of within 500 miles of Niku where there MAY have been a few military women (although I've never heard of any being there) was Canton Island. There is no record of any military woman ever visiting Niku during the war, and the records are pretty good (we have the manifests for the PBY re-supply flights). Laxton mentions one "American lady" visiting the island some time prior to his visit in 1949. We don't know who she was or why she was there or whether she may have left behind a shoe that had a replacement heel dating from the mid-1930s. I'd like to suggest that all this talk about possible alternative shoe sources is a bit silly. We can't prove that the shoe remains that we found are Amelia's. We HAVE established that they appear to be JUST LIKE Amelia's (size, style, and vintage). Certainly it's possible to invent a scenario that would place such a shoe on the island without it being Earhart's but unless someone can show that the place really was somehow dirty with shoes just like that, it's still a remarkable coincidence and worthy of being regarded as a clue that we're on the right track. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:06:08 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: American Jesuits > From Tom King > > I seem to have missed the beginning of this Jesuit thread, but for what > it's worth, Fr. Francis Hezel, S.J., who runs the Micronesian Seminar on > Pohnpei and was for years the head of Xavier High School in Chuuk, the > area's pre-eminent secondary school, is one of the Pacific's best known > historians, and he's never mentioned running into Amelia, either. Though > I must admit it never occurred to me to ask. Sorry--in my haste to complete my previous post before my 10 AM class, I may have left Fran's name out of the post. He is the author of _The Catholic Church in Micronesia_ to which I was referring. I also have _Strangers in Their Own Land: A Century of Colonial Rule in the Caroline and Marshall Islands_, which I have not looked at very closely. [Irrelevant aside: I played guitar and sang at Fran's first Mass back in 1969. He is the only one of the four Jesuit Hezels to have stayed in the order.] What does all this have to do with the search for AE and FN? Not much. I've got easy access to the history of the New York Province missions in the Caroline and Marshall Islands. Based on the information that is easy to turn up, I can say that the history of missions in the Pacific is complex. There isn't one easy path to search to determine non-AE sources of Catspaw heels that had to have been made no earlier than the early 1930s. For example, in the Marshalls, there were Sacred Heart Missionaries as early as 1900, Daughters of the Our Lady of the Most Sacred Heart from 1902, and Spanish Jesuits from 1922. I speculate that the history of the Gilberts, Tuvalu, Fiji, Tokelau, the Samoas, and the Phoenix Islands may (may!--just guessing) be equally complex. Granting all of that, I still doubt that the shoe parts came out of a missionary's box. They fit too well with other pieces of evidence (navigation arguments, the bones, other anecdotes, possibly some post-loss radio transmissions, etc.). The missionary stories do show why the Catspaw heel is not the McGuffin--people who want to doubt its evidentiary value can do so without being 'unscientific.' I have an e-mail address for Fran. I could write him if anyone thinks it would be worthwhile. I doubt it myself. "It's a long way to Nikumaroro, it's a long way to float." Marty #2359 P.S. Ric: Janet? Clearly I'm not the only sinner on this list. ;o) ************************************************************************** From Ric Story of my life. I strive for wit and attain only iniquity. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:52:16 EST From: Kathi Subject: The Green Flash Ric said.... <> Or a very drunk flasher!!! LOL!!!!!! ....Ahem.. apologies list. - Kathi ************************************************************************** From Ric No, come on, think about it. The "green" part is a reference to his Irish heritage. The "flash" is the lightning manner in which he strikes to thwart evil. You think it was a coincidence that all of the American aircraft carriers were absent from Pearl Harbor on December 7th? You think that the American victory at Midway was due to an incredible turn of good luck? America had a friend in the Pacific in those dark days. A friend who had been there for years, who had known of the coming conflict, and had dedicated his life to the cause of truth, freedom, and the American way. No one knew who he was or where he came from, but he appeared with vital information and flawless skill at crucial moments, only to disappear back into obscurity. Thus was born the legend of the Green Flash. Now, at last, we know his true identity. *************************************************************************** From Ned Johnston Ric wrote: > For the uninitiated, the Green Flash is a visual phenomenon which occurs > sometimes at sunset. It may also been seen at sunrise, or more precisely in the moment just before sunrise. I've seen 3 at sunset, one at sunrise. LTM (who sees all sorts of flashes), Ned Johnston #2314 *************************************************************************** From Ric Makes sense. Maybe it's sort of like the Bat Signal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:58:53 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Zenith memories I recall my father & uncle both had Zenith radios (father had a floor model & my uncle had a table set) prior to & throughout the WWII years, which had both AM & shortwave capacities. As a young lad, what fascinated me most was the fact that our radio had a little...'Green eye'... which got narrower or wider as you tuned the shortwave bands. Don't know the specific model or style of the radios, but I know both got fairly good shortwave reception (my father in rural Bucks County, PA & my uncle in centercity Phila. PA) without any special outdoor antenna set-up. Most of the broadcasts were from Great Britain & since my father & uncle were of German descent & were fluent in the German language, (still having relatives living in Germany) they often listened to German broadcasts & I can still remember hearing some of Hitler's loud & raging speeches (though I couldn't understand a word). We also could hear the cw code from ships at sea & since my father still had the radio operable in the mid 50s, while I was on leave from the Ft. Jackson, Army radio school, I remember 'copying' some of it, to prove to my father that I'd actually learned a new skill while serving in the Army ! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:24:51 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Shoes Ric wrote: >it's still a remarkable coincidence and worthy of being > regarded as a clue that we're on the right track. There IS one other scenario that nobody has thought of and might fit the picture. There was that funny film, titled "THE GODS MUST BE MAD". It was about a pilot flying in a Cessna of whatever over Africa and drinking a coke. When the bottle was empty he simply threw it out of the window. It was found by a black fellow in the bush. There was a tribal fight over its possession until the village's wise man decided that something lost by the gods had to be given back to them and travelled all the way to South Africa where he believed the gods lived, discovering white civilization and its funny sides. With all the new theories about the shoe parts I'm beginning to believe that perhaps it was the gods who threw out a pair of women's shoes just like Amelia's over Niku ? My point is : why can't we decide that the shoe parts found are indeed AE's ? There are so many indications on Niku pointing that way and there are so many incredible theories trying to disprove this that I feel TIGHAR is in the position of knowing the Earth is round but is waiting for sombody like Christopher Columbus to come along and prove it. *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a pretty good description of our problem, except that we have to be our own Columbus. We can decide anything we want to but until it is "proven" it's still a matter of opinion. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:47:53 EST From: Jeff Subject: Re: Shoes & Gods Although just trivial-the name of the movie was, "The Gods must be crazy", and the movie was. Jeff # 748C *************************************************************************** From Ric Dead Thread Alert. Great little flick, but totally off-topic. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:49:28 EST From: Denise Subject: Our priests and your priests Uummm, sorry guys. You are talking about the American Pacific. I am talking about the British Pacific. Our guys didn't like your guys, and your guys didn't like our guys ... and thus the lines in every area of life were drawn and those boundaries weren't crossed over very often at all. Think of it as something very like a Cold War-type Situation! Furthermore, like trade routes, priest routes were very well established. Ours priests were our priests; yours were yours. Even if they came from the same place originally, if they chose different priest-paths I doubt they often met at all ... and when they did it was back home ... and not in our Pacific territorial waters! So don't give me Priests in the Carolinas as if something is proved here! Pshaw! He'd be one of yours! He wouldn't have come near our Pacific. So, let's make that a guideline for future priest-references. Ours are ours, yours are yours ... and never the twain did meet! (oh, except in the Columban Fathers ... who our guys took in because your guys didn't know what to do with an outlawed-by-China Order) LTM (who also called it "a TOM-AH-TO") Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:54:26 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: The Shoes, Details There is a lot of information flying around the Forum in regards to the shoes TIGHAR found on Niku in 1991. Some of it is good information but some of it is coming from folks who are not well versed in the subject. As an example, I had to point out last week, that it is incorrect to call the shoe(s) "American made". There is no proof that the shoe itself was made in America. Only the replacement heel can be so labeled. Lets look at some other things that the Forum has been bantering around as fact when indeed some of it is not that clear cut. Please note the following references: 1. Letter dated 13 February 1992 from Robert F. Foshage, Jr., Biltrite Corp, (Cat's Paw) to Richard Gillespie, TIGHAR. 2. TIGHAR Tracks, Sept. 30, 1996, Vol 12, No. 2/3. All interested readers need to begin by reading Reference No. 2. Some have implied that it does not make sense for the Cat's Paw heel to be sold in the Gardner Island store. That is probably true but it misses the point. How and when the replacement heel got on that particular shoe does not preclude the fact that shoes were sold in the store for an as yet undetermined length of time. Perhaps those shoes were sandles or flip-flops, perhaps not. Some research might identify the types of shoes On Chong supplied and lay the issue to rest. It was pointed out that shoes are not a priority in the Pacific. I agree. But the fact is shoes were a priority to someone given that fact that the store sold them. As someone pointed out....I like to dot my i's and cross my t's. Note that Reference No. 1 and 2 state (quoting Ref. No. 1) [The replacement heel] "could be from a large size women's shoe or used in Men's shoes". As such, it cannot be conclusively proved that the replacement heel (22G7/1) went with the oxford sole (22G7/2) [nails hole patterns can be predictable]. The Wombat wrote: >So far I see nothing in Denise's posting to show that the shoe might not >have come from the Norwich City. Ric replied: >Try this. According to the manufacturer, the heel was produced in a mold >that was not used until the mid-1930s. Norwich City went aground in 1929. Biltrite's statement on this in Reference No. 1 seems somewhat offhanded/casual. Quoting Ref. No. 1. "...the heel is a Cat's Paw heel but since the production dates are missing, we cannot pinpoint an exact year. Because of [the] type of molds [used], we'd say it was produced somewhere in the mid-thirties". That is a bit casual for an i-dotter/t-crosser. I would like to see their backup computations on this point. 1929 is awful close to the mid-thirties for my "casual" taste. Switching subjects now to the shoes that Gallagher found in 1940. The Wombat went on to point out that there is no mention of a heel in Gallagher's description of the shoes he found. That is true but Gallagher leaves out a lot of information. Note also that Gallagher does not say how he determined that it was a woman's shoe given that he only had basically the sole. My educated speculation on that matter is that he determined the gender by the height of the heel. Given that he had the durable sole he probably had the even tougher heel parts. A taller heel would indicate a woman's shoe vs. a man's shoe. I base this speculation on an anecdote that Fred Goerner collected on Tarawa in 1968. Some natives he interviewed related a story about a "woman's high-heeled shoe" being found on Gardner (they did not recall any skeletons). High-heeled could mean either cocktail dress-type-shoes or more likely the typically taller, broader type heels you see on some woman's shoes. Note that Reference No. 2 implies a comparison between the size of the 1991 shoe (women's US size 9 narrow) vs. the size of the shoe reported by Kilts (size 9 narrow) (Gallagher said size 10). This gets a bit complicated when you factor in that the Kilts and Gallagher references are most likely in the British system as opposed to Ref. No. 2's use of the US system. I have done my own research into a comparison of the Brit system vs the US system. I'd be interested in seeing someone else on the Forum confirm my findings (indepedently). The Brit vs American size issue needs to be resolved before we start comparing what Gallagher/Steenson said vs what TIGHAR found in 1991. The Wombat went on to say: >.......the original shoe parts (in reference to which I saw no reference to >a replacement heel) almost had to come from the N.C. or Earhart. The >likelihood of another woman being down there lying under a Ren tree is just >too far out. To which Ric replied: >I'd be interested to know how a woman's shoe could reasonably be attributed >to the Norwich City. This becomes a problem of applying our Western based thinking and cultural experiences to the unknown habits and fashion preferences of another culture; in this case the missing Arab sailors from the Norwich City. If we were talking about a wrecked US Navy ship, for example, indeed it would almost be impossible that in 1929 the ship would have had sailors associated with women's-type shoes or shoes that looked feminine. I offer the following speculation and anecdotes related to this. From Janet Powell, whose Great-uncle was the master on the Norwich City and whose father has experience in the world of ships and sailing: > He (Janet's father) is quite sure that the 'Arab firemen' would > likely have originated from Aden or the immediate area. I've heard these > men described as 1st class crew members, - hard workers who did not drink. > Short in stature, poorly paid and consequently often dressed in 'cast off' > clothing of others. (This may lead one to speculate that heavy women's > clothing, shoes and boots may well have been worn by some, being more > suited to their stature.) From a personal experience, I had some Arab roommates when I was in college. Their mode of dress was much different from the American kids. While we wore blue jeans and teeshirts they tended to wear dress slacks and silk shirts. In particular I remember the odd thin soled pointed leather dress shoes that they liked to wear (rarely tennis shoes). They also tended to wear a pointed shoe that had a high heel, like the "Disco shoes" from the 1970's. If you saw one of these shoes laying around somewhere they appeared somewhat feminine (although stoutish). Not at all masculine looking like a typical man's dress shoe. Someone might dig up John Travolta someday in those high-heeled disco shoes he wore. If you have never seen those on men (say you were born in 1990), and low heeled men's shoes are your point of reference, you might wonder what he was doing wearing a shoe with a heel height which, from your cultural experience, is a women's style. In my opinion, it is dangerous to apply our western cultural backgronds to an analysis of what kind of shoes the Arab's were wearing. And yes, a surviving Arab, in unknown physical conditon, who is washed into the lagoon, could have gone undetected on the island. It is a big place that is difficult to move around on. Of course the shoes Gallagher found could also have come from Amelia and Fred. No argument there. But the entire context of the island is somewhat noisy. Gotta go, LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric This is an interesting exercise and brings into focus the whole problem of deciding what can and can not be accepted as fact. If we make our standard rigorous enough, almost nothing can survive as "fact." Let's pick an extreme example. Because it has "Cat's Paw Rubber Co. USA" stamped into it, it is tempting to accept as fact that the heel is American - but is it? Might there have been a market for counterfeit Cat's Paw heels that were really made in Japan? A ridiculous reach? In 1989 we dug a cigarette lighter from the sand that was quickly identified as a Ronson "Whirlwind" until an expert established that it was really an early 1930s Japanese knock-off in direct violation of Ronson's patent. The shoe sole found within a few centimeters of the heel has nail holes that exactly match those in the heel but, as you point out, nail hole patterns can be predictable and saying that the heel was once attached to the sole beside it is speculation. For what it's worth, the nail holes of the other heel found several meters away do not fit the sole found near the first heel. For that matter, the sole was fragmented into at least a dozen pieces and any judgement we made about its size was based upon our rough jigsaw puzzle re-assembly of the sole - but it is pure speculation to say that a bunch of sole pieces laying within a few centimeters of each other are all from the same sole. Maybe we're assembling a complete fiction out of what is really a random assortment of unrelated shoe trash. That seems to be no less speculative a hypothesis than that the 2 shilling shoes in the Gardner Co-Op were like the shoes Amelia wore or that an Arab in such shoes survived the Norwich City disaster. These and other scenarios certainly exist but what seems to me to be the most reasonable theory about the shoe parts TIGHAR found is that they are what they appear to be. Your speculation about the height of the heel being the feature that convinced Gallagher that "The shoe was a woman's..." is interesting and I understand that you're trying to tie it in with the story Goerner heard but it doesn't seem to mesh well with Gallagher's October 6, 1940 comment that "Only part of sole remains....Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal." No mention of a heel of any sort. When is the last time you saw a heavy sandal with a high heel? If we take Gallagher at his word, all he has (at this point at least) is part of the sole and he can't even be sure whether it was a shoe or a sandal. He is, however, quite sure that its a woman's sole. How can he know that? This brings us to the size issue. He says it is "probably a size 10." I think we can be pretty sure that he's not reading a size off the sole or he wouldn't use the qualifier "probably." It seems apparent that he's basing his opinion on the apparent dimensions of what ever portion of the sole he has to look at. It also seems reasonable (as you point out) to assume that he is referencing the British shoe sizing system. Today, unlike the American system, the British make no distinction between men's and women's shoe sizes. Current shoe size conversion charts http://www.exxotic-imports.com/size.htm http://www.Icon-net.co.uk/torture/shoesize.htm indicate that the British size 10 is 31 cm long which is equivalent to an American Men's size 10 or an American Women's size 12. This agrees within 1 mm with physical measurements I've made of both British and American modern shoes. I have no information about what the respective sizes were in 1940. The only way I know of to establish whether the sizes have changed since then is to measure shoes known to be from that period with the size still legible. I have not had that opportunity. The speculatively re-assembled sole length of the fragments TIGHAR found in 1991 was 27.7 cm. The length of Earhart's shoe in the photo where she is standing on the wing of the airplane has been measured at 27.8 cm. These are closest (at 28 cm) to a modern British size 7, a modern Amercan Men's size 7, or a modern American Women's size 9. I'll make the following observations and guesses: Gallagher's size estimate was based upon "only a part of (the) sole" and was, by definition, speculative. Steenson's later observation that parts of both a man's shoe and a woman's shoe were present mean that a) either more shoe parts were found after Galagher's initial report or b) Gallagher mistook parts from two shoes for parts of one shoe, thus inflating the apparent size. Either way, I don't see a reason to discount the shoe Gallagher found as possibly being Earhart's based upon Gallagher's estimate of the size. Kilt's later spoke of "Women's shoes. American kind. Size nine narrow." I don't think we have enough information to say whether he was referencing the British or American sizing sytem. My guess is that Gallagher's "sexing" of the sole was based upon its width. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:25:58 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details >Ric wrote... > >In 1989 we dug a > cigarette lighter from the sand that was quickly identified as a Ronson > "Whirlwind" until an expert established that it was really an early 1930s > Japanese knock-off in direct violation of Ronson's patent. If it was dug up on Niku I bet it caused some excitement for a few minutes, with Fred being a continual smoker and all... Fred's Parker pen, Ronson? cigarette lighter and Pioneer octant (and his sextant) would all make interesting finds. (Along with that strange flat bottle or flask of Amelia's). Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric What it caused was a huge argument about whether or not it was significant. We still don't know. Those Japanese knock-offs were widely marketed in the U.S. in the early '30s. Fred could have owned one, but so could a lot of other people who visited the island. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:40:05 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Shoes, Good evidence Ric wrote: >Certainly it's possible to invent a scenario that would place such a shoe on >the island without it being Earhart's..........it's still a remarkable >coincidence and worthy of being regarded as a clue that we're on the right >track. Marty wrote: >They [the shoes] fit too well with other pieces of evidence (navigation >arguments, bones...etc.)The missionary stories do show why the Catspaw heel >is not the McGuffin--people who want to >doubt its evidentiary value can do so without being 'unscientific.' Thank you to Ric and Marty for boiling the shoe issue down to its basic components. As Ric points out, the shoe that TIGHAR found in 1991 is very much like the shoes Earhart is pictured wearing. Certainly a remarkable clue and one which I respect. As Marty points out, the shoe(s) (although he references the heel?) cannot prove what happened to Earhart (not a McGuffin). No one wants to look beyond the tips of their shoes on this so I guess I will kick off my shoes and tip my hand (sorry!). My goal is to glean more information from the available evidence about the EVENTS surrounding the shoes and in the end hopefully learn more about the local and regional enviroment they were found it. I have been down this road before while looking for info on the New Zealand survey crew I ended up in Hanslope, England with a forensics report. Who would have guessed that? Investigating the shoe issues turn could lead us to learn more about trade/delivery routes in the region. If the bones indeed traveled to Australia, how did they get there? For example, what ships traveled between Fiji and Australia? We know On Chong's ships ran that route. Did those ships also carry parcels/mail? Perhaps manifest records exist? Perhaps there is a forensics report in Hanslope, England? Nah.....sounds too far out to me. Writing Hanslope would be a waste of time. I will take this opportunity to review a question I asked in my last post. Do the size of the shoes Gallagher found (approx British size 10, Kilts size 9 is anecdotal) match the size of the shoes TIGHAR found (US size 9)? Regardless of whether or not Gallagher used the British women's system or the British Men's system, the shoes he found would appear to be too big for Earhart. Or was the British shoe size system different in 1940 than today? The shoe TIGHAR found, on the other hand, is a good match for Earhart. You could conclude that Gallagher found a skeleton that was not related to the Earhart flight while TIGHAR found Earhart's shoe but not her bones? I am suggesting that the picture requires a bit more paint while others are happy with the existing portrait. LTM Kenton Spading p.s. Some intitial shoe inquiries has led me to a report of an airplane wreck on an island in the region. Details hopefully to follow. You don't get these kinds of leads resting on your laurels, admiring a painted picture and watching Oprah. *************************************************************************** From Ric In my earlier posting I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to answer your question about British shoe sizes and Gallagher's estimate. Here's what I said: "This brings us to the size issue. He says it is "probably a size 10." I think we can be pretty sure that he's not reading a size off the sole or he wouldn't use the qualifier "probably." It seems apparent that he's basing his opinion on the apparent dimensions of what ever portion of the sole he has to look at. It also seems reasonable (as you point out) to assume that he is referencing the British shoe sizing system. Today, unlike the American system, the British make no distinction between men's and women's shoe sizes. Current shoe size conversion charts http://www.exxotic-imports.com/size.htm http://www.Icon-net.co.uk/torture/shoesize.htm indicate that the British size 10 is 31 cm long which is equivalent to an American Men's size 10 or an American Women's size 12. This agrees within 1 mm with physical measurements I've made of both British and American modern shoes. I have no information about what the respective sizes were in 1940. The only way I know of to establish whether the sizes have changed since then is to measure shoes known to be from that period with the size still legible. I have not had that opportunity. The speculatively re-assembled sole length of the fragments TIGHAR found in 1991 was 27.7 cm. The length of Earhart's shoe in the photo where she is standing on the wing of the airplane has been measured at 27.8 cm. These are closest (at 28 cm) to a modern British size 7, a modern Amercan Men's size 7, or a modern American Women's size 9. I'll make the following observations and guesses: Gallagher's size estimate was based upon "only a part of (the) sole" and was, by definition, speculative. Steenson's later observation that parts of both a man's shoe and a woman's shoe were present mean that a) either more shoe parts were found after Galagher's initial report or b) Gallagher mistook parts from two shoes for parts of one shoe, thus inflating the apparent size. Either way, I don't see a reason to discount the shoe Gallagher found as possibly being Earhart's based upon Gallagher's estimate of the size. Kilt's later spoke of "Women's shoes. American kind. Size nine narrow." I don't think we have enough information to say whether he was referencing the British or American sizing sytem. My guess is that Gallagher's "sexing" of the sole was based upon its width." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:27:21 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Custom Shoes? I once saw an article that stated that Amelia Earhart was one of the best dressed women in the United States in the 1930's. Even her casual clothes look tailored...not bought in a department store. Her shoes look custom made (it appears she wore a size 6 or 6 1/2 - U.S. woman's size). Perhaps TIGHAR could investigate to determine who made AE's clothes and shoes. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric Go for it Janet. I'd love to know. I'd also be interested to know your source for Amelia's shoe size and hear your explanation for why she was wearing 27.8 cm (American woman's size 9) shoes on or about June 22, 1937 as shown in the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:47:29 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: What Fred owned Ric wrote: > What it caused was a huge argument about whether or not it was significant. > We still don't know. Those Japanese knock-offs were widely marketed in the > U.S. in the early '30s. Fred could have owned one, but so could a lot of > other people who visited the island. Did Fred have a distinctive way of marking his property? My books tend to have my intials in the front cover and on the last page of the index, if they're hard to replace reference books, for example. My father, a dozen years younger than FN, would place his business card in his hat, his binocukar case and the like. Yeah, this is grasping at a straw that may not be there. Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric I've never heard of Fred using any system of marking his property (other than four digit numbers beginning with 35 ) but there is one photo of him (in Lae I think) where it looks like he is striking a match to light a cigarette. The lighter originally had a leather cover which was long gone when we found it. There are no markings in the metal that might be a personal identification mark. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:00:04 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details > From Ric > > What it caused was a huge argument about whether or not it was significant. > We still don't know. Those Japanese knock-offs were widely marketed in the > U.S. in the early '30s. Fred could have owned one, but so could a lot of > other people who visited the island. Maybe "Helen" knew if he owned one. She seems to have been his closest confidant during the flight (receiving letters from him up to 7 pages long). Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I take it you're referring to Helen Day Bible mentioned in Butler's biography. Butler says that she "tracked down Helen Day Bible" but she doesn't say where. Butler won't talk to TIGHAR but maybe someone less tainted could find out if Ms. Bible is still alive and, more to the point, get access to those letters. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:08:26 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shoes, Good evidence > Marty wrote: > They [the shoes] fit too well with other pieces of evidence (navigation > arguments, bones...etc.)The missionary stories do show why the Catspaw heel > is not the McGuffin--people who want to > doubt its evidentiary value can do so without being 'unscientific.' We seem to sometimes forget the really weird pieces of information that tie all this together. Taken on its own, a skeleton with an apparently "female" shoe is odd enough at that time AND place. The likelihood of any female apparel being found on Gardner in Gallagher's early days is small. Add to that a SEXTANT box! It has never just been about the shoe. Two things we KNOW earhart had access to were Shoes AND a Sextant Box. We don't know she drank Benedictine, however, it would not be any surprise if she or Fred picked up a bottle in their travels - it isn't like ordinary booze. But we do know she wore shoes, and we do know there was a sextant on board. That's why I have previously brought up the question of the Norwich City's sextant, and the possibility of the shoes coming from there, far fetched as it may be. If we discount the possibility of the remains having been one of the sailors who survived the wreck ( weren't there a couple missing?) and was not able to find his comrades before the rescue, then we're really not left with too many other possibilities. Unlike the British doctor that examined the bones I still can't see an "Elderly Polynesian Male" 1/. Dying of thirst or starvation where there were coconuts/ crabs /fish /turtles /fire. 2/. Having a sextant box. 3/. Having a Benedictine bottle. 4/. Having shoes of any sort, but especially ones that appeared to have a female size sole. On the other hand I can picture Fred and/or Amelia 1/. having a Sextant box (if it washed ashore) to carry odd bits in. (More a European habit than a Polynesian one I suspect). 2/. Carrying drinking water in a Benedictine bottle or even posessing a Benedictine bottle. 3/. Dying of thirst because the only coconuts they had ever tried to open were the little brown things we see in shops that can be opened with a hammer or rock (unlike coconuts in their natural state. A couple of thoughts here: Q/. Why a sextant box and no sextant? A/. Because fred was using it not long before the landing / crash landing and being wooden it may have floated out. If the sextant had been in it, there's no way it could have floated. Also, every sextant I have EVER seen has been in its original box! I wonder how many "second hand sextant boxes" there are in the world. (Yeah, well the sextant was kinda old, so we chucked it away and kept the box to carry trinkets in...) Q/. Why no other odds and ends from the plane (flares etc.)? A/. Because the plane broke up/washed off the reef/sank more suddenly than expected and they had to swim for their lives. Q/. How did they have a Benedictine bottle? A/. I think Ric has a Benedictine bottle - which should be about empty by now What happens when you put an empty Benedictine bottle in the water 1/. With the top stoppered. 2/. With the top uncorked... How well does it float? How easy is it to sink it? Remember the "old" coke bottles? they sink almost immediately, while a beer bottle will float for days in rough water. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric You've dug up a whole cemetery of dead horses and you're misremembering a number of details. Do we really really need to go throgh this again? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:33:57 EST From: Terry Ann Linley Subject: Re: Custom Shoes? <> It seems to me that this topic was discussed a LONG time ago, and someone pointed out that Amelia was likely wearing shoes several sizes larger than her regular size to accomodate extra pairs of socks on the World Flight -- in the interest, of course, of keeping her feet warm. I wonder if the Purdue Collection contains any receipts for personal items (like shoes) Amelia may have purchased??? Just a thought. LTM (who may have been a pack-rat, too!) Terry *************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I've seen, but I can't claim to have examined every scrap of paper in the entire collection. I have, however, looked at everything associated with the World Flight attempts. The whole controversy over Amelia's shoe size has always astounded me. Tom Crouch, chairman of the Aeronautics Department at NASM, seems to be the most vocal proponent of the notion that Earhart had tiny feet. As evidence he cites a pair of size 6 1/2 dancing slippers in a Kansas museum and a statement by Amelia's sister that AE had small feet. TIGHAR has a pair French-made dress shoes that Amelia bought in Ireland in 1932 and which she subsequently gave to a friend because they hurt her feet. The shoes are about a modern American Women's size 7 and are very narrow. Below is an excerpt from an Octoer 1998 email from Dr. Richard Jantz to me on the subject of foot size. Dr. Jantz is one of the world's leading forensic anthrolplogists and helped us with our evaluation of the Hoodless bone measurements. *********************** Ric, I had no idea that shoe/foot size was such a contentious issue in all of this. It is possible to turn it around and estimate foot size from stature. The correlation between foot size and stature is not great, but it is good enough to narrow the range. As a preliminary attempt along these lines I took the female military data on stature, foot length and their correlation to estimate foot size from Earhart's stature. The military data are not the best since they contain the various ethnicities in the U.S. Like the U.S. however, they will be predominately white. It may be possible to find more appropriate data, but it would take some looking and the military data are at hand. I get the following: Earhart's ht. Estimated foot length 5'8" (172.7cm) 25.7 +/- 0.903 5'7" (170.2cm) 25.4 +/- 0.903 The 95 % confidential intervals for these two estimates are 23.9-27.5 and 23.6-27.2. The estimates seem to be right in line with your measurement of shoe size from the photograph. I don't know off hand what length foot would fit in a 27.5 cm. shoe, but a foot at ca. 25.5 cm. would seem to me to fit fine. I hope this helps. ******************************* In other words, if AE's feet were in "normal" proportion to her height (as they certainly appear to be in all the photos) they were the size we say they were. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:34:52 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: What Fred owned We also subsequently recovered another cigarette lighter from a site in the village (in 1997), so these things certainly weren't unknown to the villagers. Very likely Coast Guard trade items, I'll bet. LTM (who doesn't smoke) TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:40:01 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Shoes I looked at a bunch of photos of AE wearing various types of shoes. With the exception of the casual shoes she wore with her casual flying clothes they seem to be a size 6 or 6 1/2 U.S. women's size. If (as I suspect) AE's clothes and shoes were custom made they might or might not conform to "shoe store" and "department store" standards. Janet Whitney (who would wear size 7 1/2 U.S. womens' clothes if I could buy them off the rack) ************************************************************************* From Ric You "looked at a bunch of photos" and "they seem to be a size 6 or 6 1/2 U.S. women's size"? That's pretty sophisticated photogrammetry. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:59:53 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Shoes For Janet Whitney: Janet, I believe you mentioned that Earhart did a lot of fashion shoots for Vogue Magazine. They are still around, and perhaps have an archival record on clothes provided for Earhart that might give valuable leads on shoe sizes,etc. I also saw some photos that Edward Steichen took of her, and he left a sizeable estate that may have similar leads you could check out. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:03:14 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details Let's be careful with that lighter ! It's dangerous and it doesn't prove anything ! Anyone could have owned a Ronson lighter and lost it on the island. Even if it looks like a '30s model. I happen to own a very old lighter, one which made from a bullet casing and other military bits by soldiers in the trenches of WW I. That does not prove that : 1. I was a soldier in WW I (I wasn't) 2. I fought in the trenches of Flanders Fields (I didn't) 3. British soldiers with time on their hands stayed in my house or around anytime between 1914 and 1918 (they didn't, the Germans did but they didn't make lighters) 4. I am a heavy smoker who uses a lighter to light up (I am a non smoker, I gave up smoking 21 years ago and never regretted it). Suppose I went for a walk and lost my historic lighter somewhere around my house. 1. Would anthropologists, in say 2050, come to the conclusion that in WW I a battle was fought around my house ? 2. That British soldiers were involved 3. Because one lost his DIY lighter ? 4. And if no battle was fought here, could he have lost his lighter as a POW ? In fact I bought the lighter when in England four years ago. I bought it at the Duxford air show where they sell all kinds of militaria. I bought it because I found it unusual. These things are being manufactured by the thousands in Hongkong these days and sold to tourists like me. . Chances are that the lighter found on Niku may simply have been dropped by any passer-by anytime after the Thirties. Probably by a US soldier who bought it in the US. I see no proof in its finding that Fred Noonan lost it or that he has even been around. By the way, did he use lighters ? Maybe he used matches ? Would he have smoked in an aircraft in which extra tanks were put in the narrow cabin to hold more fuel ? What do we know about his smoking habits anyway ? LTM (who wonders what will happen if Niku IIII by any chance finds an empty pack of Lucky Strike in the bush) *************************************************************************** From Ric Herman, nobody has claimed or has even suggested claiming that the lighter belonged to Fred Noonan. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:14:14 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: Gallagher's shoes re shoe sizes. If I want to estimate the size of a shoe, I just hold it up against another, sole to sole. What size shoe did Gallagher wear? PMB #0856C. ************************************************************************** From Ric We don't know, but you can bet that it was bigger than a modern British size 10 (which is the same as an American men's size 10). I'm 5 feet 11 inches tall and I wear an American Men's size 11. Gallagher was exceptionally tall, although we don't know precisley how tall. Six feet four inches at least judging from photos of Gallagher and Bevington together. (Eric is a couple of inches taller than I am and Irish was considerably taller than him.) We recovered the one-piece sole of a heavy work boot from the site of Gallagher's house in 1991. No way of knowing whether it was Gallaghers or not, but it's huge. At least a size 13. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:52:30 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Gallagher's shoes I'm 6'1.5" tall, and wear a 10 1/2 A shoe. When I joined the Navy, they promptly issued me 9D shoes. So much for military statistical guide lines. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Statistical guidelines are just that - guidelines based upon statistical averages. You don't have average feet. Maybe Amelia didn't have average feet either. All we can tell from the statistical guidelines is that it would not have been at all unusual for her to have feet of the size indicated in the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:10:18 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: The Shoes, Good Evidence Thank you to Ric for his learned response to my shoe posting. I agree that this is an interesting exercise. It is a good idea to revaluate evidence from time-to-time as various parts of the investigation mature. I have a few things to add to Ric's response. Ric wrote: >These and other scenarios certainly exist but what seems to me to >be the most reasonable theory about the shoe parts TIGHAR found is that they >are what they appear to be. I agree that the 1991 shoes provide the basis for a reasonable theory. I respect the 1991 shoes parts and the replacement heel as an extraordinary Earhart related coincident and a interesting piece of evidence. I appreciate the effort (from both Ric and Biltrite) that was made to ID the artifacts. I believe that a healthy debate on the shoe issue may be fruitful given the important role that the shoes play in both TIGHAR's discoveries (may indicate a bones/camp site), Gallagher's dicovery (whose bones did he find), Kilt's story (how good is Kilts size?) and Goerner's interviews (shoe/bone anecdotes so far have led to facts/truth). >....I understand that you're trying to tie it [the heel height] in with the >story Goerner heard but it doesn't seem to mesh well with Gallagher's >October 6, 1940 comment that "Only part of sole remains....Appears to have been >stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal." No mention of a heel of any sort. I am assuming that Gallagher's/Fiji's list of artifacts is not exhaustive. I am being cautious here due to the fact that Gallagher is known to have not mentioned all the artifacts that were found. He does not mention the corks with brass chains. He does not recognize (or mention?) that there appear to be both men's and women's shoe parts. The benedictine bottle mysteriously disappears and he mentions the lost inverting eye piece only when pressed for details. Some addition bones also materialize. Some of this can be attributed to a later, undocumented search, but it certainly leaves some room for a heel, perhaps still attached to a sole, to be described with the single word "sole" or even a loose sole. >When is the last time you saw a heavy sandal with a high heel? It is hard for me to answer that due to the limited scope of my experience with shoe styles and fashion preferences worldwide. When you throw the historical context into the equation and the fact that a subculture (the lost Arab sailors) is invovled, it gets even more complicated. I am cautious about projecting my personal experiences onto, what is for me, a mostly unkown population operating in a portion of the world far removed from me (hello Denise) during a period well before I was born. Perhaps that is being picky but i-dotters and t-crossers wonder about these types of things. >This brings us to the size issue. He says it is "probably a size 10." I >think we can be pretty sure that he's not reading a size off the sole or he >wouldn't use the qualifier "probably." It seems apparent that he's basing >his opinion on the apparent dimensions of what ever portion of the sole he >has to look at. Good point. This brings us back to the shoes in the Gardner Island store. It is apparent from the correspondence that Gallagher is taking the whole matter seriously. He apparently has some feeling for scientific methods as He uses his medical training to describe the bones in some detail using medical terminology. There is even a speculative suggestion (TIGHAR hypothsis) that he sets up a search camp and camps/lives at the site. This guy is into it. So, when he gets back to the village with the various shoe parts, how does he come up with the size 10 estimate? Clearly he is a smart guy so undoubtably he could use his own shoes as a measuring stick. But he is a big guy who likely has big feet which makes it hard to do the extrapolation. But he can do better than that. He has 10 pairs of shoes in the Coop store. I am speculating that he was smart enough to think of using the store's shoes to help with the measurement. Of course the word "probably" still applies due to the deteriorated condition and apparent missing pieces." It sure would be nice to know more about the types of shoes On Chong was suppling to Gallagher which may give us insights into Gallagher's sizing method. >It also seems reasonable (as you point out) to assume that >he is referencing the British shoe sizing system. >Today, unlike the American system, the British make no distinction between >men's and women's shoe sizes. Current shoe size conversion charts >http://www.exxotic-imports.com/size.htm >http://www.Icon-net.co.uk/torture/shoesize.htm Wow!! That trip was interesting!. WWW.exxotic-imports.com does not exist and www.exotic.com sells Lamborghini cars. WWW.Icon-net.co.uk deals in expensive call-girls and sells see-through, glow-in-the-dark bras. Did Gallagher find some auto and bra parts that I am not aware of or is this a mid-life crisis? Just kidding!! Your research does not match with mine. Lets see if we can sort his out. I did not do an exhaustive research of the British shoe size system. However, knowing that Dr. Marten brand shoes can only be ordered in British sizes (made in the UK?) I looked for them. Go to: http://store/nordstrom.com (no www needed) click on "shoes", then click on "women's", then on the left menu choose Dr. Marten from the list. You will be taken to a place where you can choose a table to convert either US men's to UK mens's or US women's to UK women's. These tables indicate that the British men and women's sizing system.... DOES make a distinction between men's and women's. Am I missing something here? (hello UK/Aus members?). The Doctor claims that UK men's size 10 is a US size 11 to 11.5. A UK womens's size 10 is a US size 12 to 12.5. >I have no information about what the respective sizes were in 1940. >The only way I know of to establish whether the sizes have changed since then >is to measure shoes known to be from that period with the size still legible. >I have not had that opportunity. Good point. Some research into the shoe sizing system in 1940 would provide the best analysis. Some information concerning On Chong's shoes (from maybe a catalog?) would help with this as it would incorparate the regional as well as the correct timeframe influence. >....I don't see a reason to discount the shoe Gallagher found as >possibly being Earhart's based upon Gallagher's estimate of the size. I agree that at the present (and perhaps forever), given that Gallagher had a shoe that was in bad shape, that his size estimate is plus or minus a reasonable increment. But lets try to get to the bottom of the British shoe sizing system (in 1940 if possible) and at least be better educated on the subject than we now apparently are. My first stab at it seems to put Gallagher's shoe in the larger than reasonably expected category. Can the British members help us here? Is there a shoe museum in the Britain? Who can help us here? >Kilt's later spoke of "Women's shoes. American kind. Size nine narrow." I >don't think we have enough information to say whether he was referencing the >British or American sizing sytem. You bring up an interesting point here. The Kilt's anecdote (size 9N) is, of course, secondary to Gallagher and as such suspect. Perhaps the Brits in Fiji concluded it was an American shoe and sent an American size figure back to Gardner (thru MacPherson or Gallagher in Sept 1940) which then got passed onto Kilts? But I am strongly leaning toward Kilt's number, for what the No, is worth, being a British number as I have a hard time getting the American number into the anecdote. The description of it being an American shoe certainly complicates the matter. >My guess is that Gallagher's "sexing" of the sole was based upon its width. And my guess is that it was based on a "high heel" that was still attached to the sole or maybe loose. In support of that speculation I have a piece of supporting anecdote. >In my earlier posting I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to answer your >question about British shoe sizes and Gallagher's estimate. Here's what I >said: {goes on to repeat previous message} I apologize for asking basically the same question in my next post. I should not have done that but in an effort at casual speech it came out again. Remember that some of us get the postings as a Digest. As such I had no way to see your first reply and as such was not ignoring you. All of this came to me in one Digest. LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry about the bad URLs. I was copying them off size conversion charts I had printed out a couple years ago. I'm sure there are similar conversion charts currently on the web. This issue of British shoe sizes shouldn't be hard to nail down. The question of how sizes may have changed since 1940 could be trickier. Your speculation about Gallagher making comparisons with shoes in the Co-Op Store is interesting. Whether or not he did that, it does stand to reason that whatever he found on the ground did not resemble the shoes at the store. It would therefore seem logical to conclude that IF the shoes remains that TIGHAR found WERE just like ones in the store then they were NOT like the ones Gallagher found. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:11:29 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shoes, Good evidence > From Ric > > You've dug up a whole cemetery of dead horses and you're misremembering a > number of details. Do we really really need to go throgh this again? Nope, bury 'em again.... I only mentioned it because of the emphasis on the shoes. The memory thing I'm stuck with at the moment.. (makes me mix things in together a bit). Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:21:15 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Custom Shoes? I've just been through about 30 or so photos where Amelia's shoes are shown pretty clearly. During the flight it is possible to identify three distinctly different pairs of shoes on her feet. In the photos taken in 1936(ish) there is also what appears to be either another pair - or one of the pairs she wears on the flight when they were new. For anyone who has illusions of an Amelia with dainty feet, pop into the Purdue site and look at XII_B_1_bTHUM.jpg This is a shot of Amelia's shoes from underneath. Believe me there's nothing small or narrow about her clodhoppers. While you're there, check out the rugged landing gear (ankles). Interestingly enough, in another of the side views, one pair looks to have a replacement heel - but I guess that's been spotted long ago. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric That's an interesting shot. She's sitting in a 1910 French "Demoiselle". Those are blucher-oxfords with brass eyelets but no sign of a replacement heel. Hard to date the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:30:11 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: What Fred owned > From Ric > > I've never heard of Fred using any system of marking his property (other than > four digit numbers beginning with 35 ) but there is one photo of him (in > Lae I think) where it looks like he is striking a match to light a ciga- > rette. The lighter originally had a leather cover which was long gone when > we found it. There are no markings in the metal that might be a personal > identification mark. If it's the same one I looked at, a closer investigation suggests it might possibly be a cigarette case he's holding ( XI_B_5_d.jpg & XI_B_5_gg.jpg - Purdue Web Collection) if both these items are the same, from different angles. Th' WOMBAT (Who doesn't want to start a wild cigarette lighter chase). *************************************************************************** From Ric Looks like a small box of matches to me. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:31:44 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details > LTM (who wonders what will happen if Niku IIII by any chance finds an empty > pack of Lucky Strike in the bush) Noonan rolled his own smokes. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Source? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:36:58 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: Judging shoe size I didn't mean to imply that Gallagher estimated the shoe size versus his own - merely that he could have estimated the size by comparison with shoes worn by anybody on Niku. There were likely shoes smaller than his around...And I'm as tall as you, but my feet are a size to size-and-a-half smaller than yours. PMB #0856C. *************************************************************************** From Ric Not to belabor the point, but Gallagher was probably the only person on the island who regularly wore shoes. The presence of 10 pair of shoes in the Co-Op Store inventory is culturally surprising and, we speculate, due to the clearing work being done in coral rubble areas. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 12:10:37 EST From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: McGuffin and the Smoking Gun I don't want to get picky or anything, but I'm a little confused by the use of the term "McGuffin" for what was formerly referred to on this forum as "a smoking gun" (SG) or an "any idiot artifact," i.e., a piece of evidence so compelling that a reasonable, informed person will conclude with high confidence that AE made it to Gardner. I believe that, as typically applied to Hitchcock films, a McGuffin (or MacGuffin) is something that triggers the plot, motivating the characters and getting the story rolling. If I recall correctly from my film class, frequently the MacGuffin becomes irrelevant. For example, the film Psycho starts with a secretary embezzling $40,000, which leads her to her fateful encounter at the Bates Hotel. Ultimately the embezzlement is inconsequential --she could have gone to that hotel for any reason, and the outcome would have been the same. The money itself, which seemed so important at first, spends the rest of the movie at the bottom of a swamp after the secretary meets her end early in the film. But I believe Hitchcock would say that the money was the MacGuffin. I don't see how this relates to a SG. If anything, a MacGuffin could be interpreted to mean a *false* SG --something we thought was highly significant and motivating a lot of work, but ultimately meaning nothing. I suppose you could argue that the shoe pieces and Gallagher's telegrams are MacGuffin's for TIGHAR in the sense that they're motivating us to take trips to Niku etc. Whether they are MacGuffins in the "becomes irrelevant" sense remains to be seen. I suppose if the wreckage of AE's Electra washes up on the shores of Howland tomorrow, then they are full-scale MacGuffins, and TIGHAR's real contribution becomes all the fascinating things discovered on the way (e.g., AE's antennae breaking on take-off, Gallagher and PISS, the Wreck of the Norwich City), which are hardly inconsequential. Or perhaps you mean "McGuffin" in a different sense from a different discipline. --M Zuschlag 2386 (Hey! I've got a number!) *************************************************************************** From Ric You're absolutley right. The use of "McGuffin" in this context is erroneous. By coincidence I recently stumbled upon a rebroadcast of an interview with Alfred Hitchcock in which he explained a McGuffin as "the thing all the characters in the film are looking for but the audience doesn't care about." He said the term comes from an old joke about two men on a train. One points to a box on the rack above his companion and says, "What's in the box?" The other man says. "A McGuffin." "What's a McGuffin?" "It's used for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands." "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands." "Then that's no McGuffin!" Go figure. "Smoking gun" is probably the best term and somewhat less inflammatory than "Any Idiot Artifact." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:29:09 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Shoes One issue with surfing the web for shoe-size comparison charts is the web-bias to current or recent information. However, the URL http://www.happywomanmagazine.com/Fictionwriting/Shoes.htm gives an interesting account of the origin of the British shoe size system. If correct, it argues that the system is very stable: "That began to change in 1305. Britain's King Edward I decreed that for a standard of accuracy in certain trades, an inch be taken as the length of three contiguous dried barleycorns. British cobblers adopted the measure and began manufacturing the first footwear in standard sizes. A child's shoe measuring thirteen barleycorns became commonly known as and requested by, size 13. And though shoes cut for the right and left foot had gone out of existence after the fall of the Roman Empire, they reemerged in 14th century England." And "Complete mechanization of shoemaking, and thus true mass production, was slow in coming. In 1892, the Manfield Shoe Companies of Northhampton, England, operated the first machines capable of producing quality shoes in standard sizes and in large quantities" The source given is Charles Panati's "The Browser's Book of Beginnings", available from Amazon (see URL) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/107-5707496-8431705 LTM John Pratt 2373 ************************************************************************** From Ric Wow. If only Longshanks had stuck to standardizing measurments..... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:37:05 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Shoes I have an autographed photo of AE (lucky me) circa 1928. She is wearing her leather helmet, with goggles, and her long leather flight jacket. On her feet are extremely high top leather boots. They are large, she certainly was no Cinderella. But just how large her foot was, you can't tell by the photo. What did Putnam do with Amelia's clothing when he closed/sold his L.A. home? I understand he had several children from his first marriage, would they know? I understand that Sally (Putnam) Chapman is still living. ************************************************************************** From Ric Sally (Putnam) Chapman is TIGHAR #1126L. George Putnam (GP's son) is TIGHAR #0741. A few items of AE's clothing have survived in various collections (Atchison, Purdue, the Smithsonian) but shoes are rare. As previously mentioned, TIGHAR has a pair of French-made dress shoes she purchased in Ireland in 1932 that are about a size 7 narrow. She gave them away because they hurt her feet. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:41:34 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Shoes - On Chong In the matter of the supplier for the Co-op store on Nikumaroro, I may have a thread leading to a collection of material at: Pacific Manuscripts Bureau Coombs Building Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200 Australia Telephone: (612) 6249 2521 Fax: (612) 6249 0198 Email: pambu@coombs.anu.edu.au The thread starts in an article about Butaritari, in the northern Gilberts (and far from Nikumaroro) http://www.wysiwyg.co.nz/kiribati/butari2.html in the History section: 1870-1914 Commercial and trading capital of the Gilberts until Burns-Philp moved south and set themselves up in Tarawa - they followed the seat of political power south. The earliest trading companies were the Hamburg based DPHG with Pacific headquarters in Samoa and On Chong (Chinese traders with Australian connections via the goldfields). 1914-1941 Establishment of the Japanese trading company (Nanyo Boeki Kabushiki Kaisha) in Butaritari Village. Gradual decline of On Chong throught the 1920's with low copra prices. Takeover of On Chong by WR Carpenter based in Rabaul. X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X Although the name "On Chong" may have continued in use, this indicates that far before the PISS the corporate entity was WR Carpenter. X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X There is some evidence of WR Carpenter corporate records surviving the war,: There are postwar stories http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/pambu1.htm#G of a set of corporate records recovered from Tulagi by Tom Elkington, available under PMB 1112, which do not seem to extend past 1932 and are still distant from Nikumaroro. X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/pmbhom9.htm provides: "W R Carpenter (South Pacific) Pty Ltd "Investigations in Suva have failed to locate any archives of this company there. There were indications that some Carpenters records did survive in Sydney, but Devereau Holdings, the Australian successor company, has denied that they hold anything. "Mrs Joan Humphries, the former Burns Philp archivist, made further inquiries with the Carpenter family on behalf of the Bureau. Following Mrs Humphries' approach, Mrs Pepita Carpenter sent the Bureau a copy of an in-house history of the Company written by R. Melrose." IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X The in-house history may (at best) provide a mention of the PISS Co-op. It is unlikely to have specific lists of comodities provided. Anything else seems a long shot, but the PMB listing suggests additional information: X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X http://www.archivists.org.au/busrec/archives/ABE0049a.htm Pacific Manuscripts Bureau, Australian National University [Repository details] Date Range: 1925 - 1932 Description: * Unpublished manuscript (c.1980s) by Ray Melrose "Camohe" in-house company history from 1860s-1980s. * On microfilm are papers which were retained by an employee of the company - letters and branch reports. * Some material with Dr Judy Bennett (NZ historian), which has been microfilmed. * Ewan Maidment of Pacific Manuscripts believes that there are more surviving records of the company, and is negotiating with its successor, Devereau Holdings for these to be archived. Quantity: 1 reel of microfilm Access: Access through PMB IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI It's not clear, of course, that any of this will have any relevance. It also looks sufficiently complicated that the most effective plan is for a local researcher to wade through the pieces. I'm trying to purchase a copy of the microfilm, but a local person will have consderably more flexibility to investigate this. Therefore it is provided in case an Australian member wants to take a look. Note that this may go beyond the issue of a second source for shoes. Some knowledge of the material culture of the colony may let us identify future artifacts as imported instead of "lost". LTM John Pratt 2373 ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. That's a good start. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:42:44 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Shoes I am reading mid-1930's fashion and other magazines. Providing replacement heels and soles for shoes was a growth industry in the 1930's. In 1937 people simply did not have the money to afford to buy new shoes. They tried to make their shoes last as long as possible. I'm trying to find photos of AE when she is not wearing her flying clothes and flying boots / shoes. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:48:48 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Custom Shoes? Actually, dating the photo is not so hard at all - In XII_B_2_b, AE is in some kind of office wearing exactly the same outfit as she has on in XII_B_1_b, so we can reasonably presume it is part of the same photo-shoot, and there behind her on the wall is a calendar showing April 1936 - well the whole name of the month isn't visible, but it's the only one I know that ends in "L"... While I know gentlemen aren't supposed to comment about a lady's ankles, there's another photo (I don't have the number right off) showing her feet wedged into some kind of semi-high heeled pumps with a strap across the top of her foot, and they (her feet and ankles) look very swollen - or else she's wearing shoes that are REALLY too small. ltm, jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Good show, Watson. Your powers of observation are becoming quite remarkable. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:59:32 EST From: Van Hunn Subject: Re: Shoes, Good evidence In this discussion about the shoes, I may have a different interpretation of what Gallagher found. In telegram #71, he reports among other things...... (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10........ In telegram 66, The Resident Commissioner asks.... (e) In what state of preservation is shoe, (f) If well preserved does it appears to be of modern style or old fashioned,..... In telegram 72, Gallagher responds to the question about preservation as... (e) Only part of sole remains, He responds to the question about shoe style... (f) Appears have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal,..... Some of the forum discussions about the above, seem to indicate that Gallagher found only part of a sole in which he based his estimate of size and possible ownership. It seems me he had the whole shoe(the part of the sole that was missing may be where the Catspaw heal was attached!). LTM, Van ************************************************************************** From Ric I have to disagree. The very first mention Gallagher makes of the shoe is in that same Telegram #71 to the Resident Commissioner in which he says: "Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe, a bottle, and a sextant box. " He then comments on his estimate of the shoe size and gender. It seems quite clear that the Resident Commissioner assumed that an entire shoe had been found but Gallagher corrected him in the second telegram ("Only part of sole remains"). There was similar confusion later about the sextant box which was assumed to contain a sextant. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:02:25 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: McGuffin and the Smoking Gun Fascinating. So I guess we've actually had quite a number of McGuffins along the line -- the Navigator's bookcase, the grave at Aukaraime South, for example. I wonder if some discussion is in order about the whole business of the Smoking Gun. It seems to me that there's a tendency to think that such a gun MUST be found in order to confirm the Niku hypothesis, and that therefore our emphasis must be on finding the bloody thing. But there may not actually be a smoking gun, or we may not be able to find it, but that doesn't mean the hypothesis isn't correct, or that it can't be demonstrated to be correct within some range of probability. An awful lot of archeological projects generate basic consensus about things that happened in the past, based not on specific "Eureka" discoveries, but on the patient accumulation of circumstantial evidence. That's what we've been doing for the last twelve years, and the record isn't too shabby. As Ric put it some time ago in a particularly pithy email that we quote in the forthcoming (yes, it IS forthcoming) book on The Quest: "What are "the chances" that a given island that "happens" to be on the LOP described by Earhart will "happen", three years later, to yield the bones of a castaway which "happen" to appear most similar to those of a woman of Earhart's stature and ethnic background and that a search of the same island will "happen" to produce the remains of a shoe which appears to match Earhart's and aircraft-related artifacts which "happen' to be consistent with the Lockheed Model 10.... Is there a way to quantify this heap of coincidence?" There's not, of course, but the farther we've gone with the project -- even when erroneously encouraged by McGuffin discoveries -- the harder it's become to account for all the variables by any combination of events other than the end of the World Flight on the island. We ought to be careful not to get so hung up on finding smoking guns that we fail to put together all the little pieces of evidence that may cumulatively provide a fairly certain solution to the mystery. LTM (who doesn't smoke and doesn't own a gun) TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:10:19 EST From: Charlie Sivert Subject: Re: "Norwich City" Re-reading Gerry Gallagher's 30 Oct, 2000 statement about the Norwich City brought a question to my mind. Where on the ship would Eric Bevington have seen the name "Norwich City"? If the name was located on the stern, it would have been difficult for Amelia to have seen it, for all diagrams I have seen show the ship and the airplane at right angle to each other. The reason for my inquiry is the possible linking from Betty's notebook of the "New York City" and the "Norwich City". Is it possible that the name was painted on the bow? Charlie Sivert 0269E *************************************************************************** From Ric In the only photo we have of the Norwich City afloat, the name is written in white letters on the black bow just aft of the anchor. Can't tell if it was also on the stern. In the earliest photos we have of the ship aground at Gardner showing that part of the hull (NZ Survey party December 1938) no name is discernable in the photos and the stern is submerged because the ship's back was broken. It may be that the name was there on the hull but very washed out. Perhaps some massaging of the images in Photoshop would pull it up. I'll give it a try. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:11:49 EST From: Ron Dawson Subject: Another World Flight Ric: A trio of 22-year olds (2 from El Paso) are in town this weekend on the last leg of their world flight in a 1957 Aero Commander twin. Interesting fellows. The only deviations from their itinerary were Turkey and Fiji. Turkey because of beaurocratic stuff and Fiji because the situation supposedly is still unsettled. Instead they made Vanatau and Christmas I. They have a nice webswite at www.worldflight2000.com. Isn't Fiji back to semi-normal yet? Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ************************************************************************** From Ric I thought so. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:13:15 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Shoes, Details > Noonan rolled his own smokes. > > Th' WOMBAT > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > Source? I've done it again, haven't I? What I should have said (please accept my apology) is: It "appears" that Noonan "sometimes" rolled his own smokes. A closeup of XI_B_5_d.jpg shows a cigarette that looks a little "uneven" to have been made by a mass production machine. Likewise, a close look at both the smoke in his mouth and the object in his hands in XI_B_5_gg.jpg shows again a slightly uneven shape and what looks like the container he has removed the cigarette from. I don't know how common it is in the US, but I can still walk into a local tobacconist and get a similar tin (sometimes brass) hinged container - plain or decorated - that holds about 10 hand rolled cigarettes until I want to use them. Of course all this is irrelevant as it was just a reply to the "Lucky Strikes on Niku" comment. Also, an interesting point on Fred's smoking. I had the impression he always had a fag in his hand or mouth, but a heck of a lot of pics show him without one. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:24:19 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Custom Shoes? > From Ric > > That's an interesting shot. She's sitting in a 1910 French "Demoiselle". > Those are blucher-oxfords with brass eyelets but no sign of a replacement > heel. Hard to date the photo. I think it may be about April 1936 when some of the other shots that seem to be in the same series were taken. The only difference appears to be the scarf (neckerchief - whatever you want to call it). The rest of the clothing is identical. One shot has a calendar behind her. XI_A_3_c.jpg and XI_B_5_b.jpg both show a lighter bottom of the heel that I at first thought was dust, but seems to be too regular and may indicate a replaced heel. If I remember correctly (I don't have the pictures in front of me) XI_B_16_b.jpg shows the same shoes wiith the heel the same colour all the way down when they were new. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The lighter bottom is there in XI_B_16_b.jpg. It's more evident on the left shoe than on the right. That's the "saying-goodbye" shot taken in Miami just before her departure on the second attempt. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:29:33 EST From: Denise Subject: Am I Missing Something Here? Ric says: "Your speculation about Gallagher making comparisons with shoes in the Co-Op Store is interesting. Whether or not he did that, it does stand to reason that whatever he found on the ground did not resemble the shoes at the store. It would therefore seem logical to conclude that IF the shoes remains that TIGHAR found WERE just like ones in the store then they were NOT like the ones Gallagher found." Didn't Gallagher find the shoes during the earliest part of the setting-up phase, well before the store was up-and-running? LTM (who knows that you don't have stores already set up on desert-islands!) Denise ************************************************************************** The Co-Op Store was set up sometime in 1940 (according to the sign painted over the door). Gallagher arrived on the island to stay in early September and found what he found soon afterward. There is realistically no chance that the part of a shoe sole that Gallagher found with the castaway's bones was from the Co-Op Store. I think Kenton's discussion and speculation centered around the parts of a shoe sole and heels that TIGHAR found in 1991. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:34:33 EST From: Denise Subject: I seem to have missed this as well! Peter Boor says "I didn't mean to imply that Gallagher estimated the shoe size versus his own - merely that he could have estimated the size by comparison with shoes worn by anybody on Niku. There were likely shoes smaller than his around...And I'm as tall as you, but my feet are a size to size-and-a-halfsmaller than yours. PMB #0856C." Nobody else on the island would have been wearing shoes, surely. Didn't Gallagher only have Koarta and a small bunch of Gilbertese workers? LTM (who is amazed that so many people don't seem to grasp the essence of a desert-island!) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric In September 1940, when Gallagher's estimate of shoe size was made, the island population was 58 the vast majority of whom were women and children. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:35:57 EST From: M.C. Subject: Auction of Amelia & Fred photos What do you know about the auction of 1937 Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan photographs? Some are autographed - are they authentic? Only a few days ago we were able to view many Amelia items at Butterfields on Wilshire Blvd. M.C. ************************************************************************* From Ric I have not heard anything about such an auction. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:38:00 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Custom shoes? Ric wrote: > Good show, Watson. Your powers of observation are becoming quite > remarkable. Not at all, Holmes... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:44:06 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Womens High Heeled Shoes and "Swollen Ankles" I've seen many photos of women wearing high heel shoes in the 20's and 30's who *appear* to have swollen ankles. This appearance seems to be the result of the shoes' design, not a tight fit from too-small shoes. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:45:13 EST From: M.C. Subject: Re: Auction of Amelia & Fred photos The preview was at Butterfield's, an ebay company. I tried to bring up the web site information at www.butterfields.com but cannot find anything - yet we saw the cases of displayed items and it looks real. The back of the catalog has Amelia's plane flying over the ocean and its signed by Amelia Earhart, Paul Mantz, Harry Manning and F. J. Noonan. There are also autographed photos with R.H. Fleet, President of the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation and several other pages of photos and descriptions. This is about all of the information I could find: The catalog title is "Fine Books & Manuscripts" auction in San Francisco and Los Angeles for Thursday, December 14, 2000, 10 a.m. Butterfields contact information is: 220 San Bruno Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415-861-7500 Fax 415-861-8951 7601 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90046 Tel 323-850-7500 Fax 323-850-5843 441 W. Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60610 Tel 312-377-7500 Fax 312-377-7501 I'll be interested to see if anyone else has seen the blue brochure describing this auction. M.C. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:49:41 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Roll your own 101 The Wombat's speculation that FN rolled his own cigarettes appears shaky from my own experience. Having watched my grandfather and uncle roll their own hundreds of times, the cigarettes FN is smoking are much too symmetrical and dry to be anything but store bought. Symmetry: One of the attraction of store-bought butts is that there is an even distribution of tobacco from end to end. No hand roller could even come close to attaining the distribution patterns found is store butts. FN's butts have an even distribution of tobacco from one end to the other for the entire length and circumference and are evenly cut on the visible end. When you roll you own (RYO) the smoker usually just pinches or twists the end to keep the tobacco in the wrapper until it is fired up. Dryness: When you RYO you gotta lick one edge of the paper so it will adhere to the other side when you wrap it up. By virtue of the thickness of the human tongue and its owner's inability to precisely control the amount of saliva the tongue generates, fastening the horizontal edges of a RYO is a messy process, hopefully never witnessed by women or children. The saliva/glue often permeates at least one-third of the circumferences of the cigarette paper on the RYO and is really, really disgusting to see. FN's butts are perfectly dry, stem to stern. Lastly, FN is shown in a couple of the photos using what appears to be a cigarette case, and someone speculated it was to hold his RYOs. NOT! If in fact that is a cigarette case, it was in all probability not holding RYOs. I have never witnessed and self-respecting RYOer "stocking up" on his product and saving it for later use. RYO are so ugly, decrepit, misshapen, and deformed you smoked them as soon as you made them; mostly to feed your nicotine habit and also to destroy the evidence of your own ineptness as a butt roller. That, Your Excellency, concludes my arguments that Fred Noonan was not indulging in the overt acts of RYOing. LTM, who needs to get a life! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:51:05 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Auction of Amelia & Fred photos Yep, there several things on Ebay right now, including some of AE's old class notes, that are being auctioned in a "regular" auction, but they're accepting Ebay bidders. One is a photo from (I think) the first attempt, with several autographs on it (or the matting). They're starting in the thousands. You should probably run down there and put a lock on the whole lot... ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:51:52 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: Auction of Amelia & Fred photos There are some fantastic photos of Amelia, Fred, and the Electra on ebay. Simply sign on to ebay and in the search field type in, Amelia Earhart. Beautiful items with hefty price tags. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:52:50 EST From: Capt. J.W. Clark Subject: Ship's names Ric: As info, ships (not to be confused with boats) have their names placed on both sides of the bow, on name boards just abaft the bridge and on the stern where home port is also placed. Capt. J. W. Clark ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:22:17 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: 10-A In one of the recent shoe discussions, we talked about Purdue photo XI_A_4_c, where AE is being shown something regarding the landing gear on an airplane. You pointed out that it was an L-10A, and we briefly discussed the ID numbers under the wing. Although only partially visible, the numbers appear to be UX. I checked a little on this, and Guinea Airways had two L-10A's, one UXH (constructor number 1060) and the other UXI (constructor number 1105). Now I'm wondering if this photo was taken at Lockheed, as you thought, or somewhere else - maybe in Darwin. I don't think it was taken in New Guinea, due to the paved ramp where it's parked. Anyway, my info doesn't include the construction / delivery dates on these aircraft, but it almost seems like it has to be one of these two. Also, I have a couple nother questions / observations In Purdue photo XI_B-16_d, the image is of AE and a couple men by the side door. It's obviously her airplane (the side cabin windows are covered), but it's an early photo (no window in the door). My question is, what's the letter painted on the fusilage aft of the door? Looks like an E or B. I don't recall having seen it in any other picture. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric As you say, Guinea Airways bought two Electras - c/n 1060 was VH-UXH and was delivered June 5, 1936; c/n 1105 was VH-UXI and was delivered June 23, 1937. My guess is that the photo shows AE with VH-UXH at Burbank in the summer of 1936. The guy in the photo with her is a Lockcheed employee who appears in other photos. Her plane is nearing completion and she's looking over another recently completed Electra. XI_B-16_d is a very interesting picture. I've never seen a letter painted on the side of the airplane before either, but I have a guess (as always). I think this is the Bendix Race in September 1936 and the big letter on the side is for the race. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:26:17 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Roll your own 101 Unfortunately Dennis and I will have to just disagree on this one. > Symmetry: One of the attraction of store-bought butts is that there > is an even distribution of tobacco from end to end. No hand roller could > even come close to attaining the distribution patterns found is store butts. Practised dedicated "roll your own" smokers can and do produce relatively straight smokes, especially if they "rub" the tobacco properly. > Lastly, FN is shown in a couple of the photos using what appears to > be a cigarette case, and someone speculated it was to hold his RYOs. NOT! > If in fact that is a cigarette case, it was in all probability not > holding RYOs. I have never witnessed and self-respecting RYOer "stocking > up" on his product and saving it for later use. Obviously you haven't witnessed many at all. First, using a cigarette case to hold roll your owns is still a common practice, there are times when it is just too inconvenient to stop and roll one. Second, many of these cases have a rather ingenious mechanism whereby you place the paper on a flexible strip of leather, having licked the edge, then place an appropriate amount of tobacco on the paper, and close the lid. A perfectly rolled cigarette comes out and is then placed in the case for later. Some hold 10 smokes, some hold 20, and some even allow you to add a filter. They have been around for over 40 years that I can vouch for. Unfortunately I don't remember a lot before that! I have "very" extensive experience with this "very common" practice. >Having watched my grandfather and uncle roll their own hundreds of times, Perhaps they'd like to learn how it's done... For that matter, I'd hate to see the waste if they rolled a joint! > FN's butts have an even distribution of tobacco from one end to the other > for the entire length and circumference and are evenly cut on the visible > end. The whole point of my post was that in the photographs I mentioned, they are most definitely NOT even, in fact there is a definite taper in one, and a bulge in the other. Also, good tobacco is not so dry that it needs to be twisted to keep it in the paper, and unlike pipe tobacco, is usually cut in long strands to stay in. > By virtue of the > thickness of the human tongue and its owner's inability to precisely control > the amount of saliva the tongue generates, fastening the horizontal edges of > a RYO is a messy process, hopefully never witnessed by women or children. > The saliva/glue often permeates at least one-third of the circumferences of > the cigarette paper on the RYO and is really, really disgusting to see. I'll tell that to some of the ladies I know who roll their own quite delicately.. > If in fact that is a cigarette case, it was in all probability not > holding RYOs. If it is in fact a cigarette case, and from my experience it is much more likely to be one than a makeup compact, it would be more likely to hold roll your owns than "tailor mades", which come already wrapped in either soft or hard pack. Conclusion, it is very possible due to Fred's seafaring background that her did in fact roll his own. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Dead Thread Alert. If you guys want to continue this discussion off forum just let me know. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:36:27 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Ebay AE Photos The pre-Electra AE photos that are up for bid on e-bay are very interesting. Would they really go for $4 if there were only one bid? I don't know how e-bay works. The pre-Electra photos are too small on-screen to be able to tell anything about AE's shoe size. I have a 19" Sony monitor. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:06:43 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Swollen ankles According to Susan Butler in "East to the Dawn", AE was sensitive about her thick ankles, which she termed "Piano Legs". It's why she took to wearing trousers whenever she could. I don't have the book in front of me so can't pinpoint Butler's source, but believe it was one of AE's Challiss cousins. I also find it intriguing that AE was buying Size 7 shoes as late as 1932. They could have hurt her feet for many reasons unrelated to length (like that pair of wingtips I bought last year. Right size, right width, still couldn't wear 'em for more than an hour). Assuming that AE wore thick socks while flying, would this boost her feet two full sizes? I understand TIGHAR derived AE's probable shoe size from a photograph, using the distance between wing rivets as a yardstick. Is the length of her heel discernable in that photograph, and how does it correspond to the length of the heel found on Niku in 1991? LTM Pat Gaston ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, both the length of the entire shoe and the length of just the heel are discernable in the photo. We have checked the length of the shoe against the length of the sole found on Niku in 1991 and they appear to be virtually the same. We had not thought to check the length of heel itself against the length of the heels found on the island until yesterday when Rollin Reineck pointed out an apparent discrepancy in the measurments. It's an excellent observation and may point up a real problem in matching the shoe in the photo to the artifacts found on the island. I'll address Reineck's comments in a separate posting. What is disappointing is that Reineck - who is a subscriber to this forum - did not have the courage to voice his criticisms here where they could be openly discussed and considered, but chose instead to make his attack in an email message sent out only to people whom he apparently assumed would be sympathetic to his antagonism toward me and TIGHAR. You were one of the people who received that message. I'm surprised that you would raise the issue as a question on the forum as if it was your own. I'm happy to consider the possibility that there may be good reason to discount the shoe remnants we found as being from one of Earhart's shoes. We've always said that we're only interested in learning the truth. There's no need for Reineck to engage in whispering campaigns and there's no need for you to act like a lawyer. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:43:52 EST From: Ric Subject: Reineck's observation Copied below is a message Rollin Reineck sent out on Monday to a list of a couple dozen people he apparently thinks are sympathetic to his views. Like Rollin himself, several people on Reineck's List are also subscribers to this forum and postings from here that are considered interesting are regularly shared around for private (and usually derogatory) comment. We, of course, use our copy of Carnivore 2.0 courtesy of the FBI to monitor all of that traffic (just kidding, just kidding) but we don't pay much attention to it unless something worthwhile comes up - which it never has, until now. I'm posting Reineck's latest tirade because it contains an interesting observation which needs open discussion and consideration. To save bandwidth I'll offer my response concurrent with his allegations. Here he goes: ************************************************************************** Earhart's shoes have been a main topic on the TIGHAR web page lately. Here is the straight poop about the shoes (so called) found by Gillespie on Niku. One of the corner stones of the Gillespie theory is that he found the remains of a shoe on Niku which he claims belonged to Earhart. ACTUALLY, what he found was a partial rubber sole and a heel of a shoe. He found these in 1991 on one of his many trips to Niku. (From Ric: Of course, that's exactly what we've always said we found. Make that a fragmented rubber sole, two heels and a brass eyelet.) In a TV interiew, Gillespie said "The partial sole is about the size of an 8 or 9 shoe. Laying beside it was a heel of a shoe with the name CATS PAW imprinted on it. According to the Builtrite Shoe Co. that owns Cats Paw, the heel was produced in the 1930s. From that heel we are able to determine that it came from a women's shoe of a style called BLUCHER OXFORD. Interestingly enough, photos show Earhat was wearing Blucher Oxfords when she flew on her last flight." (From Ric: I'm not sure which TV interview he's quoting but it seems odd that I would say that the gender of the shoe can be determined from the heel. Biltrite's identification of the shoe as being a woman's blucher oxford was made from the sole, not the heel. I've always known that and I don't know why I would say otherwise.) Gillespie goes on to say that the "Cats Paw heel was almost certainly attached to the partial sole found at the same site as the 8 attachment holes in the heel match precisely the holes in he partial shoe sole" HOWEVER, the site where the partial sole and heel were found was very close to one of the U S S Bushnell towers. So close in fact that Dr. Jacobson (Tighars Historian) is quoted as saying "Ric and I have had many arguments about this. It is quite possible that the fire remnants as well as the shoe parts, may be due to the Bushnell party." (From Ric: That's not quite right. All of the Bushnell towers were on the opposite [north] side of the island. The mapping technique was to take line-of-sight observations from the towers to many and various points on the island. One of those points was on the lagoon shore about 60 meters from where the shoe parts were found. Randy Jacobson, Tom King, Kenton Spading and I have indeed argued back and forth about the possible association of the shoe parts and other artifacts with the Bushnell survey. The fire, however, seems safely out of that equation having been reliably dated to not-earlier-than the 1970s. The Busnell survey was in November 1939. I'm sure that Randy, who is a scientist by trade, will be surprised to learn that he is "TIGHAR's Historian".) According to Gillespie the sole and the heel measure about 10 + 7/8 inches long, which equates to a size 9 shoe. Gillespie claims that he can determine the size shoe that Earhart wore by comparing her shoe to the rivet pattern on the wing of the Electra where she was standing. (Look at TIGHAR TRACKS, Sept. 30 1996,page 26) The rows of the rivets are 2 1/2 inches apart . With this ruler, Gillespie measured the shoe at 10 7/8 inches long NOW HERE COMES THE GOOD PART Using the same rivet pattern as a ruler, the heel of the shoe that Earhart was wearing on the airplane wing is less than 2 1/2 inches long. In fact, a close measurement the heel is 2 1/8 inches long. HOWEVER, the heel that Gillespie found measures 3 inchs long. See top of page 25 of the TIGHAR TRACKS mentioned above. (From Ric: Yes, this is the good part. Rollin has a point. We never measured just the heel in the photo. I have now done so and it does appear to be less than three inches. I make it more like 2 and 3/8s. That's clearly a problem.) What does this tell us. ANSWER, 1. The relplacement heel certainly did not come from the Earhart Blucher Oxford. It is too big. (From Ric: If the measurement is valid, I have to agree withe Rollin.) 2. If the partial sole and the heel were mated, as Gillespie states they were, than the partial sole didn't come from the Blucher Oxford either. So much for mathematical proof. (From Ric: That would follow logically, yes, but there is obviously no way to mathematically prove that the shoe in the photo is the same shoe found on the island and we never said there was.) Cats Paw heels were replacement heels only. In 1937 they could be bought at the local 5 and 10 cents store for about 35 to 50 cents a pair. They were do-it-yourself products. Fix your own shoe type item. I know because I was there in 1937.as a 17 year old who fixed his own shoes (one Pair). (From Ric: I'm looking at a 1915 ad for Cat's Paw replacement heels and the price was "50 cents, attached. ... Get them at your dealers or repair shop." It wouldn't be surprising if they were also sold as a "do-it-yourself" item, especially during the Depression.) Now ask yourself a couple of questions. If Earhart could afford Blucher Oxfords, she wouldn't be doing her own shoe repair. (From Ric: No, she would have her shoes professionally repaired and the shop may well have used Cat's Paw heels. They were clearly not exclusively a do-it-yourself item.) Secondly, How could the BuiltRite shoe company look at a used Cats Paw (replacement heel) and say it came from Blucher Oxford shoe as Gillespie contends? (From Ric: They didn't and I never thought they did. Biltrite's opinion that the shoe was a blucher oxford was based upon the pattern of stitching holes visible in the sole. The tightness of that stitching and the small size of the brass shoelace eyelet were the basis of their opinion that it was a woman's shoe. This was all explained in detail in our very first description of the shoe parts in TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 8, No.1 &2 in March 1992.) The answer to both these questions tends to affirm that the heel and the sole of the shoe did not belong to Earhart. This is just like the Zippo Lighter and the storage batteries that Gillespie thought came from Noonan and the Electra. (The Zippo lighter was a Ronson and the nonsense about the storage batteries in 1989 was the result of a completely erroneous news story. ) Isn't "Sound Investigative Methodology" fun? (From Ric: Yes, it is.) Comments are welcome. Rollin *************************************************************************** From Ric As soon as possible we'll put a Research Bulletin up on the TIGHAR website with the photos and information needed for anyone to make their own judgement about the shoe parts. If this or any other new observation makes it apparent that the shoe parts found on the island by TIGHAR can not be from the shoe in the photo, we'll happily accept that and proceed with our investigation with the benefit of that new information. This is how "Sound Investigative Methodology" works. We gather information, formulate a hypothesis, then test that hypothesis with research and/or experimentation. It often takes a long time to test a hypothesis. We struggled with the navigator's bookcase for two years testing the hypothesis that it had been aboard the Electra. It looked really good for a while but we (not our critics) were ultimately able to identify it as being from a B-24D or a PB4Y-1. Similarly, the section of aircraft skin - Artifact 2-2-V-1 - has been the subject of tremendous debate. We thought we had it placed on the Electra a couple of times but we eventually proved ourselves wrong. At this time nobody can say what airplane the thing came from. I still think it came from someplace on the Electra but I can't prove it. Maybe Rollin can find a match for it on some other airplane. As has been said many times, none of the artifacts recovered so far is, in itself, diagnostic - that is, a "smoking gun." Any of them and all of them are utterly disposable without affecting the basic hypothesis that the Earhart flight ended at Gardner. I'm grateful to Rollin for his observation about the discrepancy in the apparent heel length. If the shoe parts found on Aukeraime can be eliminated as part of the Earhart puzzle it also eliminates the conflict between where we found them and where we think Gallagher made his discoveries. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:50:17 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Swollen ankles Just a quick observation. Even if we effectively identify the heel as not being from AE's shoe, that doesn't eliminate Fred's shoes - of which there are a pretty good number of photos in the Purdue library collection. I'm not sure what kind of financial resources Fred had, but it is not difficult at all for me to imagine him having new heels put on his shoes before taking off on a trip like this - cheaper than new shoes, and much more comfortable on a trip. Also, in spite of my prior caveat about gentlemen's comments and AE's ankles, it strikes me that when I'm on an airplane for any length of time, not moving around much, it is not unusual to experience such swelling in the lower extremities (sp? - sorry, too tired to look it up). ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Off the top of my head, a couple things would argue against the sole and Cat's Paw heel being Fred's. Biltrite felt that the tightness of the stitching holes in the sole indicated a woman's shoe, as did the small size of the brass sholeace eyelet. Tight stitching could be a questionable judgement call but I haven't noticed brass eyelets in the photos of the shoes Fred is wearing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:53:44 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: McGuffin and the Smoking Gun I would like to comment on Tom K's recent post. 1. Tom quoting Ric: "What are "the chances" that a given island that "happens" to be on the LOP described by Earhart will "happen", three years later, to yield the bones of a castaway which "happen" to appear most similar to those of a woman of Earhart's stature and ethnic background and that a search of the same island will "happen" to produce the remains of a shoe which appears to match Earhart's and aircraft-related artifacts which "happen' to be consistent with the Lockheed Model 10.... Is there a way to quantify this heap of coincidence?" Tom and Ric raise a good point here that is an interesting exercise. As Tom pointed out, there is no easy/accurate way to quantify the probabilities involved. It would be very difficult, if not in some cases impossible, to assemble the various populations of data which could then be used to determine a combined probability. The best we can do is some "ballpark" type of estimates of the individual probabilities. By ballpark I mean you would ask questions like "which is a more likely source for the artifact....A or B?". You then ask this question for the items listed which are bones, 1991 shoe(s) and aircraft parts. I won't look at all the items here (although future threads could). For starters, lets just ask one question. Which is a more likely source for the castaway/bones Gallagher found? Arrival following a ship wreck or arrival following an aircraft wreck during the period say 1870 to 1937? [For ease of computing, each item is analyzed independently in order to facilitate combining the, in this case, ballpark probabilities.] There is not an obvious answer to this question although most people at first glance would probably guess ship wreck given the volume of people brought to the region by ships versus airplanes during the period in question. You have to assume, of course, that some of those ships were lost/shipwrecked or that some folks were washed overboard (all of which, of course happened to some degree). We know an airplane was lost. Records of lost sailors/lost ships that sailed for the Pacific out of say Hartford, New Bedford and elsewhere are available put I am not sure how convenient or well organized they are. If you assume that the bones were female in origin the question becomes a bit more interesting. However, the references below, indicate that it was not uncommon for women, and for that matter their children, to serve on ships. References: 1. Druett, Joan, Hen Frigates, Wives of Merchant Captains Under Sail, Passion and Peril: 19th Century Women at Sea. Simon and Schuster, 1998. 2. Druett, Joan, Petticoat Whalers,Simon and Schuster, 1999? 3. Druett, Joan, She Captains, Heroines and Hellions of the Sea, Simon and Schuster, 2000. Another way to look at this is to ask....Do other islands in the Pacific have a similar scatter or history of artifacts? How unusual are the combination of items found on Niku? At present we cannot answer this question. All of this aside, a good case can still be made for Niku being the spot where Earhart and Noonan ended up. TIGHAR has built a pretty good case. While waiting to go back to Niku we can help our case by conducting archival research and identifying and in some cases eliminating and/or investigating sources for existing artifacts. LTM Kenton Spading (Bob B., feel free to jump in here on the combined frequency question) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:47:54 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Reineck's observation A word of caution on ALL these measurements: I assume that the distance between rivets on an Electra is something that can be independently verified and there is no need to refer to the picture in question for that number. However, isn't there a potential depth perception problem, here, in determining the length of the heel in the picture by reference to the rivet spacing in the picture? You have at least two dimensions to have to correct for: The first would be the distance between the fuselage rivets and the heel, the second is the angle from which the photo was taken. I would think that as the heel gets farther away from the fuselage it appears longer when measured against the rivets in the background, yet as the angle increases from a direct side-on view it would tend to foreshorten the length of the heel. Be careful when making calculations on these two variables. Do we really know either? How much makes a real difference in measured length? This is further complicated by the simple fact that we are not talking about there being much difference between all these measurements---rivet spacing, Earhart heel length and replacement heel length. So, it sounds like there are holes--big ones-- in the Reineck theory unless he can reliably correct for all these variables so you get a true one-on-one comparison. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric You make an excellent point, but it cuts both ways. None of the photogrammetry in this analysis was done by experts - not on TIGHAR's end nor on Reineck's. In 1992 we didn't have the resources. Today we may be able to get that kind of help. That needs to happen. *************************************************************************** From Dave Bush Ric: What is the clearance from the cabin floor to the bottom of the rudder pedals on the Electra? After flying for some distance and discovering that the heels of her shoes were catching due to the spacing, is it possible that Earhart would have replaced the heels with longer ones that wouldn't catch? Also, just because the heel in the photo doesn't match does not necessarily rule out this heel. A subsequent replacement or another similar pair of shoes repaired at a different time and place may have a different heel - whatever was available when she went to repair them! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric The dimensions of the bottoms on the heels are dictated by the dimensions of the heels themselves (the wood and leather built up bit). You can't just put bigger bottoms on the heels. One of the nice things about the photo showing Earhart standing on the wing is that it was taken only about ten days before she disappeared. While it's theoretically possible that she had her shoes or heels changed in the meantime, I wouldn't argue that as a realistic probability. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:51:07 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: McGuffin and the Smoking Gun I agree with Kenton's assessment. We just don't have enough information on the relative frequencies of similar occurrences elsewhere in the Pacific to derive a credible estimate of the numerical probabilities involved. A while back, we had a discussion on this general subject and I offered a simple example illustrating the difficulties involved. The example was the case of the expedition member who discovered shoe fragments after having stopped at a tree for a rest, and who happened to glance in the direction of the fragments and saw and recognized them as artifacts. Just to quantify the probability of that isolated event would be impossible. Kenton's approach of asking whether A is more likely than B is the best way to get at this problem. It is a "fuzzy logic" kind of problem - - which we have discussed before. Despite the fact that it can't yield a precise numerical probability result, it nonetheless is an important tool in situations like this. Through iterative application it leads to the conclusion that the preponderance of evidence shows, as Kenton said, that TIGHAR has built a pretty good case. The preponderance of evidence criterion is interesting in another way, i.e., with respect to the burden of disproving the TIGHAR case. As a starting point, that task would require developing an alternative hypothesis that explains all of the TIGHAR evidence in terms of events not connected with the Earhart disappearance. It is significant that no one has done that yet. Just consider the joint probability that all the pieces of evidence incorporated into the TIGHAR hypothesis have nothing to do with the Earhart disappearance - - it's nil. LTM, who knows a good case when she sees it. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:59:02 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Post 08:43 messages/ The mysterious 9 hour silence The Forums recent examination of alleged post-loss transmissions again brings up what appears to be over a nine hour inexplicable gap between the last transmission at 08:43 am and the sudden resumption of transmissions reportedly beginning at 6:00 pm that evening. To my knowledge researchers have not adequately addressed that gap which casts serious doubt on their authenticity. The importance of authenticating a post 08:43 transmission would certainly support that Amelia was able to fly some 3-4 hours in order to reach one of the island groups-Phoenix, Marshalls, or Gilberts -as she could only transmit from land after she went down. (TIGHAR'S theory is not dependent on post-loss messages as she could have found NIKU, but was unable to broadcast) "Proof" of the alleged post-loss transmissions comes almost exclusively from the literally hundreds of amateur reports of radio intercepts of Amelia some 2-12 days after her disappearance. Most of the amateurs were in the US and "heard" her on various short wave frequencies. Adding a certain degree of authenticity is that many of the intercepts were reported immediately to newspapers, Coast Guard officials and the Bureau of Air Commerce. Many were respected short wave operators with good equipment and familiar with Earharts assigned frequencies. A look at Amelia's pre-08:43 transmissions ,based on Chater's report and the Itasca log, may give us some significant clues to the post 08:44 alleged signals.. After departing Lae at 1000 am, AE was in hourly contact with Lae's radio operator Balfour for the next 7 hours and 18 minutes,broadcasting on 6210 kcs. At 3:19 and 5:18, as scheduled, AE broadcast her postion. On her last transmission, Balfour asked her to remain on 6210 because of her strong signal strength. Either Amelia couldn't receive or she disregarded that suggestion and switched to her preplanned daytime frequency of 31ight, radio Nauru reported hearing her commenting on seeing a "ship in sight ahead". (Probably the Ontario) Itasca began hearing faint transmissions about 2:45 am on 3105. Itasca heard her eight more times on 3105 with ever increasing signal strength until her last signal was heard at 08:43 at strength "5", the loudest category. In this last signal, Amelia radioed she was running on a LOP of 157-337, north and south, and said she was switching to her daytime frequency of 6210. (Apparently for better transmission). The Itasca did not hear from her again. Others such as Col Reineck, say they did hear her. Col Reineck,USAF (Ret),an Earhart researcher, argues that Army officers on Howland heard AE's signals after her last 08:43, with the signals becoming fainter each time "until she finally stated that she was out of gas." These signals were not reported in the Itasca log,says Col Reineck. (In the material I have there is not a time recorded for the last signal) Then about nine hours later, about 6:00 pm ,radio Nauru about eleven hundred miles away, said they heard a women "shouting" sounding like the women heard the night before (Earhart). The signal was overmodulated and a positive identification couldn't be made. Note: Goldstein and Dillion claim Nauru heard those signals shortly after her last 08:43 transmission at 0901,0913,1924,Howland time, suggesting these were more liklely authentic Earhart signals as her disappearance was unknown to the outside world at that time. TIGHAR disputes those times saying that the authors used times given by Safford who confused time zones and that the signals came more closely to 6:00pm. Within hours after AE's disappearance was broadcast to the US (about 10:30 am Howland) radio hams and professional radio operators in the US reported hearing Amelia on various frequencies for the next week.Other sources in Hawaii, for example, reported hearing dashes in response to KGMB Honolulu radio's request. Other "bonafide" signals were reported and checked out. None to my knowledge have been proven as authentic. No known post 08:43 transmissions were heard by official Navy and Coast Guard stations . . Thus the perplexing question is how could Amelia transmit for twenty hours on both 3105 and 6210 for twenty plus hours, stop, then resume some nine hours later. She had to be on land/atoll at this time. Therefore the broadcasting environment, vis-a- vis in the air, was certainly more hostile: sea level, battery drain, and perhaps a makeshift antenna. Amelia did not report any malfunctions with her transmitter after she left Lae. TIGHAR sometime ago postulated that when Amelia switched over to 6210 just after 08:43, (daytime frequency) that this frequency could have been a problem in the "morning hours" for reliable transmissions to the Itasca some 50-100 miles away,no further away than 400 miles. (est). Additionally, TIGHAR pointed out that Amelia had transmitter problems in Lae and that Itasca never heard her on 6210. (Lae, however, heard numerous tranmissions on 6210 from Earhart earlier in the flight, some as far out as 7-800 miles out) The frequency change in TIGHAR'S opinion was the primary reason Itasca (or for that matter any official Coast Guard station)never heard Amelia again. It is logical that Amelia, after the 08:43 signal, still in the vicinity of Howland, would switch back and forth between frequencies of 3105 and 6210 after she quickly found that she was not getting a response on 6210.. Those were desperate hours as her gas supply dwindled. Amelia and Fred must have tried every band on that radio in a final attempt to make contact with Itasca to relay a downed position. Nonetheless, Itasca did not hear any transmissions on any frequencies even as the radio operators also frantically attempted to contact the Electra Are the post-loss signals (heard only by amateurs) bogus? Were they all hoaxes? Were they simply misinterpreted Itasca and other Navy traffic describing the search? Were there malfunctions in her radio? Crystal problems? Skip problems? Atmospheric interference? I don't think that these could account for that period of silence, particularily the critical 3-4 hours she was presumably in the air searching for a landfall or preparing to ditch. Concerning possible intrinsic frequency/crystal problems Eric Chater reports that although Amelia had some technical problems with her transmitter in Lae, eventually it was fixed and two way communication was established between the Electra and Lae. Chater said that some of the transmissions on 6210 were "very rough" and she was asked to pitch her voice higher to override this problem; other wise Chater said that Amelia's transmitter "seemed to be working satisfactorily". And as reported supra, she successfully transmitted to Lae on 6210 for over seven hours in the daytime after departure. Chater believed Lae lost contact when she switched to 3105 around dusk. In sum, one can argue there is no reason to speculate on why she went nine hours without transmitting, because the transmissions started again and even though the signals were helter skelter messages, no further explanations are necessary. But to me the resumption of intermittent signals from the Electra after nine hours of silence would depend on some miraculous resurrection of the 50 watt transmitter capability and casts serious doubt on the authenticity of any post 08:43 broadcasts, including those purportedly heard on Howland Is. LTM, Ron Bright (who was concerned over the 8 minute gap in the Nixon tapes!!) *************************************************************************** From Ric You bring up some interesting points but your argument is riddled with factual errors. For example: <> But Chater says quite specifically: "Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information, but local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible until 2.18 p.m...." It's not clear from Chater's wording whether transmissions were heard but were too garbled to understand or whether they couldn't get anything because of the interference - you could read it either way. What is clear is that Earhart was over four hours away before Lae could understand anything she said on 6210. In fact, Lae received and understood only three transmissions from Earhart - 2:18 p.m., 3:19 p.m., and 5:18 p.m. <<"Proof" of the alleged post-loss transmissions comes almost exclusively from the literally hundreds of amateur reports of radio intercepts of Amelia some 2-12 days after her disappearance. >> Not so. If there is "proof" that post-loss transmissions occurred it will be found in the entire body of transmissions received by not only amateurs but official sources as well. That's why we're compiling the Post-Loss Radio Matrix. <> Numerous official Navy and Coast Guard stations were hearing transmissions that they suspected came from Earhart. If any of those were "known" to be authentic we wouldn't be having this discussion. You seem to be under the impression that the Central Pacific was silent while amateurs in the States were hearing intelligible messages. That is not the case. I think that when our Post-Loss Radio Matrix is finished you'll see some interesting patterns of reception. The first reports of post-loss transmissions begin as soon as it starts to get dark. That's when signal propagation is best. I find nothing odd in that. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:58:18 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Reineck's observation IN the Purdue photos, Earhart can be seen wearing 3 distinctly different pairs of shoes in 1936/7. Actually I suspect I have identified 4, but 3 for certain. The 2 tone "mocassin" looking tops have larger heels, but don't look as though they'd take a replacement heel. They were apparently a favourite pair however, and look "comfortably worn in". Picture X1_A_4_c.jpg is on that shows a different style with a flatter heel (lower arch). This type traditionally has a larger heel area than the higher heeled shoe. Unfortunately I haven't looked for one we can measure yet. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:41:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Post 08:43 messages/ The mysterious 9 hour silence > From Ric > but local interference prevented signals from the plane being > intelligible until 2.18 p.m...." > > It's not clear from Chater's wording whether transmissions were heard but > were too garbled to understand or whether they couldn't get anything > because of the interference - you could read it either way. I can't see how.. Intelligible means "able to be understood". Unintelligible means "not able to be understood". Chater did not say local interference prevented signals from the plane being "heard" or "received". This implies that the signals were in fact heard and determined to be from ther plane - but could not be understood. Even at 2:18pm, all they could make out was Height, Speed and "some remark concerning "LAE"', then "Everything okay". The plane was called and asked to repeat.... "but we still could not get it". This strongly suggests that they were in fact able to identify signals as coming from the plane for the early part of the trip, but due to other atmospheric clutter were not able to understand them. It also clearly suggests that they were in two way communication with the Electra at that stage of the trip, as an attempted answer to the request by Earhart is implied. If in fact there was no reply from Earhart one would expect it to be noted, and in fact in the next paragraph, it is noted that she fails to reply to a request. Unfortunately, as a counter to what is implied, nowhere does it specifically say that she heard the Lae operator, all we have is a note suggesting she responded to a request from Lae.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it seems more likely that something was being heard for the first four hours but was unintelligible until 2:18. Whether there was ever a direct response to anything said by Lae or not is, in my opinion, much more speculative. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:45:14 EST From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Post 08:43 messages/ The mysterious 9 hour silence >The first reports of post-loss transmissions begin as soon as it starts to >get dark. >That's when signal propagation is best. I find nothing odd in that. For what it's worth.... One possible simple explanation might be that only after dark would it be cool enough inside the aircraft to be able to stay there, and operate the radio. I have read, and heard, many accounts from veterans in the Pacific and CBI about how hot it got inside a/c on the ground, and how one could not touch the metal skin during daylight because of fear of being severely burned. Much maintenance had to be performed after dark, after the planes cooled sufficiently to eliminate this danger. LTM (who was a hottie in her day) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. In fact, Betty's description of just such a problem is one of the things that makes her notes so credible. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:45:22 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Post 08:43 messages/ The mysterious 9 hour silence There is another possibility for not hearing anything for the first 9 hours after the last known transmission: no one but the Itasca was listening, as no one knew that AE was lost. While we don't know for sure when the public became aware that AE was missing, it surely was sometime mid-afternoon at the earliest, Howland time, as Itasca didn't notify the CG and Navy until sometime before noon. Then, CG and Navy officials would have to have notified the public. Unless someone knew to listen for possible AE signals, no one would be listening. Also, transmissions from the Pacific during daylight hours either on 3105 or 6210 at very long ranges (e.g. to the US mainland) is notoriously fickle, adding even less of a chance of anyone who was listening to hear anything. No, I am not at all concerned that there is a post-loss gap in possible AE transmissions after the last known transmission. Actually, it was Fort Shafter who was the first radio station to hear anything purported to be from AE after her downing, and that (from memory...excuse me if I am wrong) was about dusk, Honolulu time. *************************************************************************** From Ric Here are the first few signals heard on the night of the 2nd/3rd. HMS Achilles heard transmissions at 06:00Z, July 3 which was 18:30 on July 2 in the Central Pacific. Fort Shafter in Hawaii was next at 07:27Z, July 3 which was 19:27 on July 2 in the Central Pacific. Next came the string of transmissions heard by Nauru at 08:31 - 08:43 - 08:54Z, July 3 which was 21:01 - 21:13 - 21:24 on July 2 in the Central Pacific. Then at 10:57Z (22:27 on July 2 in the Central Pacific) Coast Guard HQ in Hawaii heard signals. There were lots more. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:47:10 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: Rollin's rantings I had no idea that you are such an important guy that an entire email discussion group is singularly dedicated to discrediting your work. Maybe Rollin's boys could hire some of the now unemployed dozens of Bush and Gore lawyers, whose expertise at misrepresenting each others positions needs no introduction here. Or maybe, just maybe, the good Colonel could supply us with the URL for his website where his organization posts all their research for critical review. Oops, sorry, that won't happen. I just remembered that non-TIGHAR Earhart "researchers" have to closely guard their "secret" finds, lest the light of day show them to be the nonsense that they truly are. LTM, who wonders just what Rollin and co. will do with their time if y'all find AE bones at the 7 site and a serial #'d NR16020 engine in the lagoon. Dave Porter, 2288 (who suggests that they spend some time in the "front leaning rest" position) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:42:14 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Shoes etc. No need to get offended. Yes, I was among the recipients of Rollin's message and no, I didn't post it on the Forum because I, too, found it needlessly argumentative in tone and laced with factual assertions I could not verify. However, I wasn't trying to lay any traps. In light of Col. Reineck's contentions, I was simply interested in whether TIGHAR had ever measured the 1991 Niku heel. I raised the question "as if it were my own" because it >was< my own. Apparently, the answer to that question is "no". Perhaps I should have prefaced my query by alluding to Rollin's message, but it was a spur-of-the-moment post and no guile was intended. As long as we're on the subject, however, I am disappointed that TIGHAR has been less than forthright on this Forum about Biltrite's conclusions with respect to the 1991 shoe parts. As stated in "Forum FAQs": "An analysis of the artifacts by the Biltrite Company (which owns Cat's Paw) concluded that the shoe was a woman's blucher-oxford style with brass shoelace eyelets. The heel was matched to a mold dating from the mid-1930s." In fact, as Kenton Spading has recently pointed out, Biltrite said the sole could have come from a women's >or small men's< shoe, and in the context of their letter, the dating of the heel sounds more like an educated guess -- certainly not as ironclad as the above quotation suggests. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the shoe parts as potential clues to Earhart's fate, but nothing is served by omitting these important qualifiers. Asking questions and pointing out discrepancies in the evidence are, indeed, tools of the lawyer's trade. So I guess if the shoe fits ... LTM Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric It is never our intention to be less than forthright or to overstate the significance of evidence. Over time, descriptions of complex issues inevitably get condensed and simplified and that can lead to errors such as the one you point out about the heel being "matched to a mold dating from the mid-1930s." It wasn't and we'll fix the FAQ. The pertinent part from Biltrite's letter reads: "... there's no question that the heel is a cat's Paw heel but since the production dates are missing we cannot pinpoint the exact year. Because of type of molds, we'd say it was produced somewhere in the mid-thirties." Bill Foshage of Biltrite and I talked about this at some length on the phone at the time and he seemed very sure about the dating, which probably led to my unintentional misrepresentation. It is not, however, true that "Biltrite said the sole could have come from a women's >or small men's< shoe." Their description of the Cat's Paw heel held that "This could be for a large size Women's shoe or used on Men's shoes." To my knowledge I have never said otherwise. The only comments about the sole in the official report are: "Looks like rubber Shows stitch marks at edge of sole; very close together 8 holes created by heel nails Sole appears to be left foot Stitched forepart, nailed seat White ID (reference to TIGHAR's artifact number) appears to be on face of sole." My original notes from telephone conversations with Foshage on January 31, 1992 contain his expressed opinion that the sole is from a size 9 women's oxford and my original notes from a similar conversation with him on February 7, 1992 contain his explanation that he based that opinion on the "fine and close" stitch marks in the sole. The official report says that the brass eyelet is: "Small; appears to be Women's Hole not big enough for Men's lace which would have been woven cotton in 1937. Appears to be brass; did not rust Appears to be similar to those in picture on Page 197 (reference to photo of Earhart's shoe on the wing of the plane)." All of this stuff will be included in the Research Bulletin soon to be mounted on the TIGHAR website. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:43:57 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Reineck's observation Chris Kennedy's concerns are appropriate--may I also suggest another point or two: I assume that the heel in question is formed from natural rubber. Are there any persons on the Forum who can attest to the long-term effects of exposure of such an item to a tropical climate? Does that material have a "memory" and tend to return to its original size and shape over time? Does immersion in salt water cause the rubber to expand? These, and possibly other, questions should be addressed before discounting the artifact as postulated in the original hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:24:54 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: shoes I noticed in your recent response to Pat Gaston about various shoe details, the statement that "production dates are missing" taken from the letter to you from Biltrite. Do you know whether the production dates were worn off or never placed on the heel? I ask because of some forensic technologies, in steel or metal castings for example, where ground off or worn off serial numbers can be brought back out by various methods, chemicals, dye or certain types of lighting. Obviously if they were never placed that won't work, but if they were worn off, cut off, or otherwise removed, some form of analysis might bring them back up. **************************************************************************** From Ric That's a good thought Mike but it's my understanding that the marks were never there. The marks that ARE there are quite legible because they're on the interior surface of the heel and thus not subjected to wear. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:26:30 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: shoe size I feel obligated to offer my congratulations to Col. "Rollickin'" Rollin Reineck's discovery of the discrepancy in the heel size. I may have been dreaming, but I think I heard about 45 palms slapping 45 foreheads, and a faint murmur of "Jeez, why didn't I think of that?" Nice catch, Rollie! I'm waiting for the TIGHAR chaplain to offer an appropriate comment on the benefits of humility for us forehead slappers. Now if someone would just supply the URL for Rollie's web activities I could jump over the net and shake his hand. LTM, who longs to lurk Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:28:26 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Reineck's observation For Skeet Gifford, I'll provide my opinion, based upon my training as an organic chemist, in this copy of your post. > From Skeet Gifford > > Chris Kennedy's concerns are appropriate--may I also suggest another point or > two: > > I assume that the heel in question is formed from natural rubber. Not sure, maybe so. Synthetic rubbers were known then by I suspect not being used for commercial purposes by the mid thirties. > Are there > any persons on the Forum who can attest to the long-term effects of exposure > of such an item to a tropical climate? Not me. Exposure to air (oxygen) and sunlight cause chemical reactions such as oxidation and crosslinking to occur that cause plastics to become hard and brittle. An example is your windshield wiper blades that eventually become ineffective because their surface has become too hard. Dry rot of auto tires, (surface cracks, etc.) is another example. > Does that material have a "memory" > and tend to return to its original size and shape over time? Not that I am aware of. If it did expand for some reason, (degredation) then it might "pass through" its original size on its way to total disintegration. But the concept of memory in a plastic is not general. Heat shrinking might be thought of as an example, but those have to be prepared to shrink, and those are a more recent innovation. > Does immersion > in salt water cause the rubber to expand? Not likely. Rubbers and other plastics will expland when soaked in some organic solvents but water is too polar for this to happen extensively. > These, and possibly other, > questions should be addressed before discounting the artifact as postulated > in the original hypothesis. Hope this helps. Jerry W. Ellis #2113 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:30:08 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Itasca's CW Comms In 1937 Morse Code was the main mode of communication in amateur radio. Also by many shortwave "utility" stations. There was a news organization named "Press Wireless" that sent news around the world via shortwave using high-speed Morse Code. So there were hundreds of hams and others who could copy the Itasca's transmissions. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric And your point is.....? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:42:16 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Shoe and Sole Controversy/ A second Biltrite opinion? Maybe the simplest explanation for TIGHAR' discovery of a sole and Catspaw heel, which according to a provisional analysis doesn't match the Earhart's "blucher oxford" photo, is that it is an entirely different "blucher oxford" or shoe-maybe Earharts,maybe not. Wouldn't a lady take two pairs of shoes on a round the world trip! Any evidence for this, yes, see infra. A second explanation is possible. It looks like there is a little wiggle room in Biltrite's "opinion" of the origin of the sole. If Biltrite erroneously identified the sole as one coming from an oxford, maybe it came from a different, but closely related shoe style. It is entirely possible that Earhart was not wearing the oxfords on NIKU post crash. Newspaper accounts report she would wear " light,low shoes" [oxfords] while flying, but was taking along a pair of "heavy,high walking boots...just in case". Well the in "case" happened. Could Gallagher's description of a part of a sole, probably a size 9-10, from a "stoutish walking shoe or sandal" more closely match Tigar's sole and heel, a bit larger than the oxford style? Earhart may certainly have changed shoes on NIKU to walking boots because of the coral,etc. Any information of these walking boots at Purdue? In Tighar's continuing investigation of the sole/shoe, could Biltrite give an opinion to see if the sole and Catspaw replacement heel could within a certain degree of certainy be from a heavy walking shoe. Or is Biltrite's call on the oxford sole to the exclusion of all other types in concrete. A heavy walking shoe (?) looks alot like the shoe Earhart's wearing in the photo. Looks pretty "stout" to me. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric A "heavy walking shoe" coud be an "oxford". The term "oxford" merely means that it's a lace-up shoe (as opposed to a boot or a buckle closure). The term "blucher" has to do with the pattern in which the uppers are stitched to the sole. I saw nothing about walking boots at Purdue. All of those descriptions about what AE would take along on the World Flight were in press stories that preceded the first attempt. I don't think we can rely on them for information about what she really ended taking along on the Lae/Howland leg. The work with Biltrite was done eight years ago and all the people involved have since retired. We may want to go back for more opinions but it would mean starting over with Biltrite. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:44:12 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Reineck's observation Please tell Mr. Porter that if you find Earhart's bone at site 7 and an engine from the Electra, I will be the first to offer my congratulations. We have a common goal, we're just taking different routes to get there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:10:41 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: Reineck's observation Rollin Reineck sent the following to me I presume for posting on the Forum. <> I don't recall any request from Daryll Bolinger or anyone else to post evidence on the TIGHAR website. I have limited, but not entirely excluded, discussions on the Earhart Forum (which, I guess I need to point out to Daryll, is something different from the website) of evidence purported to support theories other than the one the Forum is specifically intended to discuss. If and when I become aware of new evidence, information, or observations which - in my opinion - are worthy of consideration, I make them known to the Forum and address them on the TIGHAR website. In the case of evidence or information that doesn't "make the cut" I'm always happy to post a URL on the Forum where interested people can go and judge for themselves whether the information has merit. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:45:23 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Nauru signal reception/ Clarification of For one last time, can you clarify the times Nauru heard signals that might be attributed to AE. In your post to Jacobsen you report that Nauru heard the signals at 08:31,08:43 and 08:54Z, July 3. That translated to 21:01,21:13, and 21:24 in the Central Pacific. Is that Howland time/NIKU time? Recall that Safford, cited by Dillion, said the first signals came in at 20:31/2, 20:43/2 and 20:54/2 at Nauru. This translated to 09:01, 09:13, and 09:24 Howland time. In an earlier post you reported that it was actually just after 6:00pm Howland time. Using zulu time, 1/2 hour time zone differences, GMT, GCT, military time, and local time is confusing. Obviously the time the first signals were heard is of utmost importance, and you indicate that HMS Achilles was probably the first to hear a signal at 18:30 on July 2,in the Central Pacific. Is that 6:30pm Howland time. With all those times, I hope I'm not the only one confused on exactly what time the first signal was heard using Niku time. Were NIKU and Howland using the same time? LTM, RON BRIGHT **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the whole time zone thing is terribly confusing and you can be sure that you're not alone in struggling with it. I screw it up more often than not and am constantly having to go back and double check the conversions. The Itasca was using the Navy's system of local time zones and so, when it was at and near Howland, was using Greenwich minus 11.5 hours. Just to make things interesting, the civilian Dept. of Interior employees on Howland were using Hawaii time as local time which, back then, was Greenwich minus 10.5 hours. If you think about it for a second, there was no such thing as an established "Niku Time" in 1937 because there was nobody there. We've been using "Itasca Time" (11.5 hrs) as local time for Niku but that's purely our convention. Greenwich Civil Time (GCT) is simply what Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) was called in 1937 and is what the military and others (such as the aviation industry) call Zulu time today. All same same. That's where Safford got screwed up. He somehow got it into his head that GCT was something different. We beat this horse to death on the Forum a long time ago. Okay, so what about the Nauru intercepts? The best original source - a telegram received by the U.S. State Dept. from "Doyle" in Australia (probably the U.S. Consul) - says that they were heard at 18:31, 18:43, and 18:54 Sydney time. Sydney, then as now, was Greenwich plus 10 hours so the signals were heard at 08:31, 08:43, 08:54 GCT, GMT, Zulu, whatever. That's 21:01, 21:13, and 21:24 Itasca Time (which we're using as Niku time). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:57:59 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Post 08:43 signals/ Investigation of amateurs To your knowledge did the Coast Guard or Navy conduct any official investigations of the alleged post loss signals (at least those reported by amateurs) that included interviews, inspection of short wave receiver, witnesses,etc and written in an official reports or official records. Has anyone come across any of those reports in the archives, Purdue, museums, etc. Or as it appears in Earhart books, the Coast Guard summarily dismissed those amateur reports because the Coast Guard didn't "hear any" . I suspect some newspapers interviewed some, but hardly an investigative effort. The two most frequently cited were Karl Pierson and Walter McMenamy who heard AE for days. McMenamy told Randall Brink that he heard AE in voice say she was down about "281 miles northwest of Howland, and according to McMenamy she broadcast for "four solid days". Of course I doubt the credibility of this claim and therefore I'm looking for some credible reports made by the Coast Guard,Air Commerce officials,etc., that would corroborate these "AE signals". Has Tighar come across any. ltm, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric The short answer is , No. The official message traffic indicates that an investigation of some kind (no details) was made of McGill in Oakland and he was found to be unreliable. As you know, an investigation of some kind was also made of Randolph in Rock Springs, Wyoming and he was apparently found to be credible. However, no separate reports of these or other investigations have surfaced. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:04:56 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Visitors to Gardner in 1930's As these discussions go on it seems to me that is likely that a party or parties visited Gardner in the 1930's, spent a short time there, and left. All we "know" about them is that they left some debris and possibly human remains. I read the recent controversy about which anthropologist is "right" about the Yanomami tribal system in Brazil and Venezuela. This is a tribal system that's been *studied* by anthropologists for decades. I find it plausible that a group or groups visited Gardner for any of several reasons, stayed a few weeks, found it unpleasant, and left. They may or may not have shared *information* about their visit(s) with the "local authorities" and others. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, let's consider your hypothesis. I take it that you're attributing the human remains and artifacts found by Gallagher to this party or parties who visited Gardner. Okay. Are you suggesting that they left behind an unburied dead body or are we back to pirates marooning a shipmate on a desert island? Assuming that you are not suggesting that Gallagher found the remains of Ben Gunn, don't you find it a bit odd that we've come across no mention of anyone showing up in Fiji, Samoa or Hawaii with a hair-raising tale of death on a tropical isle - especially since the deceased was apparently female? Please let us have at least one reasonable scenario that would account for what Gallagher found. Why, I wonder, do you find it more plausible to invent an occurrence for which there is absolutely no evidence rather than think that the castaway woman was the woman KNOWN to be lost in that region a few years before? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:11:23 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: shoes Just a thought, in Tenneesee there's a center for forensics that examines bodies (cadavers) that have been left exposed to the elements, buried underground, etc. under every condition imaginable. I believe it's called the body farm. The results of their studies are used globally to determine for example, how long bodies have been left to the elements. I thought, though Tighar doen't have any body parts yet, during their anaysis and studies they may be able to advise Tighar on how long different materials last under varying conditions. Just a thougt. LTM Ed of PSL **************************************************************************** From Ric Our forensic pathologist, Dr. Karen Burns, is very familiar with the Body Farm and its research. The Tennssee environment is not much like Niku. We have much more appropriate data from work involving decaying and decayed bodies that Kar has done in tropical environments, including Fiji. We'd still like to collect some data on Niku itself. Volunteers? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:33:08 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bodies Ric said: We have much more appropriate data from work involving decaying and decayed bodies that Kar has done in tropical environments, including Fiji. We'd still like to collect some data on Niku itself. Volunteers? Ric, Ric, RIC!! Volunteers, no. But I got some people I'd like to nominate, but then I'm sure you do too. LTM, who chooses to pass on the obvious Dennis McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:34:37 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Visitors to Gardner in 1930's What on earth does the "Yanomami" tribal system of Brazil have to do with Gardner in the 1930s? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe they visited Gardner in the '30s? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:35:43 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Nauru signal reception/ Clarification of Ric wrote: > Greenwich Civil Time (GCT) is simply what Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) was > called in 1937 and is what the military and others (such as the aviation > industry) call Zulu time today. All same same. Isn't that what is called UTC today ? LTM (who is always confused by GMT/GCT/ZULU/UTC) **************************************************************************** From Ric Yup, all the same. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:36:53 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Shoe and Sole Controversy/ A second Biltrite opinion? It is possibly that AE took two pairs of shoes as suggested but I find this unlikely. Pilots will normally wear the shoes they feel comfortable in having to put their feet on the rudder pedals for hours on end. If AE made did land on the Gardner/Nikumaroro beach or perhaps on a reef, I think it is not very probable that she she would have cared for changing foot wear before getting out of the aircraft. I'm sure she did not expect having to walk during her her world flight and therefore I think the very idea of bringing walking boots along sounds doubtful, even more so when one remembers how she tended to leave everything behind that was unnecessary weight. LTM (who loves comfy oxfords) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:13:14 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Reineck's website Reineck's address is reineck711@webtv.net My web site is ameliaearhart.org **************************************************************************** From Ric Normally the ".org" domain name indicates a recognized nonprofit orgainization. For example, TIGHAR's address is TIGHAR.org. We're a tax exempt public charity under IRS section 501 (c) (3). Your website header says "Amelia Earhart Research and Educ. Collaborative". Is that a recognized nonprofit organization? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:16:51 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: shoes Of course there's another issue, and I suppose it's so obvious it's been looked at already. If production dates were never there, and the person from Biltrite expected to find dates, then there must have been a time when dates were in fact moulded into the heels. Do you know when Biltrite began moulding production dates into their rubber replacement heels? Probably the TIGHAR heels pre-date this time. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Intersting point but we don't have that information. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:19:28 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shoe and Sole Controversy From > From Herman De Wulf > > I is possibly that AE took two pairs of shoes as suggested but I find this > unlikely. ............ I'm sure she did not expect having to walk during her world > flight and therefore I think the very idea of bringing walking boots along sounds > doubtful There are numerous photos taken during the flight (some of which I've listed previously) that show her in different styles of shoes when not flying. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall there are only the two pair - the blucher oxfords that she flies in and the two-tone shoes witht he light colored soles. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:41:46 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: The "sole" of the theory/Biltrite My impression from reading the bits and pieces from your Biltrite investigation is that Biltrite was only responsible for the manufacture of the Catspaw replacement heel and had absolutely nothing to do with the manufacture,etc of the sole you found. They comparted their heel with the sole but it seems to me they lacked the expertise to comment on the origin of the sole. Gave a good guess. Is your sole (not your soul) subject now to forensic analysis of its components and possibly determine the likely manufacturer? LTM, RON bRIGHT **************************************************************************** From Ric The only reason we know the manufacturer of the heel is because it has "Cat's Paw Rubber Co. USA" embossed into it. Biltrite now owns Cat's Paw, but of course also makes shoes. The people at Biltrite who looked at both of the heels and the sole certainly had the expertise to comment on them. As to determining the manufacturer of sole, I can't imagine how anyone would do that. I'd like to suggest that you and others hold off speculating until you've had a chance to see the material we're talking about once I get it up on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:00:23 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shoe and Sole Controversy/ A second Biltrite opinion? > From Herman De Wulf > > It is possibly that AE took two pairs of shoes as suggested but I find this > unlikely. For Herman (supports my previous reply). These are from the newsgroup alt.fetish.feet.amelia_earhart. Oops, nope, they are from the Purdue site. They show Amelia wearing a variaty of styles of shoes at various points in her flight. I have identified 3 certainly and another possible different pairs of shoes during the flight. The only "cockpit" shot of her foot that I can find shows her not wearing the shoes we usually associate with her feet - but I suspect this is just a convenient publicity shot. The best Earhart Shoe Shots are: XI_B_6_k.jpg - XII_B_7THUM,jpg - VIII_G_16_d.jpg (India - looks like very high tops in this rather unclear news clipping). - XI_A_1_b.jpg - XI_A_1_d.jpg - XI_A_3_a.jpg (Look REALLY CLOSELY at this shoe on rudder pedal shot!) - XI_A_3_c.jpg - XI_A_3_e.jpg - XI_A_3_f.jpg - XI_A_4_a.jpg (Good shot of the 3rd or maybe 4th pair if the India shot is correct) - XI_A_4_c.jpg - XI_A_4_d.jpg - XI_A_1_d_THUM.jpg - XI_B_1_h.jpg (Note the way she stands with one edge of the shoe resting on the ground. She does this sort of thing in quite a few instances and that should wear her soles distinctively). - XI_B_11_a.jpg - XI_B_13_a.jpg - XI_B_14_b.jpg (This shot was the reason for my posting on "sole wear" on the forum months ago - needs a close look). - XI_B_14_e.jpg (Same wear here) - XI_B_14_q.jpg - XI_B_14_s.jpg - XI_B_16_b.jpg (Guess who's got a new pair of shoes for the publicity shot!) - XI_B_17_b.jpg - XI_B_18_a.jpg - XI_B_2_b.jpg - XI_B_20_c.jpg - XI_B_21_b.jpg - XI_B_22_a.jpg - XI_B_22_b.jpg - XI_B_22_h.jpg - XI_B_3_a.jpg (Look what she chose to wear again in Java). - XI_B_3_d.jpg - XI_B_3_e.jpg - XI_B_4_c.jpg - XI_B_5_b.jpg - XI_B_5_dd.jpg - XI_B_6_h.jpg - XI_B_6_k_1.jpg - XI_B_6_o.jpg - XI_B_7_c.jpg - XI_B_7_g.jpg - XI_B_1_aTHUM.jpg - XI_B_9_bTHUM.jpg - XIII_A_6THUM.jpg - XI_B_5_gg.jpg - XII_B_6THUM.jpg - XII_B_5THUM.jpg - XII_B_4_bTHUM.jpg - XII_B_2_cTHUM.jpg - I've deliberately left out most of the Purdue shots, although the ones included also show a variety of shoes. Th' WOMBAT (I'm becoming a little kinky for earhart's shoes...) **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for compiling that list. I'll look at them as soon as I get time. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:09:18 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Reineck's website > From Ric > > Normally the ".org" domain name indicates a recognized nonprofit > organization. For example, TIGHAR's address is TIGHAR.org. We're a tax > exempt public charity under IRS section 501 (c) (3). Your website header > says "Amelia Earhart Research and Educ. Collaborative". Is that a recognized > nonprofit organization? The operative word is "Normally". I have "rossdevitt.org" and while I admit at present we are no-profit, it's certainly not intentional! Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:30:14 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shoe and Sole Controversy >From Ric > > As I recall there are only the two pair - Closer examination of pictures taken during the flight will show a third pair similar to the Blucher Oxfords, but cut considerably lower and with a flatter heel. I've submitted a fairly comprehensive listing of pics, but have a close look at XI_A_3_a.jpg - XI_A_3_e.jpg - XI_A_4_c.jpg for starters. They are all distinctly different and show up regularly through the flight photos. Th' WOMBAT. **************************************************************************** From Ric XI_A_3_a.jpg was taken before the cockpit/cabin door was removed and before the forward fuselage tank was installed. This photo was probably taken in the fall of 1936. It is definitely not a World Flight photo. XI_A_3_e.jpg shows the two-tone shoes I was mentioning. That's Bo McKneely working on the engine. He wasn't on the World Flight. This was probably taken in Burbank or Miami. XI_A_4_c.jpg was taken in Burbank, probably in June of 1936. We've talked about this photo before. That's not her Electra. These photos are useful in determining what shoes she owned at certain times, but if we're going to talk about evidence of what shoes she had with her on the second World Flight attempt we need to look at photos taken AFTER Miami. Don't rely upon any dates provided by Purdue. They may or may not be correct. Some photos have original notation on the back but many do not. Nobody there is an authority on the subject. They just have the material and make it available to researchers. I stand by my original statement that she had, on the second attempt, the blucher oxfords that she flies in and the two-tone shoes with the light colored soles. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:54:46 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Re: Shoes, etc. Patrick G. wrote: "In fact, as Kenton Spading has recently pointed out, Biltrite said the sole could have come from a women's >or small men's< shoe,...... Ric responded: "It is not, however, true that "Biltrite said the sole could have come from a women's >or small men's< shoe." Their description of the Cat's Paw heel held that "This could be for a large size Women's shoe or used on Men's shoes." To my knowledge I have never said otherwise. The only comments about the sole in the official report are: "Looks like rubber......." I am responding to this to avoid being misquoted. I did not recall saying >small men's< shoe so I checked my posting on this subject. The Bilt-Rite quote that I used was.... "[The replacement heel] "could be from a large size women's shoe or used on Men's shoes". This "small men's" quote keeps showing up on the Forum most recently in both Pat's and Ric's discussion above. Its source can be traced back to the September 1996 TIGHAR Tracks which said in reference to the replacement heel ".......a large woman's or small man's size." I did referenced this issue of T-Tracks in my shoe post but I did not quote from it directly. I quoted the Bilt-Rite letter (the Primary source). Perhaps the "small men's" statement was part of a telephone conversation that followed-up the Bilt-Rite letter? LTM Kenton Spading **************************************************************************** From Ric No, the only reference there has ever been is the one in the Biltrite report. It refers only to the heel. I paraphrased it in TIGHAR Tracks. You understand it and I understand it, but apparently others are having a hard time understanding it. Let me try again. The heel can not be "sexed." That kind of heel could be from either a woman's or a man's shoe. The sole found beside it (with matching nail holes) was judged to be from a woman's shoe based upon the fine, tight stitching evidenced from the stitching holes that are present. The small size of the brass eyelet found in the same location reinforced the judgement that the shoe was a woman's. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:59:30 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Rudders and radios I have a photo of the right hand seat of the Electra. The rudder pedal that is visible is thick and wedge shaped. It does not look like a motor vehicle brake pedal at all. I also have a photo of Earhart sitting in the right hand seat holding the control wheel...rudder pedals not visible. Both photos taken at the same time. Also in the photo of the Electra is what appears to be a round radio dial...perhaps 4" in diameter. About how much time would it take for Earhart to acquire an AM signal on an analog dial connected mechanically by a flexible cable to the radio receiver several feet away...given that the transmissions on 3105 KC from the Itasca were not at the times she expected and were of brief duration? I understand that later mechnically tuned vacuum tube receivers and transceivers had 100 KC crystal calibrators that put a reference signal every 100 KC so whomever was using the radio could tell how far off the frequency indicated by the dial was from the actual frequency the radio was tuned to. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:00:55 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Reineck's website Dear Mr. Reinbeck Speaking of horses being flogged to death, your site is quite a stable full. I would personally appreciate if you would please remove this nonsense from the internet lest people involved in serious reseach get confused. . Herman De Wulf Aviation Journalist BELGIUM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:07:12 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Re: Post 08:43 messages/ The mysterious 9 hour silence In reference to this: >From Ric >Here are the first few signals heard on the night of the 2nd/3rd. > >HMS Achilles heard transmissions at 06:00Z, July 3 which was 18:30 on July 2 >in the Central Pacific. > >Fort Shafter in Hawaii was next at 07:27Z, July 3 which was 19:27 on July 2 >in the Central Pacific. > >Next came the string of transmissions heard by Nauru at 08:31 - 08:43 - >08:54Z, July 3 which was 21:01 - 21:13 - 21:24 on July 2 in the Central >Pacific. > >Then at 10:57Z (22:27 on July 2 in the Central Pacific) Coast Guard HQ in >Hawaii heard signals. > >There were lots more. Recall that the NOS tide table for Canton shows low tide (at Canton) at 1937(Local) on July 2, 1937. LTM John Pratt (2373) **************************************************************************** From Ric Hmmmm. Another interesting coincidence. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:08:12 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Shoe and Sole Controversy For what it's worth, a story in the NY Herald Tribune, dated March 7, 1937, said: "The woman pilot's usual flying togs comprise twill slacks, sport shirt and scarf, plus a leather wind breaker, their color almost always some tone of brown. She will carry a light overall flying suit -- never a hat. In the plane she will wear light, low shoes. And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, 'just in case,' as she puts it." Of course, she could have changed her mind for the second try. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:10:28 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Consenses (sic) Just for my own clarification, how many subscribers/members believe in the post lost messages? Fact or sham? *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know. That's not how we determine what is true and what is not. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:16:19 EST From: Denise Subject: Fiji Back to Normal? Is Fiji back to normal? Here's the latest word: 12 December 2000 The Qarase regime is reluctant to return the country to democracy, says the Commonwealth's Special Envoy to Fiji, Justice Pius Langa. Many prominant people in the country believe that Qarase is not sincere in returning the country to a democratic rule. That an outside authority such as Justice Langa also felt that there is a reluctance and a lack of will with the regime to return Fiji to democracy should be a matter of serious concern to all parties whom Qarase is peddling his supposed "`road map' back to democracy." Meanwhile, Justice Langa has also expressed concern at the judiciary in Fiji. He said ... "It is desirable that there should be effective investigations and prosecution and the courts should deal with matters that come before them impartially, without fear or favour". We don't seem to be seeing that ...." So, the answer is NO! FIJI IS NOT BACK TO NORMAL. And the current treason cases are being handled so badly and with such outright and obvious favouritism, people are starting to get angry. The courts are letting obviously guilty people go free - and not questioning any of the paramount chiefs who were behind this whole farcial coup-attempt. The whole thing reeks of corruption, so it looks like very shortly we're all going to be back there where we were six months ago. No ... it's going to be worse. Look what happened when they exonerated the Meridan Soldiers of treason and let them back to barracks! Uprising! Mutiny! Vast amounts of munitions stolen. Seven people killed! And since Mua's release this week - and he was the most dangerous of all the rebels - we're looking at a lot more trouble in the very near future. How could my country have come to this! LTM (who is turning over in her grave) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:17:54 EST From: Christian D Subject: Size of AE's "work" shoes? >Assuming that AE wore thick socks >while flying, would this boost her feet two full sizes? > > LTM > > Pat Gaston This made me think: IF it gets pretty cold, being up there for so many hours, is it possible that AE used TWO sets of shoes? One for the city, and the other "work" shoes being in her bag, to be put on in the plane (never seen on pix?) and being 1-2 sizes bigger to allow for extra socks? May be the work shoes being a warm type quite different from the "Blutchers"? Just wondering... I never saw that idea anywhere before... Makes much sense to me, as seen from here in Canada, in the winter -and I work outdoors as a surveyor; so I could well understand the use of felt-lined real boots. Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:21:01 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Reineck's website Dave Porter wrote: >...lest the light of day show them to be the nonsense that they truly are, Come on Dave: are you really saying that any researcher who happens to be "non-Tighar" be all about "true nonsense"??? Cool down, man.... Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:22:29 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Reineck's website Here are two web addresses for Col. Reineck's websites: Amelia Earhart : " The Mystery Solved " ? ? ? Address:http://community-2.webtv.net/DB325840/AmeliaEarhartThe/page2.html Changed:11:44 PM on Friday, January 28, 2000 Amelia Earhart Research & Educ. Collaborative (AEREC) Address:http://ameliaearhart.org/ Changed:10:11 PM on Monday, October 30, 2000 Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:25:15 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: AE's Product Endorsements AE made paid product endorsements for womens' clothing. Perhaps shoes too? The luggage she endorsed was produced for many years after 1937. Who would have the records of the "financial arrangements" regarding the product endorsements. Her estate? Putnam's estate? The corporations who paid her? Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:53:04 EST From: Ty Sundstrom Subject: Amelia Earhart's Secret Wedding From the San Diego Hysterical Society home page. Amelia Earhart's Secret Wedding by Beth Montgomery An enlargement of a photo from the Balboa-Cortez Wedding shows Amelia Earhart and Edward Balboa leaving the ceremony just ahead of the bride and groom. Amelia and Edward it turns out were also bride and groom that day. Amelia & Edward Wed - Edward and Tulip had agreed to let their friend Amelia and Tulip's brother Edward secretly participate in their wedding to help the couple avoid unwanted publicity. The priest at the monastery was included in the plan so as to make the wedding official. As Tulip and Edward said their vows, Amelia and Edward said theirs softly from the back of the chapel. The following day Edward and co-pilot Charles Lindbergh set off on their duo-flight to Paris aboard a PB-M Navy Seaplane. Amelia left the same day on her tragic around the world flight attempt in her Ryan series 1K aircraft, never to return to San Diego. History can only wonder how events would have played out if Amelia and Edward had gone together and Charles Lindbergh had attempted a solo flight to Paris. "Whether it was considered the thing to do or not was irrelevant, and I knew that there was more fun and excitement in life than I would have time to enjoy." -Amelia Earhart ************************************************************************** From Ric Bizarre. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:11:24 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: AE's Product Endorsements Out of my field, but... Good thinking, Janet. Maybe if we knew whose products she endorsed, it might give us some clue as to what brand/style shoes she had! After all, look at the modern deals between Nike and college athletics.... >AE made paid product endorsements for womens' clothing. Perhaps shoes too? >The luggage she endorsed was produced for many years after 1937. Who would >have the records of the "financial arrangements" regarding the product >endorsements. Her estate? Putnam's estate? The corporations who paid her? > >Janet Whitney LTM (who says if the shoe fits, wear it) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric I've never seen a reference to AE endorsing any brand or type of shoes but if someone can can up with such an endorsement, as our President Elect says, "I'm all ears." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:18:42 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: TWO IF BY AIR, TWO IF BY SEA Ric wrote: >Rollin Reineck sent the following to me I presume for posting on the >Forum. > ><post our evidence on the TIGHAR website. >Daryll>> > >I don't recall any request from Daryll Bolinger or anyone else to post >evidence on the TIGHAR website. I have limited, but not entirely >excluded, discussions on the Earhart Forum (which, I guess I need to >point out to Daryll, is something different from the website) of >evidence purported to support theories other than the one the Forum is >specifically intended to discuss. > >If and when I become aware of new evidence, information, or observations >which - in my opinion - are worthy of consideration, I make them known >to the Forum and address them on the TIGHAR website. In the case of >evidence or information that doesn't "make the cut" I'm always happy to >post a URL on the Forum where interested people can go and judge for >themselves whether the information has merit. Since my name was mentioned on the Forum and in the interest posting my the most recent draft of my research, I feel obligated to supply my website address because I know I will be judged on the Forum. If I'm judged, let it be on what I say. This will save Ric the agony of having to make a value judgement ( "make the cut" ) because this flies in the face of all he believes. Conspiracy Theory or Conspiracy Evidence. Daryll TWO IF BY AIR, TWO IF BY SEA http://community-2.webtv.net/DB525840/TWOIFBYAIRTWOIFBYSEA/ **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll also be happy to post any comments or questions forum subscribers may have after reading Daryll's paper. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:20:01 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Visitors to Gardner in 1930's I think Janet was -- er, well, maybe trying to say something about the quality of data. Or something. The Yanomama thing is one of those issues that periodically roils the usually placid waters of anthropology -- a revisionist attacking the work of some of the grand old men, and making some rather extravagant claims, the establishment (probably correctly) expressing shock and revulsion, etc. etc. Sure does show that people can put different spins on data; what else is new? TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:50:44 EST From: Ric Subject: Castaway I didn't see it myself but I just heard that on his interview this morning on ABC's Good Morning America, actor Tom Hank's was asked how he was able to get into the character for his new film "Castaway." He said that he saw a documentary about a group of people (he couldn't remember the name) who were searching for Amelia Earhart on a remote island where they had found pieces of aluminum and other artifacts. The terrible conditions they endured made him realize what Earhart must have gone through and that is what inspired his portrayal of the castaway in the movie. I think I know the name of the group he's thinking of. Perhaps he'd like to know more. I'll try to get in touch with him. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:59:08 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: I'm sorry I asked . . . I want to apologize to forum members for my request last week asking someone to post the URL for Col. "Rollick'" Rollin Reineck's web site. Someone did, and, boy, am I ever sorry I asked -- and for wasting your time. I went. I saw. I blew chow. Just more endless speculation, invention, and conspiracy stuff; what a disappointment. One of my greatest character defects is denial ("If it looks like a duck, etc."). I should've known better, really. Perhaps a few minutes with the TIGHAR chaplain is in order and a proper admonishment to go forth and sin no more. Marty, you got a minute . . . :-) LTM, who is now doing penance Dennis O. McGee, #0149CE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:04:19 EST From: Ric Subject: Forum Christmas Break This Friday, December 22nd, will be the last Forum until Tuesday, January 2nd. I'm going to try to take a vacation - no really, honest. I swear. Just giving everyone fair warning. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:54:37 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Secret Wedding My thoughts directed towards the San Diego Hysterical Society and Beth Montgomery: Key word, "hysterical". Get'a grip! LTM (who believes that Peter Pan is alive, well and living deep in the dark forest of Balboa Park and who trys hard not to spread it around) Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:14:00 EST From: Ric Subject: Responses to Christmas Break Based upon about a dozen messages I've received in response to the announcement that there will be no forum from December 22nd to January 2nd there seems to be a consensus that: 1. I deserve a vacation and should have a happy holiday. ...and 2. I am a sadist and should provide some kind of withdrawal program. You guys will spoil me. Thanks. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:31:08 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Post loss 08:43 messages Read the post by John Pratt re tidal information at Canton Island. Has anyone who has access to all of the times for post loss messags and tidal data done a spread sheet to see how they compare? Does Betty's message time frame fit within a low tide window? **************************************************************************** From Ric One step at a time. I'm currently in the middle of compiling a list of all of the known (alleged) post-loss receptions in a standardized format and plotting them on timelines according to both Greenwich time and local time in the Central Pacific. It will also show transmission times for KGMB brodcasts to Earhart and the hours of daylight and darkness in the Central Pacific. We can also plug in the Kanton tidal information. Once it's done we'll put the list and the timelines up on the website My biggest concern at this point is that we don't end up with something so cluttered with information that it's unmanageable. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:06:36 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: I'm sorry I asked . . . > From Dennis McGee >... > Perhaps a few minutes with the TIGHAR chaplain is in order and a > proper admonishment to go forth and sin no more. Marty, you got a minute > . . . :-) Dennis, it's clear that you are already contrite. I confess that I looked at the site, too, though only long enough to see which way it was going. I believe that Ric told us about the note in the bottle several months ago and spent a little while indicating why he thought it was not worth exploring further. I certainly respect his judgment in not opening the forum to further discussion of this particular hoax. I am betting that TIGHAR is going to find further evidence that AE and FN landed on Niku. That won't squelch the conspiracy theories entirely; it will just give them a new starting-point. Sorry I can't give you absolution via e-mail. The Church requires that the sacrament be given in person. ;o) Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric This keeps coming up. Maybe it's time we talked to Rome about a special dispensation. Marty could be the Church's first E-Prelate. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:33:25 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: TWO IF BY AIR, TWO IF BY SEA (Note: This posting has been edited to delete references to personal character.) Ric: Just what we need. More conjecture, hypothesis, innuendo. Could have been there, might have known about, may have sent, rumored to be. If this is the stuff of science, then I should have had straight A's in everything I ever took in school. I know you went over the message in a bottle bit several months ago, and probably don't wish to bring that up again, but what happened to the "lock of hair." Since DNA testing could positively prove it to be AE's (or not be), then its location and testing is paramount. I, for one, don't believe the bottle could have floated that far (currents are tricky at best, then you have the problem of storms that can throw all that off), but a crafty person could drop it along the beach a year later when he returned from a trip to the Pacific and be sure that it would be found. Anyway, if you want to pick it to pieces, it is more than possible, but again, why waste the time and energy. Let's move on. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric I won't comment on Daryll's paper or Rollin's website. They speak eloquently for themselves. I will, however, clear up an apparent misconception about hair and DNA. If I understand it correctly (and I'd appreciate correction if I don't), having a lock of cut hair will not give you mitochondrial DNA. For that you would need hair with the follicle still attached - in other words, hair that had been pulled out "by the roots." And even then, getting usable mitochondrial DNA from a sixty-plus year old follicle would be problematic. What I don't know is whether cut hair of uncertain origin could be conclusively matched to a sample of known hair from the subject. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:37:00 EST From: Herman De Wulf / Belgium Subject: Re: I'm sorry I asked . . . (Note: This posting has been edited to delete strong language.) To Dennis McGee (and others) That's why I sent Rollin Reineck the message (and a carbon copy to Ric). Ric was so kind as to publish it so that everybody has now been warned. The website is just pages full of horses flogged to death, utter nonsense and has nothing to do with scientific or any other serious research. One has to see it to believe it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:29:42 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: non-tighar AE researchers... For Christian D.: No, I do not think that non-belief in the tighar hypothesis makes non-tighar AE researchers nonsensical. Most of them have accomplished that feat on their own, quite apart from tighar. I would be delighted if other AE organizations would do serious first hand research, rather than hash over the multitude of conspiracy theories time and time again. I would be even more delighted if such organizations would put such research up for critical review, comment, and question by novice and expert alike on their websites. Of course, there's also the crashed and sank proponents. That, of course, is not a conspiracy theory, but if Elgin Long's book is the best that these folks can come up with, it is an indication of a lack of serious, critically analyzed research. I've been a casual reader of AE related stuff ever since I saw the AE "In Search Of" episode as a kid some 25 or so years ago, and until I ran across tighar in a magazine article two years ago, the only documentable fact I was certain of was that AE disappeared somewhere over the central pacific on July 2, 1937. As for "lightening up," Ric will have to be the judge, but I'm sure that I must be near the top of the list for dim-witted, half-assed, non-funny jokes submitted to this forum. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 **************************************************************************** From Ric Dave brings up an interesting point. I'd like to think that we all recognize the value of having many people from diverse backgrounds with a wide variety of perspectives consider the available evidence and offer their views. I also think that we all are predisposed to respect the efforts of those who have gone before and assume that our work will be built upon the foundation laid down by others. That's how science generally works. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, the Earhart case is not like that. Time and time again we find that we have to literally start over in the investigation in order to establish solid facts from which valid conclusions can be drawn. Understandably, our rejection of the work of previous (and some contemporary) Earhart researchers is not well received by those who have followed the mainstream(s) of efforts to solve the mystery. I can think of one historical parallel. When the Wrights decided to tackle the problem of heavier-than-air flight they began with the assumption that they could build upon the work of predecessors like Lillienthal and Chanute. What they discovered, however, was that the assumptions, principles, and numbers amassed by all that previous research were, for the most part, just plain wrong. They had to start over, and they made a lot of enemies. I'm certainly not comparing TIGHAR's efforts or accomplishments to those of Orville and Wilbur, but I think I understand some of what they must have gone through. Here's another interesting historical parallel. The Wrights' approach to flight was to achieve control of an inherently unstable aircraft. The most prominent proponent of the most popular competing theory - to make the aircraft inherently stable - was Samuel Langley of the Smithsonian Institution. Today, the most prominent proponent of the most popular competing Earhart theory (crashed and sank) is Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian Institution. Tom is the author of "The Bishop's Boys", one of the finest biographies of the Wright brothers ever written. Talk about ironic..... LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:38:09 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: I'm sorry I asked . . . >From Dennis McGee >LTM, who is now doing penance As long as we're confessin' here, I must confess that last weekend I watched the movie (forgot the title) about Amelia with Bruce Dern as Putnam and (rats, now I've forgotten her name) as Amelia, and Rutger Hauer (laughably miscast) as Noonan. I thought I would be at least entertained, but I was sadly mistaken. A REALLY poor movie. Though I've never been so misguided as to actually go and look at Reineck's web site, I shall also do penance. But the real reason for this note is to wish all TIGHARs a Very Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year. Tom **************************************************************************** From Ric That's Dianne Keaton as AE. The real title of the film is "Annie Hall Circumnavigates Southern California in a Twin Beech." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:52:56 EST From: Ric Subject: 2001 Calendars We're offering a 2001 version of the TIGHAR Nikumaroro calendar that was so popular last year. (Same photos, new dates.) See the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/tigharstore.html for ordering information. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:55:01 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: AE Items on Ebay If AE's chemistry notebook is up for auction on Ebay, I wonder what else her descendants, descendants of George Putnam, descendants of her friends, etc., have of hers. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric It's not clear to me who is selling the stuff on Ebay. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:56:56 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: The Bishop's Boys Ric said; "Tom (Crouch) is the author of "The Bishop's Boys", one of the finest biographies of the Wright brothers ever written." I agree completely. And if people are still making out their Christmas lists, ask for that book under your tree Christmas morning. It is a great read! A brief review of Crouch's sources and the detail he provides makes it evident that he work long and hard on the book and applied many of the scientific principles of investigation used by TIGHAR. So, in that light I still find it hard to believe that Tom is unable to subscribe to TIGHAR's theories and holds tight to the crashed-at-sea version of Earhart's fate. I've seen the "Ric and Tom Road Show" and both men make compelling arguments for their cases. But I'll still put my money (literally) on TIGHAR. LTM, a real Wright fan Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:54:46 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: DNA > From Ric: > > ... I will, however, clear up an apparent misconception about hair and DNA. > If I understand it correctly (and I'd appreciate correction if I don't), > having a lock of cut hair will not give you mitochondrial DNA. One site claims to be able to use single hair shafts without roots: "According to our results, even the shaft portions of the hairs contain enough copies of both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA to be detected using PCR." http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp8proc/36.html Two warnings: 1. They are trying to sell their services. 2. Their experiments used freshly-plucked hairs, not those from an archeological site or from a bottle found on the shore. Another (UK) site records successful retrieval of mtDNA from two hair shafts: http://www.forensic.gov.uk/forensic/conference/papers/hair_samples.htm But two other hair shafts collected in the second case yielded no useful mtDNA. A third site doesn't answer the question about hair shafts, but it describes the kind of "circumstantial evidence" used in court which (in my opinion) is a good model for TIGHAR's investigations: "In this way, by accumulating bits of linking evidence in a chain, where each bit by itself isn't very strong but the set of all of them together is very strong, you can argue that your suspect really is the right person." http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/forensics.html I think the metaphor of the chain is the wrong image to use in this case. If you break one link in a chain, the whole chain is useless. A better image is of short strands woven into a rope. None of the strands separately can bear the weight of the whole argument; it is only when they are woven together that the whole is stronger than any of the individual parts considered in isolation. The good news is that mtDNA can be obtained even from old bones; the bad news is that mtDNA does not conclusively identify one individual: "Recently mtDNA was extracted and sequenced from a Neanderthal skeleton. These results allowed anthropologists to say with some conviction that modern humans do not share a close relationship with Neanderthals in the human evolutionary tree. While all the applications of mtDNA, including forensic, are relatively recent, the general methods for performing a mtDNA analysis are identical to those used in molecular biology laboratories all over the world for studying DNA from any living organism. There have been over a thousand published articles regarding mtDNA. "MtDNA has advantages and disadvantages as a forensic typing locus, especially compared to the more traditional nuclear DNA markers that are typically used. As mentioned above, mtDNA is maternally inherited, so that any maternally related individuals might be expected to share the same mtDNA sequence. This fact is useful in cases where a long deceased or missing individual is not available to provide a reference sample but any living maternal relative might do so. Because of meiotic recombination and the diploid (bi-parental) inheritance of nuclear DNA, the reconstruction of a nuclear profile from even first degree relatives of a missing individual is rarely this straightforward. However, the maternal inheritance pattern of mtDNA might also be considered problematic. Because all individuals in a maternal lineage share the same mtDNA sequence, mtDNA cannot be considered a unique identifier. In fact, apparently unrelated individuals might share an unknown maternal relative at some distant point in the past." http://www.mitotyping.com/aboutmt.html Even if the hair in the bottle proved to share AE's mtDNA to a very high probability (plus or minus a small percentage), it would not prove: 1. That it was her hair and not from another family member. 2. That the hair came from the Pacific and not from some other clipping taken during her lifetime. This is the problem of "provenance" or "custody of the evidence." Finding an mtDNA association would not prove all of the other assertions made by the message in the bottle. It would only be one strand (pun intended) in a skein of arguments. If TIGHAR can find bone fragments or teeth on Niku (or in Fiji) associated with AE or FN's mtDNA, that would go a long way toward establishing the TIGHAR hypothesis. I doubt that it would silence the conspiracy theorists. For them, it would just be evidence that the government coverup continues to this day under the cover of historic aircraft recovery. How could anyone ever prove that the government didn't exhume AE's bones from her real gravesite (pick one, any one) and salt them on Niku where they would be "discovered" by secret agent Ric and his co-conspirators? :o( What Mark Twain says of science applies to conspiracy theorists, too: "One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Marty, this is great stuff. Thank you. Anyone who thinks that DNA evidence will always be accepted as proof should write "O.J. walked" on the blackboard a hundred times. Let's say we get lucky and recover a tooth from Niku from which usable mtDNA can be extracted and - bingo - we get a match to a sample taken from a cheek swab of AE's niece. Based upon the infromation provided above, that would not be ironclad evidence that the tooth came from Amelia Earhart. It would be very strong evidence that the owner of the tooth and Earhart's niece share the same female ancestor in a direct female line of descent. That ancestor might be Amy Otis Earhart (AE's mother) or, I suppose, Marie Antoinette or anyone else. It all comes down to an issue of liklihood, odds, coincidence, whatever you want to call it. I agree with Marty. The strength of TIGHAR's case is the fact that it does not reside in any single piece of evidence. Look at it this way - if a case hinges upon a single "smoking gun", then a single bizarre coincidence could have created the illusion of proof. If, however, the case rests upon an arsenal of warm, but not necessarily smoking, guns then it takes an entire circus of bizarre coincidences to dislodge the logical conclusion. All of the concerns about a smoking gun or an any-idiot-artifact have to do with public perception and acceptance - or more accurately - media perception and acceptance. As Tom King has said, smoking guns are a rarity in archaeology but good solid work will eventually prevail through the acceptance by respected authorities of a well-documented, if somewhat complex, case. How long that would take is another question. In the meantime, we'll keep hoping and searching for the illusive and illusory smoking gun, not because we need it to prove the case but because the media need it for its theatrical value. A DNA match or an airplane part with a serial number would make what is complex appear to be simple and would fast-forward wider acceptance of what some of us have seen for a long time. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:45:51 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: AE's clothes to Muriel? Does anyone know how many of AE's personal effects went to her sister, Muriel ? They appear to have worn about the same size clothes from their photographs. Muriel 's family was not in good financial shape in the late 30's, and George Putnam remarried within 2 years of AE's disappearance. Also, wouldn't the lawyers who have administered AE's estate for all these years have records of the estate's income from various sources going back to before AE's disappearance? Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:57:31 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: DNA Let's say, for arguments sake, that you (or the team) finds a landing gear strut for a 10-E, or a main wing spar, or any other part that does not have a serial number but that can be proved to come from a 10-E. Would this not, in fact, be conclusive proof? Where else would the part have come from (aside from conjecturing that TIGHAR reps planted the parts)? Thus the hypothesis that AE/FN ended up at Niku/Gardner would be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, would it not? However, if a glove of the make & style of those owned by OJ showed up on a street corner in LA, it wouldn't prove anything, even if it had mitochondrial DNA from his deceased spouse. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric The conversation would go like this: TIGHAR - "We found an airplane part on Niku that we KNOW came from a Lockheed 10E (part number but no serial number or distinctive enough so that there's no question). It must be from Earhart's airplane." SKEPTIC - "How can you say that? There were 15 Lockheed 10Es built. One was Earhart's. Only one other still survives. Can you account for all the parts of all of the other 13? TIGHAR - "No. Of course not." SKEPTIC - "Then how do you that this part is from Earhart's plane. Sounds like a 1 in 14 chance to me." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:06:46 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: Castaway Hope you and Pat have a great, and well deserved vacation. If you think he'll take it, I'll spring for a membership for Tom Hanks. If anyone in the Detroit area is interested in joining my wife and I for a group outing to see Castaway, contact me off forum at drp67@hotmail.com Could be a fun evening out with dinner, meeting other forum folk in person, etc. LTM, who wishes a merry christmas and happy new year to all forumites Dave Porter, 2288 ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric Hanks' agent has (supposedly) by now handed Tom a printed-out copy of an email from me while he's waiting to appear on Letterman tonight (Tuesday). Can't do better than that. If I get a response from him and if he's interested in our work we'll take you up on your generous offer to buy him a membership. If he's not interested there are better ways to use your 45 bucks. We'll see what happens. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:16:02 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Electra 10E/ Landing gear strut I think Tighar short changes himself and has an excllent chance of prevailing in a cross examination of the 10E Landing gear strut found on NIKU by Janet Whitney. (Tighar last question) Skeptic: How do you know this part is from the Earhart plance. Sounds like a 1 in 14 chance to me. (Cross continued) Tighar: Let me explain further. Earhart's plane flew within a minimum of 380 miles north of NIKU on 2 July 37 and reported she was heading on a LOP that would nearly intersect this Island if she followed it southeast. Skeptic: How do you know she landed at NIKU. TIGHAR: A search of the ocean and surronding Islands in 1937 for days by thousands of men and many ships yielded no trace of her aircraft at sea or land. And a review of the logs of the 14 other 10Es in the world indicated that x were in Canada, x were in Lae, x were in the US, and x in South America (etc) and only one was flying in the south pacific and almost out of gas in July 1937.The logs of each other 10E showed no flights in or around the Pacific in the summer of 1937. Skeptic: Do you mean you reviewed each 10E flight log and found none flying in the vicinity of Howland or the Phoenix in the summer of 1937? Tighar: That's correct. And we have no reports of any other lost, missing or stolen 10Es in the Pacific theatre during this time. We have checked each home field and owner. In addition, a review of the repair logs of each shows none were missing or lost a gear strut. Skeptic: Well who found the strut. (Like OJ, it could have been planted!) Tighar: I, Richard Gillespie, Executive Director, found it under the ren tree, not far from a Catspaw heel that fits a blucher oxford,about size 9-you know the kind that Amelia always wore while flying. Skeptic: Can you produce the specs and plans for Earharts 10E. Tighar: Yes there right here and you'll see that that this strut is from Earhart's 10E in which a mechanic at Lockheed recalls several distinctive scratchs and slight dent marks that were incurred in a March 37 accident in Hawaii.(I would certainly show it to a Lockheed guy, not to far out) Skeptic: How much does a Tighar membership costs? So all may not be lost based upon Dave Bush's hypothetical discovery. (But if the glove matching OJs style and make (only a dozen or so sold) was found by Det Furhman in OJ's backyard with his wifes DNA, I woud be suspicious) LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric I see. All I have to do is lie. It is true that Earhart's was the only 10E west of Los Angeles - ever, as far as we can tell. There were a few Electras in New Guinea, New Zealand, and Australia; but no "E"s. However, we've never seen a flight or maintenance log for any 10E and it's highly doubtful than any still exist. We know where some, but not all, of the other 14 10Es ended up but we can't say what happened to their parts and there is no way to find out. It all comes down to shades of probability. A so-called "smoking gun" is not a piece of irrefutable evidence. All evidence can be refuted given adequate imagination. A "smoking gun" is merely a piece of evidence that seems very convincing. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - the accused was found standing over the body. The gun in his hand was still smoking from firing the bullets which killed the deceased. Surely he is the murderer." Any one of us could construct a scenario in which the man holding the smoking gun is innocent. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:39:15 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: smoking gun SKEPTIC - "How can you say that? There were 15 Lockheed 10Es built. One was Earhart's. Only one other still survives. Can you account for all the parts of all of the other 13? Except that how many of the 10-E's were ever anywhere near that part of the world, and how many of them disappeared mysteriously (in that part of the world)? David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric None, of course. But you don't have to have an airplane crash on an island in order to have a part show up there. From the time the first settlers arrived in 1938 we're quite certain that no airplane ever crashed or was even damaged at Gardner, and yet we've identified parts from a Consolidated Model 32 (B-24, PB4Y-1, C-87, etc.) on the island. Remember, we're talking about bizarre scenarios to explain away apparent smoking guns. Let's say we find a Lockheed 10 gear leg on the island. Smoking gun? Not necessarily. Suppose an airplane that crashed on Canton was carrying a spare gear leg destined for one of the Lockheed 10s in Australia and suppose that that part got salvaged by a worker on Canton whose home was on Niku. It could happen. How likely is it that it DID happen? About as likley as a woman's blucher oxford being stocked in the Gardner Co-Op store. My point is that skepticism, like love, will always find a way. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:21:57 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: The Elephants' Graveyard Hypothesis Recently, Dave Porter asked, "what if you found a strut belonging to an Electra 10E on Niku..." Viewing recent photos of the Norwich City, would anything be left of the Electra. Radial engines are large, but not as large as the super structure of the Norwich, and I believe that has rusted away. **************************************************************************** From Ric You raise an excellent point. That reef is about as brutal an environment as you could imagine. You can see what it has done to a 400 foot, 5,500 ton steel freighter in the course of 71 years. It doesn't take much imagination to think what it would do to a flimsy little aluminum airplane in 63 years. Like looking for the remains of toilet paper used by Aristotle. I think it's pretty safe to say that any part of the airplane that stayed on that reef is now rusted and pulverized into oblivion. Realistically, any part of the airplane that still exists got transported (by man or nature) to some less reductive environment fairly early on. The good news is that there were lots of forces available to do that. Nature could have moved pieces onto the ledge off the west end of the reef; or perhaps through the main channel and onto the lagoon floor ; or for buoyant pieces, maybe somewhere along the lagoon shoreline. Parts found by the early settlers on the reef or shore may have been brought back to the village and used for local purposes. We've found scraps of material (dado, plexiglass, radio cables) in the village that may be from such use. An interesting question that occurs to me is where did the rest of the Norwich City go? Did it just rust away? I don't think so. If that were the case then all of it should be there in more or less the same state of oxidation. Instead, the big chunks that are still there are easily identifiable. From a close look at the availble photos, this is what happened to the Norwich City. The grounding in 1929 broke her back but she remained pretty much intact. There were a few pieces of debris on the reef around her, but not much. Sometime after April 1939 but before June 1941 her stern that was hanging off the edge of the reef (about 40 percent of her entire length) broke off and tumbled down to reef slope to God-knows-where. My suspicion is that his may have happened during the big storm of November/December 1940. Now her severed hull was open to the sea but the surviving forward half of the ship remained suprisingly intact up through 1953. Still not much debris on the reef. It had now been 24 years since she went aground. The next photo we have was taken 22 years later and the change is dramatic. She is no longer recognizable as a ship, just a massive engine and a row of three huge tanks on a base of rusted steel. Her bow has broken off and lies prow-skyward on the reef with the anchor still in the hawspipe. Scattered on the reef toward the main lagoon passage is a litter of debris. It's as if, at some point, the rust weakened her seams to the point that the next big storm quite literally blew her apart, and yet there does not seem to be nearly enough sheet steel on the reef flat to account for all the hull and deck structure that was there. Where did it go? She has remained largely unchanged since then (another 24 years when we last saw her in July 1999). The bow has broken up and the anchor now rests on the reef but the engine, and the three tanks are still there although one of the tanks has moved about 50 yards toward the shore. Another observation: The debris on the reef is distributed in a path that leads toward the main lagoon passage but stops abruptly with one large sheet of hull plating at the edge of the beach. Let's call this the Elephants' Graveyard Hypothesis: Weather events out of the northwest drive debris on the reef toward the main passage. Due to the shape of the passage it acts as a venturi (a gravitational analogy would be a "black hole") and the closer an object gets to the "throat" of the passage the more intense are the forces pulling it toward the passage. Objects that have a sufficient ratio of surface area to mass (such as pieces of hull plating) pass a certain critical point and are pulled through the passage and end up on the floor of the lagoon just inside the passage. We know that material from the Norwich City can travel through the passage because there is a tank (apparently buoyant) from the ship that is up on the shore well inside the lagoon. Non-buoyant material ends up in an Elephants' Graveyard of reef debris on the lagoon floor. That's where most of the Electra went. Testing the hypothesis: 1. Go to island. 2. Get in water. 3. Look around. If the hypothesis is correct the bottom should be littered with junk that was once out on the reef. We already know that the visibility is crumby and the tricky part could be sorting through the stuff to see if there are big chunks of aluminum there. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:31:04 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: landing gear All of this discussion regarding a landing gear from a "10E" overlooks the fact that the landing gear on AE's 10E was not specific to the 10E. Is that correct, Ric? It is my understanding that the 10E was a derivative of the Lockheed 10 and was produced in the A, B, C, D, and E (and beyond?) variants. The major differences in variants were the type/size/power of the engines and internal configurations for passengers versus freight hauling. Therefore, if you find a landing gear from a "10E" if could also be from an A, B, C, or D model. That being the case there would be more than 14 aircraft (the number of Es produced) that need to be accounted for. My argument is of course picking nits. Finding ANY landing gear on Niku would be a major discovery. Finding one from a Model 10 . . . .well, as Ric would say, "What are the odds?" LTM, who has two legs to stand on Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric That's right Dennis. The only parts of an E that are any different than other Electras are the engines, cowlings and nacelles. Of course, Earhart's was a "10E Special" and had other unique features such as the fuselage tanks, but the basic airframe was pretty much the same as the other 147 Model 10s built by Lockheed. Incidentally, there was a 10A,10B,10C, and 10E but the 10D never got built. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:37:14 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Fate of Model 10E's There is a sucinct description of all Lockheed Model 10's produced by Lockheed in "Lockheed's Model 10 Electra" by Thomas Emmert and William T Larkins in the Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society, Summer 1978, pages 141-153. It appears that records of the fate of Model 10E's that were sold to foreign airlines and governments could be determines by contacting the foreign governments and foreign airlines (or their successors). Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric The excellent Emmert/Larkins article has been a staple in our research and it does provide the fate of some, but not all, Electras. The additional research you describe might result in some additional information but I have not considered it worth the time it would take. If you feel differently, by all means, have at it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:46:01 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: smoking guns Ric wrote: <<"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - the accused was found standing over the body. The gun in his hand was still smoking from firing the bullets which killed the deceased. Surely he is the murderer." Any one of us could construct a scenario in which the man holding the smoking gun is innocent.>> You are so right about your last sentence (above). There is a commentary in the Talmud about just such a scenario in which an innocent man discovers his wife's body with a knife in it. Just as he removes the knife, the neighbors walk in to discover him holding it and leaning over the body. In any event, if parts of an Electra 10-E are found on Niku, then the whole world would undoubtedly concede the TIGHAR hypothesis to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (although Talmudic scholars may point out that it is not proven beyond any doubt). Just the same, if such parts are discovered on the ocean floor far away from NIKU, one would have to question at least part of the TIGHAR hypothesis -- that is, the part that has the plane landing on Niku. In such a circumstance, it may remain open to conjecture that AE & FN made it out of the plane alive and reached Niku (or some other island) safely. David Evans Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric Assuming for a moment that the Electra DID run out of gas and go down at sea, I'll consider it a sign of divine intervention if somebody discovers it on the ocean floor. All of the calculations I have seen which attempt to constrain the search area to even a few thousand square miles are pure fantasy. If that thing did not end up on Niku it is truly lost. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:49:24 EST From: Frank Kuhre Subject: Re: Electra 10E/ Landing gear strut Ric you may not remember me, but I was the refurb manager for the "Finch Electra." I missed any previous commentary on this landing gear issue, but I have a personal intimacy with the Electra landing gear, as I had to completely overhaul the strut, screw, track, and structural mounting for the one on the Finch 10E. Could you update me on the evidence (photos,sketch,text, etc.) are there any unresolved issues? Thanks, Frank **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Frank. Actually there is no evidence involving as gear strut, just some what-if speculation. The struts are probably the biggest steel components on the airplane and may have survived (if we look in the right place). It's my recollection that the part number is cast into the gear leg, is that right? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:52:41 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Elephant's Graveyard Was there not discussion on the Forum earlier about distinguishing Norwich City steel wreckage and Electra Aluminum before? The Niku diving vets will be better at this than I am (snorkeling only here) , but won't NC wreckage be red and Electra be green? Maybe a magnet test? If the thing sticks, it's NC steel, if it falls off, methinks aluminum. The Force Z site shows the recently located B-29 inverted not far from Repulse, and from the images there, the aluminum fuselage has turned green with oxydation. Looking at the SS United States site, it may be possible to mistake a boiler feed water pump for a radial engine depending on coral accretion. One maingear strut would sure be convincing. The F4F sitting at the Pima musuem was underwater for several decades, I'm sure the Electra parts have survived. What about the shiny metal pieces in the NASA satellite photo of Niku? For me, too many things point at Niku. The LOP, the shoe, the bones Gallagher found. Ric, enjoy the vacation, those of us suffering Tighar withdrawal will have to just open up notebooks, go over previous Forums, and spend hours up on the website. Turn off the puter and relax! Pete **************************************************************************** From Ric <> What shiny metal pieces in what NASA satellite photo of Niku? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:57:25 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: smoking gun Ric wrote : > Suppose an airplane that crashed on Canton was carrying a spare gear leg > destined for one of the Lockheed 10s in Australia and suppose that that part > got salvaged by a worker on Canton whose > home was on Niku. It could happen. Why would a worker on Canton bring a spare gear leg to Nikumaroro ? To hide it until TIGHAR came around ? To repair AE's Lockheed 10E ? Landing gears tend to be bulky and heavy and are hardly the thing one would bring home as a souvenir. If anyone finds part of a Lockheed 10E landing gear on Nikumaroro the rest of the airplane is or has been around and I would consider it a smoking gun. It would indeed be interesting however to trace the history of the few 10E aircraft Lockheed ever sold. It would also be interesting to dig into the histories of the handful flying in Australia and find out whether any of those ever needed a spare landing gear leg. In Australia three Lockheed 10A went to Guinea Airways (the first one was registered VH-UXH) and was c/n 1060) in June 1936 and two to Mac Robertson Union Airways. Ansett acquired three Lockheed 10B. In New Zealand, Union Airways acquired five Lockheed 10A from April 1937 on. If any of these 13 aircraft ever needed a new landing gear leg, it could indeed have stranded on Canton, as Ric points out. But that would still not explain why you found it on Niku ! By the way, I reckon aircraft manufacturers back in 1937 already noted serial numbers of all airplane parts they used during assembly like they do today. If you ever find that spare landing gear leg, I suggest you look for the numbers. Lockheed might be able to tell you on what aircraft it was used or to whom it was shipped. If they say it was mounted on a Lockheed 10E, oh boy, what a scoop.... Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to all of you ! **************************************************************************** From Ric Just to be sure nobody is confused, let me remind everyone that nobody has found any gear legs on Niku - yet anyway. Electra gear legs have the part number cast into them but they do not have individual serial numbers. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:05:25 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Elephant graveyard hypothesis Ok, there is this force which funnels things into the lagoon. There must also be an outlet for the lagoon to purge things. I would imagine that heavy objects would sink and remain on the lagoon's floor, but floatable items such as fabric and Plexiglas would be purged from the lagoon. I remember the Forum discussing this runoff from the lagoon is what caused the discoloration to part of the reef. Has this area of discoloration been examined for aircraft debris? **************************************************************************** From Ric Look at the map on the website. (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/MapsandPhotos/maps/Nikumap.html) The southern lagoon passage - Bauareke Passage - acts as the overflow outlet but it's not in a direct line form the main passage. There is lots of lagoon shoreline for buoyant debris to get caught on. The speculation about a mark on the reef being evidence of overwash had to do with the Seven Site. I've been on the reef both there and at Bauaraeke Passage. there is no aircraft debris at either location - nor should there be given the dynamic nature of the reef environment. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:50:17 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Crouch, Ric and Evidence Dennis M. wrote: >A brief review of Crouch's sources and the detail he provides makes >it evident that he worked long and hard on the book and applied many of the >scientific principles of investigation used by TIGHAR. So, in that light I >still find it hard to believe that Tom is unable to subscribe to TIGHAR's >theories and holds tight to the crashed-at-sea version of Earhart's fate. > >I've seen the "Ric and Tom Road Show" and both men make compelling >arguments for their cases. But I'll still put my money (literally) on >TIGHAR. Indeed Tom does do nice work and he clearly understands that scientific process. His occassional comments indicate that he is not as well versed in the Niku theory as he is in say the Wright brothers. However, he is not the only scientifically orientated person who is not married to the Niku hypothesis. Many subscribers to this forum are in the same boat. Out of curiosity Dennis, and recognizing you as a frequent contributor to this Forum, what are the top three reasons you are tightly bound to the TIGHAR hypothesis. What are the top three reasons you, or for that matter other Forum members, would bet the farm on it? LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:51:36 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: 2 if by air... Others have already mentioned that Darryl's paper is chock full of, and in fact seems to consist mainly of wild speculation and unproven assertion. I'll just note one glaring example that leapt out at me as I read it. Near the end, one of the things allegedly established is that deBisshop wrote the bottle message. Did I miss something? I read through the text a couple of times and I didn't see exactly where that was done, unless I count Daryl's self described "revelation" to that effect. C'mon Daryl, if archaeology was being done today the way you and Rollin are doing history, there'd still be hucksters making money off of Piltdown Man. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:54:20 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: TWO IF BY AIR, TWO IF BY SEA Ok, I was going to just lurk, but after seeing Daryll Bolinger's web site and Reineck's, a few comments from a computer techy who likes substance over the more ephemeral elements--and who wishes people weren't so enamored with conspiracy theories, aliens, and the ilk..... On both of these sites, I was struck with the lack of evidence outside of a "message in a bottle" (great name for a c movie, by the way...but I digress). On these sites I am given an interesting story (with some fairly decent investigative research) over the sound scientific method of providing repeated evidence supporting a theory. How can someone support something so strongly, when the evidence is sparse and shaky? Urghh! Ok, it might have been on this forum or somewhere else, but the quote that comes to mind is, "Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence." In other words, I find it much more plausible that AE/FN were lost due to incompetence (that of their equipment and personal abilities) rather than that of maliciousness (Japanese with some conspiracy theory). Ric, thank you for continuing to enforce an "open-minded-but-skeptical" forum in which all thoughts will be entertained as long as there is evidence to support it. And thank you for filtering out so much of the gobbly-gook so that we can focus on facts and not fantasy. I better go before I get carried away and same something strongly..... LTM (who asks, "Didn't this LTM thing get started in a Japanese prison camp, anyway?") --troy-- Tighar#something (have no idea how to find out my number, but I gave at the office) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:08:23 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: smoking gun I thought it would be worth pointing out again, as you and others have done in the past, that the amount of material amassed by tighar which is consistent with, if not conclusive of the World Flight ending at NIKU is enough to convince unbiased observers that at the VERY LEAST, more searching on Niku needs to be done. The lawyers and cops on this forum will rightly tell you that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable type of evidence. People aren't sure of what they saw, can't remember exactly what they saw, or even if they do, they aren't certain of the meaning of what they saw. The often derided "circumstantial" evidence; the physical remnants of the event which remain at the scene, or are taken elsewhere by persons at the scene at or near the time of the event are what makes and breaks cases. TIGHAR doesn't have, and may never have a smoking gun, but I think it's safe to say that we've got the empty cartridge case, the powder burn marks, and the expended bullet. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:21:05 EST From: Pete Subject: Niku photos I have to go back and dig for the ref for the NASA stuff. The was something about a satellite survey of Pacific islands done ('70s I think). Right now all I'm turning up is the RNZAF '88 aerial shots, and work done by Photek, Inc. Lemme keep looking! Ric, 3 days to Xmas. Repeat after me: I have worked too hard. I deserve a vacation. My Wife deserves a vacation. I will relax and refresh my mind. Happy Holidays All! Pete **************************************************************************** From Ric You may be thinking of the forensic analysis Photek did on the 1953 aerial mapping photos whihc turned up an apparent debris field of light-colored metal on the reef flat just outside the main passage. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:09:09 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: NASA photos of Nikumaroro The resolution is not good enough to look for airplanes or airplane parts. See for yourself at Look under Gardner island or Mission STS 41 B Roll 31 Frame 1191. There is one other photo as well. You can browse these, or download high resolution digital copies. Also, you can find a place to order prints on line. These are nice photos for wallpaper, but not too useful. Dan Postellon Tighar #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:10:56 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: TWO IF BY AIR, TWO IF BY SEA The ancient myths and legends about Noah's Flood, Atlantis, the Golden Fleece, Amazon women, et al, invariably have some factual basis, with the stories subsequently embellished to make some point or other, and make entertaining tales to be told around the campfire. The same holds true for the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan. Eric de Bischopp was a professional lecturer, erstwhile soldier- of-fortune, informant to the military, etc. The fact that he was eventually traced to being the author of the "Ms. Found in a Bottle" (title courtesy of E. A. Poe) tells you something about the man's character. A fascinating individual, as most con men are, and one who undoubtedly experienced some wild adventures in the Pacific, but also one who sought to parlay an alleged knowledge of AE/FN into his own benefit. Did he hob knob with US naval intelligence? Very likely, for pre-war they were most anxious to talk to anybody that appeared to have a working knowledge of the Pacific islands. And yes, the same applied to Hawaii's Bishop Museum, the source of a substantial information for the classified "Pacific Air Pilot" publication. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:15:39 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Because . . . Ken Spading asked: "Out of curiosity Dennis, and recognizing you as a frequent contributor to this Forum, what are the top three reasons you are tightly bound to the TIGHAR hypothesis. What are the top three reasons you, or for that matter other Forum members, would bet the farm on it?" Last things first: I didn't say I'd bet the farm on TIGHAR's hypothesis, I said I'd bet my money, which isn't too much because I'm but a humble public servant. Why do I support TIGHAR? One word: credibility. I've been a TIGHAR member since about 1986 or so and have joined the group on three expeditions to Maine looking for Nungesser and Coli. We didn't find them. Nonetheless, TIGHAR's methodology of looking for things pretty much mirrors how I do things: form a hypothesis, collect data, analyze, review, collect, review, analyze, collect, etc. until you're right or wrong and then start all over again. I know this isn't a very "scientific" explanation, but you get the idea. Also, TIGHAR walks the walk. Most of the other groups talk the talk but can't seem to get their acts together (lack of credibility?) to go out and prove the theories they're flinging around. They seem more content trying to disprove TIGHAR rather than doing independent research to substantiate their claims. TIGHAR's burned up some pretty serious big bucks over the past several years on the Earhart search, and so have some other guys. So far TIGHAR's investment have provided far more substantial clues as to her disappearance than all of the others combined. Until some one can come up with better evidence . . . Lastly, Ric has a video tape of me in the Maine woods doing . . .ah . . well, let's not get specific. So for $45 a year I get to keep the tape out of the public domain. It's a real good deal. LTM, who was once young and foolish Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, and I've got videotape of Spading too. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:39:25 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Crouch, Ric and Evidence I've not bet the farm (yet) on the Niku hypothesis, but I sure do like the methodology, tenacity, and sheer determination involved in the historical research. Besides, it is the journey, not the destination, that is the most important thing in life. I rather like this particular journey...it keeps my mind sharp. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:43:20 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: TWO IF BY AIR, TWO IF BY SEA Cam wrote: >And yes, the same applied to Hawaii's Bishop Museum, the source of a >substantial information for the classified "Pacific Air Pilot" publication. Except the Bishop Museum published results in peer-reviewed publications, and puts the conclusions up for debate. Daniel Postellon Tighar # 2263 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:45:04 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Crouch, Ric and Evidence > From: Kenton Spading > ... What are the top three reasons > you, or for that matter other Forum members, would bet the farm on it? I've bet $80 on it so far (two years of dues). I'm thinking of buying the Eighth Edition (another $100). Top three reasons: 1. The LOP. 2. Gallagher's finds. 3. The Catspaw heel. But these don't stand alone. There are other pieces that seem to me to interlock: sufficient fuel landing site on reef anecdotes from colonists fishing line story landing gear story stories of man & woman's bones the unmarked (non-military) piece of aluminum All of the post-loss radio signal stories seem to me to be of doubtful worth in pinpointing Niku. They are consistent with a landing elsewhere. They will gain credibility if Niku IIII finds more evidence to support the TIGHAR hypothesis--or if someone on Fiji turns up the bones and the sextant case. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:50:50 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: TWO IF BY AIR, TWO IF BY SEA Cam Warren writes > Eric de Bischopp was a professional lecturer, erstwhile soldier- > of-fortune, informant to the military, etc. The fact that he > was eventually traced to being the author of the "Ms. Found in > a Bottle" (title courtesy of E. A. Poe) tells you something > about the man's character. >> I've been on the Forum for almost two years and I don't remember a better illustration of the pitfalls of the methods applied by proponents of other theories. He was NOT traced as the author. It's a conclusion leapt to without proof, that's all. It passes through the hands of a couple of like-minded individuals and it becomes a fact. LTM (who was thinking about a bottle of Bollinger for Christmas Day, but has decided Australian is best after all) Phil Tanner 2276 And seasonal greetings from the UK to all US, Antipodean, Belgian and other cyber-pals. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:18:56 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Crouch, Ric and Evidence I agree with Randy. Using Tighar standards, my research for school has intensified tenfold for all I've done. I have the references lined up and checked too (yes, I think it was aerial shots I was thinking of) I'm 35 and ex-Navy folks, no high school kid here. I've counted pennies for gas, and wanted to send them for Niku IIII. Now, Ric has to wade through all the postings before they get on the Forum. Ric is busting a gut to get financing to go back to Niku and search. Pat is putting up with all this, and helping too. While Ric is getting a break, go to the library, view micofilm, look again. We have shoe construction of the 30's, aircraft design and manufacturing of pre- and during WW2 to compare, radio propagation and reception ability using pre-solid state technology, weather patterns, capabilities of the aircraft --as modified, message traffic from different sites. Add navigation problems, ship's positions via logs, documented history of island in question, ad infinitum. SUGGESTION: Forum members take a few days off, then look back at what is noted, saved, jotted down, whatever. See what can match what in data (times and locations and events and capabilites for the Electra versus interception times versus weather patterns versus sites ,,,,OR NC manifest versus artifacts of found with what would be had in 1929 ) Recharge batts, reset brain. Compile data gathered, do the analysis, then present. Months of data and opinion flow here folks, Niku IIII has limited time on-site, I believe the Forum is to make every second there count. Ric, if you make me drive up there from Florida and duct tape you so you'll go on vacation I'll be shoving snow down your pants. Pete **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay Pete. I know a serious threat when I hear one. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:16:54 EST From: Ric Subject: Kenton's Challenge I notice that no one except Marty actually answered Kenton's challenge to name the three most compelling pieces of evidence which support TIGHAR's hypothesis. Of course, as has been said, the real strength of the hypothesis is that there are far more than three pieces of good evidence but I do think there is some value in soul-searching for the top three. For me, at least right now, they are: 1. The navigational logic. Gardner is where they SHOULD be based upon everything we've learned about how the flight was conducted. 2. The castaway(s). SOMEBODY, and probably two somebodies - a man and a woman, died marooned on Gardner in the years immediately preceding 1940. The woman probably was of Earhart's general height and ethnic type. There is no other known woman or couple missing in the region. 3. The airplane wreck. There is a rich and consistent body of folklore from many different sources and corroborated (but not yet proven) by historical photos and recovered artifacts which tells of an aircraft wreck on Gardner sometime before the arrival of the first settlers. Such a wreck can only be the Electra. A few years ago my top three would have been somewhat different but the most encouraging thing about this whole project has always been the fact that new information keeps coming out that trumps the old stuff. When we started in 1988 all we had was a basic understanding of the navigational logic and look where we are today. Before long I expect that my top three will change again. I respect Kenton and Randy and others whose nature and training lead them to hold back and make sure all the "i"s are dotted and "t"s are crossed before reaching a conclusion. That's the way it has to be before a scientifically supportable conclusion can be presented, but to reach that point there has to be an advocate who is willing to stand up at the beginning and say "I think this is true and I think we can prove it." It is the role of the advocate to lead the quest, to take the heat of unfounded criticism and accept the corrections of well-founded challenges. That's what I try to do. LTM, Ric