=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 10:19:08 EDT
From:         Gary Fajack
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Height doesn't always equate to shoe size. My father-in-law was 6'4" and
wore a size 9-1/2. I'm 6'2" and wear from 10-1/2 to 12 depending on the
shoes origin. My nephews are 6'7" and 6'8" and wear 13-14.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 10:47:11 EDT
From:         Don J.
Subject:      Re: Don Wilson's book

Lord have mercy!  It's funny how some people can jump right in the middle of
something, and think they have all the answers because they read someone's
book.

    I was very surprised to find no response from you (Ric) at the end of this
one.  I guess you're just getting tired of posts like this.  I know I would
be!

    How many times did we debate the "tin box", and how long the Electra would
float?  As for the question; "How do I end the play?"  Well, that depend on which
book you read last! Or what message you want to convey, and it doesn't
necessarily have to be the truth!

    What's needed is to weed out some of these crazy ideas.  We don't need
anymore books, shows or plays, because they all contradict each other.  We
need facts!

    We need  more great detective work, like what was done on the "LTM" letter.
Assuming we are correct, do you realize what that revelation means to the
Japanese capture theorists?  There are books and plays in the works right now
that are based on the Weihsien Internment camp theory.  Knowing what we know now,
I can't believe a person would still go ahead and write such nonsense.

Don J.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I didn't respond to Carol's posting because I couldn't imagine anything I
could say that wouldn't sound either patronizing or cruel.

I agree that the LTM detective work is outstanding but I'm not kidding myself
that it will dissuade the conspiracy crowd.  Likewise, people can sail out
into the middle of the Pacifc Ocean and shovel millions of dollars over the
side and come up with zilch, and it's not going to phase the crashed-and-sank
crowd.

You're right.  What we need are facts, but the facts we need are the facts
about what DID happen, not about what DIDN'T happen.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 11:49:23 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Re: Don Wilson's book

Ric wrote:

<What we need are facts, but the facts we need are the facts
about what DID happen, not about what DIDN'T happen.>

I disagree.  It is very helpful to ascertain facts about what did not
happen, because then they can be absolutely eliminated as possibilities.
For example, if it can be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt (a tall
order, I admit) that the Electra did not have sufficient fuel to reach
Gardner Island, then the TIGHAR hypothesis would have to be eliminated as a
possibility.

The same is true with the excellent detective work on the Weihshin telegram.
As long as that telegram remained unexplained, there remained a remote
possibility (however improbable that it seemed) that it had some connection
to the Earhart mystery, because it was connected to AE1s husband.  Now that
it has been explained, it can be eliminated as a possibility.

David Katz
***************************************************************************
From Ric

This is actually a moot point because the whole purpose in testing a
hypothesis is to determine whether or not it is true.  Ron Bright (et al)
established, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that Earhart did not send
the LTM message and thus satisfied reasonable people that something DIDN'T
happen that some had alleged DID happen.  Had the research turned out
differently and, for example, records had been found indicating Earhart's
presence at the camp, reasonable people would have been satisfied that
something DID happen that would have a huge bearing on the case.

You use the example of determining beyond any reasonable doubt that the
Electra did not have sufficient fuel to reach Gardner Island and you are
correct that such a finding would effectively eliminate the Gardner
hypothesis.  So far, however, the calculations of those who claim to have
done that have been shown to be deeply flawed and there seems to be a growing
consensus among knowledgable researchers that, barring events for which there
is no known evidence, the airplane should have been able to reach Gardner.
This, of course, does not establish that anything DID happen but it does fail
to establish that something DIDN'T happen - which is also useful.

The point I was trying to make is really the old negative hypothesis thing
again.  To really solve this mystery somebody will have to prove what DID
happen.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 12:22:02 EDT
From:         Carol Linn Dow
Subject:      Re: Don Wilson's book

Ric, would you do me a favor and tell "Don J" to go read Don Wilson's book?
If he can't find the book I will send him scans of certain of the pages. I
have an HP Scanner, and it can go out Email as a download attachment. In the
play I am working on I crashed Earhart on land which I could change, but that
would be up to the producers at Gorilla Theater. We could have AE and FN pull
up in a life raft with a scene of the Electra crashed on a coral reef in the
background ....that would be do-able. In the play I went to considerable
lengths pointing out how much "static" there was on Earhart's transmissions.

Now listen you guys  with the Tighar group, static is the customary way of
jamming radio transmissions....pilots don't like transmissions loaded with
static and that could go a long way to explain a lot of things. YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT FACTS.....All right start talking about FACTS for a change.
That's fine with me....WHERE DID ALL THAT STATIC COME FROM? Earhart never had
radio problems the way she had radio problems trying to reach Howland Island.
IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

I don't know how much you guys know about radio transmissions....but, it is very
easy to jam transmissions by justly simply depressing the send button on a
microphone.....you will cut in on an existing transmission. Even today, air
traffic controllers have a lot of problems with exactly that, i.e....who gets
to talk. Someone starts broadcasting static and a frequency will become
useless. In Earhart's flight to Howland....go look at the records....go look
at all the radio logs of how much static was on those transmissions. FACTS,
YOU WANT FACTS? The radio logs ARE LOADED WITH ACCOUNTS OF STATIC AND MORE
STATIC. Earhart flew Honolulu to Oakland. She called in 350 miles out and had
no problems....none, in fact her messages were broadcast on CBS radio. The
whole country was listening in. In fact Earhart talked and talked and talked
on the flight. In the flight to Howland Island, Earhart was only using 4-5
frequencies, they would have been easy to "jam." SO NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THE
PLANE WENT DOWN. Now isn't that interesting?

You want my opinion someone needs to take off the "rose colored" glasses and
start looking at the FACTS. That's an excellent idea. It would be a
refreshing point of view for a change.

                                            Carol Linn Dow
****************************************************************************
From Ric

(I'm going to regret this.  I just know it.)

Carol, where did you get the idea that Earhart's communications problems were
due to static?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 15:14:51 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Don Wilson's book

Earlier I sent Ric a personal e-mail comparing -- with great
compassion and understanding  -- Carol Linn Dow with Janet Whitney.  The
similarities were startling and  provocative.  :-)
    I think CLD has set a record for this forum for proving one's
ignorance.  She accomplished in, what?, three postings that she really
doesn't know what is happening here. Or maybe our defenses are getting
better.  After all we gave Sactodave and Janet many weeks and months in
which to prove their slight and slippery grasp of the facts.  Carol Linn Dow
did it in less than a week.  Imagine, a new record!
    Normally, I would suggest to Ric that we boot her, but things are
slow and we do need the laughs.  So let's keep her a few days for
entertainment, then we'll eat her.

LTM, who always enjoys a good meal
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
*************************************************************************
From Amanda Dunham

"Gorilla Theater"???

Carol, If you're going to pull my leg, keep in mind that the left one
hurts with arthritis, thanks.

Have you seen the TIGHAR research on Earhart's belly antenna?  The
plane's, I mean!  I must have missed the Itasca log's notes on
static...

Amanda Dunham, tighar #????
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Before we carve up poor Carol let's remember that the only thing she's guilty
of is reading and believing the myths and legends that have become Earhart's
one lasting  legacy.  We're doing what we can to set the record straight but
it's a bit arrogant to assume that we can instantly undo decades of
historical abuse and expect everyone to fall into line.

The woods are full of Carol Linn Dows.  Some are looking for heros and role
models.  Others need a victim and martyr for women's rights.  Still others
seek affirmation of their own paranoid world view. Popular culture has
created an Amelia Earhart to fill every need.

I won't boot Carol off the forum and we're not going to make fun of her
either.  If she wants to stick around and learn something, that's fine.  If
not, that's okay too.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 15:18:46 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Putnam Message-Appendix A

For those following the Putnam message investigation, additional informtion
will be forwarded as Appendixes/Corrections.

Reference (a) Putnam Message/Posted 20 April 01`
APPENDIX A
THE GEORGE PUTNAM LETTERS AND INTERVIEWS WITH THE FBI

      The George Putnam FBI file consists of 271 pages of letters,
applications, memorandum, etc. However only a few documents are relevant to
Putnam's "friend" and gave us the clue to his identity- Ahmad Kamal. These
documents were written  in the summer of 1938 while GP was residing at his N.
Hollywood home. They contain background information of Putnam's "friend" that
corresponded to Ahmad Kamal's activities in the 1930's, and Putnams efforts
to recruit the "friend" for the FBI.  Putnam never revealed the identity of
his "friend".

30 June 1938     George Palmer Putnam, Amelia Earhart's husband, writes J.
Edgar Hoover from his 10042 Valley Spring Drive,N. Hollywood,Ca., address,
stating that he has an American citizen "friend" who recently returned from a
"long journey in Central Asia".  His friend speaks several Central Asian
languages and was currently writing a book about those experiences.
       Putnam says his friend was working for the LA Japanese consulate and
others collecting data on the ships, airplanes,ammunition, ambulances and the
like that are  being sent to China.
       With his friends permission, Putnam says he contacted the FBI and
suggested they recruit him as a double agent.


21 July 1938    Two FBI agents, at the direction of J.Edgar Hoover,
interviewed Putnam at his LA home. The reporting agent furnished a report of
that interview.
      Putnam  described the "young man" as approximately 24 years old [Kamal
was born 1924]  who was in " financial straits" at the time. Putnam was
helping him secure work by introducing him to various motion picture
executives and helping him publish a book[not identified] regarding his
experiences in Central Asia.
             Note: Ahmad Kamal published the "Seven Questions of  Timur" in
Dec 1938. This book describes the adventures of a man in Central Asia as
reported in reference (a). This is about 6-7 months after Putnams
conversations with the FBI.

      Putnam  related that the friend had been collecting information for the
past three months for the Japanese Consulate. Reportedly the information was
of a general nature regarding technical data,and plans of airplanes built on
the Coast.
      Putnam said his friend kept photo copies of all reports, memos and
telephone calls he made to the  Japanese Consulate.
      Putnam was advised that the FBI could not enter into any agreement with
him over his proposals. Because of this, Putnam declined to identify the
"young man", but would provide him for an interview. It is clear that Putnam
was not only trying to turn the young man into a double agent but to make the
FBI aware of the circumstances so that if the young man got "caught" he could
use the FBI's refusal as a bargaining chip.


13 AUG 1938     Two FBI agents went to Putnams home in N. Hollywood to
interview the young man. According to the FBI report, when the Agents entered
Putnam's house, they saw "several young men" waiting in the living room but
Putnam immediately escorted the agents into his private office. They provide
no descriptions of the men. None of the young men were identified or
questioned.
      The FBI again declined to get involved in this espionage scheme and
warned Putnam about espionage laws. Putnam said the friend had an immediate
offer to go to Tokyo. Putnam would not divulge the name of the friend.
           Note: There is no indication that the FBI continued to investigate
Putnam's involvement or attempt to identify the "friend".

      There are many pages of additional FBI documents relating to Putnams
application to be a Special Agent with the FBI and other letters from Putnam
to the FBI in 1941 and 1942 offering his service as a public minded citizen.
There are no further letters or interviews that deal with Putnam's friend or
any that identify him.

CORRECTIONS
      In reference (a) Kamal's likely assignment to the Weihsien Camp was
late Spring 1943, not 1942. The date of Kamal's pilot licensing, if one was
issued, has not yet been establishe by FAA records, thus the estimated date
of 1924 is incorrect as he would have been only 10 years old. And Pamela
Master's sister, Ursula, did not "look up" Kamal in Los Angeles in 1947, but
had a chance meeting with Kamal on the street. During that chance meeting,
Kamal told Ursula about his efforts to sell a book something about "Six
Fathoms Deep". (In fact in published a book titled "Full Fathom Five",
Doubleday,in 1948)

Investigation continuing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 15:20:00 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Static Facts

OK, I admit I haven't read the great Don Wilson's book, but I HAVE read the
original Itasca radio logs.  There is NO mention of static, sinister or
otherwise.  The final transmissions from the Earhart aircraft were reportedly
received at signal strength "5."  For Carol's benefit, that is the very top
of the scale and translates to "loud and clear."  Every firsthand account
from the people present agrees that her voice was fairly booming from the
receiver, indicating that KHAQQ was broadcasting within 100 miles of Howland
Island -- that's "100" not "1,000" which is how far her signals would need to
travel from the Marshalls.

"Rose colored" or not, these are the FACTS.

LTM,
Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 15:24:44 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Static, Static, & more Static

For Carol Linn Dow;

2 questions for you:

1.  Briefly explain everything you know about HF communications
2.  Have you ever used an HF radio before?

Doug Brutlag #2335
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 May 2001 15:52:19 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Putnam Message-Appendix A

Ric, Please discard if this is a duplicate ...

> From Ron Bright
>       Putnam  described the "young man" as approximately 24 years old
>       [Kamal was born 1924]  who was in " financial straits" at the time.

This must be a typo.  You must have meant "born 1914."

                            Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 08:20:31 EDT
From:         Carol Linn Dow
Subject:      Re: Don Wilson's book

Thanks Ric. I would like to see all the comments.

 Carol Linn Dow
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 08:21:00 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: static

The reason for radio static on Earhart's flight to Howland was the fact that
the equatorial region at night is prone to thunderstorms: lightning causes
static on the radio.  On her flight to Honolulu, the probability of
thunderstorms is much lower; hence, lower static levels.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

When did Earhart say anything about static?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 08:30:36 EDT
From:         Rick
Subject:      Re: Static, Static, & more Static

Ok, so everybody wants to know about Carol Linn Dow. Yes, I have used radio
communications before. I am a Beech Bonanza pilot with about 500 hours flying
time I owned an M-35 if you know the model number. I talked with the FAA here
in Kansas City about the frequencies Earhart was using in her day, and no,
I'm sorry, but they were not considered VHF or "High Frequency." The 500-550
range is low frequency and is used for short wave radio transmissions and
carries exceptionally long distances. The higher up the scale you go, the
less the carrying distance. VHF, according to the FAA here was not used in
1937. VHF frequencies travel in a straight line, and they are only good for
abut 100 miles. The lower frequencies follow the curvature of the earth which
gives them their range. The next frequency range after VHF is UHF, but UHF is
used exclusively by the military.  I asked the FAA here quite some time ago
if #3105 or #6210, either one, was considered VHF, and the answer was "no." I
just assumed whoever asked the question about high frequency was referring to
VHF. Also, you are getting into kilohertz AM and megahertz FM which are
commercial civilian frequencies. Aviation frequencies are not the same.

Ok another point ...close in, Earhart had great reception. It came in at the
top end of the scale....that's fine. However, the great mystery to me is why
she didn't stay put on a frequency that was working? Why all the switching
around? Pilots don't go bouncing around on radio frequencies once a good
contact is made. I'm telling you that from my own flying experience....it
does not happen.....and it is very suspicious.

I believe someone or somebody (probably the Japanese) was trying to cut her off.
If it is true that would explain a lot of things. All you have to do is push
on a mike button and you can cut into a transmission.

Ric, this one is for you... I looked at your puff of smoke which was supposed
to have been a broken antenna, and it came across on my screen the same color
and consistency as the white rocks in the background.....in fact, I couldn't
tell the difference. Also, Ric I can't imagine why a torn antenna would give off smoke. I've
climbed inside plenty of airplanes, in addition to my Bonanza, and the
antenna installations I have seen wouldn't give off smoke if they were
broken...just the opposite, if the pressure was great enough they would just
snap off. Maybe the smoke you were seeing came from the initial torque on the
propellors as the engines went to max. power...that would be very believable.
If there was any rocks or debris on the runway (including plain old dirt) it
would flare up at the start of a takeoff roll.

Airplane propellors have a lot of problems with rocks....they can put dents
in the leading edge of the blade.....too many dents and it means a new
propellor. An airplane that goes to max. power for takeoff will suck up all
the dirt and debris on the runway like a vacuum sweeper. Propellors have to
be "filed" down to get rid of the nicks and dents....I have done that a few
times. If that leading edge isn't kept smooth, you won't get max. performance
out of the prop. There is a possibility that a
trailing wire type antenna was dragging on the ground, and it wrapped itself
around a rock and started tearing up dirt and debris as Earhart started her
take off roll. However, that sounds like a stretch of the imagination. A
bouncing rock could have damaged the fuselage or the elevators or rudders at
the rear of the plane... that would have been dangerous.

So you can take all the punches at Carol Linn Dow you would like to take. It
doesn't phase me in the least. I wish I knew how much hangar time I have
spent listening to "wanna be" pilots and crazy stories about flying that
don't make any sense. Before I accept criticism from anyone, I would like to
know what your background is, how much flying time you have (if you are a
rated pilot), and whether you have ever owned your own airplane.

Here's some points from the last Email:
    1. The first point I would to ask is Mr. Dennis O. McGee. You don't act
like a gentleman Mr. McGee, and if it would serve any purpose in the future I
would like to know who you are, what your flying background is, and have you
ever spent any time with the Earhart's?
    2. For Doug Brutlag....good questions. Hope you have some answers now.
    3. For Amanda Durham....I hope you have some further ideas on belly
antennas.
    4. For Russ Mathews...the distance to the Marshall Islands from Howland
is considerable. However, the book by Wilson amazed me. It is out of print so
your best bet might be a library. I'm trying to quote this strictly from
memory...Earhart's Electra fully loaded had a range of 3,000 miles. The
distance to Howland was 2,250 miles. The mileage would be nautical. I believe
these figures are correct. I checked some of the maps I have of the Pacific,
and Howland to Mili Atoll (The Marshalls) looks like it is about about 700
miles. However, I don't have any aeronautical maps of the area so I can't
verify that figure. Using an atlas vs. aeronautical maps can make a lot of
difference so at best it's approximate. Your figure of 1,000 miles to Mili
Atoll seems inaccurate. Earhart's Electra had so many fuel tanks on it I
doubt seriously if she really knew how long it would fly. Running an airplane
"bone" dry is a hard call. There
is always a reserve involved and airplane fuel talk is usually referred to as
"usable" fuel on board, which means there is always a certain amount left in
the bottom of a tank which may or may not feed depending on whether you hit
the booster switch. If you hit the booster fuel pump, you might be able to
suck a tank dry but it would depend on the tank....some of them are metal and
some of them are nothing more than heavy plastic bags. My M-35 Bonanza had
heavy plastic bags that were replaceable which was a good deal especially if
the fuel tanks started to leak. And do fuel tanks leak? Uh, huh, fuel tanks
on airplanes have been known to leak....including the metal ones. Replacing
metal fuel tanks is very, very expensive. Airplanes have special problems.
    5. For Richard Gillespie, thanks for standing up for me. I don't mind
taking punches, in fact, I welcome it. I'm having fun doing this. I don't
mind it all. If this play I have ever gets off the ground, I'm going to get
punched around all over the place. So, punch away. Lets see if I have the
answers. I personally believe Earhart flew right into the hands of the
Japanese and they got her and the airplane, both. If she crashed at sea the
airplane would be gone by now, but she may have floated on their life raft
into Japanese held territory or Nikamurora and wound up in a Japanese prison.
Eventually she and Fred Noonan died or were executed, maybe on Nikamurora,
who knows? For purposes of the play it became obvious the theatrical move
would be to have a crash and capture scene. You raised an issue on the static
problems, I am going to have to backtrack and search it out again. Switching
all those channels back and forth trying to get to Howland....pardon
me...what the hell was going on??? That is very strange and suspicious,
Ric.....very. The whole rest of the trip she didn't have trouble like that
with those radios....not even one complaint ....not one.

    Oh yes, before closing, Ric, Muriel Morrissey and I were personal friends
(Amelia's sister). We wrote quite a few letters back and forth. I am thinking
about donating the letters to the Earhart museum in Atchison. About, Muriel,
she didn't have any idea of what happened to her sister. As far as she knows
she just splashed in the sea. But I don't like to think of it that way, I
think she was a martyr, one of the early victims of the war in the Pacific.
She had everything to live for ...a wonderful husband, a career, and a great
sister and mother in Boston whom she loved very much. Muriel was a great
person. She was polite, intense, knowledgeable, educated, and very much a
lady. She was just super, and I am sure Amelia was just like her...very nice
people. What a tragic end she faced. But for those that fly....you always
have to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice.

    Best wishes to you Rick and to your search for Amelia Earhart. I'll see
if I can track down the static references.

                                Carol Linn Dow
 *************************************************************************
From Ric

Carol, you are living proof that no good deed goes unpunished.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 08:31:24 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Putnam Message-Appendix A

Corrrection to Appendix A
   Kamal was born in 1914, not 1924, or he would be 6mos old when he applied
for his pilots license!! His son claims he actually was born in 1910, but we
are checking.
Thanks, Marty Moleski
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 08:35:45 EDT
From:         Denise
Subject:      APIA

You ask: "Aggie Gray Hotel ... if it still exists."
Last I heard, Aggie Grey had upgraded her hotel and it was a modern facility
with everything you need to have a great time.  As far as I know, it's still
in business.

I can ask someone if you like.

And, BTW, Aggie was only half of the inspiration for Bloody Mary. The other
was a brothel manager called Matilda Emberson.

LTM (who always found both Aggie and Matilda vasty entertaining.)
Denise
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Aggie Gray's Hotel is still very much in business.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 08:55:51 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: static

Ric asked:

>When did Earhart say anything about static?

She didn't, but the radio operators on Itasca noted static in their notes
early in the morning.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 13:13:45 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Food for thought

Carol Linn Dow said:
    "Yada, yada, yada . . .
    1. The first point I would to ask is Mr. Dennis O. McGee. You don't
act like a gentleman Mr. McGee, and if it would serve any purpose in the
future I would like to know who you are, what your flying background is, and
have you ever spent any time with the Earhart's?
    Etc.
    Etc.
    Etc."

    Let's not wait until next week, let's eat her now.

LTM, who is issuing loud sighs
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 13:38:47 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      HF Radio Static

       Everyone who uses or has used HF radio communications knows that
static is always present.  The degree of the static depens upon many
variables such as the existance of thunder storms in the general area.  If
the radio signal is weak and the receiver volume is turned up to near maximum
the static noise level or background noise lever, if you prefer to call it
that, often drowns out the audio signal.  That is the nature of HF radio
communications.  Noting static in the radio log because is hides the audio
signal of a weak or far off station would not be unusual.  The existance of
static in no way indicates an attempt to jam or hide Amelia's radio
transmissions.

Dick Pingrey 908C
****************************************************************************
From Ric

You know that.  I know that.  And most of the forum knows that.  Carol Linn
Dow doesn't even know what an HF radio IS.  Carol is a 500 hour pilot who
seems to think she is addressing the local Rotary Club.
***************************************************************************
From Andrew McKenna

Carol writes

<< SO NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THE PLANE WENT DOWN. Now isn't that interesting? >>

Yes it is, Carol, in fact it is fascinating, and that is why we are all
trying to solve the mystery.  TIGHAR is trying to do it by using the
scientific method and looking at as much original source material as we can
find, not by reading books by Don Wilson,  Long, Goerner, et. al.

If you are interested in writing a play, feel free to embellish any way you
like.  However, if you are interested in what really happened, you have to
examine the origin of everything you think you know about the mystery.
Basing what you know on Don Wilson's book simply is not good enough for the
scientific method.  Reading and examining the original radio logs is a better
approach, and TIGHAR and this forum has done that in pretty exhaustive
detail.  Have you?

We'll take off our rose colored glasses if you agree to examine your own
preconceived notions.  To do that I suggest you need to read all the stuff on
the TIGHAR website, then come and ask questions to test what you think you
know.  You will find that our colored glasses got that way by being tempered
in the crucible of peer review.

Instead of assuming that static blocked all of Earhart's transmissions
because Don Wilson says so, ask the Forum if there was any evidence of
static.  You will find there is a group of radio experts who can talk your
head off on the subject of radio transmissions, static, and stuff way beyond
my understanding on the subject.

In the end you might find that you have been fed information that has no
basis in fact, and unfortunately the AE mystery is rife with disinformation.
We are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Why do I care?  Your play at the Gorilla will have a lasting impact on those
who view it.  I would prefer that your play be as accurate as possible, and
present the facts as they are known instead of making the mistake of
repeating and disseminating the myths regarding AE that has dominated over
the last 60 some odd years.

Wouldn't you rather get the story right?

LTM
Andrew McKenna
****************************************************************************
From Ric

My prinicipal request of Carol is that she pick some other name for the lead
character in her play.
****************************************************************************
From Mike Everette

For Carol Linn Dow

AE had only 3 frequencies available.  These were 500 Kilohertz (500 KHz),
3105 Kilohertz and 6210 Kilohertt.

By the way, these can also be expressed as 0.5 Megahertz (0.5 MHz), 3.105
Megahertz (3.105 MHz) and 6.21 Megahertz (6.21 MHz).

500 KHz is a low-frequency channel.  3105 and 6210 are considered High
frequency (HF).

There is no evidence that AE ever actually used 500 KHz.  Even if she had
tried it, the nature of the antenna on NR16020 meant that little or no
signal would actually be radiated.  The antenna was far, far too short, and
therefore inefficient.

The antenna's proclivities also contributed to problems on her HF channels,
but to a lesser degree than at 500.

HF and VHF are very, very different as to signal propagation.  From your
description of your experience, I don't believe you have ever used HF radio
nor are you familiar with its characteristics.  That is not a fault; it's
just not in your background.

One cannot infer anything, really, about HF signal propagation from what
happens at VHF.

By the way, I am not an aviator but I am qualified to comment on this.  I
have over 20 years' experience in radio from the user side and the test
bench side; this includes public safety radio, avionics, and Amateur Radio.
I hold an FCC General Class radiotelephone certificate, an FCC Second Class
radiotelegraph certificate (and endorsement for Radar), an Amateur Extra
Class ham license, and PCIA (Personal Communications Industry Association)
certification as a First Class Technician.  Additionally I am a trained,
degreed historian (MA, NCSU)who specializes in technological history in
general, and radio communications in particular.

I am quite familiar with the radio communications problems on the Earhart
flight and have done considerable research into this, from the standpoint of
the equipment and the installation aboard this aircraft.  To make a long
story short, we don't know ALL the answers; but, enough is known to be quite
certain that the equipment she had was inadequate for the job.  It was
primitive at best.  It was full of operational quirks ("switchology
problems") that could and probably did cause all kinds of cockpit trouble;
and likely was a key factor in her disappearance.

LTM (who likes things user-friendly)
and
73 (radiospeak for Best Wishes)
Mike E.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Carol, it may also interest you to know that Doug Brutlag and several of the
other folks you've been instructing on aviation matters are multi-thousand
hour professional pilots with vast transoceanic experience.
***************************************************************************
From Dean A #2056

One of the reasons I don't post that much to the forum is that I know my
limitations. Another reason is that I am very efficient with my time, i.e.. I
DON'T LIKE TO WASTE TIME IN IDLE SPECULATION THAT CAN AMOUNT TO  NOTHING !
What I find very wasteful is all the time spent by people who have not been
on the forum very long asking dumb questions and jabbering on about their own
theories which have no basis in fact. A bigger waste of time are all the
responses by people who know better but insist on replying to these dumb
ramblings. When I encounter postings like Carol Linn's I read a few lines of
it and hit the delete button. This remark is NOT intended to speak poorly of
Carol Linn, but simply saying for myself, who has supported TIGHAR and have
been on the forum a while don't want to have my time wasted by bantering back
and forth about total BS !!! If people are serious about TIGHAR'S work I
suggest that they read up on the forum for a while before they speak out of
total ignorance. I usually won't "waste my time " with a letter like this but
I find myself increasingly hitting that delete button and this is actually
becoming a bigger waste of time than "venting " . :-)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I know what you mean and I sympathize.   We've let Carol have her say and she
has amply demonstrated her level of competence on this subject.  In the
interest of preserving everyone's sanity, not wasting any more time, and
saving Carol from embarrassing  herself more than she already has, I'll
impose the "Substantive Posting" rule.  If she has a question or comment that
is actually substantive I'll post it.  Otherwise, I'll deal with it off-forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 13:41:17 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Lae airport

This was on the site of the Papua New Guinea paper The National on 30 April.
I assume the old airport is the one that Earhart took off from. The new one
is apparently at a place called Nadzab.

LTM (who finds PNG fascinating to read about but doesn't hanker after a
visit)
Phil 2276
--------------------------------------------

THE old Lae airport situated in the heart of the city will be divided into
industrial leases for companies, government institutions and non-government
organisations to set up their operations.

Included in the old airport redevelopment plan the government will build a
new suburban police station, a primary school and a courthouse.
A new two-way lane road will be constructed in the middle of the runway that
will connect the Markham road junction roundabout to the end of the runway
to link up with the new road network currently being built by Barclay
Brothers.

Morobe governor Luther Wenge showed reporters the redevelopment plan of the
old airport at a recent press conference and said he is confident that many
new industries will apply through the provincial tenders office to acquire a
portion of the land.

"I'm pleased to say that the clearing work has begun with Barclay Brothers
and various youth groups clearing the land at the old airport and work is
expected to be completed within the next few months before the handover of
the road by AusAID to the PNG government," said Mr Wenge.

He said all the tender documents have been prepared and they are waiting for
the clearing work to be completed before they are issued.

Mr Wenge explained that the clearing work started on the land on the
opposite end of the runway next to the Air Niugini ticketing office and the
Highlands highway bus stop.

"Youth and womens groups in the city were also awarded contracts to clear
the land leading towards the hospital and Markham road junction roundabout,"
said Mr Wenge.

According to Mr Wenge many companies and individuals have already applied to
acquire a piece of land on the old runway to establish their businesses.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

It would be nice if somebody put up a "historic marker" to commemorate
Earhart's final takeoff.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 13:42:12 EDT
From:         Mike E. the Radio Historian
Subject:      Research assistance?

CQ CQ ... does anyone know where to find archives of either "Radio" or "R/9"
Magazines?  These were ham radio publications from the 1930s.  They merged
in 1936, with "Radio" being the surviving title.

I'm specificaly looking for information on ham operators who may have been
involved with AE on the round-the-world flight or any other time, as "back
up communications."  I've checked QST Magazine, Radio News, and others to no
avail.  A handful of scattered issues of "Radio" and "R/9" are in my
collection, but of course not from 1937 which is what are most needed.
These magazines would have been far more likely to publish "newsy"
information like this. (Yes, I have also combed aviation magazines of the
period but there is nothing regarding ham radio... in fact there is not much
about radio of any kind w.r.t. AE.)

More than likely, some engineering-school or university library has bound
volumes.... somewhere.

If these magazines are available on CD-ROM that's what would be most useful.

73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2001 10:58:53 EDT
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Static, Static, & more Static

I can't help but comment on some of Carol's posting....but I'll keep it
short. :-)

Carol, first of all, UHF is NOT "used exclusively by the military".  My
company (Rayfield Communications, Inc.) uses many UHF frequencies for
business 2-way radio systems, as do MANY MANY other businesses all over the
United States (and in other countries too).

This is just ONE example of the inaccuracy of the information that you've
gotten from others on the subject of 'radio'.

I would suggest that you find other sources for your information on this
subject of 'radio'.

By the way, I don't know everything about 'radio' (I'm always learning
something new), but I can speak with a little bit of  'authority' on this
subject.  I've owned a 'commercial' 2-way radio shop for over 23 years
(working on and using HF, 'low VHF', 'high VHF', UHF, 800 mhz., and microwave
radio equipment, for businesses and police, fire, etc.), and have been a
licensed amateur radio operator for over 26 years (Extra Class, for about 2
years, Advanced Class for most of the other 24 years),  working on and using
HF, VHF, and UHF amateur radio equipment.  I also hold a General
Radiotelephone license (actually, held 1st Class license until the FCC
dropped that particular license, and everyone was 'converted' to General
Class).  I've also done custom radio system development work for the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, as well as development work on 'radio' products that
are used by the Washington State Department of Transportation and Hyundai.

Oh, and by the way, 'static' is NORMAL for HF communications - my wife HATES
to listen to the HF 'ham' radio when I've got it in the car.  She says that
she doesn't understand how I can listen to all of that 'static'.   :-)

   John Rayfield, Jr.
   President - Rayfield Communications, Inc.
   Springfield, Missouri
***************************************************************************
From Stephen Enzweiler

Solar events also determine to a degree static levels, and even the
ability on given freqs whether you can transmit or be heard at all.  Any
way of knowing what the sun was doing at the time??
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh yeah.  Bob Brandenburg has made quite a study of the sunspot situation at
that time and has incorporated it in his evaluation of the pre and post-loss
radio transmissions.
****************************************************************************
From Marty Moleski

> From Dick Pingrey

> ... There is no evidence that AE ever actually used 500 KHz.  Even if she had
> tried it, the nature of the antenna on NR16020 meant that little or no
> signal would actually be radiated.  The antenna was far, far too short,
> and therefore inefficient.

Two additional points:

    1. I believe that 500 KHz was reserved for Morse code (CW,
        "continuous wave").  It was a frequency monitored by
        ships at sea.  Transmitting voice on that frequency
        would have been a waste of time.

    2. Neither Amelia nor Fred were much good at CW.  Ric
        has posted evidence several times which suggests that
        the CW key was not taken on the fatal flight.

That left them with 3105 and 6210 to play with.  They could also
receive 7500, but the Itasca had no voice capacities on 7500.
All that the Itasca could do was to transmit CW on 7500.

I play with radio-controlled airplanes on the 72 MHz band.
I also have read all of TIGHAR's site and remember some of what
I've read.  ;o)

                            Marty #2359
***************************************************************************
From Ross Devitt

Looks like we have one of those "I know everything because I'm an expert
pilot" people...

> Ok, so everybody wants to know about Carol Linn Dow. Yes, I have used radio
> communications before. I am a Beech Bonanza pilot with about 500 hours
> flying time I owned an M-35 if you know the model number.

I also have time logged in a Beech Baron BE58 - so what?

>I talked with the
> FAA here in Kansas City about the frequencies Earhart was using in her day,

You would have been better off talking to a radio amateur.

> The 500-550 range is low frequency and is used for short wave radio
> transmissions and carries exceptionally long distances. The higher up the
> scale you go, the less the carrying distance. VHF, according to the FAA
> here was not used in 1937. VHF frequencies travel in a straight line, and
> they are only good for abut 100 miles.

Damn..  So when I am flying in North Queensland and ATC asks me to switch to
Brisbane central (about 1000 miles away) I'm really talking to the fairies?

>The lower frequencies follow the
> curvature of the earth which gives them their range.

Good heavens..  When I trained as a radio technician in the Air Force I was
led to believe that the low frequencies were subject to reflection off
terrain, which could make them a little unreliable at times, especially when
used for beacons.

>The next frequency
> range after VHF is UHF, but UHF is used exclusively by the military.

Yep,  as far as aviation is concerned unless something has changed this one
is correct.

>I
> asked the FAA here quite some time ago if #3105 or #6210, either one, was
> considered VHF, and the answer was "no." I just assumed whoever asked the
> question about high frequency was referring to VHF. Also, you are getting
> into kilohertz AM and megahertz FM which are commercial civilian
> frequencies. Aviation frequencies are not the same.

Interesting concept.  kilohertz, AM, megahertz and FM are not aviation
frequencies.  That just might make quite a difference to the airline pilots
that have to use them daily.  I wonder which aviation academy was responsible
for that gem.

> Ok another point ...close in, Earhart had great reception. It came in at
> the top end of the scale....that's fine. However, the great mystery to me
> is why she didn't stay put on a frequency that was working? Why all the
> switching around? Pilots don't go bouncing around on radio frequencies once
> a good contact is made. I'm telling you that from my own flying
> experience....it does not happen.....and it is very suspicious.

Obviously you haven't yet picked up much experience whilst accumulating 500
hours.  Very early in the flight, Earhart decided to change frequencies
whilst talking to a station (Lae) that asked her not to change because they
had good reception, but she changed anyway and they lost contact with her
immediately.

The obvious (to almost everyone else on the forum) reason for a pilot to go
bouncing around on radio frequencies is because the pilot can't hear anything
on their main frequency.  Apparently the only time she fluked a signal was on
her Direction Finder antenna.

> I believe someone or somebody (probably the Japanese) was trying to cut her
> off.
> If it is true that would explain a lot of things. All you have to do is
> push on a mike button and you can cut into a transmission.

Which will then overlay your signal on top of the one you are trying to
block.  There is no mention of hearing that sort of interference, and to do
that the blocking station has to be very powerful or very close and the
receiving station can pick up the interference.  It would have been entered
in the radio log in the ship.

> Ric, this one is for you... I looked at your puff of smoke which was
> supposed to have been a broken antenna, and it came across on my screen the
> same color and consistency as the white rocks in the background.....in
> fact, I couldn't tell the difference. Also, Ric I can't imagine why a torn
> antenna would give off smoke.

Puff of smoke?  Carol, if you bother to read the forum history before you
jump in you'll probably find that it was claimed to "look like a puff of
smoke" just so people would know what to look for in the movie.  It is
supposedly dust raised when something hit or dragged on the ground as the
aircraft was taking off.   There was also an anecdote that someone long ago
said it was no wonder Earhart disappeared as she left part of her antenna
lying on the runway.  This anecdote has never been verified, proved or
whatever - it is just a story.  If it was true however it would explain the
puff and the later radio problems.

> Airplane propellors have a lot of problems with rocks....they can put dents
> in the leading edge of the blade.....too many dents and it means a new
> propellor. An airplane that goes to max. power for takeoff will suck up all
> the dirt and debris on the runway like a vacuum sweeper. Propellors have to
> be "filed" down to get rid of the nicks and dents....I have done that a few
> times.

You have filed down your own prop edges?  Really?  Remind me NEVER to fly
with you.

>If that leading edge isn't kept smooth, you won't get max.
> performance out of the prop.

If that prop you've been filing isn't very well balanced it is possible the
engine will tear itself off the mounts, or at least damage the engine
bearings (they are inside the engine provided you didn't leave them out last
time you pulled it apart).

>There is a possibility that a
> trailing wire type antenna was dragging on the ground, and it wrapped
> itself around a rock and started tearing up dirt and debris as Earhart
> started her take off roll. However, that sounds like a stretch of the
> imagination.

As the strip at Lae was grass, it is just possible that an antenna dragging
on the ground wouldn't need a rock to raise a bit of dust.

>A bouncing rock could have damaged the fuselage or the
> elevators or rudders at the rear of the plane... that would have been
> dangerous.

Not that many rocks in the middle of most grass airstrips - really - count
them some time..

> So you can take all the punches at Carol Linn Dow you would like to take.
> It doesn't phase me in the least. I wish I knew how much hangar time I have
> spent listening to "wanna be" pilots and crazy stories about flying that
> don't make any sense.

Phase you?  Perhaps a term from Star Trek?  Maybe it doesn't faze you either.
 This forum is about trying to unravel the mystery of what happened to
Earhart and Noonan.  It is not about pilots, "wanna be" or not.  A number of
pilots on the forum who are there partly because the Earhart mystery is
aviation related give opinions based on their experience.  Some of these
pilots are current and ex airline and military pilots, others like myself
have relatively few hours.  This is not a pilots' forum nor is it an aviation
forum.

>Before I accept criticism from anyone, I would like
> to know what your background is,

Multi skilled.  Airforce, Government, Private Enterprise.

>how much flying time you have (if you are
> a rated pilot),

Oh, poor me..  only 70 hours logged in 8 single and twin aircraft (logged).
All the hours flying that can't be officially logged don't count.
Unfortunately I only fly as a hobby, among other hobbies (sailing etc.)

>and whether you have ever owned your own airplane.

In this country?  You've got to be kidding.  It's much cheaper to hire
whatever seating capacity one requires and let some other poor devil worry
about the insurance, fuel and maintenance.  I can hire an aircraft for a
couple of hours a week every week including all expenses for 5 years for the
cost of buying an average aircraft.  Not many of my friends that do own light
aircraft in this country average 50 to 100 hrs a year.

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2001 11:16:23 EDT
From:         Troy
Subject:      CLD (Carol Linn Dow)'s pending blood bath

Ric said:

> Carol, you are living proof that no good deed goes
> unpunished."

and

>Before we carve up poor Carol let's remember that the only thing she's guilty
>of is reading and believing the myths and legends that have become Earhart's
>one lasting  legacy.
>...
>I won't boot Carol off the forum and we're not going to make fun of her
>either.  If she wants to stick around and learn something, that's fine.  If
>not, that's okay too."

Time to throw sand on the deck.....  The FAQ's would be a great place to
start for CLD.  I know it is where I started and it kept me mostly out of
trouble before "shooting from the lip".  I am always amazed at how much I
have learned on this forum when I read postings like CLD's.  This sounds like
another Jihad opportunity to proselyte Earhart facts and dispute the fiction
with another person who (like myself) believed the lies and make believe of
others.

Anyway, Carol, you are in for quite an interesting education from this forum.
 Hopefully, you will approach it in an open-minded yet skeptical manner
(willing to change your beliefs in the light of critically examined fact).
This forum is relentless in its pursuit of fact--better get out the triage
gear.....

LTM,
Troy Tighar#2348
****************************************************************************
From Roger Kelley

Carol Linn Dow wrote:

"I personally believe Earhart flew right into the hands of the Japanese
and they got her and the airplane, both."

The standards by which TIGHAR and many of those who participate on this
forum, base their opinions are quite strict.   Our standards are to
accept only oral evidence (eye witness / anecdotal accounts),
corroborated by physical evidence (artifacts) and irrefutable physical
evidence.   Absent sufficient evidence in these two categories, I will
review circumstantial evidence and may, repeat may,  form an opinion
based upon circumstantial evidence.

To my knowledge, there are no eyewitness accounts, corroborated by
physical evidence, or physical evidence alone, which support any claim
that the Japanese were in involved with Amelia Earhart during her second
world flight attempt.  Or, Japanese involvement in her first world
flight attempt.  Lots of rumors, but no evidence.

Carol also wrote:
"I think she was a martyr, one of the early victims of the war in the
Pacific."

The statement that Amelia Earhart was an early victim of the war in the
Pacific, in my opinion,  has no factual foundation when the above
standard is applied.

Again, I differ with Carol's belief that Amelia Earhart is a "martyr."
Fact:  Amelia Earhart was "Pilot in Command" during the second world
flight attempt.   Fact: As 'Pilot in Command," Amelia Earhart is
responsible for the failure of the flight.  Fact:  As "Pilot in
Command," Amelia Earhart is directly responsible for her own death and
the death of her crew (regardless of how they met their demise).   Why
is the "Pilot in Command, Amelia Earhart," responsible?  She failed to
safely fly the aircraft to Howland Island.

It woud be wise if Carol would site the evidence and the source of the
evidence on which her opinions are formed.  Hopefully, her source will
adhere to the standards embraced by TIGHAR.  I welcome new evidence in
our on going debate.

Alas, Carol also wrote:  "Before I accept criticism from anyone, I would
like to know what your background is, how much flying time you have (if
you are a rated pilot), and whether you have ever owned your own
airplane."

In other words, if Carol does not like the message, trash the source.
The  "in your face"  attitude Carol displays in her response may
indicate a lack of social skills, possibly a closed mind and, I would
suspect,  fear of exposure or fear of defeat.  Such an attitude, in my
opinion, serves only to degrade the quest for truth and knowledge in any
environment.

LTM,
Roger Kelley
***************************************************************************
From Pete

For Carol

With 8 years in the Navy dealing with hours every Watch of VHF
communications, the static is always there.  3105 and 6210 can be "dirty
freqs" depending on many factors.  My last Cruise was 1997, and I had filters
to help get rid of alot of crud, just like Automatic Gain Control was nice to
have.  1937 meant vacuum tubes, air capacitors for tuning, and other things
the Forum can tell you about available hardware.  The only "clean"
transmissions I've ever done were via satcom (satellite).

How about ending the play with fog machines and an unseen voice with "We know
not were she has gone, but there are those that seek to find her.  Someday
the mists that hide her from us may be burned away by the light of discovery.
 The Sky is not the limit, Death is not the end, Courage is the price."

Pete (TIGHAR # pending)
**************************************************************************
From Alan Caldwell

Carol, I'm Alan. I'm an attorney in Austin with 18 years of experience
dealing with facts or at least trying to sort out lies, assumptions, and
misinformation, etc from each case I handle. I cannot go into court with
unsupported information. I am also a retired USAF pilot with a meager 4,000
hours flown mostly across both oceans and some during 5 years in Vietnam. I
also have 1100 combat missions so I well know what goes through pilot's minds
when all Hell breaks loose and all goes wrong.

My son and I were friends of Muriel and Albert from 1976 until Albert's
demise and Muriel's debilitating stroke and eventual death.

Everyone on this forum, whether they always realize it or not has great and
valuable experience and knowledge and contribute immensely to solving a very
tough puzzle.  We all try to be gentlemen and gentleladies. Sometimes we fail
out of misunderstandings and frustration. We each have a great sense of humor
and a tough hide because we get bombed by each other at times.

This is a very difficult and complex problem and sometimes we forget some of
the basic facts and say really stupid things. Rarely do we get away with
that. Our gentle forum mates turn quickly into voracious sharks and we rush
back to the TIGHAR web site to refresh our memories. We try to do all this in
good humor but sometimes frustration gets the best of us as you can see by
some of the comments to you.

So in the spirit of good rational and scientific investigation I'll make a
deal with you.  I note that you have a copy of a book whose author has you
somewhat sold on his theories. I also remember you offered one forum member a
few of the more pertinent pages attached to a note. If you will send me those
same pages you feel important to me at acaldwell@aol.com I'll read them and
reply to your address off the forum as to what my response would be. It'll be
my opinion of course but I will point out factual errors if any.  What I ask
you to do is go to the TIGHAR web site and read everything carefully and let
me know what you see that is incorrect or that you don't buy and why. Then we
will both be in a position to discuss matters more intelligently. Is that a
deal?

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2001 11:32:11 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Research assistance?

Maybe this is old news.
     For the Mar 37 flight to Hawaii, Walter McMenamy set up an
intercontinental network of hams to help AE. Among them was Karl Pierson,
Joseph Gurr, and Guy Dennis.
     Emmett Paterson, of Paterson Radio Co., used an entirely new type of
short wave receiver, the PR-15. All belonged to the Radio Relay League.
     According to Randall Brink four other operators, unnamed, but stations
were identified by call letter, also helped.
     Other hams were listed as Dr. Ferris Thompson and William McCartney of
Hawaii,F.W Nolan, Australia, and Jacques Berlant of New York City. No station
identifiers. (Maybe AE was trying to signal Berlant in NY per Betty)
Another help might be Donna Halper, a radio/ham expert in Boston,
specialising in historical stuff. Her email is dlh@donnahalper.com. Tell her
I sent you.
LTM,
RON Bright  (Source; Randal Brinks, Lost Star)
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Maybe this information is correct.  Seems like there MUST be SOMETHING in
Brink's book that is true, but we'll have to have something a whole lot
better than Brink's say-so before we give it any credence at all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2001 11:37:17 EDT
From:         Malcolm Andrews
Subject:      Re: Aggie Grey

This has got nothing to do with AE. But I can't let the repeated mistake
about Aggie Grey go uncorrected.

She never was the inspiration for Bloody Mary - as James A Michener
explained to passengers on the cruise ship Island Princess that was visiting
Espirito Santo (Vanuatu) in 1992, several years before his death.

The character of Bloody Mary was based on a Tonkinese (North Vietnamese)
woman he knew when serving in Santo during World War II. Her niece even came
to see Michener when the ship docked in Santo's capital Luganville. It was
the only time he had returned to Vanuatu (New Hebrides) since the War.

The Samoan tourist chiefs like to push the myth that it was Aggie Grey.

And, for the record, Bali-ha'i was based on Ambae Island just off Santo.
When the Americans began arriving during World War II, the worried
plantation owners secretly sent their wives and daughters across to Ambae to
make sure they wouldn't be corrupted by the supposedly world-wise GIs.

Cheers

Malcolm Andrews #2409
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Off topic, yes, but we never pass up an opportunity to bust a myth.  Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2001 11:40:02 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lae airport

> it would be nice if somebody put up a "historic marker" to commemorate
> Earhart's final takeoff.
>

If not already adequately done all the buildings (if any remain) should be
searched for any possible information relating to AE.

Alan
#2329
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The old Guinea Airways buildings were all destroyed when the 5th Air Force
bombed the place into oblivion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2001 12:11:45 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Bloody Mary myths

Ric said: "Off topic, yes, but we never pass up an opportunity to
bust a myth."

    Well, there is a whole new career -- Myth Buster -- for if you
get tired of chasing AE and FN around the Pacific.  Lord knows you've got
enough experience.

LTM, who is hit and myth today
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Who ya gonna call?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2001 12:12:57 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Static, Static, & more Static

Good post Ross and all. Once again Carol should be able to see there is a
multitude of expertese among forum members. There is much aviation talk but
as Ross pointed out this is not a pilot's or an aviation forum. It is a
scientific investigation forum. This particular problem may be about a lost
aircraft but one doesn't need to be a pilot or a radio expert to help solve
it.

As to radios, I used VHF, UHF, HF and FOX MIKE during my years in the Air
Force. FM was used extensively in Vietnam. I had FM in my plane but had
little call to use it. I mostly used UHF.

I don't know how this static thread got started but I see it as a non-issue.
I've heard static all my life on radios. there's nothing unusual about it. FM
was supposed to be mostly static free but for the life of me I don't recall.
I hardly ever used it. The Army used it quite a bit.

This mystery will get solved but not from radio or pilot expertese but from
the guys rooting around on the ground and the general area of Niku.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2001 14:32:01 EDT
From:         Carol Linn Dow
Subject:      Re: CLD (Carol Linn Dow)'s pending blood bath

Good....some nice, polite and considerate comments from everyone at Tighar.
Yes I'm going to scan the pages from the Wilson book and we can all take a
look. No, I have no compulsions from being defeated....that doesn't faze me
in the least. All I want is the truth so I can figure out how to end the
play. That really helps if you introduce yourself and give me some background
information on who you are. I'll get back to everyone, but I need time. Ric,
I don't agree with some of your comments ...sorry. I need time....give me
some more time.

                                Carol Linn Dow
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 08:21:33 EDT
From:         Wes Smith
Subject:      Re: CLD (Carol Linn Dow)'s pending blood bath

Sometimes the forum succeeeds in distributing pain.  Misplaced aggression
due to chronic frustration and the inabiltiy to solve an ongoing mystery.

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

Nah.  I think the forum finds great satisfaction and takes great (and
deserved) pride in it's demonstrated ability to sift fact from myth and make
genuine progress toward solving the mystery.  What you call aggression is
merely annoyance.  Some of us have never learned how to suffer fools gladly.
I hope we never have need of aggression.

Yes, sometimes the forum succeeds in distributing pain.  Peer review is a
painful process.  It has to be.  Otherwise everyone just wallows around in a
politically correct Never-Never Land where all opinions are equal, everyone
feels "empowered", and nobody learns anything.  Pain purifies.  We accept the
pain of peer review in the hope of avoiding the pain of failure.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 08:58:34 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Wilson's book

    I have Mr. Wilson's book, I got it in Rochester NY May 13, 1995, from the
Author himself and he signed it.  I have also read it and he writes a very
convincing book, everyone who read my copy is convinced by his writing.
However, I am not convinced, he lacks solid evidence, he has a lot of second
hand information, but no solid evidence and the probability of his story is
not supported by facts.  For example he writes on page 169 in his summary,
under the heading final words, quote "The legend I have told  is no doubt
partially true and partially fiction.  That is the nature of legends.
Perhaps more information will come to light to make the story more
accurate." end of quote.  He goes on to say why he believes this story is
probable.  Of interest to me is that Donald Wilson did not to my knowledge to
interview any of the individuals who give accounts of seeing a white woman
and man who were imprison on Saipan, he gives their accounts, but he
interviews none of them, even the ones still alive, he also quotes mostly
from Fred Goerner's work, but again does no work to confirm Goerner's
information first hand, other then gathering second hand information
concerning Goerners work.

    Please consider I have nothing against Mr. Wilson, I met him briefly and
consider him an honorable man, however one of my long time hobbies is
genealogy and from doing that, you work with a lot of family traditions, you
try to confirm those traditions with facts, sometimes you confirm them
sometimes you don't, when you can't confirm traditions or legends as Mr.
Wilson put it, then they remain in doubt.  With family legends you hit dead
ends when doggedly trying to stick to them, and more then not you find them
to be inaccurate and, when you finally recognize that they are inaccurate,
you can finally make progress by taking in the real facts (which is always
more interesting).  Tighar looks at facts and tries to confirm them with as
much as they can with first hand information that they can find.  Yes they
look at second hand sources, but they also keep them as second hand
information until solid evidence can be found to support or dismiss the
second hand accounts.  Look why not enjoy the forum for a while and then if
you see feel the need to bring in Mr. Wilson's book.

Regards.
Warren Lambing
**************************************************************************
From Ric

For what it's worth, I corresponded with Don Wilson quite a bit before his
book was published and he visited me here to drop off a copy when it came
out.  Like so many Earhart conspiracy books, it's a "vanity press"
publication (they didn't pay him; he paid them).  The book is nothing more
than a compilation of uncorroborated anecdotes gathered by various conspiracy
buffs over the years.  All the characters are there:

Elieu Jibambam, Lotan Jack, Bosket Diklan "Queen of Mili", the inestimable
Bilimon Amaran - and many more.  He faithfuly recites the theories and
allegations presented by the pantheon of Earhart conspiracy authors (
Goerner, Devine, Gervais, Knaggs, Loomis, etc., etc.).

Don Wilson is a retired United Church of Christ minister.  It is perhaps not
surprising that he takes it on faith that the eyewitness accounts he relates
are true.  Don is a mild-mannered, sincere gentleman who, like the Earhart
His book has value primarily as a summary of more than 60 years of Earhart
mythology.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 10:00:59 EDT
From:         Lawrence M. Glazer
Subject:      What's in a name?

  I've been a regular Forum Highlights reader for several years and finally
decided to join TIGHAR because I've enjoyed the forum's (and Ric's) good
humor,  historiographic standards and even modesty, and because you need the
money for the next expedition.

   In my view, Betty's notebook does not contain any unambiguous occult
references ("occult" in the sense of the term used by Ric in his analysis,
meaning knowable only by Fred & Amelia at that time) but it  does have some
tantalizing possibilities, of which  "NYC" being a possible "Norwich City"
is the most tantalizing.

   Here is my question: Is there evidence that a person on Niku in 1937
would be able to SEE THE NAME "Norwich City" either on the shipwreck or on
some debris?

   Keep up the good work.

Lawrence M. Glazer
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Excellent question.  Here's what we know:

- Norwich City went aground at Gardner on November 30, 1929.
- We have a photo of her taken in Vancouver, B.C. the previous April in which
it is clear that her name is painted in white letters on the starboard (and
we presume also the port) side of her bow.  No way to be sure that her name
was also on her stern but it certainly should have been there.
- The earliest photos we have her aground on the reef were taken by Eric
Bevington in October 1937 when he and Harry Maude visited the island with 19
Gilbertese delegates to evaluate Gardner for future colonization.  Her back
is broken and her stern is underwater, so any name on her stern is not an
issue anyway.  None of Bevington's photos show the bow from close enough to
tell whether the name was still there and legible.  In his diary, Bevington
does not refer to the ship by name but only as "a cargo steamer", however, in
Harry Maude's official report of the visit (dated 19 November 1937) he refers
to the ship as the Norwich City.
- Apparently the ship's name was not mentioned in Sailing Directions
available in 1937, nor was there even mention of it's presence on the reef,
because the USS Colorado's pilots were not expecting to see it, nor were
Maude and Bevington three months later.  When the captain of the Colorado
submitted updated Sailing Directions information about Gardner to the
Hydrographic Office in August 1937, he treated the presence of the steamer as
new information and made no mention of its name.
- The official report of the New Zealand Pacific Aviation Survey Expedition
of late 1938/early 1939 reports the name of the ship as "City of Norwich" but
the maps produced as a result of that survey coorectly show the wreck as
"Norwich City."  We have several photos taken during that expedition which
show the bow of the ship. No name is discernible but the resolution of the
photos is not that great either.  It may be that by then, nine years after
the ship went aground, the elements had made the name very hard to see.
- Gallagher, who first visited Gardner while the New Zealand Survey party was
still there, knew the name of the ship but had inaccurate information about
when it got there.

In short, the fact that we know the name was visible on the bow a few months
before the accident and that Maude in 1937, and Gallagher and the New
Zealanders in 1938 knew the ship's name, seems to argue for the name being
visible in July 1937.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 10:02:21 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Taking your time

<< I'll get back to everyone, but I need time. Ric,
I don't agree with some of your comments ...sorry. I need time....give me
some more time.

                                Carol Linn Dow >>

We've been at it for over 12 years.  Take all the time you need.

LTM(who's in no hurry to reveal her secrets)

Andrew McKenna #1045CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 10:32:05 EDT
From:         unsigned
Subject:      Re: CLD (Carol Linn Dow)'s pending blood bath

Hang tough girl, one must not tie a ship to a single anchor nor life to a
single hope, give'em hell.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

As advice goes, that has to rank right up there with,
"Remember, a wet bird never flies at night."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 10:43:57 EDT
From:         Wes Smith
Subject:      Re: CLD (Carol Linn Dow)'s pending blood bath

I would agree with you about "peer review" if I believed that was the
essence of the process.  Some have taken the notion of peer review and have
morphed it into peer assasination.  Further, I am convinced that very
substantive progress towards the solution is still possible on the forum if
the forum will tolerate amateurish notions or simple "dumb questions" like
tolerant, well-mannered adults are encouraged to do.  Suffering the fools
should be a noble aspiration of the forum intelligencia and it might improve
monetary support as well.

Hail to the Earhart elitists!
Just kidding . . .
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 11:12:45 EDT
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Niku IIII funding status

Sign me up for $100.00  Do you have my credit card number?
How much more needs to be raised for this?

Art Carty #2268
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Art.  We'll check and let you if we need a card number.

With Jim Thompson's matching contributions we're actually in good shape on
paying for the satellite imagery.  A much bigger issue is the final charter
payment for the expedition ship which is coming up June 1st.  Our sale of
media rights last year anticipated a 26 day charter at a cost of $119,600.
We subsequently expanded the expedition another nine days which added $41,400
for a total of $161,000.  In other words, the expedition will be longer and
more expensive than we anticipated when we sold the media rights.  The extra
days became available and we really wanted them, so we made the commitment
knowing that we'd have to raise the extra money.

Of that, we have paid $39,468 in accordance with the terms of the contract.
The remaining balance of $121,532 is due June 1st.  The media deal will cover
$91,630 of that but the remaining $29,902 has to come from general
fund-raising (along with normal operating expenses, etc.).

At this point, in nice round numbers, we're about $10,000 short to make the
boat payment so you can expect me to be banging the fund-raising drum for the
rest of this month.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 11:43:39 EDT
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Myth and legend

When did the conspiracy and the Japanese capture idea originate?  Was
that mooted at the time or was it something that appeared after WW2?

Mike Holt
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The very first conspiracy claim was a front-page article that appeared in an
Australian publication called Smith's Weekly on October 16, 1937 under the
headline "U.S. Does Australia A Secret Service".  The article claimed that
the U.S. Navy used the Earhart search as an excuse to scout out Japanese
activity in the Marshalls but there was no allegation that Earhart had been
in on it or had disappeared on purpose.  Nobody seems to have paid much
attention to the article.

The real birth of the conspiracy theories seem to date from the Hollywood
film "Flight For Freedom" released in 1943.  It was based on a script of
disputed authorship originally entitled "Stand By To Die" and was a very
transparent fictionalized account of the Earhart/Noonan flight in which "Toni
Carter" (Earhart) agreed to intentionally "get lost" to give the Navy an
excuse to recon the Marshalls.  When the plan is discovered by the Japanese,
brave Toni suicidally crashes her plane into the ocean to give the search
legitimacy.

From there, life imitated art and all sorts of "clues" began to emerge to
support the basic premise that Earhart's disappearance in 1937 was somehow
connected to the cataclysm that erupted four years later.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 May 2001 12:42:56 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      fund raising

Ric said:  At this point, in nice round numbers, we're about $10,000
short to make the boat payment so you can expect me to be banging the
fund-raising drum for the rest of this month.

    And a lousy job it is.
    When the Combined Federal Campaign comes knocking each year I use
two criteria in making my contributions.  One is completely subjective, "Do
I support this organization's mission," and the other is completely
objective, "What portion of my donation is used to cover the organization's
'administrative' costs."
    Ideally, 100 percent of my donation would support an organization's
mission, but then reality raises it's ugly head.  To the best of my
recollection, an organization's administrative costs would not exceed 15
percent in a perfect world.  Realistically, something in the 20 percent
range is more the norm, I believe.
    On a more positive but considerably less certain note, this
weekend's Big Lotto (or whatever it is called) has an annuity value of about
$90 million.  If I win I'll give TIGHAR 1.1 percent, just like I give the
CFC.  My numbers are  . . . whoops! . . . hey, I don't want to give them
away now, do I? :-)

LTM, who wouldn't miss a mere $990,000
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
 ***************************************************************************
From Ric

In the nonprofit world, "administrative costs" is a euphemism for
"fund-raising costs."  In other words, how much of what I give you are you
going to spend raising more money as opposed to doing the work of the
organization?

In TIGHAR's case that amount is so small as to be almost invisible.  We pay
no "Development Director" to beat the bushes.  We buy no advertising.  We
stage no fund-raising events.  We inventory some T-shirts - that's about it.

Technically, the portion of my time that I spend fund-raising is chargable
that way but the truth is I HATE fund-raising per se and much prefer to spend
my time doing the work of the organization.  I figure that good work will be
recognized and rewarded far better than good salemanship.  By doing good work
we attract volunteer expertise that we don't have to raise money to pay for.
Good work also attracts good press, which is better advertising than you can
buy at any price.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 5 May 2001 08:33:34 EDT
From:         Ned Johnston
Subject:      Sage advice

> "Remember, a wet bird never flies at night."

And don't forget that "Its a long cow that has no tail."

LTM,
--Ned Johnston #2314
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 5 May 2001 08:42:04 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      No Forum Monday

On Monday, Tom King and I will be meeting with the coral reef experts at NOAA
to examine the satellite imagery acquired for TIGHAR by Space Imaging on
April 16.

I'll have a report for you Tuesday and we should be able to start getting
prints out to contributors very soon after that.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 10:53:28 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Jewel of the sea

Tom King and I had a very pleasant and informative morning at NOAA
headquarters yesterday and I'm pleased to report that Space Imaging and the
Lockheed/Martin IKONOS 2 satellite have delivered some really spectacular
imagery our favorite atoll.  Research and practical use aspects aside, Niku
reveals itself as a green and turquoise jewel framed in a thin white line of
surf and set in a blue/black sea.  Absolutely stunning.

The bird looked down from 700 km above the Earth (that's 438 miles folks) at
an angle of 79 degrees at about 11 o'clock Niku time on the morning of April
16th and found the island to be about 10 meters from where the U.S. Navy said
it was in 1943.  The steep look-down angle means that we have zero sun-glint
off the water and an as-good-as-it-gets view of the reef, land areas, and
lagoon.

We have a few little wisps of cloud over the lagoon and their shadows provide
just enough depth to create a nice three-dimensional effect.  One little
cloud (Murphy's Cloud), of course, has to be parked right over a part of the
lagoon that we'd like to see but the 1985 aerial photos we got from the
Kiribati Archive cover that spot with better resolution anyway.

From a research standpoint, we've only just begun to explore what we can
learn from this imagery.  We already know that, not surprisingly, there won't
be much new information from the deep water surrounding the island.  Even
though we have good water penetration, perhaps down to 100 feet in the
blue-green band of the multispectral imagery, the reef slope drops away so
steeply that you can't see its surface. (Imagine looking almost straight down
on a southwestern U.S. "mesa".)  Our view of the lagoon bottom, on the other
hand, is limited only by the turbidity of the water and Murphy's Cloud.  We
have gorgeous imagery of the land areas both in color, with 4 meter
resolution, and in black and white, with 1 meter resolution.  This will be of
priceless value in planning, coordinating, plotting, and evaluating
archaeological work on the ground.

We'll get a picture up on the website as soon as we clear the details with
Space Imaging but, in the meantime, we're hoping to mail the color prints out
to all contributors to the satellite fund on Thursday (May 10).

A big TIGHAR thank you to everyone who helped make this possible.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 11:00:15 EDT
From:         Tom Byers
Subject:      Re: Myth and legend

I think the Japanese connection was amplified in the
1960's by Fred Goerning (?) "The Search for Amelia
Earhart"

As I recall it was a well written book, although the
author selectively uses the facts at his disposal.

Tom Byers
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Fred Goerner wrote well and told a fascinating first-person detective story.
His 1966 book was the first and only Earhart best-seller until Jane
Mendelsohn's 1996 novel "I Was Amelia Earhart" (of which the less said the
better).
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 11:20:22 EDT
From:         Lawrence Glazer
Subject:      neutron activation analysis

  This is a longshot possibility for finding the smoking gun.

   There is an analytical technique called neutron activation analysis. A
sample of material is bombarded with neutrons in a chamber and this results
in a recordable spectrum of all elements present in the material, and their
proportionate quantities (i.e., parts per million).

   It is used to determine whether the subject sample was part of a known
production run, by comparing the subject sample's spectrum with that of a
known sample from the specified production run.

   It works because any metal that was liquified and then poured will
contain small quantities of impurities - stuff that was not intended to be
part of the material, but got in there anyway. Every batch is thus slightly
different from every other batch. But every product fabricated from the same
batch has exactly the same composition as all other products produced of
that material from that batch.

   As I recall, past expeditions have found both metal and plexiglass
(windhield?) pieces of shape and thickness consistent with known parts of
AE's 10-E.

   I know neutron activation analysis works on metal; don't know if it works
on plastics, but would be easy to find out.

   I wonder if records still exist  which would be sufficient to trace any
of the metal or plexiglass in AE's plane back to the creation of these
materials - not their shaping into aircraft parts, but their actual
creation. The reason it might be possible is that aircraft manufacturers'
specs for such materials are quite high (because of the stresses such parts
have to survive, and because of the consequences of a part's failure in
flight, as you know), and I assume that this was  true even in the 1930's.
Thus, such records would have been created.

   If they WERE created, and if they can be FOUND, and - the biggest "if" of
all - if these records can be used to trace PRESENTLY LOCATABLE parts made
from the same batch(es), then neutron activation analysis might be able to
give us a definitive answer.

Lawrence M. Glazer
****************************************************************************
From Ric

We carefully considered neutron activation analysis back in 1996 when we were
working with ALCOA trying to pin down the origin of the "24ST Alclad" in
artifact 2-2-V-1 (the section of airplane skin).  Ultimately, the problem we
ran up against is that in those Depression days before the huge expansion of
the aviation industry that started in 1939, manufacturter's (like Lockheed)
bought their aluminum in small batches based upon orders in hand. - sometimes
literally airplane by airplane.  There's no way to get a sample to match
against where we could be sure that it was from the same batch used to build
c/n 1055 (Earhart's Electra).

I don't know if neuton activation analysis would work on polymethyl
methacrylate.  It was manufactured by Rohm and Haas here in the states under
the trade name "Plexiglas", in Britain as "Perspex, and later in the states
by DuPont as "Lucite; but it's all the same stuff.  It was very expensive and
in the mid-1930s was used primarily in the manufacturer of a new technology -
jukeboxes, with aviation a distant second.  Because it was nonstructural, no
close accounting was kept of production batches and who they went to.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 11:21:48 EDT
From:         Charlie Sivert
Subject:      Hitting the fund-raising drum

        Whack the drum for $l00, and use my credit card number.  If
you do not have it on file, let me know.

Charlie Sivert, 0269E
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Charlie.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 11:27:09 EDT
From:         Carol Linn Dow
Subject:      Goodbye Carol Linn Dow

Here are some replies for you. It's your option if you want to send them out.
I'm getting too much mail here. Between the theater and Tighar I have to give
first choice to theater. I'll watch your website for information but if I
doubt if I will have time for more letters.

Warren Lambing: I appreciate your comments about Wilson's book. Nice response.

John Rayfield: UHF is not exclusively used by the military. Static on HF is
normal. Good comments.

Ross Devitt: I thought several of your comments were inappropriate. If you
are flying
in North Queensland "x" number of miles out on VHF what altitude were you
were flying at? You don't think the FAA is a reliable source? I have news for
you, the FAA
can ground your airplane and declare it illegal. If you fly it thereafter you
can go to jail and lose your license. I don't believe I said aviation
frequencies used AM or FM broadcast stations. I only referred to them.
However, an aeronautical ADF installed in an airplane can go to a commercial
LF station and fly it in. Yes, if someone blocked
or jammed Earhart's transmissions it would have to come from a pretty
powerful source. So? There was static entered in the logs of the
Itasca....sorry. You have never filed down the edge of a prop. Then you don't
know that much about aviation.
70 hours flying time is not enough to qualify for discussions with a 500 hour
pilot and above. 40 hours flying time is required just for a private license.
You are barely over the limit. You sign your transmissions as the "Wombat."
What is a "wombat?" I was under the impression "wombats" were some kind of a
male witch. At one time I was a prayer counselor for the 700 club in Dallas.
So I have heard that kind of talk before.

Troy @Tighar: I appreciated your comments.

Roger Kelly: I thought your comments on requesting background information
were rude and inappropriate.

Pete (Tighar # pending): oh my, you do have some theatrical ideas.

Doug Brutlag #2335: some of the old clunkers I used to fly (from lack of
funds) when I first started out in aviation had the old radios and dials.
It's been too long ago. I can't quote the frequencies. All I can remember is
the transmitter was crystal operated and the rest was dials with rows and
rows of calibrations.

Russ Mathews #0509CE: nice comments except the Marshall Islands  were 650-700
miles from Howland not 1,000. I didn't mean to convey the thought that
Earhart was trying to transmit all the way from the Marshalls. Just the
opposite, her transmissions were probably blocked.

I want to thank everyone else who answered Email. However, I am going to have
to say good-bye for now and please pardon me and accept my apologies if I
neglected
to reply to an Email. I remember one party who was in the Navy who wrote
about HF and static. I'm sorry I lost your Email address.

                Two thumbs up and best wishes, Carol Linn Dow
****************************************************************************
From Ric

We'll miss you Carol.
(and all along I thought that a wombat was a small furry marsupial.  This
explains a lot.)

Anyone wishing to reply further to Carol should do so privately - and
theatrically.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 11:34:15 EDT
From:         Denise
Subject:      Aggie Grey

Malcolm Andrews #2409 says that Michener said it wasn't Aggie Grey who was
the inspiration for Bloody Mary, but was someone else entirely. Well, I had
dinner with Michener at Pacific Harbour, in 1978, when he was in Fiji for
some writer's conference, and he told me he'd based Bloody Mary a TYPE of
woman he'd come across in the Pacific; usually a part-European who set
herself up to be an object of humour, but who was ripping the G.I.s off
big-time ... but doing it with such good grace and with a great sense of
fun, they didn't mind at all. He mentioned a list of names, but the two
which stuck in my head were Aggie Grey and Matilda Emberson, both of whom I
knew. The others I hadn't heard of.

LTM (who couldn't let this one pass without comment)
Denise

P.S.  BTW, those of you who've actually met Michener will understand when I
say the only excuse for being the man he was during his declining years was
Tourette's Syndrome.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 15:06:30 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: neutron activation analysis

Does Lockheed's records show who they purchased the aluminum from? You
then work backwards to the supplier (ALCOA) (whom I am sure did not make up
aluminum by the individual batch for one airplane) and check their outgoing
records to determine where other aluminum from that batch went, then trace
the items manufactured from that aluminum.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Lockheed bought aluminum directly from ALCOA.  ALCOA would fill Lockheed's
order from the aluminum thay had in stock.  Metal from that same batch might
also go to Douglas or Boeing or Martin, etc.  We could probably work out what
companies at what time got aluminum from the same batch but there would be no
way to know what airplanes were made from that metal versus metal from
previous batches.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 15:10:46 EDT
From:         David Chase
Subject:      Another new member!

You may recall my note about my daughter's Amelia Earhart history project last month.
Well... she won her category - junior exhibits at the California State competition!
To say I'm a proud father doesn't begin to describe the feeling! Anyway, I told her
that I too would join TIGHAR if she won at state. So I just signed up at the $100 level!
(I'm still trying to arrange my schedule for the Tahoe class and expedition in June, too)
We leave for the National competition at the University of Maryland 6/9 -- 6/14! Her exhibit
is very dramatic - it's a round cylinder, 30" dia., 6 feet high - instead of the usual
flat poster board. Everyone has seen it has been very touched by it. I'll send photos
soon. I'll send a note when we get the viewing dates in case anyone is in the area and wants
to drop by. Let me just say, after seeing many exhibits, posters, videos, and performances at
the state competition, its very inspiring to see what the junior and senior 
high school students in this country are capable of. And let me say, you
find little coverage of this very positive event in the mainstream media. I
saw a 10 minute performance by a high school student on Teddy Roosevelt that
was absolutely riveting. I felt like I had just watched 4 speeches by TR!
Best regards,
Dave Chase
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Congratulations to Vanessa and to her proud papa.  I'm sure the whole forum
will be pulling for her at the Nationals.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2001 16:45:19 EDT
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      Re: pampered celebrity or survivor?

[Note from Ric: Dick is a veteran of the Coast Guard Loran station on
Gardner.]

You're right. It was the constant heat and moisture that had all of us
treating rashes most of the time. Accordingly, we used up a nine month
supply of alcohol in less than two months. Of course, part of the problem
is that many  of us were trying to treat our rashes from the inside out.

Dick Evans
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2001 11:09:57 EDT
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      What's in a name?

Regarding the name Norwich City. As I recall the name could be read on the
bow of the ship (1944) although it was not very plain. On one occasion
several of us walked thru the hole torn in the port side of the hull and
climbed up to the forepeak. From there we could see several places where
the name was painted on equipment. For the next few months we threatened to
climb back up and work our way to the bridge, which was in good shape. But
like most things, this got lost in the scope-watching and similar exciting
things we were doing. Don't know if this is any use to you or Lawrence, but
there it is.

Dick Evans
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Dick.  This is really very interesting.
You're correct, of course, about the hole on the port side and it would make
sense that there would be features aboard that bore the ship's name.
Whatever you saw as the bridge, however, must have been something else.
Photos of the ship prior to the accident show a white-painted superstructure
just forward of the funnel and a smaller structure further aft that are
missing in Bevington's 1937 photos of the wreck.  These seem to have been of
wooden construction and were consumed in the fire that engulfed the vessel at
the time of its stranding.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2001 11:11:36 EDT
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      Re: Imagine

Studies of enforced isolation over a long period of time. Do I qualify? I
remember one of your cameramen commenting that he was on Niku for 10 or 12
days on one of the first expeditions and "almost went nuts." He was amazed
to find that we had been there for a year and a half. Yes. I went nuts.

Dick Evans
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Then again, we were nuts before we arrived.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2001 11:15:16 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      For The New Member(s)

Congratulations Vanessa.........Go Girl!  Win State!

Doug Brutlag  #2335
************************************************************************
From Ric

She did that.  Now she's going to the Nationals.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2001 11:22:45 EDT
From:         Jim Pearson
Subject:      Worst Novel

Ric, you seem to think that I Was Amelia Earhart
is the worst book on our favorite subject. I dont think so. I nominate
"Flying Blind a Novel of Amelia Earhart" (Max Collins) for that distinction.
It is a hard boiled detective novel meets captured by the Japanese theory
with AE as a bisexual love interest. Yep, its as horrible as it sounds! If
you get a chance to read it-dont.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

If we're gonna have a Worst Earhart Book competiton we have our work cut out
for us.

Way back in 1999 TIGHAR stalwart Jim Tierney offered the following review of
Flying Blind:

"Ric---Have just finished---"Flying Blind"-A Novel of Amelia  Earhart by Max
"Allan Collins.......
"Quick review--Tawdry, turgid trash.

"First of all in his acknowledgements- he lists all the books by everybody and
says he read them,yada,yada,yada........No mention of Tighar at all...

"Story is about a private detective-told in flashback who agrees to go back to Saipan
to look for and interview people about AE in March of 1970 ....
His story unfolds-starting with being hired by GPP in 1935 to act as
bodyguard for AE on a lecture tour . They go off together in the car and he
gradually falls in love with her. They wind up in Burbank-at Lockheed and in
Paul Mantzs house-where he observes AE and another woman pilot getting it on
together and later that same night-he and AE do it and start an affair that
ends after some months and GPP fires him.........

"He comes back into her life again in 1937 just before she leaves on her 2nd trip.
She goes off and disappears and he starts to check out the rumors about  her
the plane and the Govt........ He drags in every speculation/rumor as part
of the plot--

"He talks about- the Navy personnel,the locked hangar, substitution of a new
plane with the new special engines after the Hawaii crash. Ping pong balls in
every available space, yada,yada,yada.........also the big secret cameras........
He does say she was not a remarkable pilot and frequently was over her head
in situations and aircraft.......Oh-there is also some mention of AE being
possibly pregnant with his child......AE doesnt trust FN because he drinks
and has been forced to use him by GPP because he works cheap.

"She disappears and things are quiet...He hears the rumours abou tthe Japanese
and Saipan,etc.....In Mid 1940 he is recruited by a Mr Miller of the CAA-whom he met in
1937-and James Forrestal-a govt. Us Navy employee - yes, that James Forrestal-
He even works in Irene Bolamto go to Saipan and check out the stories and
bring her back-because they know she is alive...
He is taken to Saipan by Capt. Irving Johnson on the Yankee and put ashore
alone in the garb/disguise of an Irish Priest with IRA connections.

"He gets to see her and tries to bring her out... He sees FN killed right in
front of him in a jail by a Jap cop with a machete...He and AE try to escape that night
and they almost make it to the Yankee but AE is shot while swimming-He is
pulled aboard by the first mate who later turns out to be Sterling Hayden-the movie
star.

"She drowns in the water or does she???????

"In 1970 they  find out that a woman was blindfolded and shot/executed and put
in a small grave that they never really find-BUT they find the blindfold she
wore......

"He even works Mrs Irene Bolam into the story........

"In Summary---Dreck -with a capital D
"Sorry to bore youwith this -but I had to tell somebody

"LTM
"Jim Tierney.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2001 11:32:00 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Carol Linn Dow

       Isn't it interesting how 500 hours in a Beechcraft can make someone
into a truely world expert in so many fields of knowledge.  But then I guess
I considered myself an expert when I reached the 500 hour mark.  Now that I
have a few more than 500 hours I realize I am just starting to learn.  The
real lesson for all of us, you can't teach someone who feels they have
nothing left to learn.  Carol has served us well as a nice diversion and
reminds us how difficult it is to convey ideas where there is a diversity in
backgrounds.

Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2001 13:16:46 EDT
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: For The New Member(s)

For Vanessa and proud father;

    Super and good luck at nationals!

jerry ellis,  #2113
an old retired chemistry teacher
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2001 13:19:25 EDT
From:         ave Osgood
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

For Dick Evans:

The first thing that came to mind when I read your post about searching
through the Norwich City in 1944, is Emily Sikuli's recollection of aircraft
wreckage in the area just north of the ship.  You stated that, "On one
occassion several of us walked thru the hole torn in the port side of the
hull and climbed up to the forepeak."  This places your group in the
vicinity of the rusty aircraft parts as recalled by Ms. Sikuli.  Did anyone
take a look at any of the debris surrounding the shipwreck?

Dave Osgood
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2001 13:20:20 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Worst Novel

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I guess
"ugly" is too. Agreed that "Flying Blind" is pretty
trashy, but the author did a good bit of serious
research, and many of his facts are right on.
Like Donahue, Klaas and others, there is some
wheat amidst the chaff.  Nearly all the characters
are real, with the exception of the protagonist,
and behave (mostly) true-to-form. (I have no
idea how accurate is the description of AE's
sexual preferences, nor do I want to know,
but such stuff sells books in large quantities).
Incidentally, Sterling Hayden was a sailor,
and quite possibly did work aboard the
YANKEE for a spell.

Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 May 2001 09:33:08 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Sir Harry Luke

Last week I went up to Oxford, as they say, to study a file of correspondence
in the Rhodes House Library between Sir Harry Luke, head of the Western
Pacific High Commission in Suva and thus the key official in the "bones
saga", and Sir Harry Batterbee, high commissioner in Wellington. The file
covers the period from 1939 to 1942, when Luke left Fiji, with copies or
originals of letters in both directions.

I'm afraid it shed no light whatsoever on the affair of the bones or anything
else to do with Gardner Island or Gerald Gallagher, but it was fascinating
nonetheless, and the names of a couple of officials who crop up on the Forum
from time to time do appear.

A good deal of it is what one might term social correspondence -- arrangements
for visitors in either direction, letters of introduction, thanks for
hospitality and so on. There is speculation about the course the war is
taking, and it's quite moving to read of these quite senior figures' fears
for members of their own families who were far away at that time in
correspondence which one imagines they would never dream would be picked over
by a member of the public 60 years on.

There is one very revealing and pungent remark by Batterbee about a perceived
American desire to exploit British weakness in its colonies for the benefit
of its own air services, which might help explain why Luke would have been
particularly wary about raising an aviation-related issue with American
diplomats.

6 August 1940/Batterbee to Luke. Expresses concern at the state of the New
Zealand economy and the international situation. Asks about the possible
exchange of reports by Harry Maude and P.D Macdonald of the WPHC and one made
by someone called Gibson for the New Zealand authorities.

Batterbee writes: "I must say I think the Americans are a most unconscionable
set of blackmailers when it is a matter of air services: they are now engaged
in demanding from us all sorts of air facilities in the West Indies which at
the present moment they judge, and no doubt rightly, that we shall not be
able to resist." He is "most anxious" to hear of a report by a Burgess and a
Gatty (presumably Harold) and hopes they have found a suitable base for
PanAmerican in Fiji.

In reply, Luke writes that if the Gibson report Batterbee referred to is that
of the New Zealand Pacific aviation survey expedition of 38-39, "we have
it". He sends a letter of introduction shortly afterwards for P.D. Macdonald
of the WPHC "copies of whose excellent report on the Ellice and Tokelau
Islands (US claims) have gone to you in another letter." Further light on
diplomatic tensions between the Brits and the Americans. Er, us and you.

19 Sep 40: Luke to Batterbee, attaching a report of Luke's visit to the New
Hebrides and New Caledonia aboard the Viti, a "fine sturdy ship -- which
arrived in Suva from Hong Kong on 14th August. The party included Dr
Macpherson, "Acting Central Medical Authority". Left on 22/8, Vila on 25/8,
New Caledonia 30/8

Luke seems not to have been in the best of health, with gout and arthritis
requiring spa treatment in Rotorua, and in his last letter refers quite
movingly to the Colonial Office quite understandably wanting a younger man in
the post, and hoping he has been able to do something to promote the
interests of a "Cinderella" region.

"I have tried since I have been here -- and the High Com. staff feel, I am
glad to think, not wholly in vain -- to give them that personal attention they
deserve and need, but I have had four increasingly trying years and I think
the S/S [secretary of state -- in a British context, any minister, in this
instance it must be the Colonial Secretary] is quite right to send for a
younger and fresher man". Luke also reveals that he recently learned that all
the property he had left in store in Malta, including his library, had been
destroyed in a raid

There are so many references from both men to Lady Batterbee's health that
one half expects it to be some sort of coded correspondence, until you
realize that they had encryption available anyway.

I also saw Eric Bevington's original photo album, which includes a photo
taken on Gardner supposedly showing a coconut crab carrying a beer bottle
(the caption said so but I couldn't make out the detail).

LTM Phil Tanner 2276
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Phil.  This was a base that needed to be covered and, although there
were no great revelations, the correspondence does provide valuable context
that helps us understand the climate in which the bones incident happened.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 May 2001 09:35:11 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

Mr. Evans' account of accessing the upper decks of the Norwich City in 1944 by
entering the vessel through the tear in the port side and then climbing up,
raises all sorts of other interesting questions and possibilites, as well. But,
first, one question I do have for him is what, exactly, he means by "climbing
up"---could you still walk up ladders and gangplanks, or did you have to crawl up
over a pile of collapsed wreckage?  If it was relatively straightforward and easy
to climb up, the upper decks would provide a ready shelter in what remained of
the superstructure.  Most importantly, however,  the Norwich City has proven
throughout her career at Gardner to be a magnet of attention for approaching
ships from the sea (the type of rescue Ric has said Earhart would be expecting)
and, coincidentally, the Lambrecht flyover of both vessel and island.  A person
on the forepeak would've been much more likely to have been spotted than one
stuck back in the wilds of Nutiran.

Something else to ponder is the fact that the upper decks of a steamer of this
size sitting atop a reef provide an elevated platform to view the surrounding
areas, both land and sea (rescue).  Yet, it also means that wreckage scattered
low on the reef (Emily's story of airplane wreckage), would much more easily be
seen by people such as the New Zealanders and Mr. Evans.  I wonder if Mr. Evans
can recall the types of wreckage he saw lying around the Norwich City?  We know
there was scattered vessel wreckage, but what, if anything, does he remember
seeing to the north?

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 May 2001 10:00:37 EDT
From:         John Raspanti
Subject:      Re: Worst Novel

I couldn't disagree more. FLYING BLIND is a fascinating
read..exciting..hardboiled. Okay it was bit 'trashy' but it didn't bother me
having read all of the previous 'Nate Heller novels'. Author Collins weaves a
fascinating tale, and that's just what it is a 'tale', exploring a number of
possibilities.  It's interesting stuff, but not something for everybody in
this group.  You must be willing to just 'go with it', anyway the book is a
novel..aka 'fiction', right.?
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting point.  Does an author who writes a work of fiction using an
historical character have an obligation to present that character in a manner
consistent with historical fact?  I don't think so.   If you can sell a story
about gay serial killer George Washington, go for it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 May 2001 12:04:06 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Sir Harry Luke

The other point I should make about the Luke correspondence is that it's a
privilege to have been able to take part in original research even to this
extent - after a couple of years of offering opinions on what's been done by
other people, and 24 years after I was last on a university campus. (Though
in Oxford it's separate venerable buildings, with massive doors and
manicured lawns. Good setting for the next "An American Werewolf in..."
movie.)

Although I live less than 30 miles from Oxford, the inside of a university
library there might as well have been light years away if I hadn't happened
upon TIGHAR. If anyone on the Forum finds there's some original research
near home that might move the project forward, even by establishing that
person X and person Y never discussed subject Z, at least in writing, go for
it.

ltm, Phil 2276
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 May 2001 12:11:18 EDT
From:         John Raspanti
Subject:      Re: Worst Novel

I think your reaching a bit here Ric. You know there has never been a book
about a 'gay serial killer named George Washington'. But there have been a
lot of books speculating on what happened to Amelia Earhart. It's a great
mystery which is precisely what the 'Nate Heller' novels are, mystery novels.
Read some of the reviews on 'Amazon.Com' there all wonderful.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

My point was that there is nothing wrong with historical fiction, no matter
how outrageous, as long as it is represented as what it is - fiction.  My
problem with "I Was Amelia Earhart" is the bad writing, not the stupid story.
 I've never read "Flying Blind" so I can't comment on the quality of the
writing, but it's apparent that the author has found an audience for his
style.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 May 2001 12:16:46 EDT
From:         Paul
Subject:      Chemicals

I have been following the Earhart Project web page and forum for some
time and have recently sent membership dues to TIGHAR. My attention was
drawn to the aerial color photograph of Nikumaroro posted on the Earhart
Web Page. There appears to be various bare patches in otherwise heavily
vegetated areas. These patches were of no particular interest to me but
generated an idea. Would the Electra have a certain amount of residual
chemicals? Such as a small amount of fuel, oil, acid from batteries
(were they lead-acid?), and perhaps others that I am ignorant of.
Sulfuric acid from batteries would react with coral but high levals of
sulfates may remain. Could 1) Residual chemicals leaching out from a
plane as it decays cause long term reduction in plant growth and 2) any
suspect area have soil samples analyzed for above background levels of
the above type of chemicals. I suppose that if your going to find pieces
of a plane, well, it will be obvious and one would not need chemical
analysis to tell you there was a plane there. Just a thought from a chemist.

Pending Member ... Paul
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Paul.  Yes, we've thought about that, but there are bare patches of
various dimensions all over the island.  Sampling them for trace chemicals
that might be attributable to the former presence of an aircraft doesn't
really seem like a cost effective search methodology.  If the airplane was
there, pieces of it are STILL there, but we won't find them until we look in
the right place.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 May 2001 15:20:31 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Panic Earhart

Panic Earhart, has to be a subject that raises a few eyebrows, so before I
become a target, on relatively slower forum, please let me clarify, the
subject.  I do not believe that AE was a dizzy female pilot who went that in
the Pacific.  However in light of the tone of the radio transmission Betty
heard, if what Betty heard was truly AE, and the tone of the radio
transmission depicts a desperate AE, then I would like to go on the record
in saying perhaps, at least on my part, it is time to rethink the claim by
crew members of the Itasca, that AE last transmission heard by Itasca, she
sounded desperate.  Please consider if what Betty heard was true, then
perhaps before AE went down there was a feeling of desperation in her voice
when the Itasca last heard her, it appears to fit a pattern and perhaps a,
more realistic few would lead to the possibility that the crew members of
the Itasca, were right in that her voice sounded desperate.

For what is worth.

Warren Lambing
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Earhart's voice in the last transmission heard by Itasca was described by
Commander Thompson as "...hurried, frantic and apparently not complete."

If her situation was desperate then, it was more so when Betty heard what she
heard.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 May 2001 09:21:48 EDT
From:         John Raspanti
Subject:      Re: Worst Novel

I understood completely what you where saying. And yes, Max Allan Collins can
flat out 'write'. His novel on the 'Lindbergh kidnapping' is amazing..
John
***************************************************************************
From Ric

To each his own.  Lots of people love Clive Cussler's stuff but I'm not one
of them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 08:45:50 EDT
From:         Paul
Subject:      Skull Forensics

In a research bulletin posted on the Earhart web site -Skull Duggery
(6/26/98)- the comparison of 1940 recovered Nikumaroro Skull
measurements with facial photos of Earhart and Noonan was discussed. Was
this done? Results?. My apologies if I have missed something obvious, I
am a very recent member of TIGHAR and the forum.

Paul (#2421)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No, we never did that.  The problem is finding a photo of Earhart in which we
could establish scale within tight enough tolerances to make the comparison
meaningful.  We'd need a photo that shows AE's face in the same plane with an
object of precisely known dimensions.  That's a tall order.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 08:50:29 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Satellite Photo

Woke up wild and crazy this morning. Can I still get in on the picture of
Niku from outer space for $100? If yes, I'll rush payment by next available
post.

blue skies, -jerry
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, rush your payment by next available post.  It's a limited time offer,
but then, so is life.

I'd like to hear from some of the folks who have received their prints of the
photo - especially the ones who like it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 08:53:39 EDT
From:         Larry Glazer
Subject:      prolonged isolation

In "The Mutiny of The Bounty" (1831, reprinted as an Oxford University
Press Paperback in 1989) by Sir John Barrow, there is a narrative of the
November, 1820 wreck of the whaler Essex "near the Equator about 118 W.
long."

   The story was "related to Mr. Bennet, a gentleman deputed  by the
Missionary Society of London together with the Rv. Daniel Tyerman... by
Captain George Pollard, the unfortunate sufferer, whom these gentlemen met
with at Raiatea, then a passenger on an American vessel, having a second
time lost his ship near the Sandwich Islands. The narrative is extracted
from 'The Journal of Voyages and Travel', just published, of the two
gentlemen above-mentioned..."

   The Essex collided with a huge whale and all souls were safely put off in
three boats, with supplies and navigational equipment, before she sank. They
decided to make for South America, which they estimated to be 2,000 miles
distant.  After three weeks their provisions were running out and the men
were exhausted by severe weather, when they came in sight of "a low,
uninhabited island". Here they stopped, hoping  to resupply food and water,
"but were bitterly disappointed. There were some barren bushes and many
rocks... The only provision we could procure were a few birds and their
eggs... [we could find no fresh water] till, at the extreme verge of ebb
tide, a small spring was discovered in the sand; but even that was too
scanty to afford us sufficient to quench our thirst before it was covered by
the waves..."

   "There being no prospect but that of starvation here, we determined to
put to sea again. Three of our comrades, however, chose to remain, and we
pledged ourselves to send a vessel to bring them off, if we ourselves should
ever escape to a Christian port."

   The men in the boats ultimately had to resort to cannibalism to survive,
but those who did survive were found at sea by a passing vessel.

   The three men left on the island survived as well! They were alone on the
island from Dec. 26 to April 26, when the Surrey, sent to fetch them under
the command of a Captain Raines, arrived. They had lived on birds and
berries, and rainwater collected in holes in the rocks. While searching for
shelter, they came upon a cave containing eight human skeletons lying side
by side, assumed to be shipwrecked mariners from a past wreck.

LTM,

Lawrence M. Glazer
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 08:57:01 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Worst Novel

> From Ric
>
> To each his own.  Lots of people love Clive Cussler's stuff but I'm not one
> of them.

Blast!  There goes my theory that Tighar's Ric Gillespie character was
modelled after Dirk Pitt.

Th' WOMBAT
***************************************************************************
From Ric

TIGHAR's Ric Gillespie character is modelled after Yosemite Sam.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 08:58:58 EDT
From:         Dave Chase
Subject:      Vanessa at Nationals

I'd like to thank the folks who wished Vanessa well at National
History Day in June. Here are the details of when and where you
can view her Amelia Earhart exhibit as well as all the other
exhibits from around the U.S.:

National History Day, University of Maryland at College Park
Actual event building locations will not be announced until 6/9,
however, the Stamp Student Union will be the headquarters and
registration area, so I'm sure they'll have directions there.

Vanessa is in the 'Junior Exhibits Category'.
(The viewing sessions are for all exhibit categories.
This doesn't include presentations, videos and papers.)

Public Viewing Session #1: Monday June 11, 5:30pm to 8:00pm
(Vanessa will be at her exhibit for this entire session.)

Public Viewing Session #2: Tuesday June 12, 5:30pm to 8:00pm
(Vanessa will be at this session between 6:30 and 8:00pm.)

Public Viewing Session #3: Wednesday June 13, 9:00am to 5:00pm
Right now Vanessa doesn't have any firm plans on when she'll be
at her exhibit in this session if at all. My guess is early in
am and/or late in the pm. Maybe...

By the way Ric, Vanessa has bumped in to some interesting research
you may not be aware of - she'll be putting out an email here very
shortly. She's been reading this thread pretty religiously and said
other day that she felt like she should be able to contribute
something with all the reading she's done. Then, Eureka!,  as if on cue
she's re-reading a Radio-Craft magazine that someone gave her because
it had a blurb about Amelia and suddenly lightening struck. That's it
for now - promised her I wouldn't tell the rest of the story!

Thanks again!
Dave Chase
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 09:08:05 EDT
From:         Vanessa Chase
Subject:      Here's an interesting Radio-Craft article

Hi! My name is Vanessa Chase and I'm doing some research for National History Day
on Amelia Earhart.  One of my sources is a May 1935 issue of Radio-Craft
magazine that I actually got on Ebay. On page 647 there's an article about Amelia's
use of radio on her flight from Hawaii to Oakland. Ric - my dad said to type in the whole
article and let you decide if it's OK to include.  At the end of it I'll summarize why I think it's
interesting.

Radio Aided Amelia Earhart on Pacific Flight
        Some of the most dramatic stories of radio are the unpublished ones.
When Amelia Earhart Putnam took off from Honolulu last month, for the far away
landing field at Oakland, Calif., she carried with her a tiny, but efficient
50-watt transmitter and a receiver. During her grueling 17-hour flight she was
heard repeatedly calling "Hello -- K F I -- hello -- K F I, Okay! -- and then
she would shut her transmitter down with this brief reassurance.
        She was transmitting on a frequency of 3,105 kc., which is a difficult
channel for daylight transmission. However, several short-wave listeners stuck
to their receivers, and their careful manipulation of the dials stood them in
good stead - they kept receiving her feeble calls long after the commercial
reception points had lost her signal.
        Probably the best reception during this period was had by Mr. Walter
B. McMenamy of Los Angeles, who, utilizing the regular aerial of KECA in Los Angeles,
never missed a single transmission from Miss Earhart's plane. In fact, Mr. McMenamy was the only
one so far as can be ascertained who actually knew of Miss Earhart's location when she was
being reported lost; off her course; and the subject of other erroneous reports.
        It was at this time that station KFI broke into the Metropolitan Opera program with the
welcome message that "Amelia is safe and coming along Okay!" Mr. McMenamy and another
listener, Mr. Frank D. Andrews, kept KFI informed throughout the long vigil of Miss Earhart's
messages, and during the night, KFI would come back to Miss Earhart's messages through
their own 50 kw. transmitter. It is needless to say that those who were fortunate enough to
be listening that night were treated to one of the greatest radio dramas of all times.
//end

I'm sorry to bother you if you already know about this. It was very exciting
for me!

To me, this story adds alot of credibility to the news reports of Mr. McMenamy hearing Amelia
sending distress calls on July 4, 1937.  It shows that either Mr. McMenamy's radio/antenna
system was unusually good or that he had unusual skills at using a shortwave radio. Maybe both?
In my mind this is good news for the TIGHAR theory that Amelia landed somewhere, somehow.
Vanessa
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Vanessa!  I was aware the McMenamy had heard Earhart during the 1935
Honolulu/Oakland flight but I had never seen any details.  It does sound like
McMenamy had a pretty efficient set-up and his experience with Earhart seems
to end credibility to his claim of recognizing her voice in 1937.  Good
research.

When you get a chance, it would be nice if you could run a photocopy of that
article and mail it to us for our files.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 09:21:54 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Worst Novel

>From Ric
>
>To each his own.  Lots of people love Clive Cussler's stuff but I'm not one
>of them.

I suspect that's because you live out your adventures, Ric. The rest of us
have to get our vicarious thrills through reading of the efforts of
soldiers of fortune such as yourself, or through novelists such as Cussler,
Clancy, et. al.

Tom Robison
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I really don't think of myself as an adventurer, much less a soldier of
fortune.  I like adventure novels as much as the next guy.  I just think
Cussler's stuff is shallow and cartoonish.  I think Clancy writes well,
although I don't think I'd want to be in the same room with the guy.

(All of this, of course, is utterly off-topic but the forum has been slow
recently so, what the heck.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 09:25:43 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Catspaw stuff

I saw the other day a review of the evidence in the Clutter family murder in
Kansas in 1959. A major piece was one of the murderer's working boot. Both
the heel and the sole had the Catspaw logo embedded in the rubber or
composition. I didn't know that Catspaw made replacement soles. I suppose it
is possible to find out if your Niku sole had any latent embedded Catspaw
logo in the sole in spite of age,deterioration, and wear. Unless of course it
can be immediately visible that absolutely no imprint exists. If the sole did
have some latent imprint, it might aid in identifying the type of shoe and
the age. I cannot make a guess with just the black and white photos.
LTM,
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, the sole (which, as you know, is in fragments) is very worn and no
trace of any imprint is apparent to the eye.  Where on workboot sole did the
logo appear?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 10:05:12 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: Panic Earhart

While we're on the subject of subjective opinions...generally speaking,
one usually becomes 'panic stricken' & 'frantic' in response to the
happening of a sudden, unexpected, unforeseeable event/events of
substantial proportions.

The termination of the AE/FN flight, whether by landing wheels down on
Gardner/Nikumaroro Island or ditching at sea were _not_ sudden,
unexpected or unforeseeable events. (Unless one subscribes to
the...'suddenly, ran out of gas & dove straight into
ocean'...hypothesis.)

AE/FN had several hours (depending upon which 'remaining' fuel supply
scenario you accept as true)  to contemplate the consequences of their
failure to locate Howland Island or establish two-way radio
communication with Itasca & while I'm certain they were more than a
little frustrated & irritated by those failures & were hurriedly racking
their collective brains for some workable, alternative solutions to
their problems, I'm of the opinion they were _not_ wasting precious time
working themselves into an emotional, hysterical state, as suggested by
the several, _subjective_ opinions of those who claim to have _detected_
such signs in the sound of AE's radio voice, both before & after the
flight was declared terminated.

Strain & frustration, yes...but not hysteria!

AE was well aware that the undertaking of this last, longest, over-water
(mostly at night) leg of the flight would be the most challenging &
dangerous.  Recognizing the rigors of such a long-range, overwater
fIight, had prompted her to return to Bandoeng for replacement &/or
adjustment of malfunctioning instruments, rather than go with her 'gut'
reaction to fly on ahead to Australia, rather than lose time by turning
back to Bandoeng.

It has also been _alleged_ that she even might be said to have
anticipated the _possibility_ of failing landfall at Howland, when in a
casual conversation, she _supposedly_ told Mr. Vidal, that she'd simply
try to... 'fly back to a beach in the Gilberts'...

We have some prior examples of how AE usually reacted to dangerous
flying situations, most notable would have to be the ground-loop fiasco
on take-off on the _first_ world-flight attempt from Honolulu, when it
was _claimed_ that she had sufficient presence of mind to 'cut' the
switches while her disabled aircraft was scraping down the runway, in a
hail of sparks (with fully loaded fuel tanks) & even was able to think
of an alibi (tire blow-out) for her _own_ failure to properly handle the
twin throttles, when the plane started to drift to the right during
take-off. (Later alleged by Paul Mantz as the _real_ cause of the
accident.)      This incident supposedly scared the daylights out of
Harry Manning & was _one_ of the factors causing him to drop out of the
flight.

AE was indeed no stranger to being required to handle flying
emergencies, what with all the documented crack-ups she'd lived through,
for example, there was also the autogyro crack-up, where she simply
walked away after totalling the aircraft & smashing into parked
vehicles, in much the same way she simply walked away from the Honolulu,
crash, seemingly unpreturbed & on to the next business at hand.

Frankly, from all that I've read, (including most of her own writings)
I'd be inclined to believe that AE was simply too much of a 'fatalist'
to get 'panic stricken' or 'frantic' over the possibility of losing her
life in an airplane, at least not as long as she still had her hands on
the wheel & throttles & possessed any semblance of control over the
manner & location of ditching or landing her aircraft.

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

Interesting observations. Earhart's behavior after mishaps was, as you say,
fairly consistent - although whether attributable to steel nerves or
embarrassed arrogance might be debatable.  She reminds me of a cat that has
fallen out of a window sill and gets up with an air of " I meant to do that."
 It was fairly typical of her to make a mess of something and just walk away
as if it never happened, leaving it to others to clean up.

She does seem to have been able to keep her head during flights that weren't
going well, and that is a basic survival trait for any pilot.  There seems to
be some evidence, however, that she disliked abrupt manuevers.  There is an
incident related in Dwiggins' biography of Paul Mantz (Hollywood Pilot) in
which Mantz describes the arrival over Honolulu at the end of the March 1937
flight from Oakland.  Earhart was tired so Mantz took the controls to make
the approach and landing.  "I wrapped it around in a steep bank to check the
windsock.  AE yelled 'Don't! Don't!'  She was very tired and kind of
exuberant.  She calmed down when I made a normal approach pattern and we
landed."

Thoughout her flying career I've never seen reference to her doing any sort
of aerobatic manuever or even "buzzing" an airfield.  When she first learned
to fly she took far more instruction than normal before she agreed to solo,
insisting that she learn more advanced manuevers than are usually required b
efore she took the plane up by herself.  In a newsreel piece where she is
'testing' a new parachute training device (the tower that later ended up at
Coney Island) there is a terrified scream when the 'chute is first released.
It's impossible to know whether the scream was genuine or dubbed in later.

My suspicion is that Earhart did very well in dangerous and demanding
situations that were "cerebral" rather than "physical", but I think that
violence terrified her.  If Betty's notebook describes the situation we think
it does - an airplane perched precariously on a coral reef increasingly
battered by waves and rising water - Earhart might well have been on the edge
of panic.

LTM
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 10:08:47 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Niku pix

Ric said:  I'd like to hear from some of the folks who have received
their prints of the photo - especially the ones who like it."

    I got mine on Friday -- it's great.  It's going on my den wall.
    However, I think mine was a tad defective . . . in the area later
known as "Amerika" I saw what looked like a guy with a beard holding a
soccer ball -- it was a Wilson, I think.  Other than that, its a great
photo.

LTM, who pines for simpler days
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmm, must be defective.  The ball should say Spalding.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 10:12:20 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Dirk Pitt Vs Ric Gillespie

Ric said;  "TIGHAR's Ric Gillespie character is modelled after
Yosemite Sam"

     . . .only shorter! :-)

LTM, whose best friend is short
Dennis McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

Ooooooh!  BLAM!  BLAM!
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 11:17:35 EDT
From:         Kar Burns
Subject:      Re: Skull Forensics

Skull/photo comparisons are done with video cameras. The actual skull is
used, not the skull measurements. The skull is "superimposed" on the photo
and rotated until it is in the exact plane of the photo. The relative
distances are evaluated between the eyes, from the chin to the ear opening,
etc. Comparisons are made of the curvature of the forehead, chin,
cheekbones, nasal bones, etc. If we are fortunate enough to have a smiling
photo and teeth in the skull, the teeth are compared. But, as Ric said,
these all must be in the plane of the photo. The skull measurements
themselves are irrelevant. It is extremely difficult to compare them -- even
with a living person. Hair, soft tissue, and lack of access to the
appropriate measurement points confound the problem.

Kar
(Karen Ramey Burns, PhD, Univ. of Georgia Dept of Anthropology)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 11:20:02 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Obit -- off topic?

I just read in the paper today the Alexei Tupolov, one of the
designers of the Tu-144  supersonic transport "Concordski," Tu-134, and
other commercial aircraft for the Soviet Union, died over the weekend in
Russia. He was 75.
    Alexei was the son of Andrei Tupolov, who rose to fame in the 1930s,
and after, for his designs of bombers and commercial aircraft for the
Soviets.
    So, what's that have to do with Amelia Earhart?   Not much.  It's
just that it's one more connection to our aviation past has been severed,
and it got me to thinking of aviation's other great names that have, are, or
soon will be lost.  Northrop, Grumman, Lockheed (Loughhead), Martin, Vought,
Piper, Sikorsky, Kaman, Stearman, Boeing, Loening, Beech, Curtiss, Bell,
Brewster, Douglas, McDonnell, Lear -- the list goes on and on.
    These are the pioneers of an industry that is not yet 100 years old,
and slowly the names are being erased through mergers, consolidations, and
reorganizations, to emerge sounding "more corporate,"  such as LTV and
General Dynamics.  While some of the great names in aviation survive, their
future independence is not promising.
    Whether or not the great Tupolov name (with Mikoyan, Yakalov, etc.)
will survive is unknown, but with Alexei's death I suspect the Tupolov
Design Bureau moves one notch closer to extinction.

LTM, who is given to musing today
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 11:26:23 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Dirk Pitt Vs Ric Gillespie

Gee, I always thought it was Foghorn Leghorn.

Tim Smith
1142CE
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I seem to have a talent for opening the door to abuse.

Where have all the postings gone?
Long time pa-assing.
Where have all the postings gone?
Long time goin'.
Where have all the postings gone?
Gone to wise cracks every one.
When will I ever learn?
When will I ever learn?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 11:50:51 EDT
From:         Bob Perry
Subject:      Human interest

Considering lots of extraneous stuff being discussed on the forum lately,
here's an item. It was interesting to read Shirley Temple Black's comments
to Susan Young, a reporter for the San Mateo Times in a recent interview,
as background for the TV show last night.  Shirley Temple is a  Woodside
resident (a stone's throw from here). AE an ST were apparently good friends,
and this was portrayed in the dramatization.

Shirley said  "the thing I loved about Amelia Earhart was that she didn't
put on airs. She was nice and natural......She gave me chewing gum,
etc.....She bought me two suitcases that she endorsed. I never flew with
them." etc.

(Apropos of nothing, but another tid-bit on one whom we have dissected every
which way lately)

LTM (singing  Good Ship Lollipop)

Bob # 2021
****************************************************************************
From Ric

And Good Ship Lollipop was sung at a birthday party aboard a taxiing DC-2 by
a little girl who didn't yet know her mother had just been killed.  Talk
about pathos.

I wonder how much hobknobbing AE really did with the Hollywood crowd.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 11:59:44 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Here's an interesting Radio-Craft article

>From Ric
>
>It does sound like
>McMenamy had a pretty efficient set-up and his experience with Earhart seems
>to end credibility to his claim of recognizing her voice in 1937.  Good
>research.

Um, Ric, you meant "ADD credibility," I hope???

Amanda Dunham, #2418
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Indeed I did.  Subconcious slip.  I've personally always felt that McMenamy's
claims about hearing post-loss transmissions were a crock.  I have an audio
tape of an interview with him made in 1955.  At least at that time, the guy
was totally 'round the bend with conspiracy tales worthy of Gervais and Klaas.
****************************************************************************
From Cam Warren

I thought by now that the "Earhart community" was aware that McMenamy -
who reportedly never held a ham license - was remarkably endowed with an
ability to hear, and identify, Earhart transmissions when nobody else
could. This ability was only exceeded by his talent for self-promotion.
Don't take MY word for it, have some TIGHAR member check it out.

Cam Warren
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Should be easy enough to check whether he ever held a ham license.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2001 12:01:45 EDT
From:         Mike E.
Subject:      Re: Worst Novel

>From Ric
>
>TIGHAR's Ric Gillespie character is modelled after Yosemite Sam.

Great horney-toads!

I thought it was bound to be Wile E. Coyote... "Genius by trade."

Or (but this may be a stretch) Daffy Duck... "What a revoltin' development
THIS is!"

LTM (who loves the Road Runner)
and
73
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Not a stretch at all.  Shoot me now.  Shoot me now.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 09:37:07 EDT
From:         Paul Penwell
Subject:      Skull vs. Photo

To Kar Burns
Thank you for your discussion of using video imaging to make skull vs.
photo comparisons using the actual skull. I have seen this technique
used on several PBS shows such as NOVA when a team of historians was
trying to determine if some remains found in South America were those of
Butch Cassidy. The Research bulletin on the Earhart page "Skull Duggery"
(6/26/98) says that Photek, Inc. can use measurements from a skull to
make such comparisons and that this is a "standard technique".
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I ain't ABOUT to get in the middle between two forensic experts, both of whom
are tops in my book.  What Kar Burns doesn't know about bones isn't worth
knowing, and Jeff Glickman at Photek can coax information from photos that
you wouldn't dream was there.  Both are in agreement that we really can't
make meaningful comparisons between photos of AE and FN and the few skull
measurments we have from Dr. Hoodless.

Paul Penwell(#2421)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 09:38:56 EDT
From:         Mike E. the Radio Historian
Subject:      Re: Here's an interesting Radio-Craft article

Vanessa's posting is indeed interesting.

I can shed some light on the circumstances from a technical, anecdotal
standpoint.

I worked at a broadcast station back in high school and while in college
working on my history degree.  The station signed off for maintenance on
Sundays from 12:30 am till 5:00 am; and many times, after doing whatever had
to be done -- changing tubes in the transmitter, cleaning dust off
insulators to prevent arc-overs, etc etc etc -- I would couple a receiver
into the antenna-tuning cabinet and use the station's towers to see what
could be heard, either D-Xing the standard broadcast band, listening to the
amateur 160-meter band or 80-meter band.  (1.8-2 MHz, 3.5-4 MHz
respectively).

The results?  Phenomenal.  The reason?  Broadcast station antenna arrays are
big, of course, plus they have an extensive copper-wire ground screen
beneath them, buried just under the surface.  This of course makes for a
wonderfully efficient receiving antenna.  I was able to pick up ham signals
from Europe and the Middle East that i could never have dreamed of hearing
at home; plus standard broadcast signals from as far as California.

If Mr. McMenamy was using the antenna of a commercial broadcast station to
receive AE, there is practically no doubt he'd have heard her.  If a gnat
sneezed on 3105 KHz, he'd have heard it, on a nighttime path... think also,
this is an overwater path for the most part.

Wonder if he did the same thing, when he claimed to have heard her in 1937?

Good going, Vanessa!

LTM (who never misses a thing)
and
73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 09:40:15 EDT
From:         Barb Norris
Subject:      Re: Human interest

I don't know about the Hollywood hobknobbing between Shirley Temple and AE...

But speaking of off topic topics, if you saw Saturday Night Live's tribute to
Mothers Day last evening, you got to see a skit in which Jim Morrison was
dating that famous American aviatrix, Amelia Earhart.  Pretty riduclous but
good for a laugh.

LTM(who appreciates a healthy chuckle every now & then),
Barb Norris
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 09:46:33 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: prolonged isolation

According to the Henderson Island Homepage:

http://www.winthrop.webjump.com/hender.html , the wreck of the Essex on
Henderson Island was said by H.E. Maude to be the true story that was the
basis for Moby Dick.  The site does have the diary of the captain of the
Wildwave, which wrecked on Oeno island, for all you shipwreck and isolation
fans.

The satellite photo of Nikumaroro arrived on Saturday, May 12. I am
impressed that you can look for paths and bare coral patches, and see where
the settlements were.  As an additional thought, Pacific waters are low in
iron, and have been experimentally fertilized with soluble iron salts.  Is
the area around the Norwich city greener on photo analysis, compared to
other areas of the reef?  If so, green areas on the reef may be indications
of old scrap metal, like airplane engines.  Was there any major iron or
steel component in AE's plane, or was it mainly aluminum?

Daniel Postellon, TIGHAR # 2263  LTM (shipwrecked and isolated)
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmm, interesting thought.  We can check that.  I've been playing with the
original data in Photoshop and, I'm tellin' ya, this imagery is going to be
the greatest search and search management tool we've ever had.  There's so
much information there it's staggering.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 09:51:35 EDT
From:         Shirley
Subject:      Re: Satellite Photo

Received my photo on Saturday. Fantastic!

I spent a goodly amount of time just staring at it and turning it in all directions.
Trying to put all our information and locations where they belong.

It's amazing what can be done by those cameras that far away.  Some lenses!

Shirley 2299
****************************************************************************
From Ric

They're not even lenses in the conventional sense.  I don't pretend to
understand the technology but I'm sure pleased with the result.
****************************************************************************
From Dick Pingrey

       My copy of the photo and certificate arrived today.  I think it is a
wonderful picture.  It will go on display in the lobby of my hangar building
so all the visitors and see it and ask about it.  That way I have a good
reason to tell them about TIGHAR and perhaps recruit a new member of two.

Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 10:01:50 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Human interest

>From Ric
>
> And Good Ship Lollipop was sung at a birthday party aboard a taxiing DC-2 by
> a little girl who didn't yet know her mother had just been killed.  Talk
> about pathos.
>
> I wonder how much hobknobbing AE really did with the Hollywood crowd.

Come on Ric, you are too  old to have grown up on Crocodile Dundee Movies.
OK all kidding aside and before we get another chorus of "Where have all the
postings gone?".  When it comes to Shirley Temple Black, her career after
movies perhaps gives a little  more weight, or at least a little credibility
to her recollections of meeting AE.  I am sure this next source I am going
to quote from will probably take away any weight to this quote.  Anyhow (as
corny as this sounds) From the Shirley Temple Fans. com .  The Biography
page and believe it or not, it is well done.

Anyhow a small quote from the page, there is a lot more then this, including
a quote from a newspaper interview on how AE had an effect on her life.
Anyhow a brief summary of Shirley Temple Blacks Diplomatic Career (of
interest see also at one time sat on Corporate Board of Directors for Walt
Disney Productions, wonder why they did the film :-).  Anyhow here is the
quote (and there is a lot more) on http://www.shirleytemplefans.com/main.htm
"In 1969 Mrs. Black became a U.S. Delegate to the United Nations. In the
years that followed she served as a U.S. Delegate to many International
Conferences and Summits on cooperative treaties and human environment. In
1976 she became the first female Chief of Protocol of the United States.
From this position she moved on to the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of
Ghana from 1974-1976, then U.S. Chief Protocol, then an officer for the U.S.
Foreign Affairs Department, and later in 1989 to U.S. Ambassador to Czech
and Slovak Federal Republic. As the first female U.S. Chief Protocol of the
United States, she was in charge of implementation of all State Department
visits, ceremonies, gifts for foreign heads of state, and liaison to all foreign
embassies and consulates located in the U.S.A. Protocol is the diplomatic
procedure governed by law or international custom and practice. The Department
of State first established a Division of Protocol in 1928. All incumbents since
1961 have held the rank of Ambassador."

    Not too bad for the good ship lollipop, prior to that she ran for
Congress and lost.  Hey as a kid I bet you use to like to watch Clark Gable
movies, perhaps the one which he is a captain of ship (I think the settings
was in 1920's), which was sailing in the Pacific and was overtaken by
pirates, who happen to be tip off by his girlfriend who was on the ship.
Can't remember the title of the movie.

Regards.
Warren Lambing
****************************************************************************
From Ric

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Ms. Black's adult
diplomatic career lends credence to her recollections of Earhart, who died
when the child star was nine years old.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 10:25:58 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Staying with the aircraft

>If Betty's notebook describes the situation we think it does - an
>airplane perched precariously on a coral reef increasingly battered by
>waves and rising water - Earhart might well have been on the edge of
>panic'.
>
>LTM
>Ric

Possibly... that is _if_ we can _prove_ the voice Betty heard _was_ in
fact AE & _if_ we can _prove_ that AE _did_ in fact land the Electra on
the reef flat at Gardner/Nikumaroro.  

Though... I somehow doubt (opinion) that AE/FN would have stayed with
the aircraft that long, unless of course, they happened to ditch in the
water on the reef flat at high tide.

While I agree that AE was no steel nerved, super heroine, I simply think
(opinion) that she was too inflexible & stubborn to give in to her
emotions, whatever the circumstances, although if someone had
intercepted some...'expletives deleted'... on any of her frequencies,
I'd be more inclined to accept such intercepts as valid !

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

>So, what's that have to do with Amelia Earhart?  Not much. It's
>just that it's one more connection to our aviation past has been
>severed, and it got me to thinking of aviation's other great names that
>have, are, or soon will be lost'....
>
>LTM, who is given to musing today
>Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

...And the irony is, that AE will, no doubt, probably be remembered long
after all the others have become very faded memories or names on pages
of ancient history books, all because she couldn't locate that xxxx
island !

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

I don't follow your reasoning. You doubt that AE would have stayed with the
airplane that long - but how long is that long?  We don't know what day
Betty's intercepts were heard.  If the voice she heard was Earhart's then AE
was obviouisly still able to use the radio.  Do you feel that she would
abandon the aircraft while she was still able to send distress calls?

Seems to me that an aircraft that was still capable of being used as a radio
station but was threatening by increasingly dangerous tidal conditions would
present a terrible quandary.  How long do you stick with it, clinging to your
only possible link to the outside world, as the water rises and waves slam it
around? You're way out there on the edge of the reef with 600 yards of water
and slippery coral separating you from the beach and there's "fins to the
right, fins to the left, and you're the only bait in town." Throw in a
blazing sun and a whacked-out navigator and you have a somewhat upsetting
situation.

To my mind, the combination of barely controlled panic, desperation, and
anger (including the string of expletives you're looking for) described in
Betty's notebook is entirely believable as the way amelia Earhart might
behave under such circumstances.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 10:42:17 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Human interest

    Wonder of all wonders.

    Well, just wondering if anyone has ever reflown the different speculated
routes of AE's last flight?
    Am wondering if any investigative team has ever saught out the remains
from the alledged aircraft that was said to have been blown up by the US
Government, that was alledgedly AE's?  Even if they blew it up, the remaining
parts would have been dumped someplace in that area and might hold clues.
   In this modern age of technology, isn't it about time we finally determine
what happen?
   Thought maybe this email might stir up some conversation.

Thomas
****************************************************************************
From Ric
Welcome to the forum Thomas.
Yes, Earhart's route to Howland was reflown (more or less) in a Lockheed
Electra in 1967 and again in 1997.  Neither flight proved anything of
significance. No doubt somebody will do it again and again and again - sort
of like Prometheus losing his liver.

And yes, numerous people have tried to locate Earhart's Electra everywhere
from Saipan to Taroa, to the jungles of New Guinea, and even the bottom of
the Pacific Ocean.  We're looking on Nikumaroro.  Nobody is going to find it
until somebody looks where it really is.  That's the tricky part.  This forum
is dedicated to discussions of whether or not Nikumaroro is the right place.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 10:44:33 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: satellite photo

<< The satellite photo of Nikumaroro arrived on Saturday, May 12. I am
 impressed that you can look for paths and bare coral patches, and see where
 the settlements were >>

Anyway to see a online copy of this photo?

Thomas
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We'll have it up on the TIGHAR website soon.  I'll give everybody a heads-up.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 10:55:29 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Staying with the aircraft

<<To my mind, the combination of barely controlled panic, desperation, and
 anger (including the string of expletives you're looking for) described in
 Betty's notebook is entirely believable as the way amelia Earhart might
 behave under such circumstances.>>

Entirely agree... and more so, even if AE had left the plane, in a panic, one
can assume anyone would "attempt" to go back to the plane to make distress
calls as long as it were humanly possible to do so.  What if the plane were
intact enough and landed in such a way that it was possible that the Japanese
Military even salvaged the plane later after the batteries were dead or the
plane flooded sufficiently to no longer broadcast at all?

What if all the facts lead to one conclusion, not several different theories?
That the plane crash landed on the reef, that AE did in fact put out distress
calls, that they were stranded on the island for a unknown time, that the
Japenese later found and took prisoner AE, removing her to Saipan, as well as
salvaging what was left of her plane, removing it to Saipan as well.  This
would not have been out of the question for the Japanese to do, because they
too would have known the importance of AE's flight to America at that time.
At that time the plane would have been an important item to salvage, for them
to research.  But if that is the case, why cover it up now? Why, because it
carries a double edge sword. One that the US may have utilized AE's flight
for spying, and two that Japan's handling of finding AE was done so badly
that it may have resulted in her death.   It could just be a matter of
"dishonor" to the Japanese, not to have it known that they captured AE, and
as a result she died in their care.

thomas
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll be happy to consider your hypothesis if you'll explain a couple of
assumptions you make:
1.  Why would the Japanese be interested in Earhart's Lockheed Model 10
Electra when they had purchased and imported one to Japan the year before and
already had better airplanes in service?
2.  Why would the Japanese venture over a thousand miles into British
territory to "capture" such an airplane?
3.  What importance did Earhart's flight have to America other than as yet
another stunt flight by a celebrity aviator?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 10:59:38 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      'controlled panic"

Ric said:  "To my mind, the combination of barely controlled panic,
desperation, and anger (including the string of expletives you're looking
for) described in Betty's notebook is entirely believable as the way Amelia
Earhart might behave under such circumstances."

     . . .or anybody else for that matter.

LTM, who acquires compassion with each passing day
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I see your point.  This gets awfully subjective, but somehow Betty's notebook
sounds more like Amelia than, say, Jimmy Doolittle or even Jackie Cochrane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 11:52:17 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Satellite photo

I received my sat photo of Niku.  Beautiful!!  Definitely worthy of framing.

Upon close inspection with the Mark I Eyeball reveals all the goodies that we
have been discussing are visible, reef, the shipwreck, the village, landing
channel, loran site, and even the 7 site.  It is all there.  Amazing.
Haven't seen any Electra wings lurking in the lagoon yet, but I'm looking for
a nice magnifying glass to get a closer look.

Oddly enough, when I was looking at the picture, Niku took on the appearance
of a living organism with a head, mouth, stomach and tail end.  Of course, to
some degree, it is a live creature, a self contained ecosystem, made up of
coral and other critters, with inlets and outlets, etc., etc.

Hopefully what we have learned about the "metabolic processes" of our
favorite island organism will help us narrow the search.  I like to think
Niku swallowed the Electra, but hasn't entirely digested it, leaving pieces
for us to find in Sept.  Talk about diving into the belly of the beast....

LTM (who's bringing lots of pepto to calm Niku's stomach while we are there.
the movie will be called "The Pink Lagoon")
Andrew McKenna
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 May 2001 12:01:41 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 'controlled panic"

<< Ric: I don't remember any expletives in Betty's notebook...are you sure? >>

On the last page, fourth line up from the bottom, Betty wrote "darn" but,
from my first conversations with her, she explained that this was actually a
string of cuss words that she, the sweet 15 year old girl from a good family,
couldn't write down.  Her best recollection now is that AE said, "Goddamn son
of a BITCH!".
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 09:43:41 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Low Tide

I ponder how the Island might look upon a low tide, at the same time of
season as AE would have found it? How would the coral reef look from the air
at that time of the year?

Island's change annually, and would be greatly changed, especially after all
of these years. Taking the changes into account, the Island's location can
actually somewhat shift.  The Coral Reef she may have landed on may in fact
be way underwater at this time, even way under and part of the coral reef
itself. If this is in fact the right Island at all.

If she landed on the Coral Reef at a low tide, when a sand bar had formed
around the Coral Reef, it may have looked like a good landing spot from the
air, but in fact had very loose sand and water coverage. Thus, crash landing
on soft coral, and when high tide came in, swamping the plane, bashing it
between the waves and coral. One large storm, the sand bar moves, and the sea
swallows up what was left.

Reminds me a riverboat that once sunk. The researchers look for years, later,
trying to refind it in the river. But, the river had changed position, and
the riverboat was later found under a field, along side the river.  Imagin
the ocean, with it's changing sand bars, and coral reefs.  The plane could be
buried under the current beach, or even had been washed out to sea.

The Island is the best place to search. The items found to date, and
hopefully those items soon to be found this August will hopefully provide the
leads needed to make a finding.  If AE was stranded on this Island, what
evidence would she want to leave to be found? She was smart enough to think
of leaving us a clue, but where would she have placed it? Personally, I was
intrigued by the story about the American Female Prisoner on Saipan who is
said to have been a pilot and injured, that gave away a Opal Ring.  Would
that not have been an effort to leave something to be found?

But sticking to the Island, it is the best place to search and needs further
research. Just as in genealogy, one must follow the leads where they lead.

How bad would have the continued waves damaged the plane's structure over all
of these years? How much Iron was in the plane that might help locate it
today?  I would think that there would be very little remaining that would be
identifiable if this plane was placed into this circumstance and left there
for this many years.

Thomas W. Rogers
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you'll find that most of your questions will be answered by reading
the material on the TIGHAR website and in the forum highlights.  There's a
lot of material there and it takes some effort to get up to speed, but this
is a complex subject and a whole lot of very good research has been written
up by some very bright people.

Briefly, coral atolls are non-migratory.  Aerial photos of Gardner Island
taken in the late 1930s show the same basic morphology and features as the
satellite photos taken a month ago.  Vegetation patterns change and buidlings
come and go, but the island and reef are amazingly stable.

There are no, and never have been, sand bars out on the reef.

Find me a picture - any picture - of Amelia Earhart wearing a ring of any
kind.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 09:49:42 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Staying with the aircraft

Ric asked:
<< 1.  Why would the Japanese be interested in Earhart's Lockheed Model 10
 Electra when they had purchased and imported one to Japan the year before and
 already had better airplanes in service?>>

   It would depend on "if" AE's plane did in fact do a fly over the Japanese
Military Base on a spy mission. The Japanese would have been extremely
interested in this plane's contents, and specialized abilities if this spy
mission took place.

<<2.  Why would the Japanese venture over a thousand miles into British
 territory to "capture" such an airplane.>>

   That presents a very interesting thought. What was so highly secretive at
the Japanese Military Base that might cause the Japanese to have that much
interest.

<<3.  What importance did Earhart's flight have to America other than as yet
 another stunt flight by a celebrity aviator?>>

   It is not the importance to America that is the important matter to
consider. It is the importance of the "perception" of the Japanese people's
view on the flight's importance to America.  No different than the space race
between America and Russia, Japan would have had an interest in this plane,
if, it had been found to have flown over their military base.

   My question is this.  During the massive Naval Search for AE, did the
search include the surrounding waters of this Island and was this Island
searched at that time? If not, then isn't it possible that AE may have been
stranded on this Island for sometime, possibly for years? The Japanese may
not have found AE and even what was left of the plane, until much later. How
did the Island play into the search area the Naval Search laid out?  If the
Island was searched during this Naval Search, then why would one think that
this is the landing site, all these years later? Where would have they went
during the time after the crash landing and the Naval Search?  And lastly,
did any Japanese vessels take part in that Naval search for AE?

Thomas W. Rogers
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Again, I can only ask you to read the material on the website.  The other
forum subscribers have (or they keep their mouth shut to avoid embarrassing
themselves).

What makes you think there was a secret "Japanese Military Base" to spy on?
U.S. and Japanese records agree that there wasn't.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 09:52:52 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Staying with the aircraft

Ric asked:
<< 1.  Why would the Japanese be interested in Earhart's Lockheed Model 10
 Electra when they had purchased and imported one to Japan the year before and
 already had better airplanes in service? >>

     Think about China, and how their pilot risk his life repeatedly, getting
close to our spy plane, and eventually loosing his life to force one of our
spy planes down?
     Comparitively, Japan's military people would have watched intently, AE's
flight path, once it came anywhere close to their military base. If in fact
the plane was spotted near or over their military base, assuming it was, the
Japanese Military would have went to very great lengths to know what
"equipment" was onboard.

Thomas
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Fine, except there is no indication that there was any military base and no
indication that Earhart could have possible gotten anywhere near the military
base that wasn't there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 10:05:45 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Human interest

> From Ric
>
> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Ms. Black's adult
> diplomatic career lends credence to her recollections of Earhart, who died
> when the child star was nine years old.

    Yup.  Lets see, Ms. Black, met some one she consider her idol (so to
speak), before or perhaps around when she was nine years old.  Do you
remember anything from nine years of age and before., I do bits and pieces
and suspect if AE were of great importance to me and I met her, I would
remember bits and pieces, would you?  As far as her diplomatic and you
forgot the corporate career, no it doesn't improve her memory, but leads one
to think that she has no reason to try to impress some one with her
recollections of Amelia, she has nothing to gain.  For that matter it could
be asked what she thinks about TIGHAR's project.  Her opinion of the Earhart
project, not that it matters.  As a Shirley Temple fan and an Earhart fan, I
would love to hear MS. Black recollections of Earhart.  Even if it doesn't
answer any questions as to AE disappearance.

Regards.
Warren Lambing
***************************************************************************
From Ric

As you say, it has no bearing on the disappearance - but it does point up a
basic principle of how we regard anecdotal recollections.  Ms. Black's
memories of meeting Amelia Earhart may or may not be accurate.  There's no
way to tell unless there is hard evidence (a photo, a diary entry, a letter,
etc.).  Having nothing to gain by lying has nothing to do with mistaken
recollections.  People remember stuff wrong.  I do it.  You do it.  Shirley
Temple does it.  Her stories about meeting Amelia would be fun to hear but
they may or may not be true.  What would be true is her impression of Amelia
Earhart, because an opinion is an opinion and requires no justification or
proof.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 10:11:57 EDT
From:         Jim Pearson
Subject:      Airplane in the hanger myth

Re: Thomas Rogers posting about Devine seeing AEs plane in a hanger on
Saipan.
Two problems with this story.
1.  Wouldn't a hanger large enough to hold  a twinengined plane on an
airfield be considered a "target" ?
2. Japan bought 30 Lockheed model 14s, built 120 Type LO transports and 120
Ki-56s any of these could easily be mistaken for AEs Electra. Why would
anyone give a second thought about torching a captured obsolete transport
plane ?
**************************************************************************
From Ric

There are lots of problems with Devine's story but the biggest one is that
there's not a shred of evidence that it's true.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 10:35:28 EDT
From:         Chuck Jackson
Subject:      Re: satellite imagery

You mention playing with the original sat data with photoshop----sounds like
anouther funding source!!!!!!!!!!!!  how much for a maximum rez file???  now,
with cable modems and cheap 40 gig hard drives you can have a lot of
analyzers at work. (and a lot of people seeing things that are not there!)
or, do like the SETTI program---ie, distribute and assign a part of the image
to each of us that have photoshop.   Will Photek be in on this job?
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Can't do it.  Space Imaging has released the low res "pretty picture" version
for distribution with proper credit but the original data are still strictly
controlled by copyright.

Wouldn't do it if I could.  Suppose - just suppose - there's a debris field
or possible wreckage discernable in that photo.  That would make the original
data a virtual treasure map. If the smoking gun is there we want to be damn
sure that we're the ones to find it.

I do plan to bring Photek in on the analysis but it has to be under specific,
exclusive contract conditions to comply with copyright restrictions.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 12:20:30 EDT
From:         Mike E. the Radio Historian
Subject:      Re: Vanessa at Nationals

I'd like to see a story on Vanessa's project, submitted to TIGHAR Tracks.
With photos of course.  Is this do-able?

Any time young people do something positive, and noteworthy it deserves to
be publicized... too much is made of school shootings etc., and in my
opinion this does two things... it feeds the madness ("15 minutes of fame")
and sells TV time... "If it bleeds, it leads"... remember the song "It's
interesting when people die/Give us Dirty Laundry".

Enough is enough!  It's MORE interesting to know when something GOOD
happens.

Way to go Vanessa!  Best of luck to you, especially, and to ALL your peers.

73
Mike E.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

As it turns out, we're currently working on a "kid's section" for the TIGHAR
website, possibly to be titled "I'm doin' a report on Amelia.".  Vanessa's
project could be a sterling example (if she doesn't mind every other kid in
the world copying her work).

Dave? Vanessa?  Whadya think?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 13:26:35 EDT
From:         John Bayer
Subject:      Fix on the Rising Sun

I don't subscribe to any particular theory about AEs dissapearance other
than we don't know where she and Fred ended up and we haven't found
conclusive evidence of her yet, although you are persuasive in your
arguments that Niku is the Real McCoy.

I have seen the theory of AEs final location (Mili) that Charles Hill
predicates in his book on the loss of the Hawaii Clipper "Fix on The Rising
Sun", and I've got to ask if someone in TIGHAR has thoroughly disproved it.

Having been a Navigation type in the Navy for 10 years, I have to say his
navigational data is pretty good, though I'm not 100% in agreement on his
assumptions.

If you skip his conspiracy theories and slam of TIGHAR, his mechanics aren't
too far gone to consider.

Just a little healthy "what if?" skepticism...

John Bayer
************************************************************************
From Ric

I haven't read, and have no time or particular desire to read, the book.  Can
anyone help John?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 13:30:30 EDT
From:         Bob Perry
Subject:      Memory side isssue

You're right, for sure, on garbled memory. Our memories of factual
information, detail, etc. are normally not  to be trusted in the absence of
corroborating information and "hard" evidence. This is especially true if
one is being pushed to remember in a serious setting later. Suggestion is
proven to be a powerful influence in gleaning (false) answers from persons
questioned about past events.

This is not to say that one's recollections/impressons  are always wrong. A
strong emotional component in the event recalled greatly improves one's
memory of it.

For those interested in Amelia Earhart's life and her as a person, which is
tangential, I know, to TIGHAR's mission, there have been many quotes  over
the years by persons who met or knew her. Those can be sifted through and
conclusions reached. (You probably have better knowledge of this than anyone
else). Those quotes make fascinating reading, and there could be much truth
in what one recalled.

I personally have vivid recollections of LBJ dating from childhood (he was a
next-door neighbor). Those recollections were substantiated in later years.
My wife and I met Nixon in a receiving line at an airport one time. Our
memories/impressions of his personality in that brief encounter were more
than supported by later events.

The point? Shirley Temple's recollections of AE from that brief experience
are not necessarily wrong. They are just interesting input to be added to
the tons of information that one reads  in gaining an overall impression of
the public person of AE.

LTM,
Bob Perry   # 2021
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Absolutely.  Memories can be incredibly accurate or just as incredibly
screwed-up.  As you say, without hard evidence there is just no way to tell.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 13:37:30 EDT
From:         David Chase
Subject:      Re: Vanessa at Nationals

Vanessa's at school right now, but I think I can speak
for her and say she'd love to have her project info on your site.
Including her 50+ page annotated bibliography! She can't work
on a related topic next year (rules forbid using the same research
year to year).

We just need to wait until after 6/14 to get this into high gear.
Might be useful to coordinate pictures etc while we're back East.
Her exhibit is 30" dia and about 6' high. Not something you want
to be shipping around every week! Too big for UPS!

She's engaged in some very exciting research right now with the
FEDERATION AERONAUTIQUE INTERNATIONALE regarding some
statistics from the 20's and 30's that have never been published!
(not Earhart specific, but they help support her research thesis)
In fact, her school is gearing up a fundraiser to help send her back to
Switzerland for a couple days of file searching.

Another project I've been talking with her about would be to research
available newspapers from the July 3/4/5 1937  timeframe to see
how many other Ham reports on Amelia were out there and try to
correlate reception times and message content. She already found
another one from Ohio, if my recollection is correct. She doesn't
have time for this before Nationals, but maybe over the summer!
Dave Chase
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Terrific.  No rush.  Let's kick butt at the Nationals first.

So far I have 69 documented alleged post-loss receptions, but none in Ohio.
Sounds like Vanessa may have found a new one.  I'd be curious to know the
details.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 13:53:21 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Human interest

   Understanding and finding ways to "prove" recollections is something I
know a very great deal about indeed.  Genealogy, is what I am involved with
and a very great deal of information can be solely relied on as fact, if
certain conditions are met. My web site, The Rogers/Rodgers Family
Genealogical and Historical Society is at
http://www.expage.com/ancestorial

   First, when one hears a story about a family member or individual, to
verify that story or information as fact, there are certain things one must
do. Example: was there another person who was there at the time and who might
also recall the event, conversation or information.  If there was another
individual who could provide insight into the information, then one must
search that individual out.  If an individual is not available then one must
look at the information in the form of a "lead" only, but should not be ruled
out because of lack of supporting information. In some events, multiple leads
of this nature can further support the information in a stronger light. A
version of this appears to have been used in the search for other downed
planes in the past. Such as using rumors of a downed plane in a certain area.
 One can actually follow the leads back thru the rumor sources if sufficient
research is done.

    I've done a great deal of reading thru the material on the Tighar Web
Site, but instead of formulating an opinion, I take "all" of the various
material as leads, even if not proven as fact. Example: Even the US
Government and Japanese Government state no secret Naval Base existed, that
may not in fact be the case. Just because no photo was presented to show AE
wearing a ring, doesn't me she didn't. One instead looks at why a certain
story or rumor comes into existence and from where.
Then, by combining multiple, simular stories, and looking at their locations,
one can clearly see something was a driving force for them, even if that
reason is not clear.
I've not see a photo of the Island as it was back in 1937, so can not state
what the Island looked like at that time, but that would be very interesting.

   So when reviewing what "somebody" said took place, relying on their
memory, it is vital to record what was said as a lead, regardless of whether
it is fact. As in each story, about the Female Pilot held prisoner on Saipan,
the plane in the hanger being destroyed, or a person hearing a broadcast,
each is important as leads. In the case of hearing a broadcast for an
example, if multiple individuals state they heard the same thing, about the
same time, then in genealogy that could be used as fact.  Lets say 300 people
say they saw a UFO in the Southern Sky, then the fact is 300 people saw a UPO
in the Southern Sky, that does not mean that there was a UFO in the Southern
Sky, it only means 300 people saw one. One then goes about trying to prove
there was one, but that won't ever rule out 300 people saying they saw one.

   What one piece of evidence, other than the engine of the plane, would
prove the location of where AE's plane went down? Or, would sufficient pieces
of certain artifacts be sufficient to prove it?  Most artifacts found would
have been mass produced, so what is to prove they belonged to AE's flight?

   Let's say AE's plane crashed on the coral reef just off the Island. How
long was AE/FN on the Island? How did they get off the Island or did they? If
they got off the Island, what prevented them from making contact? What
happened to the plane?

   Plane crashes on coral reef just off the Island. AE broadcasts distress
signal as long as she can, risking life and limb to do so.  Items from the
plane may have been taken ashore, that were seen as necessary for survival.
"Assuming" this is the case, from indicative evidence already found, the next
question is "How long were they on the Island and how did they get off the
Island or did they?  Even if the plane's engine is not found, that should be
one of the questions examined, thus the great importance of further research
on the Island.  Ship logs of the period, that may have been in that area can
be a great resource.

   Lastly, story based research, has it's downside.  After all people do not
have perfect memory, and some enjoy making up stories.  But in most cases I
have found,
when multiple individuals have simular stories, with even slightly the same
thread of simularity, one should use it as a lead.  In one way, kind of
placing dots on a map, of where the people saying something took place. Then,
attempting to find others who might support their statements within that
area. In the genealogical community, it's called "knocking on doors".
Talking to all of the elderly who lived in a certain area, about any subject
they wish, not, giving them lead as to what you are looking for. If they
bring up what you are looking for, then you have another lead, another person
who is actually supporting other people's statements.

   Thomas W. Rogers
****************************************************************************
From Ric

If you were researching my genealogy there's no telling who I might be
related to.  One recollection might be considered a "lead", but 300
corroborating recollections are merely 300 more leads.  If you have 300
people who say they saw a UFO then you have 300 people who say they saw a UFO
- not 300 people who saw a UFO and not even 300 people who saw something they
thought was a UFO.  A "lead" or "leads" only become "fact" when documented
with hard evidence.

<<What one piece of evidence, other than the engine of the plane, would
prove the location of where AE's plane went down? Or, would sufficient pieces
of certain artifacts be sufficient to prove it?  Most artifacts found would
have been mass produced, so what is to prove they belonged to AE's flight? >>

A few components on the airplane had individual serial numbers that were
recorded in official documents - engines, prop blades, prop hubs.  There are
a few un-serial numbered components that are identifiable in photos and were
unique to NR16020 - primarily the fuselage fuel tanks.  Mass produced
components that were specific to the Lockheed Model 10 might be considered by
many to be diagnostic (i.e. smoking gun proof) because it is not reasonable
to expect that any other Lockheed 10 could be in that part of the world.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 14:06:13 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Airplane in the hanger myth

<< Devine seeing AEs plane in a hanger on
 Saipan.
 Two problems with this story.
 1.  Wouldn't a hanger large enough to hold  a twinengined plane on an
 airfield be considered a "target" ?>>

   Yes indeed, a hanger large enough to hold a twinengined plane on an
airfield would be considered a target. But what does that have to do with
anything, other than knowing that large hangers have been and are at
airfields.  Brings up an interesting thought.  I wonder if there are any
photos of the airfield of that period, that might show the hangers that were
there?

<< 2. Japan bought 30 Lockheed model 14s, built 120 Type LO transports and 120
 Ki-56s any of these could easily be mistaken for AEs Electra. Why would
 anyone give a second thought about torching a captured obsolete transport
 plane ? >>

     That could be what the Japanese thought as well.

     Whether or not Devine saw AE's plane or a plane that looked like it is
not the interesting part of the story. It is that the plane was destroyed and
that another woman was said to have seen an American Female Pilot, injured,
who later died. It is not Devine's story that carries any weight, it is the
two entirely unrelated events together that make these stories interesting.
One placing the plane and one placing AE is, as we say in genealogy, a solid
lead, even if both may in fact be incorrect.

     While most might rule out these stories, I have not, even though, if AE
was there, she was not there of her free will.  Thus, I come back to where
did she land? The Island seems a very likely place and it should be
concentrated on. I personally look forward to any new findings this fall, and
am excited about the Sat Photo's possibilities.


Thomas W. Rogers
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Confucius say: Man with watch knows what time it is.  Man with two watches
never sure.

I have a thick file folder overflowing with eyewitness accounts that place
Amelia Earhart and her airplane on Saipan, various locations in the Marshall
Islands, Truk, and the jungles of New Guinea - all at the same time.  The
only thing that makes Devine's story different is that he got a publisher to
buy his book.

The point about the hangar is that Aslito Airfield, where Devine claims he
saw the airplane, was subjected to intense bombardment during the re-taking
of the island.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 14:09:16 EDT
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      Q.S.T.

For Mike E:

Mike, you asked about access to relevant issues of the journals R/9 or Radio.
The bound volumes of Radio in our university library begin with 1942, but
all issues of Radio are held on microfiche at a distant institution in our
state university system if there was a specific article or pages of interest
to you. I did scrutinize the 1937 and 1938 bound volumes of the journal
Q.S.T., which have each month more than 100 pages in about 4-point font
documenting amateur radio communications. I found no reference to AE/FN, in
fact their flight was conspicuous by its absence among many references to
amateur radio operators' contact with other expeditions around the world,
except perhaps with one poignant line from the September, 1937, issue: "W9MYX
suggests that all amateurs add to their store of knowledge that the
international calling frequencies for airplanes are 3105 and 6210 kcs."

Dan Brown #2408
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 15:25:04 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Airplane in the hanger myth

<< I have a thick file folder overflowing with eyewitness accounts that place
 Amelia Earhart and her airplane on Saipan, various locations in the Marshall
 Islands, Truk, and the jungles of New Guinea - all at the same time.  >>

Now that is something I would have loved to follow up on, and right up my
alley as one might say.  Would be interesting to see a published copy of that
folder, wouldn't it?

<< Confucius say: Man with watch knows what time it is.  Man with two watches
never sure.

     Unless he had me for a watch repairman...  It was what I did while I was
working.

   I enjoy your humor, your knowledge and your forum.

Thomas W. Rogers
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 15:43:43 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Human interest

<< If you were researching my genealogy there's no telling who I might be
 related to.  >>

     Not at all.  By talking to people and getting their recollections about
the person, place and people they knew, one can determine "where" you came
from. By finding where you came from, one can then find documented evidence
of who you are. From finding that documented evidence, one finds who your
ancestors were, as found on the documents.  So thru recollections one finds
not just "where" one is from, but also picks up "traits" of what one was
like. Like my grandfather was a "jokester", always playing jokes on people,
all of his life.   I know this as fact, because this fact was brought up by 7
different individuals, without any prior prompting, question or suggestion.
In one conversation, while researching my grandfather, it was mentioned that
my grandfather got an inheritance from an uncle who died around Camp Point
Illinois.  From that one piece of information, I was able to find who my
great great grandparents were, after 3 years of full time research. It lead
me to the cemetery, then to that County's Court House and then to hold the
actual documented proof.

<<because it is not reasonable
to expect that any other Lockheed 10 could be in that part of the world.>>

   So if one were to "salt" the Island with a view such Lockheed 10 parts,
one would cause you to believe them to have been AE's, just because they were
there? I doubt that from your knowledge, honesty and passion for "facts" on the
subject.

   I'd love to hear your own off the cuff thoughts or assumptions on what may
have taken place on that fateful day AE was lost.

Thomas
****************************************************************************
From Ric

You bring up an interesting distinction.  Anecdotal "leads" can, in some
cases, direct you to hard evidence (such as baptismal records or gravestones)
that establish the facts of your ancestry or, in our case, establish facts
about the Earhart case.  The several corroborating opinions expressed by
various relatives about an individual's character are a good indication of
the impression that person made on others.  Again, you can't argue with an
opinion.  There is really no difference between the statements "My
grandfather was a jokester." and "Many people had the impression that my
grandfather was a jokester."  The same is not true of two statements like,
"My grandfather was a colonel in the army." and "Many people had the
impression that my grandfather was a colonel in the army."  Being a colonel
in the army is not a matter of opinion.

You're probably right about "salted" Lockheed 10 parts.  Although specific
circumstances of discovery could make that virtually impossible, somebody
would be sure to make the allegation.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 15:49:21 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Fix on the Rising Sun

For John Bayer,

I would suggest you take two aspirins and call Tighar. Hill states in his
introduction that AE and FN had a third passenger in the Electra when she
took off from Lae. A Japanese pilot. He assisted Amelia in defecting to Japan
as part of a "social experimentation" for Eleanor Roosevelt. Earhart's
mission "was to convince Japanese Navy radicals to press for the redirection
of Japanese aggression- from Russia to the U.S. She was, perhaps, the only
disgrace shared jointly by the US and Japan and the legacy of her mission was
the Cold War." After all the Electra "was (in italics) tail-heavy" when she
took off. A very interesting plot.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

He really said that?  This guy makes Randal Brink look downright scholarly.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 May 2001 15:52:34 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Airplane in the hanger myth

<< The point about the hangar is that Aslito Airfield, where Devine claims he
 saw the airplane, was subjected to intense bombardment during the re-taking
 of the island. >>

Yes, but let's not forget that we've been over this ground before.  A lot of
large Japanese buildings (I don't know if any were hangars per se) survived
the bombing; I've been in them, and I believe the Northern Marianas State
Historic Preservation Officer has offices in one of them today.  The SHPO
reports no Electra parts lying around, for what it's worth.

Tom King
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Notice that I didn't say the hangars were all destroyed, just that the place
was clobbered.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 May 2001 11:30:32 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: satellite imagery

Wot - no raw image ??!!

I was really looking forward to taking a good hard look at the raw image
with decent software rather than a magnifying glass on a computer printout.

Maybe we jumped the gun a little in assuming the image would be available to
TIGHAR members in general - but you certainly weren't very forthcoming
before hand with this restrictive circulation info.

LTM  (who always checks what she's contibuting towards)
Simon #2120
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I really don't know how I could have been clearer. The following is an
excerpt from my posting to the forum of April 25, 2001:

<<Ordering custom satellite photos is a bit different from hiring a
photographer to take pictures.  The customer does not own the images outright
but rather purchases the rights to use the images in specific ways via a
licensing agreement.  We originally thought that the project would cost
$6,000 but, as it turned out, our intended use of the imagery - analysis for
research purposes and reproduction for the TIGHAR membership - carried a far
higher price tag.  Further complicating the issue was the fact that we do not
have the expertise internally to analyze the data.  Making the high
resolution data available to another entity to do the analysis would further
increase the cost.

A creative solution to the problem was made possible with the cooperation of
Space Imaging and NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
 It seems that NOAA is conducting a study of the world's coral reefs to
assess their health and the environmental factors threatening them.  The reef
at Nikumaroro is one of the few pristine examples left but, because it's not
U.S. territory, NOAA is not able to spend money to take pictures of it.  The
deal we worked out is that TIGHAR will pay for the acquisition of the
imagery.  We'll share it with NOAA who will both analyze it for our research
purposes and use it in their own coral reef study, and we'll be able to make
pretty pictures of Niku available to our members with proper credit to Space
Imaging - and the cost of all this to TIGHAR is $3,000, half of what we
originally anticipated.>>

I don't understand how someone could read that and think that we were going
to be able to release the raw imagery to the public.  What we CAN do is share
the raw data with TIGHAR members, or contractors (such as Photek), for
analysis with the express contractual understanding that the results of the
analysis are proprietary to TIGHAR and that the imagery and analysis will not
be used for any other purpose. Naturally, we're not much inclined to enter
into such a contract unless the member or contractor has specific expertise
that we need.

I feel badly about this because the essence of our investigation has always
been the free (or reasonably priced) sharing of information with those who
want to help, and TIGHAR's real power is in the goodwill and good brains of
its members.  However, in this particular case my hands are tied by the
conditions of our licensing agreement with Space Imaging.

There is also another consideration, and this is one that I have admittedly
NOT been forthcoming about for reasons that I think you'll understand.  A few
weeks ago I was contacted by an individual who wanted to hire me as a
consultant to an expedition he said he is mounting to Nikumaroro this summer.
 He said he had put together a team that included a highly competent
deep-water search company (I recognized the name), and had made arrangements
to charter a large ship (I recognized the name).  He claimed to have funding
from a television network (he wouldn't say which one) and to have ten-year
old satellite imagery of the island which showed an offshore "target" that he
believed was the airplane.  He also had plans to excavate Gallagher's grave,
believing that it might contain relics pertinent to the Earhart
disappearance.  His ambition was strictly financial and he hoped to make a
lot of money exhibiting what he planned to find.

This guy has nothing to do with Elgen Long, Nauticos, Timmer or any of the
other known players in the Earhart game.  He just came out of the blue and
he's our worst nightmare.  Since then I've been able to determine that his
alleged ten-year old satellite imagery probably doesn't exist, his underwater
search expert has never met him in person, and he has not concluded a deal on
the large ship charter.  I haven't heard anything further for some time now
and I don't know if the guy has abandoned his plan or has just gone back
underground.  In any event, I don't want to do anything that might help him -
including revealing his identity.  I only mention it now by way of explaining
to you, our friends, why we have to be very careful until we can get out to
the island ourselves.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 May 2001 11:42:03 EDT
From:         Mike E. the Radio Historian
Subject:      Bombardment of saipan airfields

Yes, it's an off topic thread... but consider this.

Concerning the "devastating" bombardment of airfields on Saipan... it
couldn't have been total devastation.  A number of fairly new late model
Zeros, A6M5's, 10 or 12, if I recall the source correctly, were captured
intact and in flyable condition on one of those fields, Aslito I think but
may be wrong... the US forces even captured a number of brand new spare
engines to go with the a/c.  At least one of the Zeros still flying today
is, I believe, one of these planes.  And yes, I can document this, for I
have seen photos to prove it.  I have the book at home (where I am not at
the moment).  I will post the citation later if you like.

73

Mike E.
***************************************************************************
       For what it is worth, I have a good friend I have known for 50 years
who was a combat marine corp photographer on Siapan in WW-2.  Although the
army rather than the marines captured Aslito airfield he was there shortly
after it was captured.  He is also a commercial pilot and have an outstanding
memory.  He has told me there was no Lockheed in any hangar at Aslito when it
was captured.  He said he inspected the airfield because he was interested in
what was on the field.  While I know this is just another case of a persons
memory of a distant event, I would trust his memory to be correct more than
any person I know.

Dick Pingrey 908C
****************************************************************************
From Jim Pearson # 2422

         The point I wanted to make was that even if there was an unbombed
hanger on Aslito Field with an American made twinengined Lockheed airplane-
it didnt have to be AEs. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that people
can be mistaken in their interpretation of what they have experienced. If
Devine is mistaken this doesnt add any weight or value to anyone elses
anecdotal evidence. Lets bury this bird back in its bombproof hanger where it
belongs.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Amen.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 May 2001 11:46:59 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Fix on the Rising Sun

<< Hill states in his
 introduction that AE and FN had a third passenger in the Electra when she
 took off from Lae. A Japanese pilot. He assisted Amelia in defecting to Japan
 as part of a "social experimentation" for Eleanor Roosevelt. Earhart's
 mission "was to convince Japanese Navy radicals to press for the redirection
 of Japanese aggression- from Russia to the U.S. She was, perhaps, the only
 disgrace shared jointly by the US and Japan and the legacy of her mission was
 the Cold War." After all the Electra "was (in italics) tail-heavy" when she
 took off. A very interesting plot. >>

   hmmmm..... something to think about.... Interesting Fictional Story~  Any
name given on the name of the Japanese Pilot?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 May 2001 11:50:51 EDT
From:         Thomas Rogers
Subject:      Re: Human interest

<< The same is not true of two statements like,
 "My grandfather was a colonel in the army." and "Many people had the
 impression that my grandfather was a colonel in the army."  Being a colonel
 in the army is not a matter of opinion.
  >>

    Correct.  The statement, "Many people had the impression that my
grandfather was a colonel in the army", only provides one a "lead", to then
check with the army for records of service, to locate documentation of fact,
so that one can then say,

"My grandfather was a Colonel in the army".
     In the same format, "Many people provided witness accounts that they saw
AE in several areas", this only provides the researcher a "lead", to then
check further for facts. However, in the absence of a documented activity
such as being in a certain location, one needs to look further into "why"
such witness accounts were given and "where".  Which accounts were hard to
dispute, and which came from individuals known to tell tall tales.  Was there
a reason that a government might want to let out disinformation on the
subject's location?
     I would be interested in viewing the file of witness accounts of the
sightings for another reason. Sometimes it is not in what the witness said,
but what was not said.
Details, details, details, or the entire lack of them sometimes can give you
a clear indication a story is just a story.
    Devine's story is interesting. So he saw what he says was AE's plane.
Later he gets published.  Was he a writer or writer want to be, prior to
saying he saw the plane?  And even though a plane possibly got destroyed back
then, doesn't mean airplane parts would exist today. In some events back then
they were quickly buried, or scraped. If in fact the plane was purposely
destroyed, then I am sure that an effort was also made to make sure no parts
would ever be located.

   I ponder this.  If AE crash landed on the Island and did in fact make it off the Island,
by what route would have she been taken and to where? Fishing boats, Natives
of that area of the world, or by Naval Vessel, but how would one travel if
having been found on the Island.  After the US Government gave up it's
search, and possibly during the search, there could have been many private
individuals or other governments also involved in the search.

   But in the end, we need to continue searching this Island for the clues or
the smoking gun that this is in fact where AE/FN's plane crash landed.

Thomas W. Rogers
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for the preview of the kind of thing we'll have to deal if we do find
the smoking gun.  I wonder if it's worth it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 May 2001 13:34:05 EDT
From:         Thomas rogers
Subject:      Re: Bombardment of saipan airfields

<<   For what it is worth, I have a good friend I have known for 50 years
 who was a combat marine corp photographer on Siapan in WW-2.  Although the
 army rather than the marines captured Aslito airfield he was there shortly
 after it was captured.  He is also a commercial pilot and have an outstanding
 memory.  He has told me there was no Lockheed in any hangar at Aslito when it
 was captured.   >>

       This friend, does he have a name? Why I ask is this.  A story of a
friend saying something carry's no weight at all in research, unless the
friend's name is given. But with his name given, and along with your high
praise of his credibility, as well as his memory ability, gives him a strong
credible standing.  In my humble opinion.
       If this friend has a name, and it is given with such a story, then I
would say that he would also know of others who were at the field at the same
time he was, and further, that he would also know others who might have first
hand knowledge to contradict Devine's story. That would be an important
"historical" effort, due to the published works of Devine.
       As far as releasing the photo's raw image, I don't believe that would
be a good idea, even though, it would be wonderful to view such an image.
I'd be happy viewing a photo of the Island, in any format, personally
speaking.  But if it would protect the project, then I'd just sit back and
waite.

Thomas W. Rogers
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 May 2001 13:36:37 EDT
From:         John Bayer
Subject:      Re: Fix on the Rising Sun

SHeeeeesh.   I hadn't read that part real close.

You're right, interesting theory...got all the aspirin I need, though I'll
call TIGHAR in the future...

John Bayer
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 May 2001 14:03:12 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: satellite imagery

Ric wrote:-

>>.....and we'll be able to make
>>pretty pictures of Niku available to our members with proper credit to Space
>>Imaging - and the cost of all this to TIGHAR is $3,000, half of what we
>>originally anticipated.

This doesn't make clear that the "pretty pictures" are on paper and not
digital, and that access to the digital image is serverely restricted.

>> A few weeks ago I was contacted by an individual who wanted to hire me......

Well, I suggest that if this guy is willing to shell out to hire you as a
consultant, a ship and a deep water search outfit to go to Niku, he's hardly
gonna be shy of spending $6000 to get updated Satellite imagery - he's
doubtless already got licenses to the same.

LTM
Simon E.
TIGHAR wallet #2120
****************************************************************************
From Ric

It's never our intention to mislead anyone.  If you or any other contributor
feels that we have not delivered what we promised we'll be happy to refund
your money.

By total coincidence, I just received a phone call from "the guy."  His
unnamed network has backed out of the deal and he is giving up his
aspirations for mounting an expedition. (whew!)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 May 2001 14:55:05 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      No misunderstanding here!

Ric said:  "It's never our intention to mislead anyone.  If you or
any other contributor feels that we have not delivered what we promised
we'll be happy to refund your money."

    I thought you explained it VERY clearly back in April when this
project got underway.  I wasn't too happy with the terms of the deal, but
hell, that's what happens when you're forced to deal with a monopoly --
their terms or no terms.
    As for any misunderstandings . . . I suspect the complainers simply
didn't read it.

LTM, who's too old for fine print
Dennis O. McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 May 2001 09:43:35 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: satellite imagery

Ric wrote:-

>>It's never our intention to mislead anyone.  If you or any other contributor
>>feels that we have not delivered what we promised we'll be happy to refund
>>your money.

No, Ric - please keep the money, I was just blowing off steam, being a little disappointed.
I'd pictured forum debates on studying the raw images - but you make a good
case for keeping it under wraps.
The 8x10 is beautiful - maybe I'll scan it in :-).

LTM
Simon #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 May 2001 09:46:04 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: satellite imagery

> From Ric
> By total coincidence, I just received a phone call from "the guy."  His
> unnamed network has backed out of the deal and he is giving up his
> aspirations for mounting an expedition. (whew!)

    I guess I am a bit dense, but does that mean you are out of a sponsor for the
next expedition?  And looking for a new sponsor for the expedition?

Regards.
Warren Lambing
****************************************************************************
From Ric

No, no, no.  This has nothing to with the funding for our expedition, which
is still very much on track.  This is (was) a competitor who is now dead in
the water.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 May 2001 09:47:24 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Airplane in the hanger

For Tom Rogers,
      Devine also says that none other than James T. Forrestal, SECNAV,
ordered the destruction and burning of Earhart's Electra (plane) in the
hanger at Asilto Field. He was the man in the "white shirt". Devine copied
the plane's registration number down, but it was stolen from his wallet that
night. Bad luck.
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

(Don't you hate it when that happens?)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 May 2001 09:58:59 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Whats in a name

To Thomas Rogers

       Yes my friend has a name, its Richard G. Hanna.  I have known Dick
Hanna ever since he returned from the service at the end of WW-2, in fact he
worked for my father for many years.  He is one of those rare people who can
tell you the ancestry of every person in our small town and recounts facts
and events most of us long ago forgot or never knew.  He can probably tell
you the parts number for most of the parts on a 1960 Mack truck as well or
any other make or model vehicle manufactured up to the time he retired and he
wasn't an auto parts man he just knows these things.  At 78 he isn't as sharp
as he once was but when he said there was no Lockheed 10 at Aslito airfield
on Siapan I personally have no doubt that he is correct even though physical
evidence is lacking.

       I didn't mention his name simply because none of the Form readers
would know, or probably care, who the friend was by name in my posting.  I
guess I am missing something but I don't see the significance of the name in
this case.

Dick Pingrey 908C
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm sure Tom will correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that he wanted your
friends name because "Dick Hanna says...." is more credible than " A friend
of mine says...." .  It's about accountability, but the question (in my
opinion) is unnecessarily intrusive unless TOM plans to conduct an actual
investigation and seek out other people who were at Aslito in 1945.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 May 2001 15:13:06 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      worst novel-AE connection

I hope I'm not too late for an entry into the "worst novel" thread.  I was
at the supermarket with my wife the other day, and decided to peruse the
paperback novel rack while she was in the feminine products aisle.  I ran
across our friends Amelia and Fred in "Devil's Sea: Atlantis"  by Greg
Donegan.  Our dynamic duo have a run in with the aliens who destroyed
Atlantis, and live in another dimension which is accessed via an undersea
portal in the Bermuda Triangle.

AE and FN are forced to ditch the Electra after being fired on by mysterious
rays emanating from a large dark cloud.  Fred is rather bloodily eaten alive
by the aliens while attempting to load supplies from the sinking plane onto
their inflatable life raft.  AE just misses becoming an extra terrestrial
Lunchable because she ducks back into the plane to get "those photos for the
Navy."

Don't know how it turned out, but a team of Green Berets was being
dispatched to the inter-dimensional Bermuda Triangle Portal to do battle for
Atlantis, Amelia, and the American Way when I had to go.

LTM, who swears that I am not making this up!

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

I just get this wonderful image of Dave standing at the supermarket bookshelf
muttering to himself while his wife calls, "David!  WHAT are you doing?
We're ready to GO!"
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 May 2001 09:09:52 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: worst novel-AE connection

Re: Devil's Sea: Atlantis

Oh, well, no wonder the government is covering THAT up.  You gotta give the
guy some credit for thinking up a single story that involves AE, Atlantis,
AND the Bermuda Triangle.  Surely she was using the Nazca Lines to navigate.
I wonder if the Aliens got tipsy after eating Fred.

Tim Smith
1142 CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 May 2001 09:11:07 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Whats in a name

<<  unless TOM plans to conduct an actual
 investigation and seek out other people who were at Aslito in 1945.>>

   Thanks Dick and Rick.... No, not going to seek out other people who were
at Aslito in 1945, or conduct a personal investigation, was just pointing out
what Rick more directly wrote, that because "Dick Hanna says...." is more credible than " A friend
of mine says...." .  So if anyone was keeping material from the forum for a
historical reason, it would have more credibility.

Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 May 2001 09:51:30 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      The Old Trail

This is from the research bulletin called "signs of recent habitation":

It is worth noting that we are not the first to notice "trails" on this part
of the island. When the U.S. Navy prepared a map of Gardner Island from the
aerial photo mosaic taken on April 30, 1939 and the results of the surface
survey made by USS Bushnell in November 1939, the map maker noted the
presence of an "old trail" between the lagoon and the ocean at a location
about one kilometer northwest of the "7." The feature can be seen in the 1939
aerial mosaic and in the 1938 photo.

Can you see anything on the sat photo that might correspond with the old
trails noted by the Bushness survey?  The scrap of map in the bulletin is too
small for me to locate or even guestimate where it lies in relation to the 7
site.

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

I'll take a look but, so far, we've seen no sign of the "old trail" in any
photography after 1939, which makes it that much more suspicious.  If it was
a natural feature that created the illusion of a trail, it shouldn't change
over the years.  Other natural features, such as the seven, might grow or
shrink with the rainfall and vegetation but they remain discernable.  A true
trail should fade away after just a few years.  As I recall, John Clauss
poked around in that area on one of our expeditions and noted a natural swale
or cut from lagoon to ocean, but that's not the same as a trail visible from
the air.

It's not clear whether the identification of the feature as an "old trail"
was made purely from the aerial photo taken by the Duck from USS Pelican on
April 30, 1939 or whether there was on-the-ground confirmation from the
survey that was done the following November by USS Bushnell.  It's
particulary interesting that it's specifically labled "old", as distinct from
being something created by the colonists who arrived in December of 1938.

Let's remember that we have real good evidence that there was some poor devil
marooned on that island in the years prior to its settlement.  It requires no
great leap of faith to ascribe these apparent "signs of recent habitation" to
the inhabitant - whoever he or she was.  The "old trail" site is about a
kilometer up the beach (toward the northwest end of the atoll) from the Seven
Site.  Most of the intervening real estate is open Buka forest and it's not
hard to imagine that the "old trail" and the "Seven Site" mark the NW/SE
boundaries of the "domain" of the castaway.  We'll want to spend some time in
that area in September.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 May 2001 09:53:23 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      The Devine Comedy

...'Devine copied the plane's registration number down, but it was
stolen from his wallet that night. Bad luck'...
Ron Bright

For any who missed the good fortune of ever reading Sgt. Devine's tale,
he also spent over a year stationed on Saipan, _after_ allegedly
witnessing the destruction of the 'Electra'... yet, although he took
numerous photographs of supposed 'gravesites' of AE, (pointed out by
helpful residents of the island) he _never_ photographed the remaining
debris from the 'burned-out' Electra (particularly the 'hulks' of those
twin P & W engines, that surely would have survived any fire), even
though he admits that the wreckage remained in plain sight & became a
frequent 'target' of newly arriving replacement troops, who stripped off
pieces of the wreckage for souvenirs!

Nor did he ever attempt to explain how  he could have seen the Electra
flying over Saipan, if the 'highly credible witnesses' in the Marshalls
insisted that the Electra recovered at Mili Atoll was _missing_ one
wing, when it was supposedly shipped to Saipan.

Ah...the wonderful world of conspiratorial science... !

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 May 2001 08:28:47 EDT
From:         tom rogers
Subject:      Re: The Devine Comedy

<< he _never_ photographed the remaining
 debris from the 'burned-out' Electra (particularly the 'hulks' of those
 twin P & W engines, that surely would have survived any fire), even
 though he admits that the wreckage remained in plain sight & became a
 frequent 'target' of newly arriving replacement troops, who stripped off
 pieces of the wreckage for souvenirs! >>

   Ok... ok, I'll bite.  As a genealogist, this story makes a wonderful item
for the modern day internet.  There are many ways to look up older GI's that
would have been some of those newly arriving replacement troops who
"supposedly" stripped off pieces of the wreckage for souvenirs.  Question is,
why haven't any of them stepped forward? I can guess, can't you?  If in fact
this story has a basis of trueth, it would be verifiable thru those
replacement troops, especially with their souvenirs.  My dad's got pieces of
metal brought back from WWII, that only he knows the signifigance of, so I am
sure those GI's would have them as well.  Nope, sorry, my Dad was over in
Africa, Cicily and Europe from start to finish. Interesting story though. He
is recongnized as one of the "Liberators" of Dachau, even though the US
Government was not.  Why, because the Jewish Community believes the US
Government knew what was going on early on and did nothing.  But even though
my dad walked into the camp with his recon unit, and saw the real Dachau
first hand, (of which my father came home, but was never the same as when he
left), people still can say it never happened.  So sometimes, stories can be
true, even though we can't proof them to everyone. But in the case of
Devine's story, somehow, somewhere, there should have been a shred of
evidence to support it, with all those troops and parts they salvaged.
But since there don't seem to be any... well, it sounds like a good fictional
story to me.

Thomas W. Rogers
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 May 2001 08:44:48 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Post loss msgs/ Matrix

Here is something either new,old, confusing,  misreported, or two
corroborating signals from Earhart.

 In Pellegreno's book,"World Flight", p.201, she writes that sometime after
AE's last msg of the LOP,  "WKT, a coastal station in California, heard a
fairly strong voice...words were indistinquishable owing to either bad
modulation or the speaker's shouting into the microphone. The voicing was
similar to that emitted from the plane [ the Electra] with the exception that
now there was no hum from the plane in the background. ' "

Compare with page 207, that further post loss  transmissions were heard by
radio Nauru (which we have established as an evening broadcast around 6:00pm
Howland time, not morning) that was "interrupted in the middle."  Nauru radio
 reported, "Speech not interpreted owing bad modulation or operator shouting
into the microphone but voice similiar to that emitted in flight last night
with exception of no hum of plane in background." (From Saffords report of
"Amelia Earharts Last Flight: A tragedy of errors".

These descriptions are nearly identical.

So either the folks from the California station WKT heard the same
transmission from Earhart as did Radio Nauru, or came from the same school of
radio reporting.Maybe the Tighar radio people can identify WKT, where located.

Did in fact two stations receive the alleged Earhart transmission as
describe? That would be powerful corroborating evidence.


LTM,
Ron Bright
****************************************************************************
From Ric

My 1937 "Berne's List" does not show a WKT among "Coastal Stations."

I can't imagine that WKT heard what Nauru heard and used the exact same
phrases to describe it.  WKT must have intercepted Nauru's report and
repeated it and somebody misunderstood that it was WKT who had heard the
putative Earhart transmission.  For one thing, how could WKT know what
transmissions from the plane in flight sounded like?  Nobody outside the
Central Pacific was monitoring Earhart's inflight transmissions.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 May 2001 09:32:31 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Post loss msgs/ Matrix

This is a  very tantalizing report.
However, i wouldn't make too much of it yet. I could not find WKT listed
in US Gov't or  Berne Lists 1935, except that WKT would seem to have
been an unissued but  "reserved" callsign for a fixed services station at
Rocky Point, NY -- that's a location i  believe belonged to AT&T.

The 1947 Berne List (of all call signs), the next that i have, lists WKT as
in Brentwood NY,  one of a  block of call signs assigned to  some
commercial communications service.  Whether  telco or not, i  do not
know, at this point, but that  seems likely. In any case,  we can see
there seems to be a problem with this item from the Pellegreno  book.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 May 2001 11:54:41 EDT
From:         Mike E.
Subject:      Re: Post loss msgs/ Matrix

Ric writes:

>My 1937 "Berne's List" does not show a WKT among "Coastal Stations."

U.S. Coastal station call letter assignments followed the pattern for
Standard Broadcasting stations, in that stations east of the Mississippi
used "W" calls (examples: WCC, WNU, WLO) while those west of the Mississippi
used "K" calls (examples: KLC, KFS, KPH).

Navy and Coast Guard land stations, wherever the location, all used 3-letter
calls beginning with "N" (examples: NAA, NSS, NMN, NMO).

"WKT" must be a misnomer of some kind if it was supposed to be a West Coast
or Gulf Coast station west of New Orleans....

LTM (who keeps a list on everything)

and
73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 May 2001 12:06:50 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Post loss msgs/ Matrix

Re "WKT" -

Sloppy research strikes again, affecting Pellegreno (hard to believe!),
Bright and Gillespie.

"VKT" were the call letters for Radio Nauru, guys. Little wonder the
messages sounded amazingly similar.

Cam Warren
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Your speculation that WKT was really VKT sounds reasonable but I don't
understand your comment about sloppy research.

Pellegrino obviously had it screwed up, but her book is just an account of
her trip around the world in a Lockheed 10.  There's no particular reason to
take any of the historical information in it seriously.  Ron noticed the
strange statement about WKT and brought it to our attention.  You noticed the
similarity to Nauru's call letters.  Congratulations.  Briliant.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 May 2001 14:50:17 EDT
From:         Mike E.
Subject:      Re: Post loss msgs/ Matrix

Cam wrote:

>"VKT" were the call letters for Radio Nauru, guys. Little wonder the
>messages sounded amazingly similar.

Ric wrote:

>Ron noticed the
>strange statement about WKT and brought it to our attention.  You noticed
>the similarity to Nauru's call letters.  Congratulations.  Briliant.

I agree, Ric, this is good work.  Before my earlier posting I was trying to
make some sense of any kind of typo involving call signs of US coastals...
couldn't come up with one.  Nauru never occurred to me (duh).

Good job Cam.

LTM (who always won spelling bees in school)
***************************************************************************
From Bill Connover

For Hue Miller

The Rocky Point,N.Y. location you mention is about 20 minutes from my home.
The property in question was owned by RCA and has a pretty extensive history.
Further info, if you are interested, can be obtained at the site of the
"Friends of Long Island Wireless History" at url:

http://www.li.net/~n2mdq/radcen1.htm

Regards
and LTM,
Bill Conover(#2377)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 May 2001 16:47:20 EDT
From:         Mike E.
Subject:      off topic but interesting

I know, this is off topic; but I can't resist.

I visited the Rocky Point web site.  Interesting story, and a tragic fate
for a historic property.

For a refreshing contrast, visit:  www.radiomarine.org

Do not miss "Incredible Radio Tales."  Especially Part 6.  It is one super
read.  Save it for late at night.

LTM (who says "I do believe in spooks, I do I do I DO!")
and
73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 May 2001 10:02:15 EDT
From:         Mark Cameron
Subject:      Re: off topic but interesting

For Mike E....

Thanks for the interesting reading - it was like stepping back into an era
that I just missed participating in and has always been fascinating - my Dad
was a Navy radioman in the pacific and had a lifetime of stories to tell

LMT (and to all silent keys)
Mark Cameron #2301
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 May 2001 11:34:56 EDT
From:         David Brake
Subject:      Worst Nightmare

    I read with some interest your recent post regarding the person who
attempted to retain your services in connection with a commercial venture.  I
have always been confident that your integrity will not be compromised by
those with self centered interests.

    I have  been concerned about people using for individual gain the immense
 wealth of knowledge that has been generated through the hard work and
dedication of those associated with TIGHAR.  One of the strongest attributes
of TIGHAR has been its openness to all of  its discoveries, revelations,
plans, theories, etc.  This policy gives the organization credibility that
can be obtained no other way.  The risk of such openness, however, is the
possibility of misappropriation.

     Such concerns are reduced by what I understand to be two significant
factors:

       1. Niku is at the end of the Earth and close to nowhere.  It takes
considerable effort and resources just to get there.

       2. Niku, while a small island, is still a large area when you are
searching for something as small as a human bone or an aircraft part.

        Nonetheless,  I recall references to evidence discovered on past
expeditions of visits from private yachts.  During past trips,  have you ever
encountered anyone in the area who might be inclined to pay a visit ?  Are
there people with a lot of time and money who visit obscure islands just for
the heck of it ?  Do such people subscribe to the Earhart Forum ? If so, how
do I become such an individual ?

      It would seem that the gains from the openness policy outweigh the
risks, but it can be worrisome at times.

      Good luck on your upcoming trip.

       Best Regards,

   David R. Brake, TIGHAR #____

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

In all the times we've been out there we've never seen another ship within
hundreds of miles of the place nor have we seen evidence on the island that
"yachties" had been there.  Generally speaking, visits tend to be "official"
and we can usually find out who was there and when.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 May 2001 13:10:58 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

<<   1. Niku is at the end of the Earth and close to nowhere.  It takes
 considerable effort and resources just to get there. >>

   Question.  Lets suppose you had a fellow who was just the type to love to
be alone on a deserted Island, who also had an interest in AE.  Anyone want
to set me down out there on the Island and just leave me there for a
predetermined amount of time? Oh, by the way, just don't forget about me
being there, ok.

   Think of it as a promotional tool to gain publicity for the project.
Individual stranded on deserted Island to look for evidence of AE.  I'd also
be there to make sure nobody else did some snooping eh.

Thomas W. Rogers
****************************************************************************
From Ric

How do you feel about having some company?  I can think of a number of people
I'd like to maroon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 May 2001 13:18:45 EDT
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      Re: Staying with the aircraft

Tom & Ric,

Your exchanges have been quite interesting to me. Somehow they fit
in with my own speculations going back many years before all this
searching began.

Tom's answers to Ric's questions  are OK but they wouldn't really
matter. From what I was led to understand the Japanese questioned the
flight from the very beginning.  If such be the case they would have been
keeping track of AE's whereabouts from the very beginning and would have
known , pretty much, where she was as she approached Lae and when she left.
Possibly being afraid that she would fly over Truk, Tarawa, Mili or any of
the other occupied islands in the Solomons or Carolines. They would not
have been especially interested in the Lockheed or its condition (they
didn't belong to TIGHAR) but they would have been interested in what she
saw or took pictures of. If they were keeping close track of her they would
probably have known or surmised that she crashed on Gardner.

The US Navy and Coast Guard apparently waited for three days to
begin the search and then went first to the Northwest of Howland which may
have led the Japanese to assume that she might have  flown over Truk, etc.
It was another three or four days before the Colorado reached the search
area and then they went to the Southeast of Howland. I believe the records
show that it was nine days after the crash before a pilot ffrom the
Colorado flew over Gardner.

Now my demented mind goes to the story by the man who was a school
boy on Mili Island where the school kids were taken down to the harbor to
watch a ship come in with an airplane missing one wing hanging on the
stern. If theJapanese knew the AE crashed on Gardner, they would have had
enough time to send a ship over, pull the plane off the reef, capture AE
and FN and been oput of visual range beforethe Colorado plane flew over.
This could also account for the medical man who insists that he was on
Siapan and treated Noonan - whom he recognized - for a broken arm. He says
the Japanese would not permit them to talk so he didn't know where they had
come from. The Japanese military, of course, would deny the whole works.
Surprise!

How's that? Makes all the stories fit together. How many facts are
available to prove this bit of creativity? NONE! After all,Ric, you are the
guy who is supposed to go down and bring us back the facts. But then, of
course, we won't get anymore stories like this out of the National Enquirer
or the other stuff at the supermarket checkout counter. Gonna take away all
my fun.

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

Yes, we're gonna do our best to spoil everybody's fun.

Incidentally, I'm aware of no evidence that the Japanese government had the
slightest interest in Earhart's flight and, if they, how they could possibly
figure out she was on Gardner when nobody else could.

The Coast Guard started its search before Earhart was even officially missing
and the Navy mobilized that same day.  It was seven days before the
Colorado's planes flew over Gardner.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 May 2001 13:20:13 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

<< From Ric

 How do you feel about having some company?  I can think of a number of people
 I'd like to maroon. >>

    Oh geez.... it was a few of those people that I was trying to get far
away from. Oh well, if that is what it takes to get there, as long as they
stay on their side of the Island that is.

Thomas W. Rogers
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 09:44:45 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Staying with the aircraft

< mind goes to the story by the man who was a school
 boy on Mili Island where the school kids were taken down to the harbor to
 watch a ship come in with an airplane missing one wing hanging on the
 stern. >>

   It is interesting that I was unaware of this story when I surmized that
the plane could have been removed from the reef and transported to Saipan by
the Japanese.
The story's seem to have "some" connecting points, but the more important
thing to remember is that they also lead us back to the Island. So ok, we
just may only find one wing, if the story is correct.  If all that was found
was one wing, wouldn't that also give some validity to this story?
   If the Japanese had been following AE's flight, listening in on radio
communication, they may have know of Gardner Island's reef, and realized the
line of reference was at that point.  If there was any interest at all, they
could have found AE first. A plane, missing one wing, hanging from the stern
of a ship, as seen by a young boy. Interesting story. So let us suppose that
the wing is still somewhere out there just off the reef.  Is it possible to
identify AE's plane, positively, just from the one wing? How much of that
wing could still be in existence today?

Thomas W. Rogers
 **************************************************************************
From Ric

Tom, any speculation that the Japanese journeyed a thousand miles from their
nearest commercial outpost (there was no military base, as such, in the
Marshalls at that time) into American and British waters in order to kidnap
American civilians relies upon a gross misunderstanding of the political
realities of the time and the practical constraints on such a bizarre
endeavor (i.e. do you have any idea what an engineering nightmare it would be
to remove a 7,000 pound airplane from that reef?).

All - 100 percent - of the Japanese-capture/conspiracy stuff is pure
fertilizer and the worst kind of historical mythology.  Let's not waste any
more time on it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 09:50:48 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

Tom -- Ric's already had volunteers for a solo sojourn on Niku, but we've
never been able to talk him into it.  Probably just as well, considering....

LTM (who scolds her silly son for such ideas)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 09:55:59 EDT
From:         Tom rogers
Subject:      Re: Staying with the aircraft

<< the story by the man who was a school
 boy on Mili Island where the school kids were taken down to the harbor to
 watch a ship come in with an airplane missing one wing hanging on the
 stern. >>

   Interesting after thought here.  Using the time frame of when the ship
could have been entering the harbor at Mili Island, one could feasible narrow
down which ships were there, and look into ships logs. A ship entering a
harbor with a plane with a missing wing hanging from athe stern would be
memorable to crews, harbor personell and locals of the area.  If further
stories could be found to substantiate this, I would think that it would also
further substantiate the possibility that AE landed on the reef and was
picked up by the Japenese.

  But again, I believe firmly that the Island is the single best place to
start. With solid provable evidence in hand, that AE did in fact land on the
Island, was stranded there for an unknown amount of time, we can then, at
that time, begin to look into what happened after that event.

Thomas W. Rogers
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Lest anyone think that conclusive proof of the flight's arrival at Garnder
will put an end to Earhart Idiocy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 10:05:47 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

What about "territorial waters" ? Isn't anyone entering them supposed to get
permission or at least inform authorities ? Surely there must be some kind of
control of Kiribati waters ?

Herman
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Kiribati is no different from any other sovereign nation.  Entrance requires
clearing Customs and Immigration at a port of entry and, in Kirabiti's case,
a visa.  Conducting any kind enterprise in Kiribati requires the express
permission of the government.

However, from a practical standpoint, it is virtually impossible to police
the vast uninhabited parts of the country.  American, Australian and New
Zealand military patrol aircraft, as a favor to the Kiribati government, try
to monitor fishing activity within its waters to prevent poaching (sale of
fishing rights is a major source of revenue for Kiribati) but even that is
necessarily spotty.  There's just too much ocean out there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 10:08:53 EDT
From:         Mike Houston
Subject:      Conspiracy looniness!!

Maybe I am wrong about this, but all these crazy conspiracy posts seem to
have a big misunderstanding of times.

Do any of these people understand just what would be needed to follow AE
across the pacific?

They would need airborne radar, sophisticated SIGINT equipment, as well as
massive naval and air support to track, jam and kidnap her from Gardener!
Hell, the Japanese didnt even have radar on their major warships. As late as
1945 the total SIGINT their navy had was US born Japanese listening to voice
radio. The Yamato only had a crude radar set, yet this was the Flagship of
the Combined Fleet.

I suggest that it would still be rather difficult to do the things that the
Japanese are alledged to have done in the 1930's.

Are these conspiracy posts allowed just for comic releif?

Thanks,

Mike Houston
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Comic relief, yes, and an occasional reminder of why Amelia Earhart has
stayed "lost" for 64 years.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 12:39:23 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Conspiracy looniness!!

In a message dated 5/23/01 9:09:27 AM Central Daylight Time, TIGHAR1@aol.com
writes:

<< They would need airborne radar, sophisticated SIGINT equipment, as well as
 massive naval and air support to track, jam and kidnap her from Gardener! >>

      Well, to continue with a bit of comic relief and a bit of a reminder
why Amelia has remained lost, With fishing in that area, and with simply
being able to receive AE's radio signal, isn't it possible that "somebody" of
that region heard her distress call, and knowing the area, realized that the
reef may be that of Gardner Island?  It could be that simple, possibly even
that it was not a military ship that found them, but that they were take to
Mili. Maybe once in Japanese hands.. well, then it became a different story.

      I guess my logic is a simple one. Whether for comic relief or just to
keep people's minds open to the possibilities, just in case those
possibilities then might see something that was overlooked. While at the same
time, being very serious about the fact the Island is the vital link to find
the trail to the evidence to prove facts.

     But to simply overlook and discount any story which has the appearance
of possibility of connecting itself to the Island, would be a discredit to
the discussion.
Whether it is a report of a broadcast from AE being recieved, or a simple
story, one must look at them all, as many many have done, sorting, disproving
and learning why the story came to life.

    None of the stories matter much in reality, because there is no hard
proof. However, lets say that one wing of AE's plane is found on the Island,
and further evidence that AE was in fact there. But then nothing is ever
found of her or the rest of the plane. One might then begin to look harder at
the story of about the plane missing one wing hanging from the stern of a
ship entering the harbor in Mili.

    As I have wrote in the past, if AE's plane landed on the reef and she was
stranded on the Island, how long was she there, how did she get off the
Island, did she get off the Island and if she got off, where did she go? So
finding the crash site and proving it to be the Island, is but one answer
that may lead us to many many more questions.
I would rather discuss these possible questions as part of the Island
discussion, than to one day wake up knowing the Island was in fact the crash
site, but then suddenly realize one should have also examined other questions.

   Or, maybe it is as simple a big whale swallowed up AE/FN and the plane
while on the reef, leaving only a wing of the plane.

Thomas W. Rogers
****************************************************************************
From Ric

If we are able to prove that the plane reached the island and if, based upon
what is found and not found, there is any reason to think that any portion of
the plane or its crew was somehow removed from the island, then - and only
then - will it make any sense to consider how that might have happened.

You're trying to answer a question that doesn't exist.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 13:48:38 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

<< Kiribati is no different from any other sovereign nation.  Entrance
requires
 clearing Customs and Immigration at a port of entry and, in Kirabiti's case,
 a visa.  >>

   So now I need a "visa" to become stranded on a deserted Island.  Geez
Well, lets see, if I get taken to the Island and dropped off, I could just
wait there with my "visa" for somebody to come along and stamp it approved.

Thomas
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Nah.  About once a week a Japanese patrol boat stops by and captures anyone
they find there.  Been doin' it for years.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 13:51:20 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

<< Tom -- Ric's already had volunteers for a solo sojourn on Niku, but we've
 never been able to talk him into it.  Probably just as well, considering.>>

    But hey, by now, Ric's probably not the only one who would like to see me
on a deserted Island.

Tom
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Not at all.  How could you possibly be more alone than you are now?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 13:52:57 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Staying with the aircraft

> From Ric
>
> Lest anyone think that conclusive proof of the flight's arrival at Garnder
> will put an end to Earhart Idiocy.

It's one of the corollaries of Murphy's Law that "idiot proof"
technologies do not exist.  I doubt very much that any artifact
found will have any impact on the paranoia of the conspiracy
theorists.  As you noted last week, the theorists will simply
adjust their fantasies to include you or the Feds or the Japs
or the space aliens salting Niku with spare parts, bones,
and detritus precisely to throw researchers off the track.

But that's no reason to cancel the expedition.  ;o)

                            Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 13:56:24 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Venting

You mean the conspiracy stuff is just a lie!?!?
Then I have spent the last 64 years digging up all
of Saipan for NOTHING! My gosh, I could have done a
lot better by taking that job they offered me of
uncovering the north pole from all that ice so we
could get better magnetic waves. I know I would be
done with that by now and could be famous and rich.

LTM, (without wild geese, many people would have
nothing to chase but their whiskey),
Dave Bush
#2200

Sorry I don't have more to post than this, but, hey
its hump day and I am dead tired. I got an email
from a new member of our Squadron and she told me
that she had come to the airport last Saturday at 11
am and I wasn't there, so she figured I was on a
break and she missed me. That day we had a Young
Eagles event, Confederate AF Open House and Group
Commander's Call, and our cadets were assisting with
all the events. I got to the airport that morning at
7:20 am and left that evening at 7:30 pm. I also had
to put on my maintenance officer hat and write up
one of our aircraft for an inop avionics fan. A
friend's daughter came out for her first flight and
I showed them around, subbed for our Squadron
commander at the 10:30 commander's call, helped put
out posters, talk to people about the different
aircraft and finally pushed a broom around the CAF
hangar after the event. But if you were there for an
hour and didn't see me, I must have been on break! I
cannot help but laugh sometimes at some people's
naivete' (?-spellcheck didn't help with this one).
It reminds me of all the conspiracies. No proof,
nothing there, MUST be a conspiracy. Yeah, right. I
don't have any money in my bank account, there is no
proof that I ever had any, so it must be a
conspiracy and "THEY" (the Japanese, AE/FN & the
space aliens, the US gubmint, et al) took all my
money. Oh, that's right the gubmint did take all my
money, but they call it taxes. Sorry if I sound
cynical, but it is really more that I am
flabbergassed by some of the conspiracy type
postings and the inability of some people to
comprehend things. I realize that we all have
shortcomings and personal belief systems sometimes
get in the way of facts, but there is a point at
which a rational person should be able to discern
between reality and make-believe (fiction-?). True,
sometimes we don't get all the facts regarding an
event, or the facts we get are "incorrect" but that
doesn't always mean there is a conspiracy, only that
as humans we often filter the message to fit our
personal belief system or personal agenda. Like the
skipper of the Itasca, sometimes we are just trying
to cover our tail. If the skipper had really
understood all of AE's messages and intentions (poor
com on her part, but coupled with his own
interpretations), he would have immediately steamed
south to cover the Phoenix group and might even have
been close enough to pick up some of her signals
before the radio gave out or the waves destroyed the
aircraft. Well, I have "talked" too long and this
epistle is probably going in your "waste basket",
but I thought I ought to "share" this with you.
Yeah, I know, its too much sharing.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We all need to vent once in a while.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 13:57:41 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Removal of the Lockheed 10 from the reef.

I would like to have those that think the Japanese plucked the
airplane off the reef at Gardner tell us how they managed such an
accomplishment.  Remember, there were no heavy lift helicopters in 1937 and I
suspect no one in their right mind would put a ship close enough to the reef
to pick up the airplane.  Thus we are left with only a few possibilities, all
requiring very special equipment not likely to be at the finger tips of the
Japanese or any one else in 1937.

Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 14:00:05 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Conspiracy or Truth

All the stories about AE/FN and sightings of the
airplane and the crew in so many different places
makes me wonder. How about this: AE/FN fly thru a
terrible bad lightning storm at the same moment that
some unknown but very unusual phenomenon and they
are split into 5 different aircraft and bodies, all
identical, except that one speaks Japanese, another
speaks French, etc. and they all follow different
flight paths and land in different places.

Now all the stories can be reconciled and they all
fit together nicely.

I think I will write a book using this plot.

Thanks for the idea.

LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Sorry Dave, it's been done.  Joe Klaas postulated the 5 (or was it 4?)
Electra theory years ago.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 14:01:27 EDT
From:         Jim Pearson
Subject:      Recovery and restoration

Not only would recovering AEs
plane from a reef be an engineering nightmare-I guess the Japanese just
backed a ship up to the reef, put a sling around the plane and winched it
aboard in one piece- Yeh, right! Restoring the plane to flying condition as
Mr. Devine would have us believe is even harder to accept. The Japanese
aircraft  mechanic on Saipan  would have a near impossible task. He would
have to rebuild a crashed aircraft which he is not familiar with. He has no
spare parts. He has no jigs, no tools or dies specific to an Electra. He has
no blueprints. All markings on the plane are in a foreign language and the
plane has only one wing!! Im sorry but this is one bird with a broken wing
that will never fly!
           LTF who kept the B-29s flying from Saipan.
                                           Jim Pearson #2422
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 14:08:18 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

> Nah.  About once a week a Japanese patrol boat stops by and captures anyone
> they find there.  Been doin' it for years.

    For "humor's sake",  "Been doin' it for years", would that mean they
would have been doing it the week AE landed as well?

    So that gives me about a week of being able to be stranded, before they
check out my "visa" right?

Thomas
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm sorry Tom.  I've been picking on you unfairly.  I'll stop.

I'm afraid I'll also have to impose the Substantive Posting Rule.  I'll only
post your submissions if they contain substantive information or a reasonable
question or observation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 May 2001 14:12:45 EDT
From:         Terry Lee Simpson
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

Ric this guy Tom Rogers,could he be Jannet going by a
different name,the mentality seems the same.
TL Simpson #2396
**************************************************************************
From Ric

People who think they know everything are particularly annoying to those of
us who do, but we mustn't be cruel.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 10:20:35 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      it's obvious . . .

Dick Pingrey said:  "Remember, there were no heavy lift helicopters
in 1937 and I suspect no one in their right mind would put a ship close
enough to the reef to pick up the airplane."

    Oh, Dick, it is so obvious . . they used rafts, made from Kanawa
trees on Niku!  They (the Japs) brought with them a ship load of slave
laborers from China.  The slaves disassembled the airplane -- under a harsh
lash from a cruel Japanese Major -- tied the parts to the rafts and floated
it all out to the waiting cargo ship.  There, they used black and tackle and
lots of manpower to hoist the stuff 20 feet in the air and put it on the
deck of the ship.
    I,. mean, like, this was pretty straight forward stuff -- a few
hundred slave laborers, a 5,000 ton cargo ship, a couple cruel and savage
IJA officers -- badda boom, badda bing, one captured Lockheed 10E and a
couple of Yanks for hostage purposes.
    Just for your information -- FDR planned the whole thing, just like
he planned Pearl Harbor.  I, mean, like read your history books folks!

LTM, who has a case of the vapors
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
***************************************************************************
From Ric

This is getting pretty stupid, but it does point up the fact that the
fringing reefs of coral atolls do present a formidable barrier.  If Itasca or
the Colorado had arrived to find the electra parked on the reef at Gardner
the ONLY way to get it off would have been to fly it off.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 10:31:13 EDT
From:         Terry Lee Simpson
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

OK Ric,read you on the cruel,have a ?,are you using a ultralight on the
next expedition,if so will you have the same problem Lambrecht did
(Birds) TL Simpson LTM #2396

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

No ultralight.  We got everything we needed from the satellite imagery.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 10:36:58 EDT
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: Conspiracy or Truth

> Sorry Dave, it's been done.  Joe Klaas postulated the 5 (or was it 4?)
> Electra theory years ago.

Is this the one that involves the XC-35?  How can there be more than
one Electra?

LTM (who can count all the Electras in the bunker)

Mike Holt
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I've forgotten the details, if I ever knew them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 10:56:40 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Recovery and restoration

<<  Not only would recovering AEs
 plane from a reef be an engineering nightmare-I guess the Japanese just
 backed a ship up to the reef, put a sling around the plane and winched it
 aboard in one piece-  >>

    An Engineering nightmare?  Yes, it would be, but impossible, I don't have
any facts to support that conclusion.  Remember the massive Stone Pillars of
Egypt? I believe Military ships of that time did have massive cranes.... and
I am sure they also were well prepared for plane salvage operations as well,
which may or may not have included floatation devices to float 7,000 lbs off
a reef. Go back to the story of the plane, missing a wing "hanging off the
stern". The statement the plane was "hanging off the stern" is an interesting
and descriptive statement.
    No, I am not saying that this is what happened, I am saying that it is a
"Possibility", that I, for one, would not rule out.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Perhaps if you had more facts you would rule it out.  The history of the
Pacific is rife with accounts of ships trying to deal with the need to
transport bulky cargo to and from atolls protected by coral reefs.  The guano
gathering operations of the 19th century are a case in point.  Specifically
at Gardner, the New Zealand survey party of 1938/39 had to bring stores of
food and water and equipment ashore.  They were supported by two vessels - a
fairly small chartered motor vessel, the Yanawai, and the Royal Navy cruiser
HMS Leander (which had the sort of crane you mention).  They had a hell of a
time and lost much of their gear in the surf.  By the way, nobody - but
nobody - puts a big ship in close to that reef.

When the U.S. Coast Guard wanted to build the Loran station at the southeast
end, the only way they could get heavy gear (like a D6 Cat bulldozer) ashore
was to intentionally ground a landing craft on the reef at high tide, drive
the dozer off and then use the dozer to push the landing craft back into water
deep enough to float it.  They even lost the dozer in a crevasse one time
and had to use another dozer to drag it out.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:01:04 EDT
From:         Herman
Subject:      Re: Conspiracy looniness!!

Apparently there will be people who find a problem to any solution found by
informed people. I bet that if Tighar ever finds one wing of  AE's Lockheed 10E
Electra, somebody will turn up saying this is not proof she ever was at Niku
because the rest of the airplane is missing. And he or she may claim the naughty
Japanese tugged the rest of the airplane to Mili or whatever place, having hidden
the wing on Niku to confuse Tighar.

Why hasn't anyone thought of asking the Japanese about AE ? Surely one of them
must know ? To me it looks surprising so many Americans claim to have seen AE all
over Japan while no Japanese ver confirmed that story. Surely someone speaks
Japanese on the forum ?  Or why not ask some Japanese aviation researcher ? These
guys speak English.

LTM (who gets bored by all those conspiracy stories)
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Herman, there has been lots and lots of research done in Japan and in
Japanese records trying to find some connection to AE.  There isn't one, but
- as every good conspiracy theorist knows - absence of evidence is proof of a
cover-up.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:02:07 EDT
From:         Woody
Subject:      Re: Staying with the aircraft

Hi Ric, Just got back from Taroa in the Marshalls! Bet you a dollar I find her
plane before you do. And just to clarify my statement- I mean a part of her
plane with a serial number on it.                    Woody
****************************************************************************
From Ric

You're on.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:03:23 EDT
From:         Woody
Subject:      Re: Conspiracy looniness!!

Who needed to follow her across the pacific with radar and the like? All
you need is a few people in strategic positions (Lae or Naaru  to name a few)
and along the projected flight path with radio, binoculars and good hearing .
Read -Lonley Vigil-Coastwatchers of the Solomons-by Walter Lord. They did quite
a job with just those basic items. In part I agree with Ric, that there was no
conspiracy, at least, in my opinion, from the japanese point of view. Does
anyone know the difference between capture and rescue?  I will be returning to
Taroa soon with the needed equipment to follow my theory to it's logical
conclusion- either success or failure! I am hoping for a July turnaround,
weather and finances permitting.    Woody
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:15:05 EDT
From:         Woody
Subject:      Engines on the reef

Ric I spent a lot of time in the lagoon on Maloelap. On the shore of the first
island to the north of Taroa there are a lot of small ,weathered pieces of a B-25
that was shot down in 1944. In the water off Wotho there are the remains of 3
Zeros that couldn't return to Taroa because we had bombed their runways to bits.
They circled until out of fuel and ditched in 10 feet of water. The common thread
about these aircraft is that they are in lagoon channels  with between 5 and 12
feet of water in them and a rip current strong enough to pull my not so dainty 240
pound frame almost 100 feet away from our boat in seconds. Although there isnt
much left of the airframes of any of these planes- the engines havent moved more
than a few feet in over 55 years! The natives told me that tidbit. My point is
that from what I saw, if Earhart's plane went down on Gardner- the engines should
be at the crash site or within 25 feet of it. You're not going to find much else
after 60 plus years.            Woody
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Van Hunn and I saw pretty much the same thing on the reef at Tarawa in March.
 Engines seem to survive even in a worst case situation but nothing else.
However, we did see the aluminum centersection of a Japanese aircraft
(probably an A6M) on the ocean-side reef.  The engine had come off the mounts
and rested a few feet away, but there was a lot of very solid aluminum
structure that has been alternately submerged and exposed for 58 years.  I
can't explain it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:17:06 EDT
From:         Woody
Subject:      Re: Removal of the Lockheed 10 from the reef.

Someone is assuming that the japanese cared about the condition of the
aircraft when recovered. Not so.       Woody
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for clearing that up.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:18:29 EDT
From:         Woody
Subject:      Re: Recovery and restoration

How about painting up a Lockheed 14 (30), a type LO (119) or a K-56(121) to
look like hers as a decoy? Those are the production or purchase numbers of those
types of planes that the japanese built that looked like hers in parentheses.My
other question- why bother?     Woody
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You're asking me?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:19:39 EDT
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

But, if there's an informal poll being taken, I vote for TWR as first TIGHAR
sentry on Niku. That way, he can search for the wing while waiting for pickup
by the Japanese patrol boat with an Electra hanging from its stern (minus one
wing, of course).

Dave Carter
Fremont, CA
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:21:28 EDT
From:         Troy
Subject:      Re: Worst Nightmare

Laughing out loud..........   Quit your day job, Ric, you should go into
comedy!!!

--troy--
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I did - both.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 11:25:12 EDT
From:         Paul Penwell
Subject:      Images

What is the status, if any, of posting the new satellite photos (low
resolution)of Nikumroro on the web site with any preliminary analysis.
Thanks......
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We should have it up on the website next week.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 16:06:07 EDT
From:         Woody
Subject:      Randal Brink, Amelia Earhart, and Nell

Something else I did while on Taroa. I took my maps and handy measuring
tape to the infamous Brink photo site  "this is Earharts Electra ". after some
cypherin' wif my tape I determined that the 1992 survey by Christensen is
incorrect and that site is alive and well. So is the back half of the mystery
plane. Yes, its still there! It's a G3M2 "Nell' bomber, a twin tailed
monoplane- you know, one of the ones that the japanese never built, according
to Brink. Anyone that wants a copy  is welcome to mail me a SASE and a check
for $5 and I will send the photos and my remarks on this part of my adventure
to you. Woody Rogers
                                                  PO Box 11944
                                                  Tahoe Paradise, Ca 96150
I will mail you a copy for free if you'd like, Ric.               Woody
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'd love to see it.  Thanks.

Gosh, first Love to Mother turns out to be a Turk and now Brink's captured
Electra is a Nell.  What next?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 16:19:24 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      metal detectors

Woody's got a good point.  With all the survivable metal in a pair of
R-1340's I'd think a metal detector would go nutz in the reef if they
are there.  Is that on the agenda for Niku IV?

Doug Brutlag #2335
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, we'll have metal detecors - but bear in mind that what a metal detector
does is compare the electrical conductivity of an object with that of its
environment.  Sensitivity with respect to distance to the target drops off to
the sixth power.  In other words, the signal you get at one foot away is six
times stronger than the signal you get at two feet away.  From a practical
standpoint, metal detectors are good for finding metalic objects that are
buried or hidden by vegetation ( coins on the beach or a wedding ring dropped
on the lawn).  For something like an airplane engine on a reef, you should be
able to see it long before the metal detector has a clue that it's there.

Magnetometers compare their immediate environment to the Earth's magnetic
field.  They only work on ferrous (magnetic) metals.  That signal drops off
to the third power with distance, so you can cover a bigger area from farther
away but in the case of an airplane engine you're still going to see it first
with the Mark One eyeball.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2001 16:24:58 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Woody's offer

Woody said: Anyone that wants a copy  is welcome to mail me a
SASE and a check for $5 and I will send the photos and my remarks on this
part of my adventure to you.

    Isn't this something that should be on ebay and not the
Earhartforum?  I got an intake manifold for a 1965 289cid engine I like to
advertise here, OK?

LTM, a yardsaler herself
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I figure anyone who would actually go to all that trouble to prove Randy
Brink wrong deserves a break.
Anybody want to exhume Irene Bolam to get a DNA sample?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2001 10:41:43 EDT
From:         Jim Pearson
Subject:      Hanging by a thread

                                                 If you find the Electras
engines on the reef at Niku please dont try to bring them home tied to the
stern of the ship! You might lose them due to a broken cable or even worse
capsize the ship!!!
                            Jim Pearson #2422
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Don't worry.  It's irresponsible to attempt a recovery without the assets to
do a good job and, as a practical matter, it's impossible to equip a search
expedition with the assets to recover something that hasn't yet been found.

We would only attempt a recovery if:

- the artifact was small and stable enough to be recovered and conserved
safely with the assets on hand, or

- the was a realistic expectation that delaying recovery until we could
return with the desired assets would endanger the artifact.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2001 10:46:31 EDT
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: metal detectors

RIC writes:

<< From a practical standpoint, metal detectors are good for finding metalic
objects that are buried or hidden by vegetation ( coins on the beach or a
wedding ring dropped on the lawn).  For something like an airplane engine on
a reef, you should be able to see it long before the metal detector has a
clue that it's there. >>

Actually, some of the newer detectors can pick up coins and rings as far down
as 6 to 8 inches (and maybe a bit more), depending upon the amount of
mineralization in the ground.  Larger objects can be detected even deeper.  I
was just visiting with a metal detector 'enthusiast' last night (he lives a
few miles from me), and he recently found a penny, buried at 8 inches, and
that was in very mineralized ground.  He's using a brand new model from
White's Electronics.  Now, I'm speaking about 'land' detectors, NOT detectors
designed for underwater use.  I have no experience at all with such 'water'
detectors.  I would think that one of these newer 'land' detectors might come
in VERY handy on your trip to the island.

By the way, some metal detectors do NOT work well in some sand (what's
referred to as 'black sand') because of the high mineralization of that
particular type of material.  Some of the newer detectors use multiple
frequencies, and they seem to do much better in 'higher-mineralized' ground.

As to how far an engine could be detected - I've never tried looking for
anything that big, so I wouldn't have a clue on that... :-)

   John Rayfield, Jr.
   Springfield, Missouri
****************************************************************************
From Ric

In the past we've had very good luck with White's PI 3000 series underwater
metal detectors, specially modified by the company for our use both on the
island and in the water.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2001 10:47:30 EDT
From:         Woody
Subject:      Re: Woody's offer

Aw, c'mon guys, dont beat me up over this! The money wont cover the time, paper
and all those darn ink cartriges for my printer. If I warnt( or is it wusnt?)
so poor after this trip I'd give it out for free.         Woody
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2001 10:57:32 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      TIGHAR stuff

I chuckled so much while reading the last forum digest that my side hurts...
and speaking of sides hurting, here's a thorn in the flesh that I'm curious
about.

Back in '99 several of us sent $100 for a Niku expedition video.  As I
recall, the footage you shot on Niku that year didn't survive the return
trip, and you said that a tape would be made using archival footage.  Is it
safe to assume since I haven't received one that no such tape has been made?
  No problemo, I'm a patient sort of guy.  My question now becomes one of
will an archival footage tape be produced or will you wait and shoot new
video this year?  Also, if videotape and/or patience are found wanting could
the $100 from 1999 be transferred to the purchase of the satellite image.

From all I've been able to gather from you guys, Niku is a really cool "wild
place."  Which would give a better feel of the place; a video, either
archival or shot on the upcoming expedition, or the satellite image.

Another thought:  If you just bag the idea of an archival footage tape, and
send me the satellite image for my 1999 $100, I'll most likely save up my
shekels and fork over another $100 for a video of the upcoming expedition.

LTM, who once told of a judge who was also an M.D. who, from time to time,
tried his patients.

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

Thanks for bringing this up Dave.  We've struggled with this and decided
that, rather than cobble together a video from old footage that's not very
satisfactory, we'll offer to either refund anyone's $100-for-a-video, or
convert the contribution to purchase of an 8th edition or a print of the
satellite imagery.  Your choice.

I can't make any promises about video of the coming expedition because the
media arrangements are not yet finalized.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2001 11:00:11 EDT
From:         Ed
Subject:      Re: metal detectors

An excellent detector that is fully submersible is the Minelab Excalibur. It
has the latest technology and is great for saltwater use.

LTM
Ed of PSL #2415
***************************************************************************
From Ric

There is one little advantage for us in using the White's Electronics
equipment.  We get as many of anything we want for free.  They've been a
wonderful sponsor of our work for many years.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2001 11:06:18 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Aerial Survey?

Correct me if I'm wrong but was there some mention at one time or
another of taking an ultralight aircraft(capable of takeoff on the
beach) along to do an aerial survey?

Doug Brutlag #2335
****************************************************************************
From Ric

We actually brought along an ultralight in 1997 but never got to launch it
because the weather was so bad.   It's a huge pain in the butt to take an
airplane out there.  Just transporting the thing on the airlines is
complicated and expensive.  Also, the beach is too rough and sloped to use as
a runway.  You have bring floats and figure on flying off the lagoon.

In the end, the satellite imagery gave us almost everything we hoped to get
from an aerial survey at a fraction of the cost and none of the hassle and
danger.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2001 11:25:28 EDT
From:         Ed
Subject:      Re: metal detectors

It's nice to have that kind of relationship especially if they'll customize
their gear for Tighar use. The Minelab equipment uses multiple (I believe
they are now up to 28) frequencies that make it more effective in saltwater,
wet sand, and highly mineralized earth. White's must have something similar,
I have Garretts and Minelabs. Whites make a very good product. I am really
looking forward to the expedition's success and quality equipment will
certainly make the difference. I know all are growingwith excitement as
September draws near.

LTM
Ed of PSL #2415
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2001 15:47:24 EDT
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: metal detectors

<< From Ric

 There is one little advantage for us in using the White's Electronics
 equipment.  We get as many of anything we want for free.  They've been a
 wonderful sponsor of our work for many years. >>

THAT sounds pretty good. :-)

Their new Spectrum DFX is a multi-frequency unit, for land use.  It does take
some practice (actually, a LOT of practice) to learn how to use it, because
of it having so many adjustments in its operation that can be changed.  I'd
suggest that anyone who plans on using this particular machine, use it for at
least a month (getting out with it several times a week, at the very minimum,
preferably more), to get the 'most' from it.

Maybe you should take both an underwater machine, and the DFX along?  That
would give you the best chance of finding anything worth finding.

   John Rayfield, Jr.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

One of the hard lessons I've learned in the course of five expeditions to Niku
 is to never bring technology that we don't already know how to use
expertly.  That means sticking to tried and true low technology (like cold
steel) or high technology that is so dead simple to use that even we can use
expertly (like the White's PI 3000).  The image of somebody standing on the
beach at Niku studying a manual with a piece of miracle technolgy at his feet
is a picture of frustration and wasted time.
****************************************************************************
From Danny Brown

Just a comment on metal detectors. I know you and I have previously
discussed different brands and their capabilities and agreed White's will do
the job for you. But I want to add that I have actually been in on the
recovery of a buried airplane engine (from a crashed WWII P-47). During the
war, two P-47s collided on a training mission near Baton Rouge, LA and one
went down next to the Mississippi River. The engine sat for more than 40
years near the river in a wooded and sometimes flooded low area. In the
mid-1980s, a local historian wanted to recover the engine, clean it up, and
put it on display at the local airport as a memorial to the airman stationed
there when it was a fighter base during WWII. The historian and I are both
expert metal detectorists. but we first searched without metal detectors
because the landowner said he knew about where the engine was located and
would show us. He described it as lying on the surface with the prop
sticking out above ground one or two feet. This landowner was the one who
had found the pilot of the plane after he had parachuted. Unfortunately, the
pilot's arm had been severely injured and he had bled to death by the time
the landowner got to him.

Our initial search failed to find the engine. Realizing that perhaps it was
now silted over by the river, we used our metal detectors on the second trip
(in this case Fisher's with very large coils). We never did not get what I
would call a definite recognizable signal response, but there was one area
that we both agreed gave us something akin to a signal. Forsaking (perhaps
foolishly) any kind of secondary test to assure us that this was the engine,
a backhoe was brought in through the courtesy of a local town's mayor.
Digging produced the engine and most of its associated components, but the
depth to the top of the engine WAS A MEASURED 13 FEET! Now wet river silt is
not the same as a coral reef in salt water, but it does demonstrate that
modern detectors in the right hands CAN find large objects at depth. Because
metal detectors are small and easy to handle, I think a metal detector
survey of particular reef areas (in grids) would be useful in pinpointing
areas where a large object might be buried. A magnetometer could be used
later to double check for ferrous readings. Then it would be a matter
(perhaps) of a test boring to decide if the object needs to be excavated. Of
course, all of this would not be that easy or accomplished in a single trip.
But at least it gives you some alternative options.

Danny Brown #2426
****************************************************************************
From Ric

If an airplane engine sat in a paved parking lot for 64 years, how deep would
it be buried now?  That's pretty much the situation on the reef.  The
shipwreck debris that arrived there in 1929 is still right on the surface.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 May 2001 10:44:51 EDT
From:         Gary
Subject:      Re: Aerial Survey?

    I don't know how much useful info might be gleaned from its use but what
about the idea of perhaps getting a radio-controlled hobby type airplane and
strapping a light-weight autofocus camcorder to the bottom?  A couple tests
flights would probably show the best way to angle the camcorder and, for
that matter, it seems a light-weight gimbaled bracket might allow for
adjustments.  I'm not a radio-controlled flight hobbyist but with so many
pilots and such on the forum it seems likely someone will have an idea if
one of these jobs could carry a small camcorder's weight.  I imagine you'd
just set the camcorder to record, send up the plane and review the tape when
it gets back down.  Whether it would show much would require a test or two
but it's certainly cheaper than an ultra-light and since no one goes up in
it, no one can come down from it.

    Meanwhile, I'm STILL wondering if there is any remote and reasonable
consensus as to what the fuel usage/flight time from Lae to Nikumororo by
way of Howland would be.  It seems reasonably certain Earhart and Co got
within shouting distance of Howland (no pun intended).  My recollection is
that flying time from Howland to Niku was estimated 3 to 4 hours.   If you
figure the time and fuel consumption outbound from Lae across the water to
Howland, turn right at Howland and south to Niku, whatever is left AFTER
that is the maximum time that could have been spent searching for Howland. This
number seems important to me because if it's 5 minutes, my guess is they ended up
in the water.  I cannot prove it objectively but my gut feeling is that no
one would spend 19-20 hours en route to a destination, then give up looking
for it after a few minutes.  I also understand that TIGHAR's position is not
that they flew to Niku with intent, but rather stumbled on it while
searching either for Howland, or for ANY possible landing site as the fuel
ran out.  If they arrived south of Howland on the LOP then whatever time
they spent looking north has to be doubled going back south.  Searching 20
minutes north equals 40 minutes time and fuel before you go an inch south
because you have to make up the distance you already traveled.  Seems to me
that it would be VERY easy to use up fuel quickly and fail to cover much
ground (or water, as the case may be) in this fashion.

        Call me an Any-idiot artifact hound if you like.  The fact is, while
I am intrigued by what TIGHAR has found, I remain very skeptical because of
what hasn't been found.  Conspiracy-theorists aside, I doubt anyone swept in
after the fact and sanitized the island of all major traces of
Earhart/Noonan's presence.  It seems significant evidence remains from all
other documented episodes of occupation in Niku's history.  The event of the
castaway(s) is puzzling, to be sure and while there is certainly the
possibility it could have been Earhart and/or Noonan, objective proof of the
truth of who that person was or those persons were remains unknown.  To ask
"who else might it have been" if it was not Earhart or Noonan doesn't get
any closer to proving it was either of them.  If it wasn't either of them, then
it was a person or persons unknown, thereby being consistent with it having
been an undocumented and unknown event.  Just like the business with the
"Love to Mother" message, which becomes a simple, innocuous and completely
reasonable series of happenings once the facts were known, without objective
proof otherwise that it was Earhart or Noonan, the misfortune of the Unknown
Castaway could YET have a simple explanation.  But if the plane made
landfall at Niku then where are the Electra's props?  The engines, the
struts, the tires?   What happened to the radio equipment?  Why not one
single PIECE of the plane with a serial number or otherwise committing
marking remains?  Did ALL of them wash into the ocean?  Were they all
swallowed by the lagoon?  What are the odds that EVERY scrap of the plane
left behind would be an ambiguous artifact that COULD have come from the
Electra but also, because it cannot be demonstrated beyond a certainty that
it DID come from the Electra, COULD have come from another source?   Sure,
if the plane had been there the colonists would likely have cannibalized it
for the metal and parts.  But did they then take virtually every FRAGMENT
away when the island was depopulated?  I don't know how interested the
Powers That Be or the colonists would have been with
returning the island to its pristine state.  Concern for the natural
environment has gotten a bit more momentum in recent times, I  think.  So
what DID happen to Fred's belt buckle, his lighter? Any coins?  Did he even
have any of those items?  Perhaps a post-mortem inventory of items known to
have been on the plane that might have survived open exposure for these many
years might be a handy item to have on the next survey.

    I hope the above doesn't come off as adversarial.  That's not my
intention and I understand TIGHAR is going back to Nike PRECISELY to seek
confirming evidence that it believes is there but has not yet been
discovered.  The fact that it has not yet been found is what discourages me
most about the possibility of TIGHAR's theory being correct.  I strongly
suspect if Earhart and Co ended up at Niku, then there is some evidence
remaining of the fact.  The Norwich City foundered there and there is no
mystery chasing to that.  It's right there on the beach for all eyes to see.
Einstein claimed that God doesn't play dice with the universe.  Neither does
nature play mindgames with humanity. My opinion is that if the Electra had
ended up at Niku then MORE evidence should already be apparent.

     There is another possibility, of course--that
the Electra set down on some as yet unknown piece of real-estate and waits
to this day for someone to stumble by and recognize her.  Of all the things
I've seen thus far on the forum, the work that's been done on the
possibility of post-loss messages, including the mystery of Betty's notebook
seems to hold the most promise to me that Earhart and Noonan set down
SOMEWHERE other than in the water.  I DO believe what TIGHAR has done thus
far is good work and the traces so far discovered are compelling.  BUT they
are FAR from conclusive to me.  I do remain interested and OPEN MINDED also.
I have no agenda because I am a spectator to the proceedings.  I grant the TIGHAR
scenario is far FAR more plausible than ANY conspiracy scenario, but until
objective proof--that is in my case at least, an Any-Idiot-Artifact--is
discovered, I'll retain my open mind.

Thanks--gary (a usually silent lurker)
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Gary.  That's an honest assessment.  Some of the things that bother
you have been bothering us for a long time.  A few years ago we held an
expedition team meeting at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT
where they have a Lockheed 10 under rebuild.  The thing was partially
disassembled and gutted.  You wouldn't BELIEVE the boxes and boxes of junk
that came out of that airplane.  Tubes and panels and wires and
Lord-knows-what-all.  If Earhart's airplane landed at Gardner, where did all
that stuff go?

Then we look at the Norwich City.  Earhart's Electra represented about 7,000
pounds of aluminum and some steel.  Norwch City was over 3,000 TONS (that's 6
million pounds) of iron and steel.  How many boxes of Lord-knows-what-all do
you suppose were aboard her? Today, perhaps 10 percent(?) of the ship's steel
structure survives.  Everything else is gone.  Our current hypothesis is that
the airplane was in that very same environment.  If any of the handful of
suspicious parts we've found in the village are actually from the airplane
it's a bloody miracle that they survived at all.  Very few parts on a
Lockheed 10 had part numbers stamped into them and fewer yet had serial
numbers.

There are a few components that SHOULD have survived (based upon what we see
of other aircraft in similar environments).  The engines and possibly the
props should still be around and the gear legs may also have survived.  The
engines and props had serial numbers.  That they would still be discernible
is extremely doubtful.  The gear legs had part numbers cast into them but the
shape and form of a Lockheed 10 gear leg is distinctive enough to be obvious
anyway.

 I don't think its reasonable to say that IF the Electra was ever at Gardner
we SHOULD have found conclusive proof by now. We have, in my opinion, more
than enough clues to merit further searching but I don't think we're going to
find our Any Idiot Artifact until we look in exactly the right place.

LTM
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 May 2001 10:49:05 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      TIGHAR stuff, part 2

I think that a satellite image for my 1999 $100 would be marvelous.  I
believe you already have my address.  Thanks for the options, and thanks for
running such a classy outfit.  Glad to be a part of it.

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 May 2001 12:29:05 EDT
From:         Jim Pearson
Subject:      Re: Aerial Survey?

Using a RC plane for an
aerial survey sounds like a good idea. I have also heard of archeaological
surveys being done with tethered balloons. I dont know what the winds are
like on Niku, but you might want to consider one of those methods.
      Jim Pearson #2422
***************************************************************************
From Thomas

 I have a friend who flies a radio controlled helicopter, and I'd think
that would make more sense than a plane, for stablization of looking
specifically in a certain area.  With modern technology, one could go a lot
farther than that. But if wind is an issue on the island, then one would have
a lot of trouble with any radio controlled unit anyway, an expert.
   Searching the island how TIGAR has been doing works best. The use of the
SAT photo should help a very great deal. When might we see one a copy on the
web site?

Thomas
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Next week.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 May 2001 12:37:01 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Flight to Niku

  If AE flew the distance from Lae to Howland, but missed the Island, then,
made a choice to turn South, has anyone calculated "approximately" how much
fuel would have remained by the time she came upon Niku?  Even if fuel would
be remaining, it would be a reasonable assumption, that AE attempted a
landing at Niku, knowing she could not make it back to Howland Island.  Even
if she knew of Niku prior to her finding it, she may have calculated the
distance back to Howland, choosing to attempt a landing on Niku due to fuel
the fuel issue. Basicly, she could have just made one caluculated mistake, by
turning South, instead of North. In fact, she could have been nearly on top
of Howland Island when she made that error. But once the mistake was made, it
was made, leaving her to be forced into a position of attempting to land on
the reef at Niku.  It's not that the fuel is an issue of running empty, but
of one that was found by her calculations that there was not sufficient fuel
to make it back to Howland once she found Niku, learning where she was. Now,
I am speculating that Gardner Island, Niku, was in fact on the map at the
time of her flight.
   Imagine her anger at realizing her mistake, landing on a reef at Niku, her
life in danger, her plane badly damaged, yelling into the mic, believing that
Howland Island or somebody was listening and that she would soon be rescued.
Making the trip that far, only to make one fairly small mistake, over one
very large ocean.  If fuel was remaining, was there a fire? Were they injured
and if so how bad? How long were they on the Island, and or did they ever get
off? Just as any and all the rescue/capture stories, they are questions we
may never know. But one can speculate that TIGAR is on the correct path and
needs all the support that we can offer.
   Interestingly enough, a question is lurking in my head.... after thinking
about this.
And as you know by now, I just speak up my thoughts and it does generate some
interesting communication.  If this is what happened, and if AE was badly
burned, she may have wanted to remain lost at sea until her plane was
repaired if at all possible.  There wouldn't necessarily have had to be a
conspiracy at all.  A rescued AE, looking to attempt to repair her plane, and
continue her flight without letting anyone know. It may even of been her
wish, that if she could not finish her flight, then
she wanted to be thought to have been lost at sea.
   But the most interesting of all.... is that Amelia Earhart's flight has
intrigued a world, and created such wonderment as to where and what happened
to her. She accomplished her dream in many ways, for what better way to
promote flight than to have caused all of us to ponder that last flight she
made. One might say that the stories of her being seen in so many places at
the same time, in her disappearance,
that she spread her wings out and flew high with the wings of angel.

Thomas W. Rogers
 ***************************************************************************
From Ric

The mind boggles.

The fuel issue and the Line of Position have been discussed on this forum ad
nauseum .  It's all on the website in the Forum Highlights.

I'd like to reassure forum regulars that intelligent research is being done
in preparation for the upcoming expedition and I should be able to report on
it before too much longer.  Thanks for your patience,
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 10:15:07 EDT
From:         Tom Rogers
Subject:      Re: Flight to Niku

  Interestingly enough, I have not been on the forum that long, and from
moment one, you have, in your own word "unfairly", chose to respond in
negativety. You stated would not post emails of mine that did not contain
substantive content, while at the same time, adding a negative piece of humor
as to my lack of knowledge on the subject. While allowing others with simular
humor to post.

   Of all of this last email's content, you choose to post a negative comment
about the fuel issue to the list.  Why not just have posted, a referral on
that issue to the forum, there may be others who had not read that
information on the web site.

   No, I don't suppose this email will go to the forum, as it probably should
not. However, you might just have referred my email to the web site.  I have
searched it, but not everything.

   At this time, please do remove me from your email list...........for the
reason of your lack of sensitivety and thoughtful reason.  I'll do my
research about Niku from my other source and take my intelligent comments
with me. "To loose a person who stirs thought...is to loose thought itself".

   Lastly, while intelligent research is required.... a bit of fresh air is
needed in your head.

Yep... Ric can send out something to the forum that "offends" a subscriber,
but at the same time moderates the list so that others can not do the same or
respond to their being offended....

   And yes, Ric, I realize this won't make it to the list either.

The Mind Boggles
Thomas W. Rogers
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm sorry you feel unfairly treated.  I'll delete you from the list as you
request.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 10:23:44 EDT
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

Chris,

        Some interesting questions - after all these years.

        First, the ladders were in excellent condition so we had no problem
crawling up the two ladders to the top deck. From the peak we could look
back 30 or 40 yards across two hatch covers. The deck was slanted quite
steeply so we didn't walk around on it. Behind the covers was a white
bulkhead that extended to both sides of the ship with a hatch at each side.
There appeared to be two or three levels with the bridge on top. We could
see quite a lot of the ship behind the bulkhead but it was badly twisted
and would have been very difficult to walk on so we didn't try. The stack
and the fantail were gone and we could see from walking the shelf that some
of the wreck was hanging out over the edge of the shelf. At low tide we
could walk to the edge of the shelf to where the fingers were forming. Ric
says he has a picture  that shows the bridge and other structures were
already gone before we got there. I wouldn't argue the point. All I know is
what we saw.

        The ship was grounded on the extreme northern tip of the island
coral shelf.  If there had been  any wreckage there it would already have
sunk 2 miles to the bottom so we saw nothing there.

        You mentioned that someone standing on the forepeak would have been
easily seen from a search plane. With the location of the ship at the edge
of the shelf it is highly unlikely that anyone would have had time to walk
out there and climb to the forepeak while a plane was flying over -
assuming anyone was there.

        Dick Evans
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Dick.  Interesting memories.  I have no reason to doubt your
recollection of climbing ladders and seeing what you saw but, as you can see
on the map at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/MapsandPhotos/maps/Nikumap.html
and in any number of
other maps and photographs, the ship is not at the extreme northern tip of
the island.  It is, in fact, at the extreme western end.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 10:41:35 EDT
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

Regarding Emily's comments about seeing airplane wreckage  "north of the
ship."

Just north of the ship was the Pacific Ocean. The ship was grounded on the
northern most tip of the island with some of the remaining wreckage
sticking out over the edge of the coral shelf. Anything north of that would
have sunk to the bottom. If she meant airplane wreckage at the north end
surrounding the ship, we saw nothing. Of course, we didn't look very hard.
We keep coming back to the same question: How come 27 guys on the island
for a year and a half never found anything of importance in the Earhart
mystery? Again, we didn't look. We spent "4 on- 8 off" on the Loran scopes
and spent the rest of our time trying to figure out when we would get the
hell off that island.

Dick Evans
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Again, your recollection of where the ship was is in error.  Don't feel bad.
We all remember stuff wrong or it may be that you had a skewed impression of
the island's orientation at that time.  It's not easy to keep track of when
you're there on the ground.

You may have indeed found something of importance in the Earhart mystery -
you just didn't know it. Your story of seeing the "water collection device"
on the windward shore eventually led us to the Seven Site which we now
suspect was where Gallagher found the bones.  The fact that none of the Coast
Guard veterans we've talked to ever heard the story of the bones being found
(which we know happened) or airpane wreckage being seeing (which we know was
at least a story among the colonists) probably says more about the
relationship between the service men and the settlers than about events on
the island.  Coast Guardsman Floyd Kilts did hear the bones story but he was
there later than you and the others and operating in a very different context
(dismantling the station).  PBY pilot John Mims heard about the airplane and
some of the pieces from it but, like Kilts, he was a visitor to the island
rather than a resident.  It would seem, therefore, that the locals were more
willing to discuss the matter with transients than with people who lived on
the island with them.  Seems like it should be the other way around - but
there it is.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 10:46:52 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Aerial Survey?

> ... what about the idea of perhaps getting a radio-controlled
> hobby type airplane and strapping a light-weight autofocus
> camcorder to the bottom?

I've flown RC airplanes for 6.5 years now.  I've done aerial
photography from our hobby-type planes.  You are NOT going to
be able to survey an island the size of Niku with off-the-shelf
hobby equipment.

With a budget of say $50,000, I could cook up a very nice
system that runs by GPS and that would take gyro-stabilized
hi-resolution photos.  BUT (and it's a big but!) it would
take a year or so to make sure that all the bugs were out
of the system.  And it's a long haul in a corrosive
environment for RC equipment.  If I had the money to
spend, I wouldn't.

Or TIGHAR could hire Aerosonde.  http://www.aerosonde.com/

                        Marty #2359
***************************************************************************
From Ric

A wise man, Father Moleski.

Aerosonde would probably work, but for identifying targets that we'll then
check out on the ground anyway, the satellite solution seems to have worked
just great at a fraction of the cost.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 10:47:56 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      mineralized soil

<< By the way, some metal detectors do NOT work well in some sand (what's
referred to as 'black sand') because of the high mineralization of that
particular type of material.  Some of the newer detectors use multiple
frequencies, and they seem to do much better in 'higher-mineralized' ground.>>

the sand at Niku is most assuredly pure calcium carbonate with some organic
material mixed in occasionally.  About as far away from "highly mineralized"
as you can get.  There is no other (current in geological terms) source for
material other than the coral reef and the plants and critters that grow
there.

LTM (Whose marine environmental science comes back to her once in a while)
Andrew McKenna
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 10:55:21 EDT
From:         Bob Sarnia
Subject:      Gary the Lurker's posting

Gary's posting (Re: Aerial Survey) is one that I appreciate, because it stirs
up the old grey matter and injects new life to the Forum, which has seen so
many 'ho-hum' e-mails of late.

In the past, I have had two main contentions:

1.  That AE's 0742 "running low on gas" message means that she wouldn't have
had enough to fly on down to Gardner.

Experienced pilots, however, disagree and maintain that ALL pilots would
report that they were running low on gas even with 3, 4 or 5 hours of fuel
remaining. OK, I bow to their superior knowledge (no sarcasm intended) and
concede their argument -- up to a point. Other outside factors (we know not
what), which could have caused them to lose or use up more fuel than
intended, cannot be discounted, hence that ominous message, recorded and
corroborated by competent witnesses as "running low on gas, half-hour left."

2. Because nothing has been found ANYWHERE that indicates or proves that the
Electra crash-landed on Gardner, ditched, or crashed on Mili Atoll in the
Marshall Islands, there is only one thing we can go on, and that is the
psychological aspect of the whole incident.

Gary raised two important points which greatly interested me, quoting:

1) "...I cannot prove it objectively but my gut feeling is that no one would
spend 19-20 hours en route to a destination, then give up looking for it
after a few minutes."

2) "Just like the "Love to Mother" message, which becomes a simple innocuous
and completely reasonable series of happenings once the facts were known..."

The following is part of an e-mail I sent to an acquaintance last December,
which amply illustrates the psychological side of the incident:

Q:  Why was she still hanging around in the general area of Howland as late
as 0844?

A:  Because she knew that people were there waiting for her -- both on the
Itasca and Howland itself -- to help guide her to the island. She knew they
were on the lookout for her, so why would she head for a group of islands 380
miles away from the area where the very assistance she then so desperately
needed was waiting? As one Tighar subscriber said: "The fact that at Howland
there is a landing strip, fuel and a support vessel, provide powerful
incentives for sticking around." And, as far as she knew, that assistance was
possibly only a few miles away or just over the horizon. Also, as it is
obvious she did not know her exact position at 0742 or at 0844, she would not
have known in what direction to proceed to the Phoenix Islands, other than a
general compass heading, with no guarantee that she would find them any more
than she could find Howland.

While we can never predict ALL human behavior, surely there are known
behavioral patterns that tell us people simply do not walk away from the very
things for which they are searching and on which their lives depend! With all
that extra fuel (3,4 or 5 hours), she could look around for Howland for that
amount of time, in the belief that she would eventually find it. Suddenly
flying down to the Phoenix Islands would use up most of that emergency fuel,
and she would have, at most, just one shot at finding them.

With regards to the LTM message, adults seem to take the most difficult path
to reach a solution. They just assume that whatever problem faces them will
require the utmost effort to solve, when just the opposite may be true. And,
of course, they refuse to accept simple explanations. Why? Because they are
adults and the explanations are too simple. This is why some magicians do not
like to perform before children -- while adults are looking for the most
complex movements and are hoodwinked in the process, children are not always
fooled because the movements are so simple, as are their minds. Thus, the
most complex of mysteries does not necessarily mean a complex solution.

One thing we can say about Gardner; if TIGHAR finds nothing during its fifth
(or is it sixth?) expedition to the island this coming September, it will
have proved that its efforts were not in vain. It will have proved that AE
was never there.

Best regards,
Bob Sarnia
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll assume that most of the forum is capable of recognizing the many logical
fallacies in the above without me belaboring them (again).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 10:56:38 EDT
From:         Herman
Subject:      Re: Aerial Survey?

Ric wrote :

>  I don't think its reasonable to say that IF the Electra was ever at Gardner
> we SHOULD have found conclusive proof by now. We have, in my opinion, more
> than enough clues to merit further searching but I don't think we're going to
> find our Any Idiot Artifact until we look in exactly the right place.

If Einstein was right about God not rolling  dice with the universe, so was the
legendary Murphy. Ric, when you set foot on Niku again, do remember one of Murphy's laws :
"When you are looking for something lost, you will always find it in the last place you
look"

LTM (who always finds the car keys in the last very place she looks)
Herman  ( #2406)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 11:45:22 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

Thank you, Mr. Evans, for your reply (and, as I believe you are a veteran,
thank you on Memorial Day).

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Tom King

Dick's recollection that the Norwich City was on the extreme north end of the
island when it's really on the NW shore gives some perspective on the range
of areas that Gallagher could have meant when he talked about the bones being
at the SE end.  Similarly, Maude refers to Kanawa Point, which is sort of
midway along the SW shore, as being in the SW corner.  As we've experienced
ourselves, it's oddly easy to get disoriented on Niku, especially if you
don't have a good map to navigate by.  So the fact that the Seven Site can be
described as being at the SE end but is on the north shore of the SE end
doesn't need to bother us much -- though there's still a lot of territory
that's embraced by the term "SE end."

Tom King
****************************************************************************
From Ric

The impression that the Norwich City is at the northern point is easy to
understand.  You can't see it from the village but if you cross over to
Nutiran and walk up the beach it becomes visible off to your right as you
begin to round a the western point of the island.

By the way,  Charlie Sopko, the CO of the Loran station, swore there was no
shipwreck at Gardner - but he also talked about the "black volcanic sand."

Remember the old 281 Message?
"281 north ....Howland call KHAQQ....beyond north.....won't hold with us much
longer....above water....shut off."

In our interminable games of fill-in-the-blanks with this message we've often
wondered if "beyond north" was "on reef beyond north edge of island."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 11:46:48 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

For Dick Evans and other Loran Station veterans:

When we surveyed northwest from the station site in 1989, along the lee (SW)
shore, we walked over an extensive area that seemed like it had been churned
up, as though by bulldozing.  I think we can see it on the satellite imagery
-- an area of rather uniform-height vegetation (probably scaevola) running
clear from the shore to the lagoon (with the exception of a patch or two),
with rather straight sides and some vague linearity to the vegetation.  I'm
wondering if this rings any bells with anybody. And were any of you there, or
do you know anybody who was there, right to the bitter end of the Station's
life?  This could be important in sorting out the Floyd Kilts bones story.

Thanks,
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 May 2001 11:53:36 EDT
From:         Richard L.
Subject:      the half hour left question

 just a quick question to put things in perspective for me yet again.How
accurate were the fuel guages on the electra?What i was thinking is could
there have been more fuel in the tanks than what was showing.My truck will go
about 30 miles when the needle is showing empty.Is the same true for aircraft
fuel guages?

LTM

Richard L
****************************************************************************
From Ric

We don't know how accurate the fuel gauges were, but if they were like most
airplane fue gauges the answer is "not very."  No pilot, then or now, relies
upon fuel guages to know how much fuel is left.  The airplane's rate of fuel
consumption for various power settings is a known factor and you keep track
of how much you're burning and how much you have left.  If those numbers
disagree with the fuel gauge you assume that the gauge is wrong.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 10:22:42 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

Mr. Evans' recollection adds to an already curious situation---even though he was
not searching for anything, it does appear that he went out to the edge of the
coral ledge itself near the ship and saw nothing which looked like aircraft
wreckage.  Perhaps this was located farther away from the port side of the
Norwich City and was not visible from where he stood.  From Emily's interview, we
place it about 100 meters north of the ship along the edge.  Yet, he was able to
get onto the main deck of the ship, and from the forepeak look around towards the
stern of the vessel and the edge of the reef. My guess is that he was probably
about 25 to 35' above the reef,  which should provide a fairly high vantage point
to see objects low in the water, a good distance either side of the vessel, which
would not be visible from reef level.  Yet, nothing stuck out as aircraft
wreckage.  Of course, whatever "it" was that the colonists identified as aircraft
wreckage may have gone by the time Mr. Evans was there.

But, that leaves the problem of the New Zealanders.  They were there shortly
after Earhart would've been and well before the colonists and Mr. Evans, and we
know from pictures that they frequented the area around the ship moving supplies,
etc.  Indeed, they set up camp onshore roughly in a straight line with the bow of
the Norwich City. Emily reports that what she saw was seen by her from the
beach.  Also, their vessel stood-off the stern of the Norwich City, providing a
platform from which to see objects lying on the edge of the reef either side of
the Norwich City.   They were also there for several months, I recall.  At least
one picture we have has them taking a photo from inside the ship through the
break in the hull on the portside .  This means that they likely discovered the
ladders Mr. Evans reports as being in excellent condition several years later,
and, I suspect, they probably climbed up to the forepeak as well and looked
around much the same as he did.  If there were aircraft wreckage, there would
probably have been more of it at that time, before the colonists and before Mr.
Evans' visit.  Yet, we haven't been able to locate anything which indicates that
anything was found during the visit (or that confirms that nothing was found).
Also, whatever Emily saw from the shore was not seen by Maude/Bevington, who were
there even before the New Zealanders as I recall, and are still alive and able to
confirm this.  Any ideas?

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We've actually been doing some fairly detailed research into this subject via
the new satelite imagery.  We now have the ability to see the submerged
reef-edge much better than ever before.

What we're finding is that there is a "surf zone" at and near the actual lip
of the reef that has a couple of interesting characteristics:
1.  At anything but dead low tide on an unusually calm day, the last several
yards of the reef flat are behind (i.e. on the ocean side of) the surf line
and therefore submerged, as they are in the satelite imagery.
2. The reef edge is cut by "spur and groove" features.  These are crevasses
of various lengths and widths that run 90 degrees to the shoreline.  They're
typical of this type of coral reef and they're a very high-energy environment
because they act line drainage channels.

A swell will come rolling in, the reef edge will "knock its feet out from
under it", and the wave will break well inside the reef edge.  As the water
retreats it naturally seeks the lowest route and funnels into the "grooves".
Anything on the reef being dragged seaward by the retreating water is likely
to end up in a "groove" and if the crevasse if narrower than the object it
could easily become jammed there.

Emily's description of seeing wreckage "out where the waves break" makes a
lot of sense.  No part of a Lockheed 10 (or a 747 for that matter) is massive
enough to sit on that reef through storms without being held in place by
something.  However, the one place where wreckage could logically be (jammed
in a groove at the reef edge) is also the place that is almost constantly
obscured by surf or submerged under water.  It's also an extemely dangerous
place to go wandering around on foot.  We've certainly never gone there.

In short, it must have been an unusually calm day at low tide when Emily's
father pointed out the wreckage to her and it's not surprising that only
Gilbertese fishermen would venture out close enough to identify it for what
it was.

We're presently considering the possibility that it's still right there.  For
several weeks now there has been an intensive study going on of not only the
satelite imagery but also the many historical photos we have that show that
area.   The jury is still out and we're not likely to get anything better
than a few possibilities to be checked out on the ground, but is sure is
interesting.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 10:25:51 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Gary the Lurker's posting

For Bob Sarnia

Bob, I wonder if you might like to think some of your comments through a bit
more thoroughly. Most of us know better but erroneous statements may lead
some astray.

"......she would not have known in what direction to proceed to the Phoenix
Islands, other than a general compass heading, ......"

"......if TIGHAR finds nothing during its fifth (or is it sixth?) expedition
to the island this coming September,....... It will have proved that AE was
never there."

I'm sure you know better in both cases.

Alan
#2329
****************************************************************************
From Simon Ellwood

Bob Sarnia wrote:-

>One thing we can say about Gardner; if TIGHAR finds nothing during its fifth
>(or is it sixth?) expedition to the island this coming September, it will
>have proved that its efforts were not in vain. It will have proved that AE
>was never there.

To which Ric responded (with apparent exasperation) :-

>I'll assume that most of the forum is capable of recognizing the many logical
>fallacies in the above without me belaboring them (again).

Well, I'll help Ric out with the most glaring fallacy :-   as we've said
many, many times, "absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence".

TIGHAR could go to Niku a hundred times and find nothing, but that still
proves NOTHING about whether AE was actually there or not. The only way to
prove AE wasn't on Niku is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she came
down somewhere else (i.e. prove she ditched by finding the plane's remains
on the sea bed some place removed from Niku).

Conversely, finding the smoking gun on Niku - an engine or piece of wreckage
with a s/n would almost certainly prove beyond reasonable doubt that Niku
was the place of landing.

LTM
Simon #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 10:28:51 EDT
From:         Woody
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

Something I discovered while on Taroa is that the sun beats down so hard
that you can suffer disorientation very easily during the middle of the day(and
acquire sunburn under your hair!) I have a good sense of direction , but it took
a vacation while on the island. I assumed it was from being so close to the
equator. Maybe this is why Mr. Evans got his site locations wrong. From what I
read of Tom King's experience while out there, this seems to be a common
occurence.   Woody
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Remember the old anti-drug commercial with the frying egg?

This is your brain.  This is your brain on Niku.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 11:57:58 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      North or West

<< The impression that the Norwich City is at the northern point is easy to
understand.  You can't see it from the village but if you cross over to
Nutiran and walk up the beach it becomes visible off to your right as you
begin to round a the western point of the island. >>

Also I think we all subconciously recall the Lambrecht photo that indicates
the NC end of the Island as being "N" when it is actually West.  Perhaps the
N is for Norwich instead of North.

Andrew McKenna
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah right, but it is kind of wierd.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 12:21:10 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Objects on the reef?

Interesting.  You might want to post some of these pictures at the same time
you post the satellite photo.

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We'll post photos showing anything of interest once we have reason to believe
it really may be something of interest.  I can tell you now that there are
features visible in various photos that are easy to interpret as possible
objects on the reef but, having been down this road waaaay too many times,
I'm not going to spread around my own amateur speculation, get everybody
excited and spouting their own amateur speculation, and then have to
backtrack once the experts have rained on the parade.

The "dash-dot" feature in the 1937 Bevington photo is a classic example.
After much speculation (on my part) that the object is photographic
corroboration of Emily's story, it turns out that it's position on the reef
is quite different than I supposed it was and it is, in fact, in the same loc
ation as a chunk of Norwich City debris visible in the photos taken by the
New Zealand survey party.  Forensic imaging, like forensic anthropology, is
not a hobby, it's a science.  Fortunately, we have highly qualified
scientists in both fields who are helping us with our investigation.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 12:23:33 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Aerial Surveillance

Ric: This may be a moot point, considering the
satellite recon photos. The typical R/C (remote
control) models that people have are not good for
photo recon, however, Burt Rutan has a company that
manufactures remote controlled recon equipment for
the military and they do have the capabilities that
you are looking for. If you think that you need a
better remote control recon then you should contact
Mr. Rutan. I don't have the contact info for him,
but it should be easily available.

LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200
****************************************************************************
From Ric

The point I've been trying to get across, without much luck, is that we don't
NEED those capabilities for this expedition.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 15:08:23 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      the last place you look

>Ric, when you set foot on Niku again, do remember
>one of Murphy's laws : "When you are looking for
>something lost, you will always find it in the last
>place you look"
>
>LTM (who always finds the car keys in the last very
>place she looks)

REPLY:  Herman, I hope you will take this in the
tongue in cheek manner that I mean it. You ALWAYS
find something in the last place you look, even if
it is the FIRST place you look. After you find it,
why would you keep looking? Thus, any place you find
it will be the last place you look.

Of course I realize that the implication is that if
you are going to search for something the place you
will find it would logically be the last place on a
list of locations that you would search, but to take
it literally makes for a good joke.

LTM, who goes to the last place first and reduces
the search time,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 15:15:04 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Gary the Lurker's posting

> From Simon Ellwood
> ... Conversely, finding the smoking gun on Niku - an engine or piece of
> wreckage with a s/n would almost certainly prove beyond reasonable doubt
> that Niku was the place of landing.  ...

It would prove it to the people who found the Any Idiot Artifact (AIA).

Everybody else who was not on site at the time of the finding has
to take the word of the search party.

I do not doubt Ric's integrity at all.

I predict that even if the AIA is found, some people will
theorize that Ric or someone else planted either the real
thing or a convincing counterfeit on Niku.

Archeological proof always depends upon the integrity
and trustworthiness of the archeologists.  You can
read about Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant, and other
fossil hoaxes to see why this is so.

So, in this case, proof depends upon testimony, and
accepting testimony is an act of faith in the witnesses
of the discovery.

I don't care how many video cameras are on at the time.
Video cameras are no better witnesses than the videographers
are.  To accept the video as proof is to accept the word
of the videographer that the tape has not been tampered with.

It is only a small act of faith in accepting the testimony
of the arcehologists or the camera operators, but it is an
act of faith.

Let me make it perfectly clear: I have put my money where my
mouth is--as much as I can afford, given my other vital
hobby expenses (I crashed a relatively new plane on Sunday
morning)--and I trust TIGHAR's integrity.

It's great to hear that the aerial photo is proving so
useful, too!

                        Marty #2359
***************************************************************************
From Ric

That's a really interesting take on the whole issue of "proof."   I wonder if
TIGHAR qualifies for Faith Based Intiative funding.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 May 2001 09:02:04 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: What's in a name?

Ric wrote:

<< It's also an extemely dangerous
place to go wandering around on foot.  We've certainly never gone there.>>

             Then there is no need to attribute the Gilbertese avoidance of
the area to fear of ghosts.  Of course, such ghost stories might be a good
way to keep the young and the stupid away from the place.  Has anyone
checked what the phrase "where the waves break" was in Kiribati?  Maybe it
really means "where the water from the waves runs quickly down the grooves
in the underwater slope"        Dan Postellon   TIGHAR#2263  LTM
(who loved a good ghost story)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Actually, Emily's story was told to us in Tuvaluan (her family was from the
Ellice Islands) and translated into English by Foua Tofiga.
You make an excellent point.  If I was the Native Magistrate and fishermen
came to me with a story about finding the wreckage of an airplane out at the
reef edge, my first concern would be that the young and the stupid, as you
put it, would want to go look.  I would certainly put it off limits and tell
them anything I could think of to keep them away from there.  That's a bad
place.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 May 2001 09:58:38 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Gary the Lurker's posting

Ric: I'm responding to another message, regarding the dot-dash features just
north of the Norwich City.

Either I've lost the bubble (by missing it), but when was it discussed that
the dot-dash features picked up by Bevington and the Kiwi photos were part of
the Norwich City, and not possible Electra wreckage?  I have not seen a
discussion of Photek's analysis of the photos anywhere...

Could you elaborate for those of us interested?
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I've been meaning to write up a research bulletin on this and just haven't
gotten to it.  In essence,  the question of whether the "dot/dash" feature in
the Bevington and Kiwi photos could be Emily's Object relies upon determining
just WHERE on the reef the feature is (was).  Doing that requires first
figuring out where Bevington was when he took the picture.  Based upon what
island features can and cannot be seen in the background, I had placed the
camera out on the ocean off the western end of the island perhaps a half mile
from the shipwreck.  That put the dot/dash feature on the reef several
hundred meters north of the Norwich City and, therefore, in a location
consistent with Emily's reported wreckage.

Jeff Glickman at Photek had previously spotted a chunk of something on the
reef not far from the bow of the Norwich City in a 1938 aerial photo taken
immediately prior to the New Zealand survey.  Photos taken by the Kiwis on
the ground during that survey show that chunk to be a slab of hull plating
from the shipwreck.  Jeff said that the dash/dot feature in the Bevington
photo was in that same location.   I said that my own analysis placed it much
farther north on the reef.  That's how it stood for the better part of a
year.  Jeff was busy on other projects and we didn't have the funding to
pursue it further.

Earlier this year we finally had the money and Jeff had the time to get back
into it.  Jeff patiently explained to me that in the 1938 aerial photo, the
distance from the bow of the ship to the chunk of something (which we know to
be shipwreck debris) is almost exactly equivalent to the distance from the
bow of the ship to the funnel.  That relationship will stay the same in any
photo no matter what angle or distance the photo is taken from.  If you look
at the dot/dash feature in the Bevington photo you can see that it's the same
distance from the bow of the ship as the distance from the bow of the ship to
the funnel.  Bingo.  Same object.  The calculations he did on the Kiwi photo
were more complex but the result was the same.

So where did my amateur analysis go wrong?  Turns out that Bevington was
using a wide-angle lens (probably 35mm) that distorted the horizon.  Jeff
could tell from the very slight curve of the horizon and the base of the
clouds.  Bevington was actually much closer to the shipwreck than I had
supposed which, of course, invalidated my conclusions about what he could and
couldn't see.

I'll still put up a research bulletin explaining the above with pictures, but
that's the story of my lesson in forensic imaging.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 May 2001 10:08:51 EDT
From:         Troy
Subject:      The tough forum

Ric, I know I am just a sometimes-vocal lurker without MUCH to contribute,
but some people, like this guy, just don't get it.  Naw, you handled this guy
correctly; I'm as skeptical as the rest, but I still like to base my thoughts
on facts and not hearsay.  Everyone I've listened to over the past 18 mos on
the forum that has had a grudge or some chip on their shoulder seems to have
some pet theory they hold on to no matter the evidence to the contrary.

Geesh, people need to use their brains if they don't want their lunch to get
eaten.  This forum is tough **ONLY** because it is focused on the pursuit of
concrete evidence, not fantasy and make believe.....

Troy (Tighar #2348)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

That's kinda how I see it too.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 May 2001 10:23:57 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: North or West

A lot of people seem to have trouble with Niku's orientation. Laxton, for
example, describes the windward (NW) side as the north shore, and in one
reference puts Kanawa Point in the southeast; Maude puts in in the southwest.

TK
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you've proved your point.  The "windward (NW) shore" runs on a line
of roughly 305/125 degrees true.  Ninety degrees to that is 35 degrees, so
the shoreline faces pretty much northeast.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 May 2001 10:01:26 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Ghostbusters

If I were trying to keep kids away from a spot the last thing I would tell them
is that there were "ghosts" there.  My father was in the military and we moved
around a lot, and I remember that pretty much every neighborhood had the
equivalent of a "haunted house" (in one neighborhood it turned out the haunted
house was ours), where it was an adventure to hang out and see or hear the
ghosts.  Perhaps Gilbertese kids were different, but I doubt it.

--Chris Kennedy
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Let's be clear about who said what.  Emily Sikuli (nee' Segalo Samuela) said
only that the "Onotoa man" (whom we take to be Native Magistrate Teng Koata)
declared the area around the shipwreck off limits.  It was Tapania Taiki, in
describing airplane parts "in the bushes" and "a piece of a wing" on the reef
flat (but not out near the edge), who spoke of the grownups telling the kids
that they shouldn't go near the airplane parts because there were ghosts
there.

Your suspicion that Gilbertese kids regard ghosts much the way you did as a
kid is not shared by ethnographers such as Arthur Francis Grimble (Tungaru
Traditions - Writings on the Atoll Culture of the Gilbert Islands) who
describe attitudes towards "anti" (pronounced "ahns"), meaning ghosts, which
are quite different from Western conventions.  The former head of the
Kiribati National Cultural Center, Bwere Elitaia, whom I interviewed in
Tarawa in March, agreed.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 May 2001 10:03:55 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Priorities

The questions surrounding AE's early-on message about their fuel
situation seems to raise about as much interest & controversy as any of
the information (or lack of information) that AE conveyed to Itasca
during the radio transmissions that were actually (officially) logged-in
by the Itasca'a radio operators.

Though not wanting to get into the argument that others, allegedly
present in or around the Itasca's radio room, _claimed_ to have heard
her say about their fuel situation (paraphrased)...'half-hour left'...as
opposed to...'running-low'..., it must be remembered that about an hour
_after_ that first 'fuel' message was received, the Itasca's radio log
recorded another message (her _last transmission_ logged-in by Itasca)
in which AE provided an LOP & requested that the Itasca _continue_ to
listen on her new (daytime) frequency, upon which she would _continue_
to transmit.

Now some argue that this 'last' transmission was...'cut-short'... when
AE switched frequencies, therefore she had no opportunity to address
her... fuel situation... as Itasca was never able to raise her again
after the frequency was changed.

However, _if_ her fuel situation was as _critical_ as some seem to imply
(after the first 'fuel' message), then why would not AE have given
_that_ information _'top'_ priority on _each_ of the succeeding
transmissions heard by Itasca, especially the _last_ transmission they
received, about an hour _after_ the first impication from AE that fuel
was _becoming_ a problem?

With exhaustion of fuel, the flight is OVER... therefore does it not
seem reasonable, that message would have been the most important
information that AE would have conveyed to Itasca, _if_ her fuel
situation was undoubtedly reaching the desperate stage ( an hour after
first mention of the fuel ...'fuel running low'... or, if you
will...'half-hour left'... message ), yet she does no even mention the
problem again, or anything else for that matter, regarding the
possibility of _imminent_ ditching because of fuel exhaustion &/or
changing course to another landfall.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 May 2001 10:05:22 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Putnam As Spy Guy

After reading the LTM research review in TIGHAR Tracks, I was intrigued by
some things Putnam was doing. The overriding question is why was GP
involved in the spy game in any capacity? I thought he was just a big time
promoter. And what was the "bad experience" he had with Navy admirals at an
earlier date? Not to get into conspiracy theories, but did it relate
somehow to AE's flight? I'm no student of GP, but this is a side of him I
don't recall hearing about. Inquiring minds seek answers.

blue skies, jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 May 2001 10:57:46 EDT
From:         Bob Sarnia
Subject:      Put downs

Ric said:

"I'll assume that most on the forum is (sic) capable of recognizing the many
logical fallacies in the above (my Gary the Lurker posting) without me
belaboring them (again)."

This is a typical excuse of Niku theorists, who feel under siege when
confronted by someone who, searching for the truth, does not feel happy with
their theory. I thought the forum was supposed to be a gradual learning
experience, not one where we have to accept, without question, whatever "the
great guru" tells us. What is 'most on the forum' supposed to mean? That your
intellect and that of your followers are special blessings handed down from
on high? Be more friendly, Ric! One thing I give you credit for -- you
certainly know how to raise one's hackles. No wonder so many have bolted from
the party. Whether we believe in your theory or not, let's all be a little
more tolerant of each other's opinions; we're only here for a short time. If
you think we're on the wrong path, what a wonderful opportunity you have to
set us on the right one...as long as you don't ram it down our throats.

Alan Caldwell said:

"Bob, I wonder if you might like to think some of your comments through a bit
more thoroughly. Most of us know better but erroneous statements may lead
some astray."

Duh...Geez...Alan, I'm sorry if I'm slow on the uptake and not as smart as
you. You say, "most of us know better." If such be the case, why can't you
come out and say what you want to say, instead of simply mimicking your
leader and posting cryptic messages that smack of arrogance. What's on your
mind, Alan?...duh.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

 I make the assumption that forum subscribers are busy people who don't want
to wade through endless repetitions of basic facts and logic.  Periodically
new people show up on the forum and raise questions or express opinions
drawn, in good faith, from the heaps of misinformation and mythology that
have been published about this subject.  When that happens I try to provide
better information and help them see why we view the problem the way we do.
Forum subscribers often help in this regard.  A good example of this process
was the discussion about the "half hour gas left" issue that you raised.

When the problem is misinformation it's easy to correct, but sometimes it
turns out that people disagree with our basic methodology and assumptions.
For example, you feel that:

<<Because nothing has been found ANYWHERE that indicates or proves that the
Electra crash-landed on Gardner, ditched, or crashed on Mili Atoll in the
Marshall Islands, there is only one thing we can go on, and that is the
psychological aspect of the whole incident.>>

While the psychological aspects of the incident are fun to speculate about,
they're a dead-end in terms of establishing facts that might be useful in
actually solving the case.

You also say:

<<One thing we can say about Gardner; if TIGHAR finds nothing during its
fifth (or is it sixth?) expedition to the island this coming September, it
will have proved that its efforts were not in vain. It will have proved that
AE was never there.>>

As has already been pointed out by a subscriber, that is simply not true.

We can argue facts all day long (and we do) but when it becomes apparent that
somebody doesn't grasp the basic principles of the investigative process,
there's not much I can do.  This isn't a school and it isn't a popularity
contest.  It's a very difficult (and expensive) investigation and I'm doing
my best to keep it moving forward.  There are bound to be casualties.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 May 2001 11:06:59 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Priorities

> From Don Neumann

> ... However, _if_ her fuel situation was as _critical_ as some seem to imply
> (after the first 'fuel' message), then why would not AE have given
> _that_ information _'top'_ priority on _each_ of the succeeding
> transmissions heard by Itasca, especially the _last_ transmission they
> received, about an hour _after_ the first impication from AE that fuel
> was _becoming_ a problem?

I'm in agreement with the calculation that they had enough fuel
to reach Niku.  (Amateur opinion only; I take the word of
those who know more than I do.)

I'm in sympathy with your reasoning.

BUT when we play the "coulda-shoulda-woulda" game with AE's story,
it seems that she often did things differently from the way she
could have or should have or from the way we would have done them
if we had been her.

After reading everything on the web site and participating in the
forum for about a year, I've come to the personal, unprovable,
unscientific conclusion that AE did not understand enough about
radios and direction finding to realize what deep trouble she
and Fred were in during the time that Itasca was able to receive
her radio transmissions.  Her efforts to get a radio bearing
***SEEM TO ME*** to have been "flighty" (pun intended; you
may laugh now).  "Let's try this once.  Now, let's try that
once.  I think I'll change frequencies from the one that's
working to another one."

There's a title in here somewhere.  Maybe "Death Flies on the
Wings of Ignorance."

                        Marty #2359
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll suggest that establishing "Coulda" is a matter of defining the physical
parameters of her options.
"Shoulda" is basically second-guessing based upon our perception of "Coulda".
"Woulda" is an assessment of the psychological aspects that Bob Sarnia was
talking about.