Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:53:29 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City Thanks, Russ; I'd dismissed the Liberty Ships as being too much the products of WWII technology, but they'd certainly be worth looking at when the time comes. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:59:41 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The "g" seen on Niku Thank you for your insightful answer and analysis. Several points come to mind: 1. Actually, shortly before we left, I have a distinct memory of you or Tom concluding that the feature was probably natural, and that this was based on the fact that it had been found that these types of features (essentially caused by lighter coral among darker) appeared at other sites that had been visited on the expedition. We all need to check our notes, but the type of area in which the "6" was found appears all over the island (these areas are roughly described as " islands" of coral surrounded by scaevola). Indeed, Bill and I found in our own expolits that you could ease your way across the island by utilizing these open breaks in the otherwise solid bands of scaevola. As I said, we need to check our notes, but it was one of the visits either to Nutiran, the Triangle Site, the Loran Site or some other area where this recurring feature was noted and prompted the conclusion that it was probably natural. It was only at the "island" in the proximity of the cleared portion of the 7 site where you noticed that the different colored coral created the appearance of a '6' or "g'. Other patterns may appear at other sites upon close scrutiny. Indeed, TIGHAR's own website concludes that the "7" of the Seven Site itself "....seems to be a coincidence of nature and does not seem man-made". So, corals, appearing in a formation which indicate numbers or letters, did not until now automatically mean they were the product of human activity. 2. I am not a "coral-ologist", but I suspect that differences in the color of coral could be caused, in part, by differences in exposure to sun, weather, different ages or types of corals within deposits of corals, etc. Something we need to remember is that it has been suggested that large parts of the island, including the 7 Site, have likely been disturbed and washed over at times over the years. That, or as you suggest, human activity, may account for the particular distribution at the 7 Site. In any event, simply concluding that, because you can't yet explain it, there is "little doubt" that it is must have been done by a human, with the next step being (I suspect) that the human was the castaway and the castaway was Earhart, sort of reminds me of Erik Van Daniken's reasoning about the pyramids in reverse. You know, he couldn't figure out how humans constructed them so they must have been built by space aliens. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Excuse me. I thought that you were familiar with the feature and the investigations we conducted on the island to determine its possible origins. Let me bring you up to speed. As you note, there are numerous "islands" of bare coral rubble all over the island. We have seen probably hundreds of them in our explorations. We have never seen anything remorely ressembling the "g" feature. For the most part, the coral rubble in these "islands" is gray in color but every once in a while you come across a piece or two of brilliantly white coral. The only place you find an abundance of this really white coral in one place is out on the ocean beach. The "g" feature is comprised of a layer of brilliantly white coral pieces, side by side and only one piece deep, on top of the gray coral background. We considered the possibility that the white coral had been "bleached" by pouring or spilling a liquid on the ground, but each piece of white coral is white on the top and on the bottom and none of the underlying gray coral has splotches of white. Tom said he had seen small concentrations of white coral in the mounds beside crab holes elsewhere on the island and he wondered if there was a layer of white coral down below the gray coral that could be thrown up in a random pattern by a digging crab. (This may be the conversation you're remembering.) I tested that hypothesis by digging a number of holes near the "g" feature and found no white coral in the lower layers. We also wondered if this could be a clump of white beach coral that was somehow tossed far inland during a storm and landed to form this odd pattern, but upon closer examination we found that the beach coral is relatively smooth due to erosion and abrasion, while the white coral pieces that make up the "g" are far more pristine in appearance. The only white coral pieces we could find that look like the pieces that form the feature are the ones scattered widely thoughout the area surrounding the feature. I couldn't find two pieces of white coral on the ground closer to each other than a few meters, and yet the feature is comprised of several hundred such pieces side-by-side so that removing a single piece exposes the gray coral below. I am at a loss to imagine a natural process that could result in such a feature. It looks to me like somebody at some time went around and collected up a whole bunch of white coral pieces and then laid them out on the ground in a specific pattern. If I set out to duplicate that activity today I estimate that it would take at least half a day, most of the time being spent in scouting around collecting white coral. What is really baffling is why the creator of this feature did not just go out to the ocean beach a couple hundred meters away and gather up a pile of white coral from there? But they didn't because the coral of the "g" is not beach coral. It may be that there was once a lot more white coral in the "islands" near the "g" than there is now and the reason it's now hard to find is because the "g" maker gathered it up. Who made the feature, when, and to what purpose is a mystery to me. We'll be soliciting the opinions of experts in atoll morphology and perhaps someone will be able to explain it as a natural phenomenon, but that would surprise me and, at least at this time, I have little doubt that it is man-made. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:00:19 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City Someone, somewhere, has the plans to the ship. The rats probably ate the copy left on board. Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:02:00 EST From: Andy Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time <<>> A quick check of that website indicates that it is not among the many sound clips they have available. I have e-mailed the webmaster and archivist inquiring about its status. Whatever info the forum can provide about the broadcast would be helpful (ie: What network it was on, running time etc). On an off topic note, that website has many, many historical radio and TV broadcasts as downloadable clips. Its main address is http://earthstation1.simplenet.com/ LTM, Andy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure we've been down this road before. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:03:29 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: March of Time > From David Katz > > The following web site has some historical March of Time broadcasts, but, > alas, not the Earhart one. > > http://www.otr.com/news_frame.html I've placed an order with Ed Carr for his one-hour tape of "The Search for Amelia Earhart." My guess is that it is the CBS radio documentary from 1960. If we're lucky, it might have some snippets from the "March of Time." I called some radio archives in New York City last year. None of them had the tapes for this show. CBS might have the tapes, but they wouldn't talk to an outsider. If anyone has any pull with CBS, you might try twisting their arm. I found one man advertising the desired tapes on the internet. I spoke with him last year. He and his wife are blind, I believe, and run a Braille transcription service. I mailed him some TIGHAR notes and a request for the tape, but to no avail. I called him again today and left a message on his tape machine. Maybe some sunny Californian can talk him into sharing his tape with us. :o( His name is Ronald Staley. QUIK-SCRYBE 17734-6 Devonshire Street Northridge, CA 91325-1202 Phone: (818) 832-6358 Tollfree: (888) 820-7845 FAX: (310) 301-0344 E-Mail: quikscrybe@earthlink.net The tape is: 020. The March of Time; 7 8 37; "Features Story on Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." 7 15 37; "Second Story on Earhart Disappearance." Web site: http://www.quikscrybe.com/catalog.html LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:06:22 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Post-lost messages <> I'll answer as long as we both agree that this is speculation on my part .... With two people fully able to move around on the Niku I would have expected more obvious signs to have been around by the time of the July 9th fly over. My sense of FN (due to his life experiences) is that he would have devoted some energy during the first days of being stranded to creating obvious signs for any ship that might be in the area to spot them (signal fires prepared to be lit, etc.) if both he and AE were fully functioning. Mind you, we believe they would not be expecting an aerial search but such preparations could have been obvious from the air. The fact that they were not and assuming they had landed on Gardner gives me a clue that only one was ambulatory. The way I would divvy up work loads on a stranded island if there were two people would be much different than if there were only one fully mobile. Foraging for food and water is first, followed by shelter. But I would also be equally concerned at that time to make sure that, given the human resources to do so, I had created some means to be noticed by ships in the area to rescue. If there is only one person, you feed and forage first and then, if you have the strength, work on developing obvious signs for passing ships to know you are there. This task would be much easier with two people who would be able to team up their skills. Subsequent to this reasoning, we appear to have several clues (in the form of Betty's notebook, anecdotal, and the arrangement of the primitive eating area at the seven site) that point more to an individual rather than individualS functioning on the site. Plus only one castaway skeleton. In the toughest survival situation, I imagine there would be 3 choices with a dead body, neither of which would leave obvious skeletal evidence: (1) cannibalism, (2) leave the body where it is (3) bury it on land or sea. Again, these are just thoughts and I do not believe this theory is provable on existing evidence. I also hope that I have expressed my thoughts clear enough because I only have a minute here to jot my thoughts down (gotta get out of the house for Halloween). LTM (who hated tricks or treats) Troy #2something ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:25:14 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Parachutes in Darwin >From Ric >A newspaper account written by a reporter who was in Darwin when AE and >FN arrived specifically says that they picked up - not dropped off - >parachutes that had been shipped there for them'... And of course, we all know just how accurate & reliable are all contemporaneous newspaper accounts... naturally, the reporter actually watched those parachutes being loaded onto the plane... or ... did he just see them sitting on the ground next to the plane (as depicted in one of the Purdue photo gallery pictures) with other material that obviously was not going to be loaded on an aircraft that already had been stripped of all uneccessary items to eliminate any excess weight...? And why on earth would the editor of 'Last Flight' insert a deliberate lie about something as inconsequential as to whether they carried parachutes on the 2000+ mile, over water leg from Lae to Howland... & furthermore, why would they fly without parachutes, almost three-quarters of the way around the world (mostly over land ) where parachutes might very well have made a difference as to their survival in the event of a midair crisis & only rugged, non-cleared terrain below? Lets face it, everyone knows that 'Last Flight' was published to insure that AE's reputation & accomplishments were not to be tarnished by what happened at the termination of the round-the-world flight (and to make a few bucks for GPP's publishing firm) but to insist that _everything_ recorded in this account must be suspect & therefore not to be in any way considered as factual... even when the account is quoted directly from AE's notes... where there was no apparent motivation to tell a deliberate falsehood... is a real stretch ! Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Here's what the reporter, who was in Darwin when Earhart arrived, wrote on June 28, 1937. You tell me whether he or Last Flight is more credible. "The first thing she did after being officially welcomed was to enquire if parachutes, part of the emergency equipment for the Pacific crossing in front of her, had arrived from America. They reached here more than a week ago." And later in the article..." One of her first actions was to ask the Civil Aviation Officer (Mr. Alan Collins) whether two 'Irvin caterpillar 'chutes' had been delivered from America. fully tested and ready for immediate use, the parachutes were waiting in Mr. Collins office." As far as I know, it is not the case that the leaving of parachutes in Darwin as related in Last Flight appears in any of Earhart's own notes. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:33:36 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds I wonder if you and Randy Jacobsen can help me out on two questions: First: I received the 8th Edition you sent and was going through Randy's work "Reconstructing Earhart's Flight", last night. It appeared to me that Randy concluded (with appropriate cautions), using his Monte Carlo analysis, that "FINALLY, WHEN EARHART BELIEVED SHE WAS AT HOWLAND, THE PLANE WAS ACTUALLY SOMEWHERE ABOUT 100 TO 135 nm TO THE SW OF HOWLAND." (I didn't spot any precise bearing southwest from Howland) Since TIGHAR's maps on the website show that Gardner is to the southeast of Howland, if TIGHAR's and Randy's Monte Carlo analysis is correct and Earhart actually turned onto the LOP 157/337 at a point 100 to 135 nautical miles to the southwest of Howland (erroneously thinking she was at Howland), then don't we, in effect, have a second 157/337 LOP that runs significantly to the west of, and parallel to, the 157/337 LOP that TIGHAR's maps show running through Howland and then by Gardner? Have you or Randy plotted how far this "second" LOP is from Gardner? Second: Randy concludes that the offset to the southwest in Earhart's planned route was caused by adverse weather: "THUS IT IS THE WEATHER DURING THE MIDDLE SEGMENT OF HER FLIGHT THAT CONTRIBUTES MOST TO THE UNANTICIPATED HEADWINDS AND SOUTHERLY CROSSWINDS EARHART EXPERIENCED." In response to some postings by Alan Caldwell, I thought that TIGHAR had concluded that any suggestions that unanticipated headwinds adversely affected the flight (e.g., as suggested by Elgen Long) were unfounded. That conclusion seems to be contradicted by this statement. Is there an explanation? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let Randy respond to your LOP question. I don't recall that we ever said that there were no headwinds or that crosswinds could not have had an adverse effect on the flight. In fact, it seems clear that some headwinds and crosswinds were encountered during the flight. We did say that Elgen Long's allegations about strong headwinds being responsible for the airplane running out of fuel long before it should have were unfounded. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:04:31 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The "g" seen on Niku O.K. You've convinced me that getting to the bottom of the mystery of the 6 at the 7 Site does appear to be something that we should be spending time and money consulting experts on "atoll morphology" about. It will be especially valuable to get these expert opinions, as none of the experts will have actually been there and seen it, but instead will be relying upon your own disinterested description of this major find. Once we determine that it is human, of course, we will still have the problem of who did it. Or will we? --Chris Kennedy *********************************************************************** From Ric I would say that, if we're lucky, further study may make it possible for us to formulate a reasonable hypothesis that may even be testable. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:06:41 EST From: Merton Backlund Subject: Re: March of Time It seems to me Time-Life publications put out a series of March of Time broadcasts some time back. Also, the University of Memphis Radio Archives has some March of Time radio broacasts including a 1937 year end summary. http://www.people.memphis.edu/~mbensman/ I think a little searching on the net would probably find the show in question. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:14:17 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Parachutes The parachute question remains an intriguing one. "Last Flight" was based upon notes and letters mailed home by Amelia from various points enroute. Mary Lovell got a look at some of these original dispatches for "The Sound of Wings," so perhaps the original message from Darwin still exists as well. That would certainly settle the controversy. Purdue, maybe? As for the "g," maybe it stands for "Gallagher" since Gerald had a summer retreat or convalescent home (opinions vary) at or near the Seven Site. Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric AE's notes are at Purdue but I didn't see a reference to parachutes in Darwin. Opinions do, indeed, vary about what Gallagher was doing at the Seven Site but if he constructed the "g" as some kind of lable he picked an odd place to put it (way back in the bush, away from the lagoon) and he picked a letter that is not in the Gilbertese alphabet. To the people on the island he was " Karaka" or "Kela" or "Komitina" (pronounced "koMISna" - commissioner). A "K" would have been a better choice. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:15:42 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds The Monte Carlo analysis ends at the point when AE says "I must be on you and cannot see you", and assumes complete dead reckoning from Lae to Howland, adjusting for forecast winds. Given that, Earhart would have believed to be at/near Howland, when in fact, the wind velocity and direction was different than forecast, putting her to the SW of Howland. These wind changes were modest at best, but cumulatively, have a big effect over time. This analysis assumes that there were no celestial fixes, or other adjustments made during the flight. What was learned about this was that it was possible that AE ended up short of Howland, perhaps set to the south (southwest). We also learned that what was forecast was different than what was actually observed in terms of winds. We know information that AE did not, and she knew information that we (still) don't know. The analysis cannot be used as proof for anything, due to the large number of assumptions, but does indicate internal consistencies with AE's radio messages, navigation, and flight parameters, and possibly an indication of offset from planned tracks: nothing more. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:16:46 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City > From Mike Holt > > Someone, somewhere, has the plans to the ship. Agreed, ship's builder, ship's agent, insurer (hopefully Lloyd's of London), maybe even the family of a former captain or engineer. Any mention of NC having a sister-ship? Last resort may be a copy of Janes Merchant Ships from say 1928? I'll see what I can come up with in Florida. LTM Pete #2419 ************************************************************************* From Ric I've never seen mention of a sister-ship. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:44:14 EST From: Dean A Subject: Re: "g" I haven't followed this "g" thread much but Ric, have you or others though that this may be a marker where something was buried under it? ****************************************************************** From Ric Well, that's certainly one testable hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:46:45 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Post-lost messages In all the conversations I've seen on the frum about injuries to AE or FN I've not seen any mention that AE had nurses training and even was a pre-med student. She could have assisted FN if the head wounds were for real or she could have instructed FN on how to assist her if she were injured. Just a thought. One other question, were there their seatbelts in the Electra? Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. I assume so but I don't recall specifically seeing seat belts in the cockpit photos. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:49:31 EST From: Alexander Subject: pyramids(a quick reply) may i just say that the pyramids at giza probably werent built by aliens,but maybe the technology was...just my thoughts as i do study THAT subject myself,right back to the topic at hand--- ********************************************************* From Rix Ohhhkay.....moving right along..... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:55:58 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds Thanks. I'll look for Randy's answer to the first question. As to the winds, the Jacobsen report says "THUS, WE ACTUALLY CALCULATE MUCH OF THE TIME DURING THE MC SIMULATIONS THAT EARHART WAS EXPERIENCING 26 KNOT WINDS FROM ROUGHLY 58 DEGREES, RATHER THAN THE 18 KNOT WINDS FROM 68 DEGREES AS FORECAST." I'm not a pilot, but is this considered "strong"? How would we characterize it? In any event, I wonder how this would effect the total time aloft calculation? Long's calculation is 1.5 less than TIGHAR's "about 24 hours". I was just surprised to find any of this after our discussion concerning Long. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric The Monte Carlo simulation was not a TIGHAR project so I can't answer for the calculations Randy spoke of. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:58:33 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds Randy, thank you, but you didn't answer my question. Perhaps it's my fault. I think it's a good question. I'll ask it again. You reached a conclusion (duly qualified, I understand and so stated). I quoted that conclusion. That conclusion was fairly specific, yet your reply says the conclusion cannot be used as "proof" for anything. I did not, and am not, asking you to "prove" where Earhart was when she turned south onto the LOP. I was and am asking that if, as your analysis states, she "was" ("may have been" is fine with me) at some point between 100 to 135 nm to the southwest of Howland when she thought she was at Howland, if she used that position as her turning point onto a 157/337 LOP, wouldn't this LOP be much different than a 157/337 LOP actually running through Howland? Furthermore, wouldn't this LOP would take her significantly to the west of and parallel to a 157/337 LOP through Howland and Gardner. Correct? If so, how far? If not correct, why not? I'm sorry, but the reason I am asking is that the 8th Edition and your Monte Carlo analysis have been touted to me by others in previous answers as work of great value to the inquiry. I have been told to read both. O.K., I have now read the Monte Carlo analysis. Yet, from your reply, it's almost as if you are saying that it's an interesting little diversion, and really cannot be taken with any degree of seriousness and are distancing yourself from its conclusions (again, duly qualified). Now if that's what TIGHAR is saying, I don't think we need to be hearing anything more about it's tremendous value to the inquiry. You take the bad with the good when you do these analyses, no cherry-picking allowed. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:16:02 EST From: Tom King Subject: The "g" > A "K" > would have been a better choice. I wonder, though, whether the lack of a "G" in I Kiribati was something that was recognized and acknowledged in the language training that cadet officers got in those days. Most of the old orthographies of oceanic languages, developed by missionaries in the 19th and early 20th centuries, were pretty crude, but weren't replaced by more sophisticated spelling systems until the 1970s or so -- this is why Truk became Chuuk, Ponape became Pohnpei, Kusae became Kosrae, and so on. I'm afraid I don't have ready access to the material that you and Van copied in Tarawa, but the I Kiribati language telegrams there would doubtless tell us whether "G" was used by Kovernment officials in the '40s and '50s. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric Beg pardon. I went back and checked the correspondence. I was wrong. The letter g does occur in written Gilbertese ( such as in the place name Rongorongo and the term "kanga" for owned land) but apparently not as an initial letter. The best example is, perhaps, the word Kiribati (pronounced KIRibas) which is a transliteration of the English word Gilberts. We have at least one piece of correspondence in which Gallagher refers to himself as Komitina. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:33:58 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: parachutes > From Don Neumann > > And why on earth would the editor of 'Last Flight' insert a deliberate > lie about something as inconsequential as to whether they carried > parachutes on the 2000+ mile, over water leg from Lae to Howland... & > furthermore, why would they fly without parachutes, almost > three-quarters of the way around the world (mostly over land ) where > parachutes might very well have made a difference as to their survival > in the event of a midair crisis & only rugged, non-cleared terrain below? If the journalist was on the scene he might have checked the story. If he saw the parachutes actually loaded into the aircraft he could realistically say they collected them. If he had been hanging around the airport he may have even seen them arrive. He may not have had to rely on the photographs for his information. > And why on earth would the editor of 'Last Flight' insert a deliberate > lie ? Instead of being the journo, imagine you are the editor of Last Flight. You were not on the scene, but you see a couple of parachutes and a few aircraft parts on the ground in a photo. Hmm, looks like they may be dropping off some stuff to lighten the load.... Not a lie, but an assumption. As to the question "why would they fly over all that land without parachutes then carry them for a water crossing?" I can only imagine that, like most other aircrew, they intended landing the Electra if anything went wrong over land. Their route was planned (except for a couple of deviations that could have got them in trouble if they went down) and searchers would know where to look. Much of the overland part of the flight was completed in daylight. In day light one can crash fairly safely if necessary. One thing to consider here. It was not, and is still not common practice to carry parachutes on civil flights. In those days even military pilots and aircrew tended to stick with the plane rather than step outside unless the aircraft was breaking apart or on fire. Parachute escapes only became popular a couple of years later when holes were being shot in airplanes and if one didn't jump there was a good chance of a resultant fire turning one to steak. On the other hand, as long as the aircraft could still fly and there was no serious fire risk, many crews preferred a crash landing to jumping. Why parachutes over water then? Well almost the whole of this particular flight was to be at night. If the Electra malfunctioned badly enough to be at risk of having to set down there was very little chance of ditching inthe ocean at night and still having enough airplane to climb out of. Engine failure to the extent that the aircraft was losing altitude in the dark would be an example. In that case jumping would be the only way out. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric The newspaper article definitely gives the impression that the reporter was there and personally witnessed the events he describes, including hearing AE ask if the 'chutes had arrived from America. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:36:10 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time Since we have never been able to find the script or the broadcast of the March of Time broadcast we are unable to compare it with the time, date, and content with the alleged post loss msgs. Some radio operator in Honolulu, station sign not recalled, mistook it for the real thing. I would think it is a valuable tool in accessing post lost stuff since the phrases, situation, etc., may coincide. I know we have been down the road before, but we never got to the end . I spent a great deal of time trying to find it, but struck out. Maybe someone out there can find it. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. We should find it if we can, if only a copy of the script, to see if it resembles any of the alleged post-loss messages. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:59:41 EST From: a marsupial in the Southern Hemisphere Subject: Re: pyramids(a quick reply) What is the possibility of the "g" feature being something like a portal? "g" for gateway.. "g" for Giza.. "g" for go.... Maybe Amelia stumbled across it and in the process of turning around to face the sun - zap!! she was instantly transported to the great pyramids in a parallel universe.... It should be relatively easy to test this theory.... (Name omitted due to cowardice....) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:58:59 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Marsupial Comments Ric and the Marsupial, I think the marsupial has been heavy into the Fosters again. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:00 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: artifact 26S43 I can say with a fair degree of certainty that artifact 26S43 is NOT a part of the metal band which joins the upper and lower portions of the stock of an M1 30 cal. carbine together. That part is referred to in the schematic I viewed as the "bayonet band" and is all one piece consisting of a barrel sleeve which holds the bayonet mounting lug, and a roughly strawberry (in cross section) shaped piece which connects the upper and lower stocks around the barrel by means of a tensioning screw at the very bottom. So, there is no separate "top piece" of the barrel band to clamp to a bottom piece using the spring tension and pin indentations suggested by the artifact photo. I also closely inspected a vintage carbine from the collection of one of the owners of the gun shop where I work part time, thinking that there were several manufacturers of that particular weapon, and some of them might have slight differences. That cemented, for me anyway, that my guess was wrong. The portion of the band resembling the artifact in shape is in fact, of the wrong proportions. Artifact 26S43 has a much deeper "U channel" and is also much wider from front to back than the upper portion of the (one piece) .30 Carbine barrel band. So, swing and a miss, although it sure was fun doing some real research for you instead of my usual harangues about spelling and poor attempts at humor. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 (who think that the Detroit Lions are a poor attempt at humor, and certainly need to be harangued about something--Go Red Wings!) *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dave. That's an important possible source eliminated. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel and airspeed I've read several accounts of fuel and airspeed scedules for AE's flight. someone help me here. Supposedly AE was to keep certain power schedules and make reductions at certain times and that using this method allowed the aiespeed to slowly increase until the next power reduction. My problem with that is that I don't know how Noonan could navigate under those conditions. He had to have a constant true airspeed. It is certainlt possible to take a reading at the beginning and the end of each power schedule and rough in an average but that is not the usual way to navigate nor is it the least bit accurate. Also fuel flow doesn't go in three hour chunks. Fuel flow is a curve. I would have thought AE would need to keep a constant TAS for Noonan to have any success at navigating. That would mean a slow but continual reduction in power to maintain the required airspeed. That would also follow Johnson's schedules but in a continual manner rather than a periodical one. That should be even more efficient. Alan #2329 Anyone with thoughts on this? ************************************************************************* From Ric I said I wasn't going to get sucked back into these speculations but it seems to be a lost cause. Okay, I know when I'm beat. You're right, of course, about the need for a constant TAS for navigational purposes. Earhart said several times that she flew the airplane at 150 mph. You're also right about the inappropriateness of dividing the flight into three hour chunks, but Johnson's figures should not be taken as an optimum formula for maximum performance such as one might give to a test pilot. Johnson was trying to come up with a program that Amelia Earhart could follow. From all we've been able to learn about the predicted performance, it was very conservative. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:31 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds > We also > learned that what was forecast was different than what was actually > observed in terms of winds. We know information that AE did not, and > she knew information that we (still) don't know You're correct, Randy. Here is what Earhart received BEFORE take off: "....rain squalls 250 miles E of Lae, wind ESE 12 -15. Ontario to 175 degrees, partly cloudy cumulus clouds about 10K feet, mostly unlimited, winds ENE 18. Thence to Howland partly cloudy, scattered heavy showers, winds ENE 15." This was on June 30th. On July 1st she received the following: Describing the conditions at Howland and the Itasca, winds at 3000' East at 23 Knots and at 5650' East at 22 knots. As the plane took off the following report was received but unknown whether AE received it. " .........rain squalls about 300 miles east of Lae....." "winds east south east about 25 knots to Ontario then east north east about 20 knots to Howland. At her 5:18 report supposedly at 4.33 S and 159.7 E at 8,000' she reported her winds at 23 knots. Winds at altitude for her arrival were estimated at about 10 knots out of the east. What this tells us is they had fairly accurate winds and if anything they were less than forecast for the final part of her flight. That means if Noonan did not have ANY celestial for the whole flight and DRd all the way he would have OVER FLOWN not under flown. There is evidence for what it is worth they knew roughly, at least, when and where they passed the Ontario and/or Nauru. They reported a 23 knot wind at 5:18 and without knowing where they were at two distinct points they could not have known that. Then if the report of an airplane flying over Tabiteuea during the night was AE's plane then she was pretty much on course although there is no way we can know if they could see the islands or identify them at night. From there on there can only be speculation. Noonan got an LOP which means he HAD to have been able to shoot the sun or moon a minimum of twice. That information would have given him a longitude and a ground speed. It would have been accurate to the degree his shots were accurate. That should have been no more off than 10 miles or so as to his east/west position. Where he was north/south is anyone's guess because we don't know whether he got a star fix before dawn or how much the wind DIRECTION varied from what he thought it was. If they had flares or there was significant debris on the water he could have obtained drift and a fairly accurate wind. We also don't know whether he was navigating to where Howland actually was or where it erroneously was plotted. Given the weather at Howland they had little or no chance of seeing the island from above the low scattered CU deck and not much better chance below it at 1,000 feet. They needed the DF steer. How close could they have been? Just out of earshot or closer if there was a lot of ship and equipment noise. How close could they have been at 1,000' and not seen the island or been seen under perfect conditions? The horizon, I think, is 3 miles away at sea level. I know someone has figured this before. What is the point of this? The point is I know of no evidence to put them a long way off from Howland. Could they have been? Sure, but there is nothing to support them being a long way off or within a few miles for that matter. I don't know where they were and neither does anyone else. We can speculate them being a few miles off or a hundred miles off. No evidence supports or eliminates either one. If I were to guess I would put my money on FN's expertise. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:42 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds IF, and that was one of my assumptions, was that if Earhart was expecting 18 knot winds, she would expect to arrive earlier than if the winds were actually 26 knots. That's the easy part, again assuming pure dead reckoning and no navigational fixes. Now, if she expected winds from 68*, and accounted for that in her flight direction, then a wind slightly to her left would force her to her right, again unknowingly. That is why the MC simulations predict her flight to have ended short and to the SW of Howland. Again, let me re-iterate: the basic assumption was that all AE had at her disposal was the forecast winds and no navigational help, this is what would result. Strong is relative. An 8 kt increase in wind speed over an expected 18 knots is a large (i.e. strong) increase, nearly 50%. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:03:05 EST From: Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds Jeez... Is Chris more impressed with himself that he is a skeptic, an attorney, or that he was able to pony up enough to secure a spot on the expedition? Yes, an extremely cynical and sarcastic question, but I think as the postings since the expedition have shown, perhaps a valid one... ************************************************************************* From Ric Just to clarify a point.....Chris was a Sponsor/Team Member on the 1999 expedition but all of the Niku IIII team was selected purely on merit. Chris distinguished himself in the field on both expeditions. Nobody worked harder. It may seem odd that TIGHARs who have been so close and so committed to the work can be such skeptics and argue so vehemently with me and with each other - but that is our strength, not our weakness. Chris, or Tom, or Kenton, or Randy, or any of the other expedition veterans and senior researchers may publicly question my assertions or my sanity - and I will give as good as I get - but it's never personal. "For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition;" (Henry V, act IV, scene III) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:03:25 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds OK, Chris, I understand your concern. Yes, if they turned on the LOP at the time she said "I must be on you and cannot see you", they would be approx. 100 miles short of the LOP passing through Howland. But didn't Noonan actually take a measurement for the LOP? We all assume so, but in fact, it wasn't required. It could have been pre-calculated, and that was the conservative assumption I used (no navigational fixes). If Noonan had indeed done any sort of fix, he would have been able to reduce that offset substantially, putting the LOP closer to Howland. Did he? I don't know and nobody else knows. If AE did go up and down the LOP for another 1.5 hours without adjusting for the wind, they would have been set to the west by at least 10 miles, further adding to the navigational errors. If she decided to fly in circles or boxes without letting Noonan know, then he would have lost all track of navigation, and had to rely solely upon a solar fix to get a new LOP offset, not at dawn. That's a very tricky calculation, one that could be done, but it is hard and is fraught with larger errors than that taken right at dawn. Personally, what I think happened is that they were short, and decided to fly to the middle of the Phoenix Islands. Not knowing they were short, they veered off the LOP for the middle of the islands, and starting to the west from where they thought they were, they ended up at Gardner. I've no proof of this, just speculation and a gut feeling. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:03:37 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin Would it be possible that both parachute stories are half right? Try this scenario: The "Irvin Caterpillar" chutes were replacements for the ones that AE and FN had been carrying up to until Darwin. The "old" chutes were put with the stuff to leave behind, a witness to this (whose recollection was later used to flesh out "Last Flight") recalled AE saying, when asked about them "We're going to leave those behind, they don't work well over water anyway." [Or something to that effect]. What the witness missed, was what the reporter picked up on: new "Irvin Caterpillar" chutes had arrived from the States for the last two legs of the flight. What the reporter missed, of course, is that they were replacements for another type of parachute. I don't know much about parachutes, but it seems to me the old WWII military types required you to "tuck and roll" when you hit the ground to avoid breaking something critical. (Small canopy, fast decent?}. You can't "tuck and Roll" on the ocean, maybe these "Irvin Caterpillars" had a bigger, and/or more controllable canopy for a slower decent more suitable for over water. Just a thought. LTM Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:03:52 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City Re. plans and specs for Norwich City -- I don't think they'd be much help. What I'm thinking of is being able to look around at the small stuff -- the fittings and such -- to see whether anything helps us make sense out of some of the esoteric artifacts from the Seven Site. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:08:50 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: hoaxes and the "g" Regarding Wells' radio play, actually there was a very popular music program being broadcast on another frequency and it didn't end until after the radio play had already begun. Unfortunately, when folks changed stations and tuned in expecting to hear that old favorite, the Murcury Theater, what they got instead was live coverage of the invasion from Mars. Refresh my memory - how large is the "6" / "g"? Any chance that there are other letters/numbers nearby? Maybe some of each, off to the left? How about "N R 1" ? Seems possible that AE could have tried to write her N number - that would be a sure fire way of getting attention from an aerial search - providing it's large enough... and providing some more airplanes came back ... ltm jon ************************************************************************ From Ric It's about a meter tall and almost a meter wide - not huge, but very visible against the gray background. We didn't search the dense scaevola surrounding the clearing where the figure appears but old photos show that it was once much more open than it is today. The possibility that this is just one of a series of figures is another testable hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:12:28 EST From: Denise Subject: Coral Gs Ric says: >I am at a loss to imagine a natural process that could result in such a >feature. It looks to me like somebody at some time went around and collected >up a whole bunch of white coral pieces and then laid them out on the ground >in a specific pattern. Ric, is it possible you are reading too much into this? As a kid, bored, with nothing else to hand, while in the shade on little deserted coral islands - while the adults were out scuba diving, or reef fishing, or trying to fix engines on the beach - I used to spend whole days doing exactly things like this - making pictures out of whatever bits were different on the island. I would think it hilarious if I found people had discovered my odd little patterns someplace and actually were spending serious time trying to analyse their meaning. (If one of mine looked like a g - it probably was meant to be a cat!) So put me down as choosing that interpretation of the coral formation: just a little bored kid who "went around and collected up a whole bunch of white coral pieces and then laid them out on the ground in a specific pattern" that was actually a pitiful attempt to outline the shape of her pet parrot! LTM (who encouraged her offspring to stay in the shade) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting hypothesis. How do we test it? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:16:16 EST From: Denise Subject: Different Alphabets Ric says: >g does occur in written Gilbertese (such as in the place name >Rongorongo and the term "kanga" for owned land") Ah ha! No! Not so, Ric. You were right the first time. There is no "g" in I Kiribati. What they have instead is an "ng" as in the word "finger" - the g does not exist as a seperate entity. In most parts of the Pacific where this occurs, the "ng" is replaced by the letter "q" - to avoid confusion - so I find it odd that this hasn't also been done in the Gilberts. Think of it being like the spelling of Nadi in Fiji, which is pronounced, as we all know, Nandi. Since the letter d in Fijian is never pronounced without the preceding n, there is no need to print the preceding n since it is implied. Great system which saved the missionaries heaps of time and effort when printing up their local translations of the Bible, and had the wonderful side-effect of becoming a shibboleth - something to exclude outsiders - and that's something never to be sneered at! LTM (who never sneered at shibboleths) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:17:26 EST From: Alan Bridgeman Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time I was able to get some old recordings from the National Archives. There's a pretty decent library of that stuff there. Worth a try. Alan Bridgeman [#2486] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 18:55:00 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin parachutes and their cords would be very useful in a survival mode. You could make rudimentary shelter, tools, signaling devices, etc. Again, I am surprised that, if both AE/FN were on Gardner and were both ambulatory, no obvious signs such as signaling devices were there. Things such as parachutes and other equipment could be used--unless, of course, one or both of them were unable to move about. *************************************************************** From Ric Well...we don't know whether they took the 'chutes with them or, if they did, whether they got them out of the plane under whatever circumstances they were dealing with, and we don't know that the "markers of some kind" that Lambrecht supposedly saw weren't parachutes. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:28:11 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: The "6" seen on Niku About the "6" at the "7" site, I really wouldn't worry unless you find some sort of 5 or 8 around. Or any palm tree "W"s. This pyramid-free waste of time was brought to you today by the letters N and R and the numbers 1, 6, 0, and 2. (Obscure Sesame Street reference) I'd like to point out two things: 1) that NR16020 is a nicely specific message to spell out in coral; 2) and that "6" is smack in the middle of the sequence so start there for ease of spacing and maximum legibility (after all, AE was of the typewriter generation) But you've probably already thought of these things... Amanda, #2418 who will go back to sitting in the corner now ************************************************************************** From Ric Good thoughts. I even get the palm tree W reference. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 08:29:08 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin Th' WOMBAT's parachute response, as to the contention that there was _no_ need for parachutes until their overnight 'hop' from Lae to Howland, just doesn't comport with the many descriptions of the hostile mountainous & jungle areas submitted by AE in numerous reports to the newspaper (especially throughout the subcontinent & the Dutch Indies)... unless of course AE made it all up... just to increase the interest in her articles. Frankly, I can't think of any valid reason (short of an aircraft on fire in midair) that would lead anyone to attempt to parachute into the middle of the Pacific Ocean, at night, without a raft (still in the plane?)... if there were _any_ possiblility of ditching the aircraft, in spite of the inherent danger involved in any mid-ocean ditching... especially for two people with no previous experience at parachuting from plane. I really don't know (apparently no one else does either) what the reporter in Darwin actually saw or heard (or from whom he heard) himself, personally... which very well might have been 2nd hand information from another source... but (to me anyway) travelling that far _without_ parachutes & then being overly concerned about _not_ having said parachutes, for the leg of the flight over the vastness of the open Pacific Ocean, where parachuting would be far more dangerous for inexperienced parachutists & would only serve to separate the parachutists from their plane & whatever survival gear they did or did not have on board... makes no sense at all. Don Neumann ********************************************************************** From Ric This situation presents, I think, an interesting example of the kind of quandry that often confronts an historical investigator. Two sources disagree about what happened. If we give weight to one over the other do we choose the one that fits best with our perception of what should have happened or do we choose the source that is more contemporaneous with the event in question? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:00:07 EST From: Steve Subject: Coral "g" Someone suggested several days ago the possibility of the "g" having something buried underneath. Although not specifically stated in that posting, but perhaps implied, I would add one further comment along that line...that being the possibility that the "g" was left to mark a "grave." I assume this theory (grave site marked with a letter "g") has been considered and/or discussed previously? As you (Ric) mentioned, this is a testable hypothesis. ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, "g" could stand for "grave." If I wanted to argue against that I would ask what the purpose of such a marking might be? Why not a cross or the person's name or initials? Here's one possible explanation. Let's say I'm a castaway and that I have just buried my companion. I'm still hoping that I'll be rescued and, if that happens, I'll want to be able to relocate the grave so that the remains can be recovered or at least properly marked with a headstone. In that context, the "g" is basically a note to myself rather than a message to someone else. Just to throw a little avgas on this particular bonfire - one of the artifacts we recovered from the Seven Site appears to the wire handle of a small metal cup. The nature of the break where the handle has broken away from the (supposed) cup indicates that the top edge failed in tension while the bottom edge failed in compression - as if someone had been using the cup to dig with. I know that it's frustrating to not be able see these things yet. Yesterday we finished assigning numbers and databasing precise recovery locations for the 60 artifacts and the several hundred animal bones collected during Niku IIII. Today we'll start photographing the most interesting and puzzling artifacts under studio conditions. We'll get 'em up on the website as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:01:25 EST From: Ed Croft Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time To Ron Bright, There is a Ronald Staley with a web site www.quikscrybe.com, who has a copy of the broadcast. He has plans (no timeframe) to copy it to a CD for sale. I spoke with him tonight. He remembers talking to a Tighar member a while back who was a Professor from the midwest. He seems nice and sincere. Good luck, Ed Croft ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:06:28 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: The "6" seen on Niku > 1) that NR16020 is a nicely specific message to spell out in coral; > 2) and that "6" is smack in the middle of the sequence so start there > for ease of spacing and maximum legibility (after all, AE was of the > typewriter generation) Apologies if I'm missing an intended irony here, but wouldn't E-A-R-H-A-R-T take less effort in demanding conditions and be recognized by millions more? LTM (who irony meter sometimes malfunctions) Phil 2276 ************************************************************************* From Ric Or how about H-E-L-P? No, although this thing can be seen from the air (because the white coral stands out so starkly against the gray coral) it seems too small and too far back in the bush to be intended as a signal to airplanes. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:08:19 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin > From Ric > > ... do we > choose the one that fits best with our perception of what should have > happened or do we choose the source that is more contemporaneous with the > event in question? In this case, the problem is that we don't have the raw materials to look at that went into the book. The assertion in the book was published later than the newspaper account, but there is at least the theoretical possibility that the author of the book may have had his hands on a source that was "more contemporaneous with the event in question." In any event, I think the whole parachute question is a red herring until parachute pieces turn up on Niku. THEN one would have to choose the account that matches the evidence. I don't see how ASSUMING that chutes were on board would change the method of searching Niku. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:21:25 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: The 'g' someone mentioned it maybe being a marker of some kind,what if the G means GRAVE,just a thought...did you explore around the area where this letter appeared ************************************************************************* From Ric Yes and no. The feature is in a fairly small "island" of bare coral rubble - an area perhaps equal to a typical suburban front yard (garden). The "island" is surrounded by dense scaevola. Not far away is another larger "island" of coral rubble. The open areas of coral rubble are easy to inspect and we saw no similar features in them. We (particularly Jim Morrissey) did some exploring around in the dense scaevola but came across nothing similar to the feature. Investigating the feature was not a high priority or even a medium priority. It was a curiosity. The excavations at the Seven Site were our primary focus and, I beleive, rightly so. Nonetheless, the feature is fascinating. It may be of no consequence at all or it could be a major key to the puzzle. That's what makes it so much fun to puzzle over. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:23:26 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: pyramids(a quick reply) oh no...what have i started here...hmmm? *************************************************************** From Ric Fear not. The hounds have been herded back into the kennel. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:25:53 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time > From Ed Croft > Ronald Staley ... remembers talking to a Tighar member a while back who was a > Professor from the midwest. That's me, I think. I spoke with him last year. I am a Religious Studies Professor in Buffalo, New York. In the nineteenth century, when the Erie Canal was completed, we were on the edge of the Western frontier.;o) Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:32:09 EST From: Bill Moffett Subject: Parachutes in Darwin Kerry Tiller's posting in yesterday's forum, jogged my memory. In "for what it's worth", my USAAF "Pilots Information File", revised March 1, 1944, has the following in the section on parachutes: "...Check the date of the last inspection. The packing interval should not exceed 60 days in the United States or 30 days in the tropics." While I conclude we have no specifics on what AE actually did on the subject of 'chutes, the Darwin reporter's reference to Irvin chutes arriving there looks to me like the result of pre-planning. If so, the chutes they had carried from the US had "expired" and Irvin, a 'chute manufacturer, sent replacements. The new ones could have been loaded and the old ones appear in the photo which purports to show gear left in Darwin. Makes sense to me! LTM Bill Moffet #2156CE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:32:58 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin The great parachute controversy is like the philosophical question of "how many angels can dance on the top of a pin?" Whether she had them or not seems to me irrelevant and impossible to resolve as you suggest. One guys says this, the other guy says that. (But I do find it hard to beleive that AE would depend on the international mail delivery system to get the parachutes and survival equipment to Darwin in time for her takeoff with her tight time shedule.) Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:33:34 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time For Ed Croft, Do you have a telephone number for Staley? Sounds like he will hold on to the broadcast and sell the CD. Is it a money thing. Does he have a transcript, which is what Tighar needs. I'd be happy to call him. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:34:26 EST From: Bob Krebs Subject: Re: The "6" seen on Niku We're all dating ourselves here....what a mad, mad, mad, mad world - huh? :-) They were looking for buried treasure as well and look what happened to them. Synchronicity or what? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:41:42 EST From: Jim Raz Subject: Re: parachutes in Darwin <> I would say what would have logically happened given the fact that they eschewed parachutes up until then. Parachuting into the ocean is a pretty sure way of drowning what with getting out of the harness and the chute itself dragging you down into the depths, et al. as I'm sure AE and all other pilots knew and know. <> I would go with a "yes" to the first "choice" question as, in this case, it seems as if the second choice has been considerably weakened by the initial quote. ___Jim Raz **************************************************************************** From Ric I have to disagree with you. As a matter of principle, I think that the historical investigator has to give the most weight to the most contemporaneous primary source, no matter what our perceptions may be about what "makes the most sense." None of us were there and there is no way we can claim to fully understand the context in which these events happened. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:43:05 EST From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: Three point vs wheel landings Incidental to your most informative letter,I was reminded of a bit of L-10 history related in the Time Life volume "The Epic of Flight-Designers and Test Pilots",P.51. During the L-10 development program, a young Lockheed aeronautical engineer named "Kelly" Johnson realized that model tunnel tests had revealed a serious flaw in the design:the single (!) rudder control would not provide sufficient control for the one engine out flight condition.He proposed,redesigned, and successfully tunnel tested the familiar twin vertical fin configuration which was immediately adopted by Lockheed. I particularly enjoyed learning more about the author of the oft quoted and much used fuel management telegrams that he sent to AE in 1937. Someday I'll get to read his bio. harvey schor #2387 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:23:18 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time > From Ron Bright > > Re: March of Time AE broadcast > > Do you have a telephone number for Staley? Sounds like he will hold on to the > broadcast and sell the CD. Is it a money thing. Does he have a transcript, > which is what Tighar needs. I'd be happy to call him. Ronald Staley http://www.quikscrybe.com/catalog.html Quikscrybe 5632 Van Nuys Blvd. Suite #10 Van Nuys, CA 91401 (888) 820-7845 E-Mail: quikscrybe@earthlink.net Tape 020. The March of Time; 7 8 37; "Features Story on Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." 7 15 37; "Second Story on Earhart Disappearance." Reprint of my report on our phone call last year. Note the connection to Goerner. Staley may be disinterested in TIGHAR because he buys Goerner's view. ============= REPRINT ======================== I had a long and fascinating conversation with Ron Staley this evening. He was a founding father of the UCLA Radio Archives and worked to preserve Jack Benny's programs. His copy of the March of Time shows was not adequate for reproduction, so he has removed it from his catalogue. He has a friend who has discs from which he may be able to make a fresh copy, but he can't guarantee when he might be able to do so. Tune in Tomorrow by Mary Jane Higley tells how the March of Time was produced. Orson Welles got his start on the show, sometimes imitating babies. The newsreel version of March of Time was based on authentic footage and voices, but the radio program was a docudrama with musical cues to indicate who was speaking. Ron seems to have had a lifelong interest in aviation--he showed quite a command of details of famous events in aviation history, including the flight of Charles Nungesser and Francois Coli in the White Bird. Ron knew Fred Goerner and is still in touch with his widow; he also knew "Wrong-Way" Corrigan. Goerner's taped radio interviews have been sold by Mrs. Goerner to a collector. Ron's wife, Sue, just did a piece on Northwest Orient's loss of a troop plane in Alaska during World War II. Parts of the plane have been found and the area has been set aside as a permanent memorial to the servicemen. When he was producing a magazine about classic radio, Ron did an excerpt from the March of Time on the Earhart search. The dramatization of the search on the show caused many people to think that they were hearing the actual broadcasts from KHAQQ and the search vessels. He may be able to send me a copy of those excerpts, which should help to test whether Betty was just listening to the March of Time broadcast or whether she heard something quite different from the dramatization. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:25:12 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Three point vs wheel landings The latest Air Comics has rather an extensive article (part one of two) on the L-10. I haven't read it yet, but I picked up a copy today. (I think part two will revolve around the L-12). ltm jon ************************************************************************ From Ric Probably a rework of the piece O'Leary did recently for Aeroplane Monthly. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:29:45 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time To Marty M. Sounds like you have the investigation under control with Mr. March of Time, Ronald Staley. No sense both of us calling him. Anxiously awaiting that transcript. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:32:09 EST From: Ted Ostrowski Subject: The "g" Upon reading all possibilities about the letter g in the forum, I thought at least it's time to put in my own two cents worth. Could the British or Coast Guard have set it up for aircraft to visually know which particular Phoenix island they are flying over? (G for Gardener). Or is the letter too small for that purpose? Ted ************************************************************************ From Ric In my opinion, way too small and in a totally obscure spot. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:06:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds Randy, I can see why Ric is tired of LOP posts and I have to agree. We need to never post about the LOP again. Too few have the slightest idea what it is and consequently post really curious theories. Some think the LOP can move or could be in several or many different places. Not so, of course. Once and for all. Anyone can make that LOP for themselves exactly as Noonan did. No knowledge of celestial, sun shots, moon shots, tides, airplanes, oceans, etc is needed. Just lay a map of the area down on the table. Take a straight edge and ease it up to the little dot that says Howland. Aim the straight edge at an angle of 157 degrees. Draw a line. THAT'S THE LOP!!!!! It doesn't make any difference whether Noonan drew it before flight or at anytime during flight. It doesn't make any difference whether he shot the moon or the sun or the starboard wing tip to get his information. The drawing of the LOP has nothing to do with anything other than the mechanical exercise I just outlined. He could have done it in broad daylight or at midnight. It made no difference where he was at the time. He could have been in a bar in Lae, in a right turn over Truk, 200 miles north or south or east or west of Howland or Altoona, PA. It's just a bloody line on paper. It doesn't move. It is ONLY in the position I described. Not short of Howland or any place else. Noonan's sun shots or moon shots or DR or what ever he did was only to get a position and a ground speed. NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with the LOP. The angle of the LOP DOES tell us how he arrived at 157 degrees. As you pointed out, Randy, he might have preplanned it. He planned on taking off at 0000Z with a flight time of 18 hours. At 1800Z the sun at Howland would have been close to 67 degrees.(90 degrees to 157) The sun shot should have had an accuracy of plus or minus 2 degrees. OR he could have taken a moon shot at 4:50. The moon was at 67 degrees at that time. He could also have taken a sun shot approaching Howland as there were several times the sun was near 67 degrees. Keep in mind now all that was for was to determine the ANGLE of the LOP line NOT WHERE TO PUT IT. No matter what the angle was going to be it was still going to be drawn right through Howland. NO WHERE ELSE. What was it for? Well, what it was for was to turn on to find Howland. Run up and down it and he should have found Howland. He needed to find his position east/west on the way into Howland. Once he determined that he measured the distance to his LOP and using the ground speed he had computed he timed into his LOP. It didn't make any difference where he was north or south. The position he found was also on a line running in the same direction so the distance and thus the time between any two points on parallel lines is the same. Now what's the hooker on this? Three problems. 1. If he had Howland plotted erroneously he would never find it. 2. If he was unable to establish a position east/west on the inbound leg he could not get an accurate time/distance to his LOP at Howland. 3. Maybe all worked perfectly and they just couldn't spot the island. If anyone has any questions about this email me privately at acaldwell@aol.com otherwise we'll be responsible for making a grown man (Ric) cry. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:07:40 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time From Ron Bright > Sounds like you have the investigation under control with Mr. March of > Time, Ronald Staley. This is not the case. After our long, fascinating conversation last year, I mailed Mr. Staley a TIGHAR description of Niku IIII and asked him to let me know the cost of the CD. I never heard back from him. I've sent him e-mail. I called and left a message last week. No response. > No sense both of us calling him. Someone else from the group has contacted him and reported back here that he remembered talking with me. They may be making more progress than I did. If you think you can persuade him to part with the material, go for it! > Anxiously awaiting that transcript. Yes. But from his description of the show, it does not match the kind of material in Betty's notebook. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:09:03 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin would it be at all possible to FIND OUT if IRVINS kept records and if they archived them,that way it may be possible to find out...just a thought(i have loads of em,thoughts)--- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:11:31 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: AE's house in CA Would you happen to have AE's address when she lived in Calif? I think it was Santa Monica. I saw it in a book at Barnes & Nobles and can't remember what book. (senior moment) I would like to look the place up, take some pictures & introduce myself to the current occupants. Thought it might be fun to do. Who knows, maybe there's something in the attic! Thanks, Ric. Mike Haddock #2438 ********************************************************************** From Ric I think some of your fellow forum subscribers can help you with that. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:09:22 EST From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: AE's house in CA AE's house is in Toluca Lake which is a suburb of Burbank. If memory serves, the house sits on a golf course and is dated but nice. I seriously doubt there is anything of value/use there. It's unclear from the outside whether the house even has an attic. If it does, given AE's popularity, its certainly been searched. My guess is, the current owners don't want to be bothered. ************************************************************************ From Ric Yeah, all that's left is a suitcase in a closet. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:25:53 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds > From Alan Caldwell > Randy, I can see why Ric is tired of LOP posts and I have to agree. We need > to never post about the LOP again. Do you plan to ban newbies from the forum? Do you want to close TIGHAR membership to those who understand celestial navigation? Do you want to limit funding of future expedition to those who accept whatever Ric says without question? If this is an educational venture, then the educators have to be willing to teach. If there is already a definitive presentation of what a LOP is and how it is on the web site, then the proper response to future newbies is "please read the page at [insert URL]." Simply telling new people with fresh enthusiasm and untapped funds that their questions are stupid and that such nonsense will not be tolerated on the Forum seems to me to be inconsistent with TIGHAR's goals. I teach for a living. I know how hard it is to go over the same material. In today's class, I plan to teach the book of Job. It's something I've done more than 40 times in my career here. It's part of my job to repeat myself, during each semester and from one semester to the next. Same goes for the Forum, I think. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric You make a good point. The forum is primarily a research tool. The website is an educational tool. If we fail to provide adequate educational resources on the website we're condemned to endlessly replough old ground on the Forum or risk alienating the very people we want to welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:38:32 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds Well, since again this pertains to the Howland approach phase, and we know how tough Ric is, so let me add one thing to Alan's previous post by way of clarification. Ric has the delete key right in front of him, and won't get any argument from me for using it. When we speak of an LOP thu Howland, we are actually talking about an "advanced" LOP, not a true LOP derived directly from a sight. There is a very important difference. The true LOP (the line upon which the aircraft was located at the time of the associated sight) would have been located somewhere "about 100 miles out" in the case of a sun shot, or considerably further out in the case of a moon shot. FN then had to bridge the gap between it and a parallel line thru Howland (the "advanced LOP" that we refer to as "the LOP") with a DR estimate of when to make the turn. That DR estimate would have been subject to all the unknown or incorrectly estimated forces on the aircraft, and the further out, the more error is likely to have crept in. It really appears to me that no confirming sight was taken and new LOP was drawn after they believed they arrived at the Howland area, since the azimuth of the sun after their estimated arrival time (about 1912), would not have been associated with a 157-337 LOP. For example, had FN taken a sun shot near Howland at say, 1940 GMT, AE would have been more correctly searching along a 155-335 line, and as time goes on the computed azimuth would have continued to move counter clockwise. The 2013 report of searching the 157-337 line indicates to me that no confirmation (sight) was made that they had actually reached the location of the advanced LOP, and they we relying on a sight at least an hour old - maybe much more - for positioning. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric It's my understanding that once the initial LOP has been established and advanced by dead reckoning (DR) to fall through the desired destination, repeated sightings known as "speed lines" can be taken to confirm the ground speed used in the DR calculation. If that is correct, Noonan should have been able to confirm his ground speed (but not his wind drift) until they descended below the cloud tops. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:40:12 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds I agree wholeheartedly, but the LOP info does give us a small clue as to what could or could not be possible. (1) The LOP of 157/337 was valid only for a couple of hours that morning, IF Noonan actually made a measurement. (2) Shooting the LOP offers the advantage of being able to determine the offset from where you think you are, relative to a east/west longitude line (this is approximate only...really only pertains to the orthogonal line to 157/337). This offset is done by comparing the time you observe the sunrise to that calculated for your estimated latitude/longitude. (3) One only has to observe the time the sun upper, middle, or lower limb breaks the horizon. No need to observe angles. This is a very easy measurement to make. You can also infer to a limited degree where Noonan was to have observed the sunshot, based upon the information gleaned from the radio transmissions. I've done that, and it still is consistent with all available evidence. The irony of the LOP and sunshots is that it will consistently give you an east/west offset to your estimated position, regardless of when it is taken. If after sunrise, the navigator has to carefully observe the angle above the horizon of the sun and compare to tables. If Noonan was really navigating, and AE was paying attention, they should have been on the line through Howland, no ifs, ands or buts (with the exclusion of complete overcast skies. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:09:04 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds I am a newbie & I think you do a great job of being the "foreperson" of this forum. In addition, I happen to think you're a pretty nice guy! Keep up the good work! Mike Haddock #2438 *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Mike. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:12:28 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds >From Ric >It's my understanding that once the initial LOP has been established and >advanced by dead reckoning (DR) to fall through the desired destination, >repeated sightings known as "speed lines" can be taken to confirm the ground >speed used in the DR calculation. If that is correct, Noonan should have >been able to confirm his ground speed (but not his wind drift) until they >descended below the cloud tops. Speed lines are simply a succession of LOP's from sights of a celestial body or bodies close to dead ahead (thus producing LOP's perpendicular or nearly so to the course). Normally, the azimuth of the LOP would be slightly different each time. In FN's case, he would have needed sufficient spacing to resolve his airspeed accurately, and his instrument (octant) accuracy was on the order of 10 to 15 miles. To get a good idea of speed in between his speed lines, they would have had to have been separated by more distance than he had to work with. For example, if he flew 30 minutes from his "100 miles out" point, and from a new sight and LOP speed line got what he thought was a distance run of 50 NM, his possible 15 mile error would have rendered the estimated speed nearly useless. The possible range of his airspeed would be between 70 and 130 KT, (50+15)/.5 = 130KT or (50-15)/.5 = 70KT. I don't think he had the time to let his distance run get large enough so that his error in estimating airspeed would have been small enough to be useful. TOM MM *************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell (after quoting my same statement about speed lines) That's correct, Ric. As to drift Noonan would have had difficulty in determining his drift unless he had flares to drop or found something adrift to sight on. As to Tom's comments he is correct about the difference in the LOPs except where he says, "When we speak of an LOP thu Howland, we are actually talking about an "advanced" LOP, not a true LOP derived directly from a sight." This certainly could be true that the infamous LOP was an advanced LOP but as Randy pointed out it also could have been a precomp LOP. This would have been an LOP computed prior to flight or possibly early in flight on the presumption they would arrive Howland at a certain time. And to Marty, I reread my posting and found no such suggestions as you suggest. And I thought my clarification WAS "a definitive presentation on the LOP question. Sadly I failed in making it clear. If I can do so the offer to email me privately is still open. I think it is an important point to understand. Not that it will move the ball forward but that it will clear up a lot of misconceptions that lead to confusing theories. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, we seem to have a disagreement about whether Noonan could have gotten useful information by shooting speed lines. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:21:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds Randy Jacobson wrote: > . If Noonan > was really navigating, and AE was paying attention, they should have > been on the line through Howland, no ifs, ands or buts (with the > exclusion of complete overcast skies. Randy, I think that sums it up in a nutshell. You have a good understanding of how to compute celestial it is obvious. We also need to keep in mind their LOP might have been drawn through the erroneous position of Howland not that it is all that significant. They didn't see Howland but I think they were fairly close. It would not matter then if they didn't see it because they were 5 miles off or that they didn't see it because of bothersome cumulus shadows. I think the real significance of all this discussion is to see that it was not only possible they were far off their destination but that it was also possible they were almost dead on target. Here is another thought I have not seen discussed (as Ric cringes). Put yourself in their place for a few minutes. Some have suggested the weather might have prevented FN from getting any celestial at all and that he had to rely solely on DR. Well, that's certainly possible. So if that was the case what would you have done? (not that they did this) Wouldn't you have made sure you were close enough to Nauru to take a fix? Then as you approached the Gilberts wouldn't you have descended to where you could see an island and take another fix? Or would you have just flown blindly along not knowing where you were? Don't you think they HAD TO HAVE A FIX of some kind. Tabiteau in the Gilberts was about 610 miles from Howland. There was supposedly a report of a plane flying over during the night. That's the only reason I arbitrarily picked Tabiteau. Any island would do. I just can't think of a rationale of flying blind through out the last half of the flight and still expecting to spot a tiny island. Ric, I know you believe FN was counting on DF but they had reason to doubt it would work. With just a little doubt FN has to use everything at his command as back up, don't you think? Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric I know of no reason to presume that Noonan was not able to get celestial observations during the night. It seems to me that descending enroute to get visual checkpoints would involve an unconscionable expenditure of fuel in climbing back up to an efficient altitude. Diverting to get within visual range of Nauru doesn't make any sense to me, nor does it make sense to me to try to identify a specific atoll in the Gilberts in the middle of the night. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:28:30 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: LOP discussions Marty Moleski said: "I teach for a living. I know how hard it is to go over the same material. In today's class, I plan to teach the book of Job. It's something I've done more than 40 times in my career here. It's part of my job to repeat myself, during each semester and from one semester to the next. Same goes for the Forum, I think." Marty makes an excellent point. Teaching is about repetition and investigation. I don't want to think how much time I spent in my lean years learning the multiplication tables; in fact, the times-eights and times-nines still confuse me. For eight years I was privileged to have been a docent at the National Air and Space Museum's restoration and preservation facility in Silver Hill, Maryland. Every second Saturday at 1 p.m. I began a 3-hour walking tour of the treasures at Silver Hill, and like Marty, part of the job was to repeat myself, but at no time in those eight years was the tour exactly the same from week to week. There were always new questions to keep me on my toes, sometimes there were new exhibits, or new aircraft, or detours etc. I always believed that my job was to teach the people I took around the facility a little bit about the history of aviation. Their comments and questions prompted me to hit the books and learn more, which made me a better teacher. Subscribers to the Earhart Forum really do get their money's worth. Where else can one learn about celestial navigation, Micronesian cultural practices, aircraft construction techniques, metallurgical and photographic analysis, the life cycle of REALLY big crabs, tides, atoll erosion, and a host of other topics all for free? As we say in Minnesota, "Hey what a heck of a deal!" LTM, an unrepentant aviator Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric If we had a big educational grant to run the forum that would be great, but we don't. The forum exists to: 1. Move the Earhart investigation forward through volunteer research and knowledgable peer review. 2. Promote membership and financial contributions to TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:36:26 EST From: Marjorie Smith Subject: Re: Blasted channel > From Ric > > The channel seems to have been blasted around the time of the evacuation of > the colony in 1963, but - oddly - we've never come across any record of who > did it or exactly when it was done. Me, again, still trying to fit this into my understanding of the situation. Is this the same channel through which one hypothesis has the remains of the airplane as well as parts of the Norwich City being swept into the lagoon? So would this movement have happened before or after the blasting of the channel? And wouldn't the blasters have noticed bits of planes and ships if they were already stuck in the channel (of course, if we don't know who they are, we can hardly ask them). Could this blasted channel have been the result (perhaps accidental) of someone trying to dynamite the lagoon to kill fish -- an unfortunate fishing technique we used to hear about occasionally in Micronesia in the '60s. Marjorie (who promises to join so she can put one of those cool numbers after her name as soon as she redevelops an income stream, as my banker calls it) *************************************************************************** From Ric Different channel. There are two natural inlets from the ocean to the lagoon - Tatiman Passage at the west end of the atoll, and the much smaller Bauareke Passage along the south shore. The hypothesis about airplane wreckage being swept into the lagoon involves Tatiman Passage. The "blasted channel" is something completely different and is clearly an intentional opening blasted through the reef to permit small boat access to the beach at any stage of the tide. It is located on the southwestern shore of the island at TIGHAR Grid Map reference WG21. (Once your income stream is restored you may want to avail yourself of a map. They're as pretty as they are useful.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:38:26 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: AE's house in CA Bill's recollections of AE's Toluca Lake home are correct. I can also tell you that the house has been extensively remodeled and looks very different from when AE and GPP built it. In addition, the owners (if they are the same folks who lived there in 1992) are well aware of the Earhart connection -- having had at least two Amelia documentaries shoot on their front lawn. LTM, Russ Matthews (0509CE) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:37:33 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City I have some folks in the library in Hartlepool checking for me now about the name of NC's builder. I ran across a listing for a book that claims to have a detailed listing of ALL Hartlepool shipyards AND the vessels built there after 1837. For Forumites with access to larger libraries: "Shipbuilders of the Hartlepools" author Bert Spaldin. Published 1986 by Hartlepool Borough Council. ISBN 0 9501306 218 LTM Pete #2419 *************************************************************************** From Ric Way cool. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:29:03 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: AE's house in CA Last summer, Dustymiss went by the house and took photos and talked with neighbors etc. Maybe she will share those with the Forum or those interested. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:40:56 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Where is Amelia? Its fun and informative to read all the posts about the theory of AE and FN on thier lop. However, lets not forget the spiritual thingy that prevades all of existance. Use the latest probability and standard deviation equations to formulate what happened in the last 4 hours of flight, but dosent the spiritual thing happen too?? Its like the spirits said to AE "ohh were so sorry,, but your dream isnt going to come true. No matter what you do, we the spirits of aviation will not let you compllete your trip. We will hide you and erase all traces of your existance so that even the greatest minds of humanity will not find your final resting place." Draw some lines on a map thru howland island running 157/337, then move east 10 miles, draw a paralell line, move 20 milse draw another. Move west 10 miles and do the same etc. then draw prependiculars to these lines north and south of howland.... Amelia moved thru this grid in real life but it all boils down to pixels. Exactly which set of pixels did she touch?? We dont know. Draw a 75 mile circle around howland island. It makes me cry that I believe she was somewhere in this circle so close to howland, but somehow the spirits did not want her to complete this task. If you read much about Charles Lindberg you will find that he came into contact with the spirits on his flight to Europe. Thru grit and determination Lindbergh battled the demons of aviation and pushed on past them. Thats what it takes. Was AE compass heading 080 and her ground track 090?? was her compass heading 095 and her ground track 080?? We will never know but she did in fact lay down a ground track that passed somewhere near howland island. so close but not close enough. The movie Flight of the Phenoix was on this week and I watched it again, but I was looking at the spiritual ideas that came thru in the movie,, and that Paul Mantz ended his great life making this movie,, and that AE ended hers somewhere near the Pheonix islands. In the Flight of the Phenoix movie,, it is visible to the astute observer that the movie itself actually predictied Paul Mantz death and that his death was intricate to the movie... There is much sadness in this... HHmmmmmmm... the stoker,,happy landings ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:45:33 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: The Radio Riddle The article "The Radio Riddle", authored by Bob Brandenburg and appearing in the TIGHAR's 8th Edition, contains the following statement: "Earhart's estimated CPA [closest point of approach] to Howland Island is derived as follows: 1.) Note that the Itasca's radio log described Earhart's 1912 GMT strength signal as 'S-5', which indicates a very strong signal. Since a 16 dB SNR provides a 90% intelligibility for a voice signal, an 'S-5' signal implies a median SNR greater than 16 dB". The article then continues in step 2 to describe how this median SNR greater than 16 dB, implied from an "S-5" signal, is used to find the estimated CPA to Howland. I remember a very strong comment being made on the Forum by Mike Everette (The Radio Historian--an author also appearing in the 8th Edition) to the effect that any conclusions placed upon a signal strength described as "S-5" would be meaningless, since there is no generally accepted standard, or technical level of strength described by radio operators in shorthand as "S-5" to begin with. In other words, "S-5" is not an agreed unit of measurement (such as 5280 feet in a mile, 12 incles in a foot, etc.) TIGHAR agreed, and I remember Ric saying he would frame Mike's comment. O.K. If conclusions based upon a radio strength described as "S-5" are meaningless (per Mike Everette and TIGHAR), then how can Brandenburg/TIGHAR conclude in The Radio Riddle that "an 'S-5' signal implies a median SNR greater than 16dB"? This is important, since this conclusion is then used to determine Earhart's closest approach to Howland. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric You may also recall that Mike said that Bob's calculations based upon computer modeling were very different from the subjective judgements of signal strength made by the Itasca radio operators. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:54:15 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Tabiteuea For those who care the correct spelling of the Gilbert island is Tabiteuea not as I sometimes spell it. I can navigate I just can't spell. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Last march, aboard an Air Nauru 737 enroute from Fiji to Tarawa, Van Hunn and I had the rare experience of seeing Tabiteuea from the air. It was late morning on a typical Central Pacific day with a scattered deck of cumulus below. At 27,000 feet (as I recall) we were nearly three times higher than Earhart would/should have been, so we had a better view down between the buildups than she probably had. We spotted the atoll way off to the east (50 miles?) mostly by the dramatically different aquamarine color of the lagoon as compared to the dark blue of the surrounding ocean. Tabiteuea is huge - long and skinny. I can't imagine being able to identify it conclusively by flying over one end of it at night. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:56:06 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds Have you ever heard of the incident in WWII involving a B-24 called the "Lady Be Good"? They were returning to north Africa's Bengazi tower. They overflew the tower but thought they were still flying toward it. I believe the phenomenon is called "over the shoulder" signals. Ever consider that this could have happened to AE & FN as they flew over Itasca? Just curious. Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:59:51 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's house in CA Thanks for the input. Sounded like something fun to look into. Sounds like it's a well beaten horse. Hi Ron, I'd be very interested in a photo. Do you happen to know which golf course the house is located on? Thanks Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:01:24 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Your explanation doesn't work. Take a look at the quote from the TIGHAR/Brandenburg paper. The passage I quoted clearly shows that Bob relied upon the Itasca's "subjective judgments" of signal strength to do his "computer modeling" work (i.e., "an 'S-5' signal implies a median SNR greater than 16dB"). So, if the Itasca's subjective statements of signal strength are bogus, don't we have a clear case of "garbage in and garbage out" in the computer modeling work? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Bob? Mike? Perhaps you can help Mr. Kennedy. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:31:35 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle > From Ric > > You may also recall that Mike said that Bob's calculations based upon > computer modeling were very different from the subjective judgements of > signal strength made by the Itasca radio operators. With all respect, your reply simply evades the issue, as I am certain Chris will point out to you. A chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and no matter how much computer punching you do to estimate db, the subjective judgments about signal strength of the operators are still part of the statement, and the conclusion is based upon those same subjective judgments that you discount elsewhere. Oscar Boswell **************************************************************************** From Ric My intention was not to be evasive but to remind Chris that what he sees as a discrepancy had already been addressed. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:34:40 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Thanks, and I'll look forward to the explanation. But, I will give fair warning: I remember clearly that Mike's e-mail about using an "S-5" signal report for anything contained, literally, a big "NOOOOOOOOOO..." in the body of the e-mail. That's what you found so appealing about it, and which is why the quoted language from the TIGHAR report stuck out so prominently when I actually read what it said. --Chris Kennedy ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the warning. My confidence in Bob and Mike's ability to explain it is exceeded only by expectation that you won't agree with it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:29:46 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle With respect to the Radio Riddle, it is important to remember that, although the input data is subjective, one can assume reasonable outside parameters, such as an S-5 (however subjective) is PROBABLY no more than X miles away. By assigning such outside parameters with reasonable probabilities, one can use a computer model quite effectively to create a reasonable radius. Such a radius would obviously be uncertain, but one could at least reasonably narrow the field and, hopefully, exclude some areas. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg > From Ric > > Bob? Mike? Perhaps you can help Mr. Kennedy. I shall be happy to try. Detailed response to follow. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:32:26 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Where is Amelia? And if you draw straight lines between any three places that AE might have ended up, they always form a perfect triangle!! Surely the spirits of aviation must be involved! Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (who thinks this is all a bucket of prop wash) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:40:09 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds > From Ric > > I know of no reason to presume that Noonan was not able to get celestial > observations during the night. It seems to me that descending enroute to > get visual checkpoints would involve an unconscionable expenditure of fuel > in climbing back up to an efficient altitude. Diverting to get within > visual range of Nauru doesn't make any sense to me, nor does it make sense > to me to try to identify a specific atoll in the Gilberts in the middle of > the night. Diverting to get withing visual range may not have been as strange as you think. Flying at 10,000 feet they would see the lights at the horizon from 115 miles away. At least one light was high enough to add considerably to that distance, and at night with no other lighting the glow would be seen from over the horizon. Just the glow would have been sufficient to say "hmmm abeam Nauru at". The documentation available suggests they were considering using Nauru as a checkpoint, and the place was lit up like a city, close to their course. Even at night the Electra flying at 10,000ft would be hard to hear. I had a flight of 6 Nanchangs with noisy radials come in here At a lower altitude recently and only knew about them when I went out to the airport. They flew about a mile from my house and about 1500 feet, but I didn't hear them. I admit that at night in the Gilberts they would have more change of hearing the plane, but I still suggest that if someone heard it, the Electra had to be a bit lower. I'd also suggest that they wouldn't necessarily be trying to identify "a specific atoll" . Just knowing that the Gilberts were below would be a great shot in the arm for Noonan, giving some approximate confirmation to his dead reckoning. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric <>> What documentation is that? <> Not hardly. The Gilberts chain stretches for hundreds of miles at roughly ninety degrees to their course. Without a firm check on which atoll they were seeing it would do them little good. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:51:57 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE's dificulty II This is an excerpt from a navy site that might help explain somewhat the scene AE faced on arriving in the vicinity of Howland or wherever. Alan #2329 ----------------------------------- "Those who have flown over the sea when the sun is bright and low, with cumulus clouds about, know how difficult it would be to see a tiny island having a highest elevation of only about 15 feet. Looking toward the sun one sees only a blinding, shimmering path of silvery reflected sunlight in an arc about 15° to 20° wide; within that arc nothing can be seen. Elsewhere, numerous cloud shadows look exactly like islands. The Itasca was making smoke, but it would have been conspicuous only if seen from sea level with a light blue sky in the background. Earhart and Noonan, however, were flying at 1,000 feet and the smoke seen from that perspective would have had an inky, blue-sea background. Color contrast would have been minimal; the odds were against them. Tiny Howland would have been difficult to spot in any case, but none of this would have mattered if the fliers could have received a radio bearing for final guidance. That was not to be." ************************************************************************* From Ric Not a "navy site". As you know, that's from the article in the magazine Naval History - The Earhart Tragedy: Old Mystery, New Hypothesis by John P. Riley, Jr. The U.S. Naval Institute that publishes Naval History is not part of the U.S. Navy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:55:55 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Tabiteuea last night i watched PEARL HARBOR and they mentioned the GILBERT islands,i wondered if there was a JAPANESE presence there between 1937/44-- *************************************************************************** From Ric The Gilberts were a British colonial possesion. There was no Japanses presence there until December 1941 when two atolls - Makin and Tarawa - were invaded and captured. U.S. forces drove the Japanese out of the Gilberts in November 1943. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:00:07 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Thanks. What I noticed was a split among the experts. That is, Mike Everette and TIGHAR (per Ric's comment on framing Mike's message) being very explicit on the point that an "S-5" signal was meaningless and couldn't be used for anything (such as determining distance away of the transmission source), and then I read Bob Brandenburg's report in TIGHAR's 8th Edition where the "S-5" signal was used to calculate factors for his computer model to determine, coincidently, the closest point of approach of the same transmission source. I guess, as in the Monte Carlo analysis, I have a knack for noticing these descrepancies between what people think these reports are saying and what they are saying. The implications of what these reports say can make a real difference to the entire Gardner theory. In the case of the Monte Carlo analysis the LOP to the southwest of Gardner would cause Earhart to pass no closer than just under 100 miles from Gardner! I generally have found that it's best in the long run to risk being called uneducatable and clear these issues up when discovered, as uncorrected they pile up and choke the life out of your entire argument. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:51:58 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: Where is Amelia? <> Well shoot,, its just a theory just like all the other ones,,,,,,,, happy landings prop wash ******************************************************************** From Ric Actually, I'd say it's one of the more original ones we've seen presented. Moving right along.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 19:03:25 EST From: Ric Subject: Volunteer Needed We're looking for a special volunteer. The Amelia Earhart Search Forum - aka The Forum - (is there another one?) has been churning out facts, speculation, wisdom, wit, vitriol, and drivel since 1998. "Highlights" are available on the TIGHAR website in a week by week summary but there is no way for the serious researcher or the casual Earhart buff to efficiently mine the treasure trove of information by subject. We feel that the forum archives are a tremendously valuable resource and we want to find a way to offer them on a CD or probably a set of CDs, presented in a format that makes it possible to easily find discussions of the subject you're interested in whether it be the mechanics of "making smoke" aboard a Coast Guard cutter, the amount of fuel aboard NR16020 when it departed Lae, or the dining habits of giant crabs. We're looking for a volunteer who is knowledgable in the art and science of indexing and who has a solid working knowledge of software who would be willing to work with us to design and create a preesentation of the forum archives on CD that would accomplish the above objective. As compensation we can only offer the immortal gratitude of Earhart researchers for generations to come. Any takers? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:28:13 EST From: Lynn Lewis Subject: Re: AE's dificulty II Has anyone established why Earhart was flying at 1,000 feet? That's a terribly low altitude to be flying over open water. Was it cumulus or what? Why didn't she go back up to 2,000 or 3,000ft.if she was dodging clouds or whatever? The only conclusion I can come to is she was caught up in the cloud formations to the north and west of Howland. Also, Howland is in the area of the tropical convergence zone which means very changeable weather patterns. Also, I understand a tropical Typhoon was developing in the area. Earhart also complained about heavy cumulus coming into the area of the Gilberts...all the way in she was descending. You guys do the talking I'm going to sit back and listen only. Lynn Lewis **************************************************************************** From Ric It seems a reasonable guess that she was flying at 1,000 feet to get below the scattered deck of cumulus that we know (from the Itasca and Howland ob servations) was present. There was no typhoon building in the area and Earhart did not complain about heavy cumulus coming into the area of the Gilberts. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:29:03 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: The blasted channel << The "blasted channel" is something completely different and is clearly an intentional opening blasted through the reef to permit small boat access to the beach at any stage of the tide. It is located on the southwestern shore of the island at TIGHAR Grid Map reference WG21. >> And YES, the Dive Team did search that Blasted Channel !!! LTM ( Who refers to her Dive Team as TIGHAR SHARKS) Andrew McKenna 1045CE ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:51:06 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Radio Riddle: Correct Assumption? The second major part of the Radio Riddle seeks to answer the question of "why Itasca didn't hear any radio signals from Earhart after 2013 GMT...." It derives the answer in a very detailed analysis numbered (1) through (7). While reading paragraphs numbers 6 and 7, I noted what seems to be a key assumption made in answering this question. That is, that Earhart began heading permanently southeast on the LOP no later than 1912 GMT. It appears that all the Brandenburg calculations and, of course, the ultimate conclusions made as to how long Earhart COULD have been heard by Itasca on either 3105 or 6210 kHz (and why she wasn't) are calculated with 1912 GMT as the starting point for these calculations (see especially paragraph 6, third through fifth sentences). Is this a valid assumption? TIGHAR's own "Log Jam" article on the website in fact identifies 2013 GMT as the time for the flight to begin running permanently to the southeast. Remember, the "we must be on you...." transmission came at 1912, so the theory is that she spent the intervening hour in a brief back-and-forth search. If, in fact, 2013 GMT is more supportable as the time the flight turned onto the LOP permanently, then my rough calculations (and I do mean rough) indicate that the conclusion reached in Paragraph 7, particularly 7(c), of the Radio Riddle needs to be reconsidered (the conclusion reached was that at 2215 GMT Earhart was too far away from Itasca to be heard on either frequency). Assuming the same starting point distance-wise (one calculation in the Radio Riddle says 10 miles from Itasca, the other 80) and correcting for time (2013 GMT, not 1912 GMT), and also considering the same airspeed that the Radio Riddle does (115 mph), at the lower end of the 10-80 range my calculation puts her slightly within the maximum 250-mile reception limit the article mentions for 6210 (?) kHz at 2215. Of course, all these calculations are based upon the Radio Riddle's 2215 time based conclusion in paragraph 7(c). If Earhart left the vicinity of the Itasca one hour later than the Radio Riddle postulates, all the times she could have been heard prior to maximum range advance an hour as well. O.K. Lots of numbers, lots of concepts, but the conclusion to this second major part of the Radio Radio seems to hinge on what may be a faulty assumption. Comments? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Bob may want to add to or disagree with my response, but I think you're ascribing much greater precision to our comments than we intend. I don't think that any reasonable person would claim to know precisely when the flight turned in a particular direction or that there is some kind of wall at a predictable point in space beyond which reception would be impossible. The best we can do is describe a general pattern of flight (strike advanced LOP somewhere southeast of Howland, fly northwest for a while, turn around and proceed southeast) that is carried out within general time parameters (from sometime before 1912 to sometime around 2013) that seems to fit the available data. Beyond that we can speculate about specific times and distances by way of illustration but the point of the whole thing is that the known events of the morning of July 2, 1937 do not lead to, or even particularly support, the conclusion that the airplane ran out of fuel and went down at sea, and that a reasonable possibility exists that it proceeded down the LOP and eventually reached Gardner. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:52:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE's dificulty II > Not a "navy site". As you know, that's from the article in the magazine > Naval History - The Earhart Tragedy: Old Mystery, New Hypothesis by John P. > Riley, Jr. > > The U.S. Naval Institute that publishes Naval History is not part of the > U.S. Navy. You're telling me I'm WRONG, Wrong, Wrong. I can't believe this. ME, make a mistake? I thought it was just the other guys who did that. I'm crushed. But a good lesson for all of us. Check before we post. I think the point of the sun on the water and the clouds do tell a good story, however. I've certainly seen that many times flying into the Azores, Kindley (Bermuda) and Wake Island. Without radar and nav aids I sure would not have tried to rely on celestial navigation alone and I had a great navigator. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:15:42 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds > From Ric > > < a checkpoint,..>>> > > What documentation is that? A telegram stating that there was a new fixed light at Lat 0.32 S Long 16.55 East of 5thousand candlepower 5600 feet above sea level (must have been tied to an observation balloon ) visible from ships to naked eye at 34 miles. By my calculations if the light was about 560 feet and the ship was around 28 - 40 feet then 34 miles would be about right ship to light. I did say the documentation (telegram) SUGGESTS they planned to use Nauru as a nav reference NOT that it says they did... ************************************************************************** From Ric That's what I thought you were going to say. This telelgram (mentioned in the Chater Report) has often been touted as evidence that Earhart intended to use a visual sighting of Nauru as a checkpoint. I think the assumption is totally unwarranted. Earhart asked for weather from any and all of the stations anywhere near her route. The folks at Nauru weren't privy to her planned route so when they sent the weather they also mentioned their new light. Show me that Earhart asked for information relevant to sighting Nauru and I'll agree that she was considering that possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:43:56 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Volunteer Needed sounds interesting...i was studying VISUAL BASIC until recently but i dont think im upto the level yet where i could provide a database like that(yet),also i dont have a PC only webtv through digibox which is limited...it sounds great though and the sort of challenge that i would love.sorry i couldnt be more help--- ************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Well, I don't know if I meet all the qualifications, but I've got a lot of years' experience in ferreting out minutia.... If there's any way I can help, I'll be happy to oblige. jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent. Margot Still has also volunteered to help. You and Margot have both been Forum Stalwarts for years now and have a good grasp of the types of subjects covered and the general ebb and flow of the forum. What we still need is somebody who can help us design the CD and select the right software to make it easy to search. Once we have that, we'll send you CDs containing the raw archives and you and Margot (and perhaps one or two others) can start the process of assembling a catalog of subjects that can then be arranged by category in Table of Contents and also cross-referenced in an alphabetical index. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:54:23 EST From: Janet Powell Subject: Re: NC Cargo Just been catching up on some forum postings, and I know I'm a bit late...(ooops!).. but in response to Bill Moffet's posting: I too had heard that the NC sailed to Melbourne from Vancouver, although I've no idea where from. But I've been thinking... The NC left the UK at about the end of August, 1929. She was certainly still off the UK coast on 2nd September 1929. Given that she sailed from Melbourne in mid November, I wonder if she would have had time to unload/load in Vancouver? I would have remembered any postings from the ship owners after I joined the forum, and I wonder, - do we have any more info about this? LTM Janet Powell #2225 ************************************************************************** From Ric The newspaper clipping photo you sent me a while back showed her in Vancouver in April 1929 after having had a close encounter of the third kind (actual contact) with a bridge that knocked off her funnel and knocked down her cargo masts. If she was in Vancouver in April and in England (or Wales?) in late August that gives us some idea of her movements. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:08:09 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Radio Riddle: Correct Assumption? Ric said: "...we can speculate about specific times and distances by way of illustration but the point of the whole thing is that the known events of the morning of July 2, 1937 do not lead to, or even particularly support, the conclusion that the airplane ran out of fuel and went down at sea, and that a reasonable possibility exists that it proceeded down the LOP and eventually toward Gardner." Well, the apparent purpose of the second part of the Radio Riddle was to determine why Itasca didn't hear any radio signals after 2013 GMT. The crashed and sank school would claim it's because she crashed and sank, but the Radio Riddle determined that she was simply beyond radio reception range---hence "scientific" evidence for the flight maybe still being aloft. The crucial starting point of the Radio Riddle analysis appears to have been the use of a time (1912 GMT) for Earhart to begin heading southeast (and to begin moving towards whatever her maximum transmission range was) that TIGHAR, itself, has stated elsewhere is probably an hour too early (there's a logic in TIGHAR's argument so be careful about embracing the earlier time to argue against me, here). It appears that when you correct the Radio Riddle analysis the conclusions about being within transmission range also change. So, the scientific conclusions that were before used to debunk "crashed and sank" now can be applied through the scientific analysis to rehabilitate "crashed and sank" as one of a number of reasons Itasca did not hear any further signals. Of course, I am not saying this happened, but unfortunately the Radio Riddle, when corrected, does give some additional support to "crashed and sank". --Chris Kennedy *********************************************************************** From Ric It's not a matter of "correcting" the Radio Riddle. I don't know when the plane headed southeast (if it headed southeast) and Bob doesn't know exactly when it would be out of reception range. Nobody is saying that crashed-and-sank could not have happened. I'm sure we could come up with a reasonable head-south time and a reasonable ground speed that would put the airplane out of the scientifically calculated reception range at the appropriate time - and we'd have what really happened and maybe we'd just be backing into the numbers Elgen Long-style. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:34:19 EST From: Janet Powell Subject: Re: NC Cargo Sorry Ric... I believe it was a photo I sent, - and it was April 1928. Hope it wasn't a 'typo'.. (Ooooops!) LTM Janet Powell ********************************************************************* From Ric Can't remember... but anyway, I'm glad we got that corrected. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:12:42 EST From: Clayton Davis Subject: Indexing forum archives on CD I have experience indexing and the wherewithal to create a CD. I have an indexing software and have used it to index one version of my self-published book So, You Want To Be a Pilot available at Amazon.Com and www.upublish.com/davis.htm (read first 25 pages free. Download PDF or buy print copy.) I published the book WITHOUT the index. Setting up pages got too difficult for me as an amateur publisher. I have some ideas and can burn my own CD. Y'all could have it replicated in bulk, I suppose. Now I need guidance. What would I do? Download ALL the archives. What order would they fall into? By number? By date? How in the world would I key the index? To volume number? Willing but ignorant. CLAYTON DAVIS (Writer, Photographer, Aviator with ATP and CFII Cert. No. 1625324.) TIGHAR Member # 2446S LTM (Whomever she may be. Mine?) **************************************************************************** From Jon Watson I've been thinking about how to do this, and a couple possibilities come to mind. Do we want a "database", which would certainly be a searchable reference, but one which could require software, programming, and a lot of data input. Not to mention the possibility that for the members to be able to use it, they might have to buy software. Or do we want a documentary record, but in a format that can A) be searched, and B) not be changed by the end user? I'm leaning more in this direction right now, but again this is just preliminary thinking. If what we're looking for is along this line, might I suggest that we simply process our data records into Adobe Acrobat files (same format that the government, among others, uses). The files end up with a file name extension of .PDF, which stands for Portable Document File (go figure). There are several arguements in favor of doing it this way, not the least of which is that the Acrobat Reader software is FREE (as in NO CHARGE). In addition, the files are searchable, by words or phrases, and can be printed. As far as I know, there are no size limitations to the document files. The downside is, I don't know what the Adobe software required to prepare the files costs to buy. However, I have a licensed copy at work, and it might be possible, once the files are organized, to get permission to run them through the software since there's no "overhead" on the network, hence no expense to the city. It's really easy to use - I just select the program as my "printer", and it outputs whatever file I'm printing (text, MS Word, etc) right into a PDF file. The documents retain their original appearance. I would envision taking in data files on a CD or floppy, and (since I don't have a CD writer at work, but do at home) bringing it back on a floppy, to be transferred to a CD. I know that there has been no objection in the past to individuals using department computers to assist with homework, so I doubt that there would be any real concern; I would just have to make sure I did the work on my time, not theirs, but that would be no big deal either. If you would like, I could pick off some of the recent forum postings and put together a trial run. Let me know what you think. ltm, jon **************************************************************************** From Ric Like most things, a Forum Archive CD turns out to have some devils in the details. Format issues aside, there's the question of copyright. Free internet access is one thing, but does TIGHAR have the right to sell the writings of others without their express permission? We can certainly make that a condition of future forum participation if we want to, but we can't do it retroactively. Nor can we go back and get permission from everyone who has ever posted to the forum - in fact, some of our most distinguished posters of the past have now passed on. What to do, what to do..... Here's one idea. We already have the Forum Highlights up on the TIGHAR website. They're not up to date (the most recent Highlights is through March 1, '01) but that's because Pat simply hasn't had time in the press to launch and execute Niku IIII. She's now catching up. The Highlights are a distilled version of the forum with the off-topic digressions and pointless ramblings removed. They represent a tremendous amount of editorial labor on Pat's part and it seems silly not to make use of the work that has been done. What currently makes the Highlights cumbersome to use as a research resource is that there is no index by subject. For each week, Pat picks a few of the subjects that were under discussion and lists them as a link. For example, the week of 2/25/01 to 3/1/01 covers "Probability of Success; Going in Great Circles; Harmonics; The Wreck of the Canton; LOP Logic; Lagoon Deposit; FN's Navigation" - Whew! What if a team of TIGHAR volunteers went through the Highlights and - disregarding Pat's weekly subject lables - came up with a list of subjects and the date and author of each posting on that subject. We could then have an alphabetical Forum Highlights index by subject, with links to the individual postings. An excerpt might look something like this: Itasca, radio logs Itasca, search Itasca, smoke Click on one of them and you'd get: Itasca, smoke 3/12/99 Brandenburg 3/13/99 Gillespie 6/04/00 Dunham 6/06/00 Brandenburg Click on on one of them and you'd go directly to that posting. Doing it this way would not raise any copyright issues that don't already exist. The Forum Highlights have been a feature of the TIGHAR website since its inception in 1998 and no one has objected. We would simply be making the Highlights easier to use. The only downside from TIGHAR's standpoint is that it would be an expense (the bigger and more visited the website, the more it costs us) rather than a source of income. I think we need to do it if we can. If TIGHAR was a for-profit company it wouldn't make any sense, but we're a nonprofit historical foundation and I think we have an obligation to make information available to the best of our ability and count on our members to support our work with charitable contributions. Anybody have further thoughts on this? LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:39:04 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle This is amazing: I just noticed that on TIGHAR's website the new entry "THE TIGHAR HYPOTHESIS, November 2001", again (as in Log Jam) adopts the time of "TWENTY HOUR AND THIRTEEN MINUTES INTO THE FLIGHT" (2013 GMT) as the time that "THEY IMPLEMENT THE ONLY PROCEDURE AVAILABLE TO THEM WHICH WILL MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF HAVING TO LAND THE AIRCRAFT IN THE SEA--THEY PROCEED SOUTHEASTWARD ON A HEADING OF 157 DEGREES." Ric, I cannot believe that it doesn't bother both you and Bob Brandenburg that the conclusion of "THE RADIO RIDDLE" (which deals with maximum range over which a signal could be heard by Itasca) is still based upon an initial assumption that the flight made this turn to the southeast just about an hour earlier, at 1912 GMT. 2013 GMT is not 1912 GMT---there is still a major conflict between the analysis and TIGHAR, and the conflict is material to the conclusion of the paper. Period. The paper needs to be corrected/supplemented or pulled from TIGHAR's 8th Edition entirely . I also cannot believe that with this latest "NOVEMBER 2001" submission fresh on the website, that in your responses to my question you have basically dismissed the importance of the turn occuring at this time as "backing into the numbers Elgen Long-style.". --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll amend the first sentence in the summary. You're right. It's way too specific. I'll change it to: Sometime between her "We must be on you..." transmission nineteen hours and twelve minutes into the flight, and the final transmission heard by the Itasca an hour later, and with somewhere between three and four hours of fuel remaining, Earhart and Noonan implement the only procedure available to them which will minimize the chance of having to land the aircraft in the sea---they proceed southeastward on a heading of 157 degrees. ****************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg For Chris Kennedy: I assume that your argumentative postings on various topics are motivated by a genuine desire to be helpful. However, in matters of serious discourse, it is better to remain silent than to make categorical claims without benefit of the requisite background knowledge. In this instance, you have staked out an untenable position from which to argue in a subject area about which you seem to know virtually nothing. The passage you quoted does NOT "show", "clearly" or otherwise, that I relied upon the Itasca's subjective judgments of signal strength. Nor did I, as you seem to think, equate an S-5 signal with a 16 dB SNR. Apparently, you have not studied 8th Edition Chapter V, Section A, titled "The Post-Loss Radio Signals: Technical Analysis". The "Radio Riddle" section is intended to provide a "technology-lite" description of the analysis for the lay reader. Chapter V, Section A contains the technical details of the analysis and is required reading for those who want to understand the derivations of the results. In addition to the text, there are 34 footnotes in that section. I commend them to your attention. Although the title of the technical analysis section might suggest that it deals only with post-loss radio signals, a glance at the titles of its subsections, such as "Signals and Noise" and "SNR Considerations for Amplitude Modulated Signals", would reveal that it contains pertinent information. In an earlier posting, you quoted part of the "Radio Riddle" section: "Note that the Itasca's radio log described Earhart's 1912 GMT strength signal as 'S-5', which indicates a very strong signal. Since a 16 dB SNR provides a 90% intelligibility for a voice signal, an 'S-5' signal implies a median SNR greater than 16 dB". And you went on to question how we can conclude that an S-5 signal implies a median SNR greater than 16 dB. Consider the first sentence: "Note that the Itasca's radio log described Earhart's 1912 GMT strength signal as 'S-5', which indicates a very strong signal." The plain language of this sentence clearly states that S-5 indicates a VERY STRONG signal - - not HOW strong in numerical terms, just VERY STRONG. Nothing here implies a specific SNR, nor does the analysis purport to associate a discrete value of SNR with S-5. As has been discussed previously on the forum, that cannot be done because any operator S-level assessment is subjective. When an operator assesses a signal as S-5, he means that it is VERY STRONG relative to the background noise, even though he does not know the actual SNR. If you think about it, you might realize that there is no upper limit on signal strength for an S-5 classification, but that there must be a lower limit of signal strength below which a signal would not be classified as S-5. In addition to the S-5 classification, there are classifications of S-4, S-3, S-2, and S-1, denoting successively weaker signals, with S-1 denoting a signal that is barely readable. Signals below S-1 strength are unusable. Clearly, it is not possible to assign an SNR value to any of these S-level classifications since each is subjective. It is equally clear, however, that an S-5 signal is stronger than an S-1 signal, which is near the usability threshold, and the SNR of an S-5 signal is greater than the SNR of an S-1 signal. Thus, if a quantifiable SNR value corresponding to the usability threshold can be established, it will follow that the SNR of an S-5 signal exceeds the SNR of the usability threshold. Now consider the second sentence: "Since a 16 dB SNR provides a 90% intelligibility for a voice signal, an 'S-5' signal implies a median SNR greater than 16 dB". Had you read Chapter V Section A, you would know that (and why) 15.7 dB (rounded to 16 dB for the "Radio Riddle" section) is the median SNR threshold for "just usable" operator-to-operator communication, which is defined as 90% intelligibility of unrelated words. By definition, this is the lower bound below which no signal is "usable", and therefore is the lower bound below which no signal would qualify as S-5 or, for that matter, any other S-level. To state this more formally, the set of signals with median SNRs greater than 16 dB comprises all usable signals, and includes as a subset all S-5 signals. Since the median SNR of every usable signal is by definition equal to or greater than 16 dB, and since an S-5 signal is a usable signal that is stronger than all lower level usable signals, it follows that "An S-5 signal implies a median SNR greater than 16 dB". Table A1 shows the computed SNRs that would be received at the Itasca from various distances, as a function of time and radio frequency. The distance from which a signal at the 16 dB threshold level could be received is the maximum distance from which any usable signal could be received. Since an S-5 signal is a usable signal that is stronger than the usability threshold, we know that such a signal would be received from some lesser distance. We don't know the exact distance because we don't know the SNR of the signal that was classified as S-5. So we can only say that the signal would be received from a distance not greater than that from which a signal at the usability threshold would be received. Hence, the 16 dB threshold provides a conservative upper bound on the distance from which an S-5 signal, or any other usable signal, could have been sent. Obviously, the analysis does not rely upon the operator's assessment of signal strength. You can verify this by substituting a different S-level, say "S-4" for "S-5" in the second sentence discussed above and observing that the results do not change. LTM, who believes in doing her homework. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:14:45 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Radio Riddle: Correct Assumption? I cannot go with the crashed and sank looking at these prints of microfilm. AP story for 5 July has Pan-American direction finder picking up carrier waves at Mokapu point and estimating the origin south of Howland. Then: The Coast Guard and Wailupe naval radio stations both picked up similar signals quite strongly, they reported. The Wailupe station said it got a man's voice." Same article reports ametuers from Los Angeles to Wyoming picking up voice calls. Mokapu station reporting a response to KGMB's 7 AM PST request that AE respond with dashes fifteen minutes later. 6 July Wailupe reports hearing "281 North Howland...call KHAQQ...Beyond North...don't hold with us much longer...above water...shut off." Itasca headed to that position while British freighter SS Moorby, north of Howland reported at 6:30 EST it had "...heard a strong continuous carrier wave on the Earhart frequency." Same story has Paul Mantz claiming to have heard three long dashes in Los Angeles. 6 July story also says "Pan-American radio men estimated that the plane may be in the vicinity of Gardner and McKean Islands in the Phoenix group, which is from 150 to 200 miles south of Howland Island." In regard to KGMB broadcasts "The faint signals were intercepted by the Navy, Coast Guard and Pan-American stations at Honolulu, and by the Coast Guard at San Francisco." Seems to me a number of folks were hearing signals days after the Electra went missing. What gets me is a quote from GP saying all the messages from Amelia seem to tie together. Maybe once the post-loss matrix is done, the rest of us will know what he meant by that. LTM Pete #2419 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:11:01 EST From: Chris Subject: Long term plan Assuming after analyzing all the artifacts from your last mission, what is the long term plan of Tighar? If nothing conclusive is found this go round do you intend to go back to Niku yet again until something conclusive is found? Is there a secondary theory/location you have if you determine EA didn't make it to Niku? Do you ever have any doubts about this theory? Chris in Petaluma, Ca *********************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR's ability to investigate the Nikumaroro Hypothesis has always depended entirely upon our ability to raise the money to do it. The money comes mostly from the TIGHAR membership. It's the most brutal form of peer review. If enough members of TIGHAR decide that the results achieved to date do not warrant further investigation they will stop supporting the work and the investigation will stop. So, you see, it's not up to me except to the extent that it is my responsibility to provide the members with information and ask for their support - if I feel that further support is justified. Which brings us to the next part of your question. <> Sure. If I had a nickle for every time I've laid awake at night wondering if it's all a fantasy we've concocted for ourselves out of a few coincidences our funding problems would be over, but in the cold light of dawn it has always become apparent that such thoughts are based upon frustration and self-doubt rather than any objective review of the evidence. Everything points to Niku and nothing points anywhere else. The Japanese Capture myth is long dead, except among a few diehards. Crashed-And Sank is still popular as the intuitive "reasonable" theory but it's really a default explanation. There is no evidence that it happened, but if there are no clues that something else happened the sheer size of the Pacific makes it seem like the most likely answer. The trouble is, a whole lot of clues suggest that something else DID happen, and until some alternative event comes to light which explains away those clues we have to continue to test our hypothesis that the flight ended at Niku. The naysayers and armchair explorers delight in pointing out that TIGHAR has found nothing that conclusively puts Earhart and Noonan on Niku. Well, duh. If we had that, the mystery would be solved. They assert that every clue we've found that might point to Earhart's presence on the island has other conceivable explanations - and that is also true. It's also a pretty good definition of a "clue" as distinct from "proof." There are some - there may even be many - who have decided what proof MUST still exist if the flight ended at Niku. To them, TIGHAR's failure to find what they demand must be there to find is proof that the flight was never there. TIGHAR's job is to try our best to find what IS there and learn what we can from it. We'll keep doing our job as long as the members want us to. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:11:42 EST From: Tom King Subject: Blathering For Forumites in the Seattle and San Diego areas -- it looks like I'll be doing a talk about the project and book signing at the Museum of Flight in Seattle on January 19, and somewhere in San Diego on January 26. I'll provide more information as arrangements firm up. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:23:03 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Just a note concerning Chris K's analysis of the 'Radio Riddle'... Assuming that the Electra would have reached it's _maximum_ radio transmission range (with respect to any expected reception by Itasca at Howland) some distance (100 miles ??) before reaching Gardner/Niku Island... & since _none_ of the actually received & recorded transmissions by Itasca ever confirmed (with only _one_ very brief exception) that _any_ two-way radio communication was ever established between AE & the Itasca... & since none of these actually received & recorded transmissions ever alerted Itasca to any intention by AE to fly SE to the Phoenix Islands (or any where else, for that matter) _if_ AE was unable to locate Howland ... how could AE/FN communicate with Itasca, having flown to Gardner/Niku, some 300-400 miles in the opposite direction... from the _only_ source of search & rescue, known to AE/FN at _that_ time ? Would not such inability to establish any reliable, two-way radio communication with Itasca make the possibly of rescue from Gardner/Niku highly improbable...especially since AE had never informed anyone of such intention, prior to or during the flight, (before the radio 'black-out') & considering the fact that Gardner/Niku was uninhabited...well away from any regularly traveled shipping route... in a Central/Pacific Island chain that was, at best, sparsely populated & with highly questionable radio communication capabilities (the radio on Hull Island was not in working order when Lt. Lambrecht landed there about a week after AE/FN were presumed to be down) ? It would also seem unlikely that AE/FN could have expected any radio communication with PanAm's facilities at Kingman Reef or Samoa...due to the same distance problem as with Itasca... also since they'd initially refused Juan Trippe's original offer to have his world-wide stations monitor the flight. While the navigational considerations & the _estimated_ fuel reserve would seem to recommend Gardner/Niku as a near perfect alternate landfall, in lieu of being unable to locate Howland... it seems (to me any way) that the aforementioned lack of any two-way radio communication with the _only_ known source of search & rescue... plus the lack of any notice to Itasca (prior to radio 'blackout') of AE/FN's intentions to seek alternate landfall, (anywhere) would place them in a position of landing (assuming, on their part, that a safe landing on Gardner/Niku _was_ possible) on a deserted island, with no way of communicating with Itasca or anyone else (again assuming a safe, wheels down landing & sufficient fuel reserve to operate at least one of the Electra's engines) in the immediate vicinity of Gardner/Niku. It would again seem to me that a major consideration in seeking the possibility of alternate landfall... upon failing to locate the initial, primary landfall, has to be... how easy will it be for someone (anyone) to locate the new landfall & arrange for rescue ? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric Seems to me that the primary concern would be to stay alive. Radio communication or no, whatever course of action stood the best chance of getting me to land, any land, would be my first choice. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:27:01 EST From: Dustymiss Subject: Re: AE's house in CA Yes, I have photos of the Valley Spring Lane house. I do not know what golf course it sits on. It looks much more like the style of house you would see in Rye, rather than in Los Angeles. I definately would have like to see the neighborhood when George bought the house. I'm sure the street was much less populated back then. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:29:04 EST From: Mike van Holsbeck Subject: AE audio Not sure if you would want it but in my search for the March of time audio, I came across a speech AE gave about the future of women in flight. It is 2 minutes long in mp3 format and is 1.8 MB. I just thought it was interesting as I have never heard her voice before. I am not sure what kind of band width you have so I won't send it unless you want it. Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric I have lots of examples of AE speaking but others on the forum might like to know where you found it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:49:18 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Indexing forum archives on CD I'm not sure that creating an index of the data that links to a date / author would be the way I would necessarily do it. It would probably eventually get you to where you wanted to go, but if you went to a "find" function, and put in your own searching criteria (ie: "blowing smoke"), then the software (ie: Adobe Acrobat) will take you to every location where that word / phrase / sentence appears, in sequential order. If necessary, you can easily go back and restrict or broaden your query. Seems a lot easier to let the software do the work. In addition, the user can create his or her own searching criteria; particularly useful if one is looking for some obscure fact that the indexers didn't deem significant at the time the index was constructed. We know how many times obscure points have been revisited and resulted in significant revelations. At any rate, using this method the data doesn't change. It still exists as it always has, it has just been provided a means by which researchers can facilitate access. If you want to go the other direction, MS Word has the ability to create an index in a document - either automatically from a list, or by going through the document. It also has the ability to create hyperlinks. I will have to look at Adobe to see if it can do likewise. Indexing from a list would probably make the most sense. Once the index list is compiled, it is a simple matter to have the software go through the document and compile the references. So the big task would be to go through the postings and identify the salient points that require indexing. That task could be performed by a group, each with a segment of the archives. The individual lists could then be reviewed for duplications, additions, deletions, etc., and combined into a master index list. Once the index list is compiled, it would be a simple matter to have the software go through the document and compile the references. Understand that the indexing I've worked with was designed to result in page number references to the data. Using the index as a base to create hyperlinks is possible, and should be relatively simple, although it's been a while since I've done this, and I'm going to have to refresh my memory on the mechanics. It may be that each link would have to be constructed by hand - which could be a backbreaking task. Let me know if you would like me to run a sample archive through, just to see what it would look like and how it would work. ltm, jon ************************************************************************** From Marty Moleski From Ric: > ... Format issues aside, there's the question of copyright. Sin bravely. You would NOT be charging for the content of the posts, which have been "published" already in an (arguably) public domain. You would ONLY be charging for the (very substantial) work done to organize the material and make it presentable on a CD. You would also be asking for a DONATION over and above the cost of materials and equipment in order to support TIGHAR's research. Anybody who doesn't want to pay for the "value added" can get the same posts from the internet. > ... I think we need to do it if we can. It's a great idea. > Anybody have further thoughts on this? The system, as you describe it, would be HTML based with URLs acting as the links into the filing system. No software need be circulated with the disk. Anyone with a browser can read the HTML indices and the formatted posts. I've indexed a book (my own). I know how hard it is. I can't volunteer to work on this project right now, but I can tell you how I'd do it if I had the time. :o) Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric When a priest tells me to "Sin bravely" I'm inclined to listen. God knows we have a wealth (if that's the right word) of lawyers on the forum. Perhaps they'd grace us with some pro bono opinions. ************************************************************************** From Marjorie For what it's worth, I'd vote for keeping everything on the website even if there's no income stream involved. Reason: As soon as you issue a CD, it's out-dated because it doesn't include entries that came in the day after it was created. So very quickly any search involves going to the CD, then to the new postings. When you have enough material to issue a new CD, how do you integrate that info with what's on the first CD? The invention of the card catalog for libraries was a major step in making information accessible. Assuming the cards were typed and filed correctly the catalog was up-to-date each day as new books came in and their cards were filed. A computer database works the same way. However, I once managed a branch library where I was told to throw out the "space gobbling" card catalog drawers -- they had been replaced by a computerized system. But we had no computer terminal in our library, I protested. That's okay, I was assured, we'll send you a monthly printout from our computer records. In defiance of my leader's orders, I kept the card catalog and filed the new cards that came with each of the two or three new books we got each day (provided by a defiant chief librarian who also saw the flaws in the director's thinking). Eventually that branch library got a computer terminal -- but even so, only one person at a time could look things up, while with the card catalog, theoretically as many people could be searching as there were drawers (provided their search topics were well distributed, alphabetically). In my opinion, CDs of ever-expanding info are like those monthly printouts I was offered and rejected. Marjorie ************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent point. Perhaps the answer is to offer the Forum Highlights as a password-protected service on the website that you pay to subscribe to. The on-line Eighth Edition is already set up that way. ************************************************************************ From Ross Devitt Who "owns" the copyright once the writings are posted on TIGHAR's forum? We post knowing our writings (ramblings, ravings etc...) are going to be read by anyone who wishes to look at them. I suspect there would be little dissent among forum members if a CD was produced enabling them to look up past postings by searching for words. I'd also suggest that because the postings probably belong to "the forum" that no distinction be made between FORUM members and TIGHAR members in pricing these CDs. It might be sensible to do a couple of things: 1/. get a legal opinion of whether there would be any problem under "fair dealing" with producing such a CD. After all TIGHAR is a non-profit organization. 2/. perhaps more importantly, ask for a vote by current forum members and see if anyone has an objection to the idea. If a large majority of current forum members is happy with the idea, and if the CDs are priced so the average person can afford them and kept at the same price for FORUM members and TIGHARS I'd be surprised if there was much objection. That leaves past members (including those who have passed on). They may have specific rights, but by posting to an open public forum their words are there for all to see anyway. Anyone searching for my real name in GOOGLE will find links to forum posts, and guess what happens if I search for "Th' WOMBAT"... If I die tomorrow am I going to complain if in a few years someone somewhere in the world can read something I posted to the forum, whether on the net or on a CD? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:02:45 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Thanks, Mr. Brandenburg. I think I see what you're saying: Regardless of whether he called it S-1 to S-5, the operator's comments on signal strength indicate that the signal was "very strong" and, therefore, definately "useable" (the signal fell into a useability range), and your 16dB represents the minimum "useability" threshold. Of course, in order to fall within this useability spectrum, it seems that the analysis and your detailed reply always circles back to the key importance of the subjective "S-5" comments of the operator aboard Itasca to begin with. Ric, now that TIGHAR has changed its assumption as to when Earhart turned southeast on the LOP, I think that makes the numbers and second conclusion stated by The Radio Riddle work, so long as we get closer to the turn occuring an hour earlier at 1912 GMT as used in The Radio Riddle. You probably should change the time in Log Jam, too. Just be aware that this means that, if she turned southeast at 1912 GMT, that she flew off at 115 mph (per the Radio Riddle) in one direction after telling Itasca that she must at Howland ("we must be on you but cannot see you"). LTM, who recognizes smoke and crawfishing when she sees it. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Looks to me like you still don't understand what Bob is saying, and no, I'm not going to change Log Jam. It's an article published in TIGHAR Tracks at a particular point in the project. I can't change it any more than I can change any of the other things I may have written at some point earlier in the project that I now would write differently. It's occasionally embarrassing but it's the only way to be ethical. I can change the November 2001 summary because it's still November 2001. This is an ongoing investigation. That's why we always provide the date that something was written. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:32:19 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle The orginal ltasca log does not record any signal strength for the 1912 GMT msg from AE that "We must be on you..." Bob B. reports in the 8th edition, p.1 of the "Radio Riddle" that the Itasca log described her signal strength at "S-5". The next msg at 1928, "We are circling..." is S-5. Most likely a minor error in calculating the signal range in that time frame,but nevertheless 16 minutes or 32 miles might make some difference. Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Neither the Bellarts/Galten log nor the O'Hare log mentions a signal strength for the 1912 (07:42) transmission. Air Corps Lt. Dan Cooper's report provides a catalog of signal strength as follows; 0345 - very faint - S1 0445 - faint - S2 0600 - fair - S3 0646 - good - S4 0741 - very loud - S5 0750 - very loud - S5 0758 - very loud - S5 0843 - very loud - S5 He adds; "The radio operator reported that from 0741 on, hr signal strength was at a maximum and judging from her volume, she was practically over Howland. All this seems to indicate that she passed close to Howland, probably within 50 miles." By the way, his next comment was: "(Earhart's) Gasoline supply was estimated to last 24 hours with a possibility of lasting 30 hours." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:36:43 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: The Radio Riddle - something to consider I have been re-reading some of the older forum notes and especially the telegrams. It has been suggested in Log Jam and during forum discussions that Earhart and the Itasca were working the radio schedule on conflicting time zones due to a misunderstanding, and that due to this some of her transmissions may have been lost because of overlapping transmissions. The June 29th telegram from Itasca reads in part: " . REQUEST WE BE ADVISED AS TO TIME OF DEPARTURE AND ZONE TIME TO BE USED ON RADIO SCHEDULES . " At first glance it is easy to see this as a suggestion by Itasca that the local time be used, but after reading it through several times it is clearly a request for Earhart to advise Itasca what time she will be using. This is emphasised out by the "AND" in the middle of the sentence. Take it out and the sentence becomes a statement. Leave it in and it is clearly a question to which Earhart responds. Earhart's reply included: "PLAN MIDDAY TAKEOFF" followed by " . WILL BROADCAST HOURLY QUARTER PAST HOUR GCT FURTHER INFORMATION LATER . " Thus answering both requests. This would suggest that whatever time was used to keep Itasca's logs, the radio operators would have been aware of Earhart's expected transmission times and not prone to transmitting over the top of her by accident. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric And yet they did transmit at her announced broadcast times, and they used local time despite her clear statement that she would be using GCT and they sent most of their transmissions in code despite her clear instructions to use voice only. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:59:12 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Indexing forum archives on CD how about the use of a front end search engine that lets you type in keywords which the engine looks through the document database then near matches the keyword.from there highlight other keywords within said document that you can click on which then takes you to another part of the document(s) as a link.think of it as writing a self contained website/search engine on a disc...also there could be a web link for updates on site...regarding copyright on forum posts i would think acknowledgements would be enough as i suppose its in the public domain otherwise everything everybody says on clubs,groups,forums etc would be copyrighted...i could be wrong its just my view,hope ive been of use(or not maybe!) **************************************************************************** From Craig Fuller To skirt around copyright issues, how about 2 CDs for the archive. The first CD would be sold at the cost of the CD and shipping and would contain the e-mail messages. The second CD would be the index sold at full price. Making all of the messages available on TIGHAR's web site would take up quite a bit of space and be expensive. Craig Fuller TIGHAR #1589CE *************************************************************************** From Ric Keeping it all on the website rather than on CD(s) avoids the problem of issuing new CDs at --what interval? The Forum Highlights are already taking up a lot of space on the website and are generating no income. Making them more useful and charging for the service seems reasonable. **************************************************************************** From Alexander i agree,imagine the knowledge that would be accessable if this technology had been available to shakespeare and dickens and ancient greek dudes(there names escape me at moment)...in a previous post ric you mentioned something about it costing money to access the website,what did you mean by this ? **************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR pays a monthly fee to our web hoster. That fee is based upon megabytes downloaded - in other words, everytime you bring up the TIGHAR website on your computer those megabytes are recorded against our account. Every month we pay a fee based upon an anticipated "chunk" of useage. If useage exceeds that chunk we pay get charged extra. During the Niku IIII expedition increased TIGHAR website traffic caused our monthly web hosting bill to jump from $70 to over $1,000. *************************************************************************** From Marty Moleski > From Jon Watson > In > addition, the user can create his or her own searching criteria ... I'd recommend a blend of indexing/search functions, as in Windows help files. I agree completely that new questions will cause people to search the database differently. An index of classical topics and authors would also be interesting and useful. Software is available to help organize web searches: http://www.netrics.com/lt/overview.shtml -- Lookup technology includes a "spider" that will crawl around TIGHAR's website on a regular basis and facilitate searches. Here's an overview of available tools (some free, some pay-for-play): http://searchenginewatch.com/resources/software.html > Indexing from a list would probably make the most sense. Once the index list > is compiled, it is a simple matter to have the software go through the document > and compile the references. The trouble is that lots of synonyms can be used to express the same ideas. Word lists are less helpful than you might think (I'm reasoning from my experience of Windows help screens). I made my index the old-fashioned way: I re-read my book (UGH!) and categorized everything. It was hard work, much harder than I expected. > When a priest tells me to "Sin bravely" I'm inclined to listen. For what it's worth, I was quoting Martin Luther: "Pecca fortiter!" (And I sure as heck hope no one thinks it's good moral advice for all situations.) :-O Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Can I get that as a bumper sticker? Where but on the Earhart Forum could you find a Jesuit quoting Martin Luther's advice to sin bravely - in Latin? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:01:13 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle > From Don Neumann > > Just a note concerning Chris K's analysis of the 'Radio Riddle'... > >& since none of these actually received & > recorded transmissions ever alerted Itasca to any intention by AE to fly > SE to the Phoenix Islands (or any where else, for that matter) _if_ AE > was unable to locate Howland ... how could AE/FN communicate with > Itasca, having flown to Gardner/Niku, some 300-400 miles in the > opposite direction... from the _only_ source of search & rescue, known > to AE/FN at _that_ time ? > > Would not such inability to establish any reliable, two-way radio > communication with Itasca make the possibly of rescue from Gardner/Niku > highly improbable...especially since AE had never informed anyone of > such intention, prior to or during the flight, (before the radio > 'black-out') As I recall, the last radio message received from Earhart by Itasca contained the information: "WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337" and "WE ARE RUNNING ON LINE" Early in the flight Earhart transmitted her position twice, although there has been speculation that the numbers shown in the Chater report may have been incorrectly understood as one shows the Electra in a very unlikely position. The last transmission is the only other time position information seems to have been received. This would seem to answer the question of her intentions. If they did not know exactly where they were they could not say "we're heading for Gardner Island". The best they could do, knowing that Itasca had heard them was to say what direction they were taking. Also, they did not refer to the LOP as a Line of Position or an advanced LOP, although it is obvious that it what it was. They simply said they were flying on the line 157 337. As has been pointed out years ago, if you draw a line 157/337 through Howland Island, the southern end passes close to a group of islands, as well as passing fairly close to baker island. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:02:01 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Long term plan For this newbie, I applaud your defense of where TIGHAR has been and where it's headed. Your last response was objevtive and reasonable. I, for one, support your efforts wholeheartedly. I only wish I had more excess funds to really show my support. You're doing a good job, Ric. I enjoy some of your responses. My wife still giggles about our proposed exchange of body parts for my going on the last trip to Niku. Frankly, I'm smiling myself right now. Thanks again for doing things well & keeping your sense of humor. Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:03:31 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's house in CA Hi Dustymiss, I'd love to chat with you about AE's house. Do you happen to know the # of the house & what city it's located in? I can probably determine that by mapquest. Love to hear from you. Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:05:01 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle > From Don Neumann > ... plus the lack of any > notice to Itasca (prior to radio 'blackout') of AE/FN's intentions to > seek alternate landfall ... If I understand the story correctly, some of AE's transmissions may have been "stepped on" by the Itasca using a different clock and transmitting when they should have been listening. Who knows what AE and FN transmitted in their last hours? Who knows what they thought was heard? Since they were not receiving (or understanding) what the Itasca transmitted, they had no clue that 3105 was working OK and that 6210 was useless. If I'm not mistaken, their last recorded words were "Will re-transmit this message on 6210." Then silence. How many more transmissions might they have made on that useless frequency, just because it was daylight? And because they didn't know they'd lost their antenna? If even one (1) post-loss message is authentic, then AE and FN made it somewhere where they were alive and able to transmit. It does not seem likely to me that all (every single one!) of the post-loss messages were hoaxes or misinterpretations. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:06:37 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: long term plan I like the shoes and the bones and Bettys radio log to validate the thory that AE reached Gardner,,(plus the fact that she had enough fuel) thats enough for me since everyone seems to neglect the fact that if you rank the amount of material possible from 1 to 100, for all forms of human visitations that hap[pened on Gardner (all the footprints that were made and the artifacts left behind by a large buffalo herd of humans digging and shoveling over the years),,, The presence of AE and FN was so tiny,, and so brief,, and what did they have to leave behind?? what AE left on the island ranks at about a 1 out of 100 ,, not a ship load of stores as was brought onland both before and after july 1937.. All they had was the shoes on thier feet and the shirt on thier backs plus a small amount of what ever they could off load from the electra,,, so I would not expect to find anything more than a few tiny scraps.. The absense of large parts of an airplane just means that the whole large bullk of the electra was washed off the reef muy-pronto by wave and wind maybe even before Lambricht arrived. I submit that the electra was a boat after it landed on the reef,,and the biggest bulk of airplane stuff is laying on the bottom of the ocean somewhere off the edge of the reef. Thats what I think The stoker ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:08:40 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Chris Kennedy wrote: << Thanks, Mr. Brandenburg. I think I see what you're saying: Regardless of whether he called it S-1 to S-5, the operator's comments on signal strength indicate that the signal was "very strong" and, therefore, definately "useable" (the signal fell into a useability range), and your 16dB represents the minimum "useability" threshold. Of course, in order to fall within this useability spectrum, it seems that the analysis and your detailed reply always circles back to the key importance of the subjective "S-5" comments of the operator aboard Itasca to begin with. >> No, Chris, you still don't quite understand Bob's analysis - you're 'close', but not quite there. :-) First of all, forget the 'S' reading. I think that's throwing you off. Now, Bob determined that the minimum usuable signal would have been at a 16 db Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR). This SNR value would indicate a minimum readable signal by the Itasca. This would NOT be a 'measured' value at that time - the Itasca crew had NO way of 'measuring' this 'value' to determine what it was (although with the proper test equipment, they could have done so). Now, if the Itasca radio operator could copy ANY of the signal, then he could 'assign' an 'S' reading to it. If the signal was VERY poor, then he might say that it was 'S-1'. As the signal level increased, then he might increase the 'S' reading. Obviously, at some point, to him, the signal was VERY strong - of course, we don't know HOW strong that signal was, but he assigned an 'S-5' to it. We DO know that it was 'readable', just as ANY signal to which he would assign an 'S' reading would be 'readable'. So, in other words, ANY 'S' reading would be at the 16 db SNR level or stronger. How MUCH stronger, we don't know. But, even if the Itasca radio operator assigned an 'S-1' reading to a signal, then we would know that, since he HEARD that signal enough for it to be 'readable', then even that 'S-1' signal would have to be at a 16 db SNR level or higher. Thus we don't need to know exactly what he meant by 'S-5' in order to determine the 'maximum' possible range of the radio signals - we just know that the signal was 'readable' and therefore, must have been at least at a level to produce a 16 db SNR. So, the ONLY thing that Bob is 'getting out of' the 'S-5' report is the fact that the Itasca radio operator could 'hear' a 'usable' signal. Bob, I hope I explained that right. :-) John Rayfield, Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:11:56 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Radio Riddle: Correct Assumption? To Pete #2419 - You believe what you want to believe, and hang the objectivity! Cam Warren, who believes the truth. *************************************************************************** From Ric And the award for most hilarious forum posting goes to (the envelope please) CAM WARREN! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:26:05 EST From: Clayton Davis Subject: Forum Archive CD Jon Watson makes a suggestion that PDF would be the ideal medium for the Forum Archive CD. I have downloaded documents in PDF and found my subject in the index. Then I perform a search for the indexed word. It is found thereupon in the page(s) where it occurs. Some handbooks for software are presented that way. I will experiment with my indexing software and see if it can handle PDF. Should it be able to index PDF, then I will expect Jon to send me the PDF file. I will index it and send same back. (Is Jon a male or female name?) I invite him/her to e-mail me privately for coordination. Clayton Davis #2446S *************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa, easy there. No decision has been made to use PDF and it is unlikely that we will do so. We appreciate everyone's ideas and once we've made a decision about exactly how to approach the indexing of the Forum Highlights we'll let everyone know. I have always assumed that Jon is male and is the same Watson made famous by Conan Doyle. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:36:34 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Ric, it's your webpage so you can leave Log Jam uncorrected, but just be aware that your November 2001 hypothesis specifically includes a link and reference to Log Jam. So, after you change your November 2001 hypothesis, the reader will then read down and be told to click onto Log Jam, and read that there you have Earhart leaving at 2013 along the LOP, and between 1912 and 2013 say that she was running north and south along the line. No explanation is given as to the contradiction. I agree with you that it is embarassing. It is also very misleading. Since the webpage is also a fairly aggressive marketing and fund raising device and solicits money on-line based in substantial part on the strength and merits of the research presented or "advertised" , you never can be sure what facet of the research the donor finds compelling, so it's not a good idea to knowingly allow major inconsistencies like this to remain uncorrected and expect the donor to somehow use dates and a line-by-line comparison to cut-and-paste the "real story" together. Finally, it makes TIGHAR look pretty sloppy and it should. There are lots of ways to preserve and display past research that has been modified or superceeded. Mixing it all in with your current work is guaranteed to cause trouble. --Chris Kennedy P.S.: I think I understand what Bob Brandenburg is saying. Subjective statements concerning signal strengths such as "S-5", "S-1" etc. DO have certain value or merit, and permit reasonable assumptions for purposes of analyses such as that done in the Radio Riddle. This is all contrary to what the Radio Historian told us. --C-- *************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you for your suggestions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:30:45 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Thank you very much, Mr. Rayfield. I appreciate the clarification. You state at the end "So, the ONLY thing that Bob 'is getting out of' the 'S-5' report is the fact that the Itasca radio operator could 'hear' a 'useable' signal." What started all this was the Radio Historian's comment that the S-5 report was useable for nothing (recall the "NOOOOOOO..." e-mail that Ric wanted to frame). That didn't sound correct, and apparently it wasn't, since Bob was able to apply a minimum value to a useable signal for his analysis. I'd also be interested in your comments on the second conclusion reached by the Radio Riddle, assuming that Earhart actually turned down the LOP at 2013 GMT rather than the 1912 GMT used in the analysis. Recall that in response to my e-mails on this TIGHAR changed it's assumption as to when Earhart turned south. It is now sometime between 1912 GMT (the time used for the numbers in the Radio Riddle) and before 2013 GMT (the old assumption). If we assume the time is closer to 1912 GMT, this change by TIGHAR saves the Radio Riddle. But what if the time is closer to 2013 GMT? That was my original question, and TIGHAR has yet to address it. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric <> To quote a famous Radio Historian, NOOOOO. <> NOOOOO. In response to your natterings I recognized that our hypothesis was more specific than it needed to be. The assumption that the turn was made at 2013 is still viable, but so are other times. <> There was never any question about "saving" the Radio Riddle. What if they started heading southeastward on the LOP at 2013? Depends on where they were at 2013. I don't see anywhere in The Radio Riddle where Bob pretends that he knows where they were at 1912 or 2013 or any time before, in between, or after. You seem to be under the impression that he begins with the assumption that they started southeastward down the line at 1912 but I can't find where he says any such thing. He does say that if a signal described as "S-5" can be interpreted to have a median SNR greater than 16db, the CPA was probably not more than 80 miles and may have been less. He also says that if you assume that the 2013 signal was received at less than 16db but still readable (at least 13db) then the distance was not more than 200 miles. He discusses a number of possibilities based upon a variety of assumptions about airspeed and position, but he never says that the airplane was here at this time and then did this and was therefore here at this time. I thought that by sending you a free copy of the Eighth Edition it would help you understand the technical issues better, but apparently all I've done is provide you with more material to misunderstand. I also get the distinct impression that your challenges are not about evidence or science or logic but about demonstrating your own "talent", as you call it, for picking out what you perceive to be inconsistencies in the arguments of others. Well, I have neither the time nor the inclination to play ego games with you so I'll leave that to others. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:46:34 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle > >From Ron Bright > > The orginal ltasca log does not record any signal strength for the 1912 > GMT msg from AE that "We must be on you..." Bob B. reports in the 8th > edition, p.1 of the "Radio Riddle" that the Itasca log described her signal > strength at "S-5". > The next msg at 1928, "We are circling..." is S-5. > Most likely a minor error in calculating the signal range in that time > frame,but nevertheless 16 minutes or 32 miles might make some difference. The log entry immediately following the 1912Z entry in Bellarts' log is a transmission responding to the 1912Z signal and says in pertinent part: " QSA5" which means "The strength of your signal is 5". That's the same as saying that the strength of the 1912Z was S-5. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:47:32 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Radio Riddles For John Rayfield and Bob B. I know you have tried your best to explain a complex radio problem, but frankly I think we need a clearer explanation of why the ITasca couldn't hear AE as she allegedly flew south. Or maybe it is impossible to reduce this to understandable terms. For instance, Rayfield concludes that the only thing that Bob is getting out of the S-5 report is the fact that the Itasca could hear a usable signal? Thus, I ask, if a radio operator hears a "usable signal " (past 16dbSNR), the assignment of a strength signal as it gets clearer and louder has no value for distance computation? Ron Bright not Marconi ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:48:27 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle > Bob, I hope I explained that right. :-) > John Rayfield, Jr. You explained it perfectly, John. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:50:48 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Forum Archive CD Ric writes: > I have always assumed that Jon is male I am.... > and is the same Watson made famous by > Conan Doyle. Right again, Holmes. ltm, jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Elementary. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:52:14 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Pro bono opinion Well, since you asked ... This is off the cuff, but I agree that, having published their comments in a public forum such as TIGHAR's, the authors have probably waived any copyright protection. It's basically the same thing as printing a flyer and handing it out to passersby on the street. If one of those passersby chooses to reprint my work as his own, do I have a valid infringement claim? Probably not, although the courts have been known to craft ad-hoc exceptions when the infringer ends up making a zillion bucks off something he obtained for free. It might be different if TIGHAR were a restricted-access forum, but far as I know the only "membership requirement" is that the subscriber be breathing. So when I post to the forum I am impliedly sending my meager comments out to the whole world. However, under the new copyright act, it's no longer necessary to use the c-in-a-circle (or any other form of notice) to claim copyright, so the matter does need some research from someone who does more intellectual property work than I do. In reviewing the foregoing I think I have just added to the confusion, but perhaps have identified some specific areas of inquiry. Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:40:26 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Hi, Ric. You'll find the references to 1912 GMT in numbered paragraphs 1, 4, 6 [see especially the third through sixth sentence] and 7 [which incorporates paragraphs one through six as conclusions [a] -[c]]. The maximum 250 mile limit appears to be computed, in each case, at a beginning time of 1912 GMT (see paragraph 6 with conclusion stated in paragraph 7 [a]-[c]). I understand your confusion reading it for the first time, as I had difficulty as well. That's why I asked the question to begin with, given TIGHAR's then-current assumption that the flight turned southeast at 2013 GMT and spent the hour from 1912 GMT to 2013 GMT heading north-south along the LOP looking for Howland (see "Log Jam"). --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, I'm aware of the several references to the 1912 transmission but I don't think they mean what you think they mean. I suggest that we let the author decide which one of us is confused. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:57:28 EST From: Michael Subject: Re: Radio Riddles I'm trying very hard not to get involved in this 'radio riddle' .... however there are some quite extraordinary statements and assumptions. Signal strength is a subjective measurement of the signal quality, as heard by the individual listening to the signal in question - some people hear better than others, an experienced radio operator can discern words and speech more clearly than Joe Bloggs because he has had more practice at it. Obviously, a partially deaf radio operator needs a stronger or clearer signal to be able to report S5. Maybe an operator who has been on duty for long hours listening with headphones will have less sharp hearing than one who has just come on duty? Unless you speak directly to the radio operator concerned, AND he can remember[?], then you cannot quantify what is meant by S5. Even then, you can not be sure. I would assume that S5 is a good, reasonably clear and understandable signal - that is all. Sometimes, radio operators will report a better signal than they ought to, in order not to prolong communications under difficult circumstances - you 'reckon' you can copy the speech ok so you give S5. Another question - did the reciever in use have a signal strength meter? If so how was it calibrated? [ not at all I suspect] Did the operator read it or use his judgement? What the level of local interference / atmospherics ? Even if you can answer all these questions for certain, you still cannot make any absolute judgement on the signal received, and to attempt to make range calculations based on S readings is .....well - over to you. Michael [who knows radio, and ought to know better than to get involved in this.] ************************************************************************** From Ric As far as we know, the Itasca's radios had no S-meters. I think we have a general consensus that the subjective judgements of the operators do not permit an assignment of any hard distance between transmitter and receiver, but the observation that this signal was louder and clearer than that signal does allow us to outline some possibilities within reasonable parameters. Bob Brandenburg's study entitled "The Radio Riddle" is an in-depth assessment of the situation using computer modelling. It's on the website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/radioriddle.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:58:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle > you have Earhart > leaving at 2013 along the LOP, and between 1912 and 2013 say that she was > running north and south along the line. If someone knows when she was "leaving" please let me know. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:59:22 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Chris, actually it is very simple. We have several radio messages from AE at or near the end of her flight to Howland. No one knows where she was during, before or after any of the radio calls nor do we know what she was doing, intended to do or did. Does that help any? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:04:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio Riddles Ron, I'm not a radio guy so anyone shoot at this all they want but here is my take. 3105 transmitted over a fairly short range as is apparent by the radio calls the Itasca heard from AE. For some reason, the importance of which is minimal, she could not receive on 3105 at any distance, close in or far away. 6210 seemed to transmit a long way but not close in. AE couldn't receive on 6210 either. SOOOOO! As she departed the area transmitting on 3105 Itasca could read her but when she switched to 6210 she was still too close to be read on that frequency. Like others I assume she gave several more messages on 6210 and may well have tried to tell Itasca where she was and where she was going. What else would she have to report? Her fuel possibly but certainly her intentions. Itasca couldn't read her on 6210. On reaching Gardner if that's where she went she was STILL too close using 6210 as she was only about 400 miles away. If she had stayed on 3105 I have to guess Itasca would have received the missing messages. It would appear AE never returned to 3105. I think the complaints she never told anyone what she was going to do are not valid. At best it can be said no one HEARD her report her intentions. Someone far off would have heard 6210 if anyone. Does this sound reasonable? Alan, capable of turning all kinds of radios on and off #2329 ************************************************************************* From Bob Brandenburg > From Ron Bright > > For John Rayfield and Bob B. > > I know you have tried your best to explain a complex radio problem, but > frankly I think we need a clearer explanation of why the ITasca couldn't hear > AE as she allegedly flew south. Or maybe it is impossible to reduce this to > understandable terms. > For instance, Rayfield concludes that the only thing that Bob is getting > out of the S-5 report is the fact that the Itasca could hear a usable signal? > > Thus, I ask, if a radio operator hears a "usable signal " (past 16dbSNR), > the assignment of a strength signal as it gets clearer and louder has no > value for distance computation? I appreciate your frustration but, trust me, the explanation is as clear and simple as it can be without losing essential rigor. Although the underlying process of signal propagation is complex, the reasoning which forms the basis for the analytical approach is really quite straightforward. The basic problem is that we have no way of getting from the operator's assessment of signal strength to the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the particular signal as received at the Itasca. Things would be easy if we could, since we could then calculate the exact distance from which the signal was sent. Since we don't have the necessary information to do that, we need to do the best we can with what we know. Enter the concept of "just usable" signal strength. We know the minimum SNR required for a signal to be "just usable" - - it's 16 decibels. If an operator can read a signal, then we know that it equals or exceeds the 16 dB "just usable" threshold. In the case of the "S-5" signal, we know that the signal was stronger than "just usable", therefore we know that its signal to noise ratio exceeded the 16 dB threshold. We can't say by how much, just that it did. So how does that help us? Well, we know that the signal was transmitted from a distance less than that from which a signal would produce a 16 dB SNR - - a stronger signal means the transmitter is closer. So, how far away would the Electra have been if the SNR was exactly 16 dB? Ah, now that's a question we can answer. We do that by solving the radio propagation physics equations. Once we have that distance, we know that the S-5 signal had to have been sent from a shorter distance. We know that because the SNR is greater than 16 dB - - although we still don't know by how much. So, what does all this tell us? By using the "just usable" signal strength as the analytical key - - sort of like a Rosetta Stone - - we can find the maximum distance from which any usable signal could have been sent. It's what we call an "upper bound". We still don't know how far away the Electra was when that S-5 signal was sent, but we know that it had to be less than the distance corresponding to the SNR of a "just usable" signal, and we know what that distance was. I hope this helps clarify things. LTM, Bob Brandenburg ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:06:12 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: Radio Riddles Ron Bright wrote: << Thus, I ask, if a radio operator hears a "usable signal " (past 16dbSNR), the assignment of a strength signal as it gets clearer and louder has no value for distance computation? >> In a nutshell, in this case, I would say that is correct - 'no value'. All that the 'reading' is good for is to determine if the signal is either 'readable/usable' or not. There are too many other variables involved in ionospheric propagation that may 'throw off' any distance computations. What Bob did, by determining a 'range' of possible distances, is the best anyone is going to be able to do. Now, if we were talking about 'groundwave' propagation (especially at higher frequencies), then I would say that 'maybe' a signal strength 'reading' might have some value in determining distance, but we aren't talking about that type of propagation. Consider this: how do you 'assign' the strength 'number'? IF the equipment has an 'S' meter, then that value can be used, but this 'S' meter MUST be properly calibrated. Just to give you an idea as to how inaccurate this is, I own several HF (shortwave) ham radios. Two of them (Kenwoods) are calibrated so that an 'S-9' on the meter corresponds to a 50 microvolt signal at the antenna connector. Now, we'll 'assume' that that calibration is correct for ALL frequencies over which these radios operate (which may be an incorrect assumption - I haven't checked them that closely with my communications service monitor). On the other hand, I have another HF ham radio (a Yaesu) that is calibrated so that a meter reading of '25 db over S-9' (a MUCH stronger signal as compared to 'S-9') corresponds to the same 50 microvolt signal at the antenna connector. And, on this particular radio, I DO see some difference in calibration between different frequency 'bands'. So, two different manufacturers have used two VERY different 'standards' to which their radio equipment 'S' meters are calibrated. Now, in the case of the equipment on the Itasca, if I'm remembering correctly, there were no 'S' meters, anyway (Bob, or Mike, am I remembering correctly?). That meant that the 'assignment' of the 'S' reading was simply 'random', so to speak, based on the 'ears' of the listening radio operator (and THAT can very a LOT between different radio operators - What one operator might call an 'S-5', might be called an 'S-4' by another operator. Or what one operator might not even hear, another operator might consider an 'S-1' or even an 'S-2' signal). Also consider that shortwave radio signals don't 'fall' into a specific 'spot' on the earth when propagating - they always cover an 'area'. And, while a person might 'assume' that a 'mobile' station is getting closer if the signal is getting stronger, this may actually be a 'false' assumption, due to changes in the radio signal propagation. John Rayfield, Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:11:27 EST From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Signal strength and Signal-to-Noise Ratio When I made my now (in)famous posting of a few days past regarding signal strength, my point, quite simply, was (and remains) this: It is IMPOSSIBLE to derive a distance-measurement from a subjective signal strength judgement. Those who try it are engaging in smoke-blowing and crawfishing. I stand by my "NOOOOO" comment. This is a horse that's been in the ground a long time. Like Lazarus, if you try to resurrect him, "he stinketh." Where the confusion seems to be coming from, is attempting to tie signal strength too directly to signal-to-noise ratio. The two are NOT the same. Sure, one can indeed INFER that if signal strength is rising, then the source of those signals is getting closer. HOWEVER, it may also mean that wave propagation over the path from a transmitter to a receiver is improving, and signal levels rise as a consequence, though the transmitter and receiver remain stationary. We deal with this all the time on my day job, where we must establish minimum signal levels to achieve reliable consistent communications over a path from A to B. When we know this, we proceed to design a system with certain transmitter output power, certain types of antennas with suitable directivity and gain, etc. But I digress.... Signal strength is a measurement of how much signal, measured in microvolts, abbreviated uV, is picked up at a particular point. Signal-to-noise ratio is an altogether different parameter. It is a measurement of the amount of signal, vis-a-vis the amount of noise present at the receiving site. Signal-to-noise ratio or SNR is measured in decibels, abbreviated dB. Radio noise comes from a number of sources. A certain amount of noise is generated in the receiver itself, in the tubes or semiconductors and the surrounding circuitry. The "noise floor" of the receiver is something we want to keep as low as possible, i.e. the maximum negative number of dB, say -100 dB. Other noise sources include the atmosphere (lightning, etc), the sun, and other celestial bodies (like the planet Jupiter, which has a high level of radiation around 20 MHz) and "galactic noise" from all over the universe. Man made noise comes from all kinds of sources, chiefly electrical, like motor brushes, generator commutators, thermostats, switches, lighting apparatus, neon signs, transformers, power lines etc etc etc. Generally the noise floor of a receiver is the least of our worries when dealing with high frequency (3-30 MHz). Atmospheric, solar, and man made noises are the most troublesome. Regardless of the actual STRENGTH (microvolts) of a signal, in order for that signal to be USABLE, it must be able to be heard over the noise level. This is where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) becomes important. Bob Brandenburg has dealt admirably with the calculation of the minimum usable signal-to-noise ratio calculations. Now, please NOTE WELL: It MATTERS NOT the actual signal strength, for the signal to be deemed "usable". What DOES MATTER, is the ratio of the signal strength to the noise level. To be usable, the signal must be a certain amount "above the noise." Before anyone gets excited and starts reading more into this than is here, please be aware of this: We DO NOT HAVE TO KNOW the noise floor of the actual receivers aboard the Itasca to establish any of this stuff. Verification of the minimum signal-to-noise ratio for a usable and intelligible amplitude-modulated (AM) voice signal, taking into account the average percentage of modulation (as Bob has made clear), can be done with a communications receiver of any type, a modulated radio-frequency signal generator, and other simple test equipment, in a lab. It really isn't rocket science. What is important about Bob's calculation of minimum SNR, is that it gives a STARTING POINT, a quantitative measurement, upon which to base further calculations. Again, this starting point is eminently verifiable in a lab. We also do not know the noise level aboard Itasca. Bob's computer program gives us some pretty reliable figures for the state of the atmosphere on 7-2-37; but it's impossible to replicate the shipboard environment. It is, however, very safe to assume that there was "a bit" of noise aboard, from the ship's electrical system. How much? Who knows? What is important, is that if the operator judged the signal as S-5 at some point, it was LOUD. It was able to overcome the noise. Now, does this mean the a/c was getting closer to Howland? Yes. But, maybe no... IF the antenna aboard NR16020 had any directional radiation properties (and we don't know this, not yet anyway), it MAY mean that the a/c turned in a direction such that the Itasca was now in a "lobe" of radiated signal... in a direction in which the antenna exhibited some "gain" or in which the radiated signal was enhanced by the antenna's proximity to the a/c itself. This is a very light weight treatment of a highly complex issue; however, I hope it serves to enlighten some gray areas. I also advocate the inauguration of a subset of the Forum, designated by the acronym SPADE. Society for Prevention of Abuse to Dead Equines. "Turning a Spade" would, therefore, be desirable... once more burying the unfortunate horse. LTM (who abhors Cavalry Steak) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:29:51 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle QUESTION: is it known wether they gave a fix on where they were each time they made radio contact...(if a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it,does it give an S5 ?) ************************************************************************* From Ric Yes it is known and no they did not give a fix each time they made a transmission. In fact, none of the transmissions received by Itasca included a position report. ************************************************************************* From Chris in Petaluma Wasn't hris Kennedy along on your last expedition to Niku? If true what was his expertise? I found the subject on EA's survival on Niku much more interesting than the radio stuff, seems we've beaten that horse till there's no more horse. Chris in Petaluma,Ca (where there's lots of horses) ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Chris was a member of both the 1999 Niku IIIIP team and the 2001 Niku IIII team. In 1999 he purchased a Sponsor/Team member position, as did several other participants in that expedition. He was selected for the Niku IIII team based upon his hard work during the 1999 trip. He also worked very hard during this summer's expedition. Chris has no particular expertise in aviation, navigation, radio, or any of the forensic sciences but, to be fair, neither do some of the other team members. Mostly what we need in the field are strong, hard workers who are intelligent, observant, can handle the rigors of the environment, and can get along with their teammates. Chris is all those things. He also loves to argue. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:30:37 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Forum Archive CD >> and is the same Watson made famous by >> Conan Doyle. > > Right again, Holmes. > > ltm, > jon > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > Elementary. And I thought I was old! Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:34:27 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Pro bono opinion Pat Gaston writes: > So when I post to the forum I am impliedly sending my meager comments out to > the whole world. > > However, under the new copyright act, it's no longer necessary to use the > c-in-a-circle (or any other form of notice) to claim copyright, so the matter > does need some research from someone who does more intellectual property work > than I do. > > In reviewing the foregoing I think I have just added to the confusion, but > perhaps have identified some specific areas of inquiry. You at least made up a neat new word (impliedly). Actually, I think you mixed tenses and probably meant "implyingly". Another word of which my spell checker doesn't approve. Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************* From Ric Always nice to see that someone is surveilling the postings for creative English. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:38:23 EST From: Lee Krusckowski Subject: appropriate responses Been following the forum for quite some time. Love the LTM, but in some cases I think one of the catchy little phrases from the visitors bureau we learned on our way to Canton "KUNA ATII" would be very appropriate to some responses!!! Lee #1821CE ************************************************************************** From Ric I think you mean "kung butaei", and I have to agree. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:41:11 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle For Don Neumann > "some 300-400 miles in the opposite direction... from the _only_ source of > search & rescue, known to AE/FN at _that_ time ?" Don, she couldn't find Howland so ANYWHERE she went by definition had to be in the opposite direction. I am missing the point? > "...... AE had never informed anyone of such intention, prior to or during > the flight, (before the radio black-out')..." No one knows that to be true. All we know is no one has come forward having heard her. I have no idea nor does anyone else what additional radio reports she made or what the content was. "......& considering the fact that Gardner/Niku was > uninhabited..." I would guess she was just looking for land not a social event. I suspect people were low on her emergency list. ".....well away from any regularly traveled shipping route..." I don't imagine shipping routes went to very many uninhabited islands. I even wonder if they knew where the shipping routes were but I doubt THAT was high on there list either. > "While the navigational considerations & the _estimated_ fuel reserve would > seem to recommend Gardner/Niku as a near perfect alternate landfall, in > lieu of being unable to locate Howland... it seems (to me any way) that the > aforementioned lack of any two-way radio communication with the _only_ > known source of search & rescue... plus the lack of any notice to Itasca > (prior to radio 'blackout') of AE/FN's intentions to seek alternate > landfall, (anywhere) would place them in a position of > landing (assuming, on their part, that a safe landing on Gardner/Niku > _was_ possible) on a deserted island, with no way of communicating with > Itasca or anyone else (again assuming a safe, wheels down landing & > sufficient fuel reserve to operate at least one of the Electra's engines) > in the immediate vicinity of Gardner/Niku." Don, would you mind rephrasing this sentence. I'm not being critical I just can't get the drift of it. I can see you must be making a good point but I can't get it through my thick skull. > "It would again seem to me that a major consideration in seeking the > possibility of alternate landfall... upon failing to locate the initial, > primary landfall, has to be... how easy will it be for someone (anyone) o > locate the new landfall & arrange for rescue ?" I agree whole heartedly it would be a major consideration but how do you propose they could have done that without radio communication? I would have plunked the Electra down at first opportunity and assumed all those folks out there would have had enough sense to look for me. AND they did just that. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:51:48 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Indexing forum archives on CD As to search, what is wrong with using the brower's "edit" "find in top window" commands in IE? Netscape has the same capability. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric There is no shortage of search functions that can seek out words and phrases. The problem is that no one word or phrase, or even all the words and phrases you can think of, are guaranteed to pull up all the posings that pertain to the subject you want to research. I'll give you a classic case. Bill Moffet and I have been trying to resurrect whatever posting it was that referred to the Norwich City's last cargo before the fateful Melbourne/Vancouver voyage that ended at Gardner Island. We both remember that there was a posting about it but we can't find it despite a word/phrase search of the entire raw archives. The words "Norwich City" occur in literally thousands of postings so we have to be more specific. "Cargo" and "Norwich City cargo" did not produce the desired posting - and yet we both think we remember that there was such a posting at some time. I'm afraid that any useful index of subjects covered will have to be created with human software. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:28:59 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle "Chris is all those things. He also loves to argue." Ric: You seem to have found an adequate replacement for me. Congratulations! *************************************************************************** From Ric No such luck. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:29:50 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: Radio Riddles Bob Brandenburg wrote: << Well, we know that the signal was transmitted from a distance less than that from which a signal would produce a 16 dB SNR - - a stronger signal means the transmitter is closer. >> Bob, would it not have been possible that the signals could have gotten 'better' as Earhart traveled further from the Itasca, due to the signals tending to 'skip over' the Itasca when she was closer? John Rayfield, Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:51:34 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio Riddles >From John Rayfield > > Bob, would it not have been possible that the signals could have gotten > 'better' as Earhart traveled further from the Itasca, due to the signals > tending to 'skip over' the Itasca when she was closer? Actually, the signal strength decreased monotonically as the distance increased. At the shorter distances, the propagation path was near-vertical-incidence skywave. For example at 50 miles the takeoff angle was 81 degrees, and at 100 miles it was 71 degrees. So there was no skip-over when AE was close-in. LTM, Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:54:13 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio Riddles > From John Rayfield > > Now, in the case of the equipment on the Itasca, if I'm remembering > correctly, there were no 'S' meters, anyway (Bob, or Mike, am I remembering > correctly?). The Itasca had 7 receivers on board, including a CGR-30 and a CGR-31, both of which had S-meters, and two CGR-32s, which did not have S-meters. Photos of those units appear in "The Coast Guard At War", published by the Coast Guard in 1947. I don't know whether the other 4 receivers had S-meters, although one was an HRO. However, I don't whether it was an HRO-Senior, which had an S-meter, or an HRO-Junior which didn't. We don't know whether the operators used the S-meters that were there. But since we don't anything about the calibration of the S-meters, it wouldn't help us even if we did know that they were used. So I assumed for the purposes of analysis that all signal strength assessments were subjective decisions by the operators, based on "ear" alone. Bob ************************************************************************** From Ric I stand corrected. I didn't know that any of the tramsitters had S-meters, although as Bob says, it's a moot point. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:18:12 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Lots of people may not have the 8th edition. If you think it would help both these people and the author, I can quote the entire language of Paragraphs 6 or 7. For example (From paragraph 6): "But when would she have reached the 250-mile reception limit for her 2215 GMT signal? If her actual CPA distance [closest point of approach to Howland] at 1912 GMT was 10 miles (and assuming that she didn't see the Itasca), she would have reached the 250-mile limit by 2117 GMT if she continued along the LOP at 115 knots after 2013 GMT. If her 1912 GMT CPA was 80 miles, she would have reached the 250-mile limit by 2014 GMT at 115 knots. Therefore, Earhart would have reached the 250-mile limit no later than 2117 at a ground speed of 115 knots, and would have reached the limit earlier at any higher ground speed. Consequently, she was beyond the maximum range for communiction with Itasca by 2215 GMT." As I said, in both cases (the CPA being 10 miles or 80 miles) the starting "time" for the 250-mile reception limit seems to be 1912 GMT, not 2013 GMT. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric So what? He's describing one possible situation - he's not saying that's what happened. Go back to the sentence that precedes paragraph 1. "An answer (not THE answer) to the question of why the Itasca did not hear any radio signals from Earhart after 2013 GMT can be derived as follows:" This is what I've been trying to say all along. You're trying to make Bob's exercise into an Elgen Long-style pronouncement of what must have happened, and that's not what it is. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:23:14 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Indexing forum archives on CD There is, of course, a difference in a search and an index. There are a number of index producing programs available. Book publishers use them and I think Word Perfect can do that as well as Word. I would have to check. However if a search engine does not produce what you want then the indexing software would not either. Or did I misunderstand and the problem was you obtained TOO many responses and have not been able to narrow them down? The indexing software just goes through the documents producing a list of selected parts of speech such as all the nouns or whatever then alphabetizes them with page references. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Whatever you want to call it, what we need is something that makes it easy for people to find the information they're looking for without necessarily already knowing what subjects the forum has covered (are there any we haven't covered?). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:25:08 EST From: Michael Subject: Re: Radio Riddles I think the best summary of the so called 'radio riddle' is from Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 What he says is well constructed and generally correct - read it carefully! :) This riddle cannot be solved. Even if you were actually there listening and observing, you can not reach any substantial conclusion. For the sake of argument, has anybody considered: The radiation angle of the aircrafts long wire aerial - which depends to some extent on the attitude of the aircraft in flight at the time of transmission. The modulation depth of the transmitter - probably not very accurately controlled in old radio equipment. The level of speech [which probably affected the modulation levels] The position and orientation of the ships receiving aerials The sea state, which may affect signal paths & fading. The accuracy of the frequency settings of the receiving and transmitting equipment involved [was the receiver accurately tuned? how good was the operator?] We are talking about OLD analogue tuning systems with dials which have to calibrated and then read accurately by the operator. There are too many variables to list. By all means conjecture about possible scenarios - that is how we investigate the unknown - but do not loose sight of reality. All the best Michael, [who works with radio for a living but should know better!] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:29:20 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Landing the Electra Has the subject ever been discussed as to the Electra's handling characteristics if AE had actually run out of fuel and was trying to make a "dead stick" landing? Was she sophisticated enough to know that she had to put the Electra down while she still had power to do so or is this a pointless question? I still am curious as to whether the Electra had seatbelts. Thanks for being patient with this newbies questions. Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know how to determine how sophisticated Earhart was but a "dead stick" landing in an Electra should not have been terribly different from a normal power-off landing except there would be no go-around option. Yes, the Electra had seat belts. We established that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:07:23 EST From: Barry Limoges Subject: Being hooked Just a note on the nontechnical side. I think all interested AE historians travel through stages of investigation. First, we have our curiosity aroused. What could have happened? What is out there that could solve the mystery? Depending upon our motivation, the next stage in this world of intrigue and mystery is a great deal of investigation. We try to make sense of it all. What events lead up to and after AE and FN's demise? Often, we dive into the literature (a little knowledge is dangerous). Last, we are hooked. We can't seem to get enough facts. This forum is so important for newbies like me (six months on the forum) as well as veterans. However, I think it is important to read the materials, download information from TIGHAR's website and list serve, and read books (Tom King's Shoes book is great!). All this material can answer many questions. Of course, this could take months or even years. I have just finished my dissertation involving a great deal of historical research. I agree with all the comments about the need for an intricate and time-consuming search for primary sources. Often, these sources must be collaborated prior to forwarding a theory. As for me - count me as a new member --I'M HOOKED! LTM Barry Limoges (who believes in research) ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Barry. Does that make me a hooker? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:10:37 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle Many of the U.S. Air Force intercept sites in the 1960s used SP-600 and R-390 receivers (designed back in the 1940s) to intercept foreign HF signals for analysis. I seem to remember the SP-600 having a "S meter"-type of dial/gauge on it. None of the operators ever used them because, first, they weren't often working, and second, when they were working (?) they weren't reliable. All of our ditty-chasers determined signal strength using their Mk I ears. It was totally subjective. LTM, who's heard it all Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric I hear ya five by.... ************************************************************************** From DW > >From Chris Kennedy > Lots of people may not have the 8th edition. 8th edition? I don't have the 1st. Wish I did...(and wish I had a number....) I have the "Shoes" book and may other books...Damn those Japanese theories can be quite convincing when read one right after another.... Any ideas? Seriously, I think the "Radio Riddle" thread has been pretty much as spread as far as subjects could be. There have been a lot of other posts that have been more interesting and has made more sense. Let's look back and try to upturn stones that have not yet been turned. "I have my hat ready for the next exhibition", Ready willing and able... DW (wishes he had a #) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:11:37 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Radio Riddle/Practical appl. For John R. and Bob B., Thanks for your clarifications of the theory. Let me ask this question as a pratical application of your theory. According to the Chater report, the Lae operator first heard AE on 6210 at 2:18 pm (some 4 hrs 18 mins after takeoff). AE was about 450 miles out from Lae. The next report from AE came at 3:19pm, then at 5:18pm the last and called the FIX providing latitude and longitude. She was then about 740nm from Lae. Still daylight. Chater added that her signals were "getting stronger" and they radioed her to stay on 6210. Nevertheless she apparently changed to 3105 as scheduled. (Based on Chater's report, she may not have been receiving Lae signals, although Balfour maintained later he had "hourly contact) You have stated (if I am reading your calculations correctly) that a distance of 250 miles was the limit to her transmission on 6210 to be heard. For example, you state that she was too far away from the Itasca at 2215 [perhaps 250 miles south] for her signal to be heard on 6210 or 3105. (You used 115 knts as an est speed) So how does the radio station at Lae clearly hear AE on 6210 from at least 3-400 miles to almost 800 statute miles outbound enroute to Howland at 7000 feet? And her signals getting stronger. Have I misunderstood that the maximum range was about 250 miles for transmission on 6210? Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:32:45 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle We have at least cleared-up that, without you saying so, you now agree with me that Bob began his analysis using 1912 GMT as his starting "time" point used in the analysis. As to your "so what", I think that both TIGHAR's amended and unamended 2001 hypotheses, as well as Log Jam, also could have a CPA to Howland occuring at or close to 2013 GMT, as well as one occuring at 1912 GMT. So, it seems like the appropriate, fair and scientific thing to do to calculate what happens to the conclusion of the analysis if CPA occurred at these times as well. That conclusion changes. What you will find is that if you use this time (2013 GMT) instead of Bob's 1912 GMT, she WAS within Bob's calculated 250-mile radio range at 2215 GMT (on 6210 KHz, I believe) as the CPA moves closer to Bob's 10 mile figure. Of course, the conclusion would change again at some point as you move back towards 1912 GMT. You have told me that Bob Brandenburg is the FORUM expert in these matters and a person whose opinions you respect. So, Bob's own analysis suggests that "AN" answer but not "THE" answer to why she wasn't heard from after 2215 GMT is that she was, in fact, within range to transmit but for some reason was unable to do so. Unfortunately, one of these reasons may be that she was down at sea. Sorry, but we have to accept and deal with the fact that Bob's own work supports that conclusion. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric The last sentence in Bob's report is: "On the other hand, these findings do not rule out the possibility that Earhart simply stopped transmitting after 2013 GMT, or that she encountered a sudden catastrophic event causing loss of the aircraft before she could send another signal." You've convinced me that there is no way I can make you understand the report. *************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg > From Ric > > Yes, I'm aware of the several references to the 1912 transmission but I don't > think they mean what you think they mean. I suggest that we let the author > decide which one of us is confused. Ric: It isn't you who is confused. LTM, Bob **************************************************************************** From Ric We've had three subscribers leave the forum citing the Radio Riddle back-and-forthing as, well, the politest term was "junk". The thread is dead. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:41:45 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: appropriate responses > From Ric > > I think you mean "kung butaei", and I have to agree. would someone enlighten me as to what that means pleeze--- ************************************************************************** From Suzanne Wouldn't you know it, but there's a Kiribati dictionary ONLINE! http://www.collectors.co.nz/kiribati/dict.html No need to post, if you want to protect the guilty! But I'm sure lots of us agree! In speaking of all these radio transmissions, I have a story! I thought it was odd that in December 1998 I received the BBC faintly through my computer speakers! I was not online. After I heard the English bloke say "BBC World Services", I turned on a shortwave radio and confirmed it. It lasted for about 30 minutes. Well, better my computer than my tooth filling, I guess! Suzanne Stockton, CA (6000 miles from England!) *************************************************************************** From Ric Anyone who can't live without knowing what "kung butaei" means can check the Kiribati dictionary cited above. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:01:49 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Southwest crash site. There seems some reason to think that the crash site, if on Niku, may have been elsewhere than the north coast. 1. Nothing found there by the dive team. 2. Post loss message "we are on reef southwest of unknown island" 3. Aircraft skin found in the southern part of the island. 4. Bruce does not remember Norwich City but remembers the engine site was on west coast of island. (Sydney has similar vegetation to Niku but no lagoon which I believe he mentioned. Hull was inhabited at the time of the crash. On the information I have, there seems no alternative to Niku as the original location of the Canton engine. The only A/C parts actually identifiable on Niku were the B24parts. A B24 would have had twin wasps, not nine cylinder radials.) 5. A southwest crash site would tie in better than a northern one with either the 1991 site or the 7 site , but more so the former, where of course the shoes were found. Possibility that this was Camp 1 and the seven site Camp 2. One would obviously want to camp near the plane, at least initially, to be able to raid the plane for useful items and to make contact with would be rescuers spotting the plane. It seems to me that looking for evidence on land is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Even if you find positive evidence of AE &/or Noonan, you still dont know where the crash site is. They could have ditched many miles away and taken to the rubber boat. Rickenbacker & Co. spent three weeks drifting in the pacific before being rescued and travelled a huge distance. A search of the reef for the other engine should be a lot easier however and if successful would be much more informative about the circumstances of the loss of the aircraft. . On the Betty's notebook front, my guess is that if genuine, NY is much more likely the callsign NRUI. This was actually several times repeated in another post-loss message. It is unlikely that one would repeat a name "Norwich City" a number of times without context (as in betty's notebook) as otherwise it would be meaningless. Much more likely in this scenario would be "Norwich City, ship on reef" or similar repeated many times. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric <> We don't think it was on the north coast. We think it was on the reef at the west end. <<1. Nothing found there by the dive team.>> In 1989 the dive team examined the reef edge all the way around the island, although not in as much detail as the 2001 team did the western reef. <<2. Post loss message "we are on reef southwest of unknown island">> What's your source on that? <<3. Aircraft skin found in the southern part of the island.>> The aircraft skin was found near the blasted channel on the west southwestward shore of the island. <<4. Bruce does not remember Norwich City but remembers the engine site was on west coast of island.>> And that's where we think the landing occured. <> Interesting thought, but in her voice transmissions logged by the Itasca she never said the ship's call letters but always said "Itasca". Also, the last notation in her note book, after the letters "N.Y., N.Y." says "(or something that sounded like New York)". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:08:52 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Options >I agree whole heartedly it would be a major consideration but how do >you propose they could have done that without radio communication? I >would have plunked the Electra down at first opportunity and assumed all >those folks out there would have had enough sense to look for me. AND >they did just that'... > >Alan Nice that we can agree upon something...for a change! My only point, which obviously was not clearly expressed (at least not to your satisfaction) in my previous post, is simply that without having established any reliable, two-way radio communication with Itasca... having not explained or even implied, in the transmissions that Itasca _did_ receive... their intentions, should they fail to locate Howland... AE/FN had no reasonable expectation of being summarily located & rescued... no matter _where_ they 'plunked' the Electra down, whether ditching in relatively close proximity to Howland Island... or on any ill-fated attempt to fly back to the Gilberts... or flying to the Phoenix Island Chain... because Itasca didn't have a clue as to which direction they should begin the search... so Itasca took off to the W/NW, since AE had mentioned 'cloudy' in one transmission & they could detect heavy cloud cover far to the NW of Howland Island. The main reason the Navy sent the USS Colorado to the Phoenix Chain a week later, was occasioned by receiving unidentified radio signals (later discounted as probably not coming from the Electra), deemed to be 'fixed' in the Phoenix Islands... which (much maligned) excursion failed to locate any visable sign of the Electra or it's crew on any of the islands observed. Did AE continue transmitting after the last transmission actually received/recorded by Itasca? ... We will never know... so speculating that she _did_ attempt to inform Itasca of her intention to fly SE to the Phoenix Chain is a moot point... since she'd had no acknowledgement that Itasca had received _any_ of her previous transmissions (only one, very brief & unproductive response on the 7500 frequency that did _not_ confirm Itasca had received any/all of her previous transmissions)... she had no realistic expectation that her subsequent transmissions would be received... hence no one would _know_ that was to be her alternate landfall, consquently she had _no_ reasonable expectation of any imminent location &/or rescue by her _only_ known (at that time) source for search & rescue... the Itasca. Did AE/FN _still_ seek out their alternate landfall at Gardner Island ? ... Only AE/FN could confirm that decision for us... so far the many expeditions to & research concerning Gardner/Nikumaroro Island, while uncovering many interesting & archeaologically curious facts & artifacts, has only turned up possibly related 'clues'... but no conclusive 'evidence' or proof that AE/FN or their Electra ever made landfall on or near the island. Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric The Colorado was originally sent to search the ocean along the LOP southeastward from Howland based upon the judgement of Naval aviators that flying along that line would be the most reasonable course of action. The shift to concentrating the search on the islands themselves was based upon the post-loss radio signals. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:17:03 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: impliedly I was as surprised to discover that "impliedly" is a "neat new word" as I was to find a private message to Ric showing up on the Forum! Actually, "impliedly" is an adverb used frequently in legal circles. It's shorthand for "by implication." Here's an example from an actual court decision: "Once Melanie invited Officer Tilton into the house, she also impliedly invited such backup officers as might be necessary to protect the safety of Officer Tilton." State v. Kimberlin, 977 P.2d 276, 278 (Kan. App. 1999). A check on Westlaw shows that the word appears in 384 cases decided by the Kansas courts between 1931 and 2001. That's just one rather small state and doesn't include decisions of the Kansas federal courts. I guess we law guys use the word so often that we forget it could be considered a term of art. In a desperate attempt to bring this post on-topic, one might say that, by theorizing that some of the alleged "post-loss" messages are legitimate, TIGHAR impliedly concludes that FN and/or AE were able to overcome whatever problems prevented further transmissions to the Itasca after 8:43 a.m. Ric, I thought that sending a msg to your private email address implied that it wasn't for the Forum, but no harm done and in the future I'll remember to add "private" or some such to the subject line. LTM (who infers that Kerry needs a new spell-checker) Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric My mistake Patrick. I apologize. Your message was sent to TIGHAR1@ which is the address all submitted forum postings come to. In going down the list I didn't notice that you had not sent it as a posting but just to me. My private email address is TIGHARIC@. It is not my practice to post messages not intended for posting. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:50:09 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Southwest crash site. Just a couple of notes on the Angus-Ric exchange: 1. Angus' point about Bruce not seeing the Norwich City is an interesting one, and when we put it together with the fact that the only evidence we have of SAMTEC activity on Niku is at the Southeast end, it does make one pause to think. As to what Bruce might remember as the west side of the island -- as is illustrated by the Angus-Ric exchange itself, it's REAL easy to get confused about what's east-west, north and south on Niku, and in part it's really a matter of semantics; one person's "north end" can be another's "west end." 2. We've still, however, got a lot more anecdotal evidence pointing to the northwest reef than to anyplace else. 3. Re. Angus' point that: "It seems to me that looking for evidence on land is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Even if you find positive evidence of AE &/or Noonan, you still dont know where the crash site is." It seems to me that if we found positive evidence of AE &/or Noonan, we wouldn't really need to find the crash site. Either positive evidence of the plane OR the people would suffice. Personally, I'm seeing the underwater search more and more as a needle in a haystack kind of thing. When you consider what tiny pieces the Electra could by now be broken up into, and their likely fragility in a very active marine environment, the chances that there's literally nothing left to find seem fairly high. On the other hand, if the colonists found wreckage and scavenged from it, they did so before years and years of wave and weather had had a chance to work on it, and brought the pieces into the relatively stable environment of the village. The smoking gun Electra-piece, if there is one, seems to me to be at least as likely to turn up in the village as underwater. LTM (who prefers to keep her feet dry) Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. There is also the point that searching the land, while expensive, is infinitely cheaper than searching the deep water. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:18:12 EST From: Tom Byers Subject: Re: Options So what is next? A feasiblity study for an extensive underwater search in the vicinity of Howland Island Tom Byers *************************************************************************** From Ric A feasiblity study for an extensive underwater search in the vicinity of Howland Island should be a fairly simple prospect. 1. Determine the liklihood, perhaps expressed as a percentage, of the airplane going down at sea rather than on or near some island. What evidence is there that it went down at sea. What evidence is there that it reached land? 2. Within whatever percentage of crashed-at-sea you establish, determine the probability that its impact point can be established with sufficient precision to establish an economically searchable area of ocean. How much ocean do you want to search? How much money you got? 3. Within that percentage of a percentage, determine the probability of the airplane remaining intact through the crash/ditching, descent to the bottom, impact with the bottom,and ensuing 64 years. 4. Within that percentage of a percentage of a percentage, establish the liklihood of being able to find a 55 foot by 38 foot target with no debris field in 17,000 feet of ocean. In my view, coming up with a result that shows that a deep water search is feasible (i.e. more likely to succeed than to fail) within the most generous financial constraints, requires a talent for self-delusion. Until we prove otherwise, it must be acknowledged that the Electra could have gone down at sea, but if that's what happened the only way it will be found is by pure dumb luck. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:19:47 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Being hooked Chuckles again about your comment of being a hooker. You may have missed your calling! Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric Yeah. A lot of people feel that way. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:26:53 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Southwest crash site. I keep seeing remarks about "the crash site." If the Electra crashed I have missed that information. The picture we have shows aircraft wreckage but I don't know of any reason to believe it was the result of a crash. Possible, of course. Why couldn't it also be the result of storms battering a well landed plane? Finally IF the plane landed rather than crashing could it not have been taxied to a number of other places other than where the landing roll ended? Those of you who have actually set your little feet on Niku should be able to guess which places the Electra could have been taxied after landing. IF it was taxied it could have been to better shelter the plane from impending weather for example. ( in anticipation of those asking "Why would they taxi it?") Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric The post-loss radio signals do suggest a landing rather than a crash. Over the years we've done a lot of speculating about where an airplane could be landed and taxied on the island. Nowhere on the reef is it possible to land and taxi ashore. The smooth parts of the reef are out near the ocean and the reef near the shoreline is deeply pitted and jagged. We've looked in the few places on dry land where a landing and taxi seems like a possibility. No Electra. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:28:18 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Options > Nice that we can agree upon something...for a change! Don, I think we generally agree on a lot of this but just say it in different ways. Being a long time pilot I probably try to put MY rationale in AE and FN. Why wouldn't they do what I think I would have done. Of course, in 1937 their reasoning might have been far different than mine. They had certain knowledge about their situation that we might not know and so might have taken a course seemingly illogical to us. Ditching in close proximatety to the Itasca is certainly a viable thought IF they knew they were in close proximity. We don't think they knew that but suppose they felt very sure they were close? Likewise a decision to head SE or to the Gilberts might rest on a logic we have no clue to. If I had been in that position I would have to assume they would come looking for me in several "Logical" places even if I had not broadcast where I was going or where I was. I think it is reasonable to assume they DID radio their intentions or whereabouts but maybe they had their hands so full trying to find any land they didn't radio anything. They may have thought once they got the plane down safely they had all day to radio reports or thought the rescuers would search in the Itasca vicinity and then to the closest pieces of land. MY logic but maybe not their's. I guess I'm just not that troubled by AE possibly not radioing their intentions or location. They couldn't go very far so it might be assumed that searching north or east would have less priority. But as we know they DID search north at least for a short time. I guess the point is there weren't all that many places to look. I suppose first I would search in close, Baker, then south/south east. Then toward the Gilberts. Again the reasoning then might have been based on factors other than what we know or interpreted differently than do we. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:29:42 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: impliedly I have again, learned something new from this forum. Actually, it may be time I got a new dictionary. This is not the first time my "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate" has failed me. It is, of course, an abridged dictionary (heavy tome though it is). I still think you mixed tenses in your post however. "Impliedly" is an adverbial form of "implied", which is past tense. But, once again, I'm hopelessly off topic. Sorry Ric. Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:30:30 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: appropriate responses to suzanne...thats funny about you being in stockton,ca...you are 6000 miles from stockton england and im about 60 as its just up road in teeside ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:35:02 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Options > So much for peer review. S. Wesley Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric If you have a different assessment of the prospect I'd like to hear it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:42:36 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Southwest crash site. I agree with Tom and Ric--to a point. There are literally tons of material from the Norwich City which are not accounted for. At the risk of putting words in their mouths, our dive team found no NC debris on the reef shelf in the vicinity of the wreck. This suggest that a substantial portion of the NC is under 1,700 feet of ocean. Expensive, yes, but I'd sure like to see a picture of that area. There just might be an airplane engine and a couple of landing gear struts mixed in with the NC. **************************************************************************** From Ric I think we're all in agreement that we'd love to see what's down there. It always comes down to cost/benefit analysis. If analysis of the Seven Site artifacts reveals that we have convincing (more convincing than we already have) indications of AE's presence on the island, perhaps we'll be able to find the funding to look for airplane parts in the deep water off the west end. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:36:58 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Options In response to Ric's comment: > In my view, coming up with a result that shows that a deep water search is > feasible (i.e. more likely to succeed than to fail) within the most generous > financial constraints, requires a talent for self-delusion. Until we prove > otherwise, it must be acknowledged that the Electra could have gone down at > sea, but if that's what happened the only way it will be found is by pure > dumb luck. With all due respect, I suspect that Mr. Jourdan of Nauticos would disagree with you. It was rigorous scientific analysis, perhaps combined with a little luck, that enabled the folks from Nauticos to locate the Dakar (lost Israeli submarine) in the deep waters of the Mediterranean when others had no success for more than a quarter of a century. It is also rigorous scientific analysis that has enabled them successfully to find more than a hundred other lost items in deep sea with a 100% success rate. While luck may certainly be a factor, skill must have something to do with it. Furthermore, I don't believe that self-delusion enters into the equation. If they don't believe that they have a high probability of success, it is my opinion that they will not undertake the mission. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't speak for Dave Jourdan and I won't dispute that his company advertises an impressive success rate. I do know that finding Earhart's Electra is a whole lot different from finding shipwrecks. First and most importantly, finding a sunken ship does not require a leap of faith that the ship sank. That's usually pretty well established. It's gotta be down there someplace. Second, and nearly as important, is the reliability of the available navigation information from which one tries to trace where the wreck should be. As this forum demonstrates daily, there is not exactly what you'd call a consensus about any aspect of the Earhart flight's navigation or where or when it ended. All of the deep sea Earhart searchers seem to be putting great faith in Elgen Long's assumptions and calculations that assert that the flight ended at a particular point in time and space - or independent studies that start with Elgen's assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. Third, the target - even if somehow still intact - is tiny. Smaller objects than the Electra have been found in deep water (the UAL cargo door and Grissom's Mercury capsule for example) but only with much, much better information to work with (like radar plots of the trajectory). I think the self-delusion comes from a failure to recognize the difference between a sunken ship being "lost" and the Electra being "lost." The Titanic, Bismarck, Dakar, etc., etc., were lost in the same way that your car keys are lost if you drop them over the side of the boat when you're out fishing. The Electra is not "lost" in that sense. The Electra disappeared. That's a completey different kettle of fish. The fundamental difference between the Niku Hypothesis and the Crashed-and-Sank Hypothesis is that the Niku theory is testable. We can research, by document and anecdote, what has happened on the island in the past and so learn what people saw and found. The fish don't write reports or give interviews. The borders of our search area are finite and searchable within reasonable financial constraints. The expanse of the Pacific where the Electra may have come down is, for all practical purposes, infinite. To say that a deep sea search is feasible because a company with a good record wants to be paid to do it is, to me, less than convincing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:15:58 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: Hypothetical After all this is over, and you've found AE or her plane, do you have any secondary dreams to fulfill? (besides a very long vacation). Maybe search for flight 19? What other significant historical aircraft are lost out there that you might be interested in ? I had a friend who worked for Graham Hawkes who showed me video of what they thought was flight 19 but were some of many Avengers that went down off the Florida coast Chris in Petaluma ************************************************************************** From Ric I have plenty of dreams to fulfill but finding Flight 19 isn't one of them. The Bermuda Triangle was invented on a slow news day in about 1954 and there never was any particular mystery about that accident. I'd still love to find l'Oiseau Blanc (the White Bird of Nungesser and Coli) and there are some interesting recovery opportunities that TIGHAR could tackle, but Amelia is a hard act to follow. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:48:41 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: Recovery Opportuntities If you run out of other opportunities you could always go looking for Glenn Miller !!!! *************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Ric said: "I 'd still love to find l'Oiseau Blanc (the White Bird of Nungesser and Coli) and there are some interesting recovery opportunities that TIGHAR could tackle, but Amelia is a hard act to follow." Sounds like a concession speech to me. Does that mean after AE is over, it's all over? LTM, who has some fight left Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Not at all. I'd like to think that solving the Earhart mystery would make it easier for TIGHAR to raise the funding to pursue the answers to less legendary riddles. Concession speech? Abso-goddamn-lutely NOT! The evidence that the Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Nikumaroro is overwhelming. If it was any mystery other than the Earhart disappearance the solution would be considered a no-brainer, but because the riddle has attained such epic proportions and because so many people have an emotional and often financial interest in various proposed answers, the standard of proof required to achieve widespread public acceptance is very,very high. That's why there is so much talk about a "smoking gun." Most historical puzzles are solved without "smoking guns" but neither are they the subject of a library of popular books and TV documentaries. Maybe it was all the media hype about the anomally in the satellite photo that raised expectations that we were going to find some major piece of smoking gun wreckage on the reef. Because we didn't, there seems to some feeling that the Niku Hypothesis was somehow invalidated. Of course, that's nonsense. The truth is that TIGHAR's investigation has relentlessly and painstakingly sought out and followed a trail that has led us to a specific site on the island where we have discovered hard evidence of an abundance of activity that can not be readily explained by the documented history of the atoll. We have, for the first time, a rich and productive archaeological site that may just be where Amelia Earhart lived out her final days. Although we were only able to scratch the surface in the time available, the site has yielded hundreds of bones and dozens of artifacts which should allow us to learn more about what happened there- and to whom. Think about this; if just one of the artifacts collected from the Seven Site proves to be connected to the Earhart/Noonan flight, then all of the endless speculation about LOPs and Plan Bs and headwinds and S-meters will become academic. That's why I've tried to steer away from spending a lot of time rehashing all that stuff. The answer isn't there. If the the answer is anywhere it's in the pile of ziplok bags we brought back from Niku. In case anyone has any doubts, TIGHAR is more convinced than ever that the Nikumaroro Hypothesis is correct and provable and we will continue to ded icate all of our efforts and resources to achieving that goal. L'Oiseau Blanc and Glenn Miller will have to wait. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:52:17 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: Hypothetical Any update on the analysis/study of Betty's Journal? Also, was any additional info gathered from the daughter of the Ham (now deceased) in Ft.Pierce? Just curious. I feel that the post lost messages may still bear fruit. Any news? LTM Ed of PSL #2415 ************************************************************************** From Ric No new news on the Betty's Notebook front, mostly because we've been wrapped up in getting the artifacts and data from Niku IIII catloged, photographed, and ready for analysis. The daughter of the Ham in Ft. Pierce has, so far, not come across her fathers logs. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:54:52 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio Riddle/Practical appl. > Have I misunderstood that the maximum range was about 250 miles for > transmission on 6210? > Ron Bright The short answer is yes. Distance per se was not the determining factor. Ionospheric radio signal propagation is a very complex subject. Before getting to your questions, it will be helpful to review a few basics. The ionosphere is organized into several layers, or regions, of ionized gases. The highest, the F-region, exists between about 160 km and 400 km, and is the principal refracting (some people prefer to say reflecting) region for HF signals. The E-region extends from about 95 km to 150 km and also refracts some HF signals. The D-region extends from about 75 km to 95 km and is mainly responsible for absorption of HF radio waves. The D-region exists only in daytime, since its ionization is produced by ultraviolet solar radiation. Energy absorption occurs at all frequencies in the D-region, but is greatest at frequencies of about 3 MHz and below, varying inversely with the square of signal frequency. For example, the absorption loss at 6210 kHz is one-fourth the absorption loss at 3105 kHz. The absorption loss also varies directly with the sun's angular elevation above the horizon, and with the time spent in the D-region by a signal. A radio signal leaves an antenna in the form of an electromagnetic wave, which can be thought of as a set of rays radiating simultaneously in directions and at intensities governed by the antenna's radiation pattern. A signal traveling from point A to point B can be thought of as a "bundle" of rays grouped around the azimuth of point B, and the elevation angle of the refraction point in the ionosphere, which typically is located above the midpoint of the great circle from point A to point B. The height of the refraction point is not fixed. It can vary with frequency, time, and other factors which we won't go into here. The vertical angle (the takeoff angle) of a ray bundle leaving Point A on a long distance can be low, sometimes less than one degree. On the other hand, the takeoff angle for a short path tends to be high, approaching the vertical in some cases. As the distance from point A to point B increases, the D-region transit time - - and thus signal absorption loss - - increases. This is a critical factor since the signal transits the D-region twice, once on the way up to the refraction point and again on the way down to the receiver. OK. That's enough of the basics. Now let's get to your questions. "You have stated (if I am reading your calculations correctly) that a distance of 250 miles was the limit to her transmission on 6210 to be heard. For example, you state that she was too far away from the Itasca at 2215 [perhaps 250 miles south] for her signal to be heard on 6210 or 3105. (You used 115 knts as an est speed)" The 250 mile limit must be considered within the context of the time-variant factors governing the situation. During the 4+ hours between sunrise (1746Z at Howland) and 2215Z, the sun's elevation angle was increasing, thus increasing D-region ionization. But the takeoff angle at the Electra's antenna decreased as distance from Howland increased, thus increasing D-region transit time. So a combination of factors, not just distance, explain why Earhart could not be heard on 6210 beyond 250 miles at 2215Z. Note, however, that she could have been heard on 6210 all the way to Gardner Island at any time prior to 2200Z. "So how does the radio station at Lae clearly hear AE on 6210 from at least 3-400 miles to almost 800 statute miles outbound enroute to Howland at 7000 feet? And her signals getting stronger." The situation here is essentially the reverse of the situation on the LOP between Howland and Gardner later in the flight. At the time of the first report received at Lae, the sun's elevation was decreasing at Lae, as well as along the path from the Electra to Lae. Hence the D-region ionization and signal absorption were decreasing. The D-region absorption loss was progressively less at each subsequent report. Sunset occurred at 0721Z at the position given in Earhart's 0718Z report, received by Lae at 5:18 PM local time. But since the reported position probably was not contemporaneous, sunset likely had already occurred at the Electra's reported position when the signal was sent, and D-region loss was nearing its minimum. So Earhart's were getting stronger because D-region signal loss had been decreasing continuously since her departure from Lae. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:11:41 EST From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Southwest crash site. Ric i just read Skeet Gifford's posting about underwater serach's and was wondering what it take to do something like that,like money,ship,sonar.ect.Also Ric i have a copy of Buddy Brennan's book Witness To The Execution and in it there is a copy of a telegram from G. Putman to F.D.R.after the first attemp,while the 10 E is being fixed,Putman said to F.D.R.that the Electra had a range of over 4000 miles and the fuselage was being restrengthen and the windows where being covered to give even more strength.I don't have the book now{loaned out} to get the date ,anyway wonderd if this gives any credence to the artifact 2-2-V-1and what you think of this,is 2-2-V-1 at its threads end.Hang in there,good things to you and yours .................Terry Lee Simpson.(#2396) LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric The cost of a deep water search off the west end of the island would be less now than it used to be because ROV technology has come a long way in recent years, but you're still talking hundreds of thousands of dollars to mount an expedition. I've looked through my copy of Brennan's book and I don't see such a telegram as you describe. When you get the book back maybe you could provide a page number. No, I don't consider 2-2-V-1 to be "at its threads end" but I don't think it's the skin that covered the starboard window. The rivet pattern is wrong. I think that it's more likely to be from the belly. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:13:03 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle This is unfortunate. I must admit that I, too, am somewhat befuddled by all the nuances of the radio riddle. To the point where (hanging head in shame) I am now forced to admit that much of what has been written on that thread of late, I haven't read. But the radio riddle isn't the whole forum, never has been and never will be. It's just one of those topics that no matter how hard you hit it in the head, just won't fall over and croak. But leave the forum over it? Hah, not a chance. This ride has been entirely too much fun over the past few years, and I can't see it doing anything else in the future. I suppose I could see somebody leaving over fundamental differences of basic opinion, maybe, but over this? Nah, not a chance. ltm, jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:17:56 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: impliedly > From Kerry Tiller > Actually, it may be time I got a new dictionary. Kerry, there's no need for a new dictionary. http://www.onelook.com/ searches 757 online dictionaries simultaneously. It's WONDERFUL! Suzanne ************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds great but I couldn't get the URL to work. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:28:58 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Electra on reef From Ric: >Nowhere on the reef is it possible to land and taxi ashore. The >smooth parts of the reef are out near the ocean and the reef near the >shoreline is deeply pitted and jagged. We've looked in the few places on >dry land where a landing and taxi seems like a possibility. No >Electra Doesn't this observation again raise the old question... 'If the Electra did make a successful, wheels down landing on the smooth area of the reef flat, & _assuming_ that AE was alert enough to avoid placing her ship too close to the 'drop-off' end of the reef flat... why wasn't the intact aircraft seen by Lt. Lambrecht & his flight, only a week after the Electra was presumed down ? According to Randy Jacobson's research, there were only relatively calm seas & normal tides & wave action reported for the Phoenix Islands for that week & unless AE was negligent enough to 'park' the Electra in fairly close proximity to the drop-off end of the smooth reef flat area ... where even 'normal' wave wash & tidal fluctuatons _might_ have been able to wash the Electra over the edge into the depths of 'Davy Jones' locker... why would the intact Electra not have been visable from the air... especially having presumably landed in relatively close proximity to the NC, which Lt. Lambrecht clearly did see & describes in some detail? Is it reasonable to expect that 'normal' tidal & wave-wash action of a few feet, at high-tide, would have been sufficiently forceful to have caused the complete disintegration of the Electra's basic configuration, in a week's time... to render it unrecognizable as an aircraft, from even one... 'on-the-deck-flyby'... at 50', as described by Lt. Lambrecht ? Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, it is an old question and the answer hasn't changed. It doesn't take a storm or significant weather event for strong surf to surge across the reef flat at Niku. All it takes is a swell that could have been generated by weather hundreds of miles and many days away. Even light surf would be devastating to an object as small and delicate as an airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:43:58 EST From: A.D.J. Murray Subject: Re: Southwest crash site. I thought Tighar was all about historic aircraft recovery. Whilst the fate of AE & FN is a fascinating conundrum in itself, surely Tighar should be primarily interested in finding aircraft remains. Aluminium often survives quite well in seawater. Not long ago the Egyptians recovered a spitfire in the Med. which cleaned up with very little obvious corrosion. A large solid mass like a P&W radial, even with a large ferrous component, would of course survive a long time even if heavily corroded. It is sufficiently heavy, dense and rough to stand a good chance of becoming wedged in the coral and not swept into deep water and sufficiently large to be relatively easy to find if still on the reef. Bruce's discovery confirms this. Aircraft engines often outlive the rest of the aircraft as evinced by those trawled up by fishing boats in the North Sea. A deep water search was not what I had in mind, just a more thorough search. ********************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR is interested in solving the Earhart mystery and it would be silly to neglect a line of investigation because it didn't involve aluminum. Yes, sometimes aluminum survives well in seawater - and sometimes it doesn't. Yes, engines often survive well, and sometimes they don't. Yes, we could mount an effort to thoroughly search all of the reef canyons at various points around the island, but the important thing about the Seven Site is that it gives us a known, productive place to focus our search rather than casting about testing various hypotheses. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:06:33 EST From: Darryl Whitbeck Subject: New search for Earhart Sorry to post this if this has been discussed. While flipping though the tv channels last night I saw on CNN in the 'highlights' section on the bottom of the screen, that a TV exutive or someone is doing a search for AE's plane. Did anyone else see that? What is it about? LTM Darrell Whitbeck *************************************************************************** From Jim Pearson #2422 Mike Kammerer has announced his intention to launch a deep sea search for Amelia Earharts plane. He said " We are convinced we absolutey know where she is". Hmmm. Maybe he bought a copy of Elgen Longs book. It would be nice if the experts he quotes would be willing to submit their findings for peer review. *************************************************************************** From Craig Fuller There has been a lot of talk recently of how easy it would be to find AE's plane in the bottom of the ocean from the crashed and sank crowd, I think we will see how easy it isn't: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_451144.html?menu=news.scienceanddisc overy.archaeology As usual the press could not get their facts right again: "Mr Leach told Ananova: "We are 100% confident." Earlier this year his team funded an unsuccessful expedition to the South-West Pacific island of Nikumaroro after satellite pictures revealed a large object apparently lying in the water. He says that disappointment has left them with just one deep-sea site to search." **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, here's what's going on. In September of 2000 a man by the name of Mike Kammerer bought the commercial exploitation (media) rights to TIGHAR's Niku IIII expedition for $300,000. That amount represented roughly half of the ultimate cost of the expedition and gave us a huge leg up on fund-raising for the trip. It was a speculative commercial investment by Kammerer who hoped to make a lot of money from media rights sales if TIGHAR found "smoking gun" evidence on Nikumaroro. The satellite photo had nothing to do with it. The image wasn't even taken until April 2001. Kammerer had nothing to do with the organization or execution of Niku IIII expedition. Jeff Leach is the owner of CircaMedia, a magazine publishing company in which Kammerer has recently become a financial partner. When Niku IIII did not come up with an immediate smoking gun (as we hoped it would but predicted it wouldn't) Kammerer jumped to the crashed-and-sank camp and is now talking about a deep sea search expedition. He is not associated with Elgen Long or Nauticos. He invited me to participate. I declined. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:11:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Recovery Opportuntities Having said all that you must now be aware of this morning's news that a Maryland TV owner has announced he will fund a submarine search for Amelia's plane. In light of that I wish to assure my fellow forumites that his search is absolute nonsense and what I've been saying is the true facts -- unless of course he finds her plane in which case I deny saying anything to the contrary. At that time I will launch an immediate investigation as to who has been sending all these arrogant and opinionated emails using my name. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Maryland TV owner? Mike Kammerer made a lot of money selling TV advertising in NY and has been retired and living in New Mexico for about ten years. Any deep sea search for Earhart's plane is insane and you can quote me on that no matter what happens. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:17:48 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Electra on reef It would also appear that something else is going on concerning the Electra wreckage as well. First, Lambrecht doesn't see it for the reasons Ric mentions. Then, although Bevington reports tying-up off the wreck and climbing aboard it, he doesn't report seeing any aircraft wreckage. Next, although we have pictures of the New Zealanders climbing all over and around the Norwich City, we've found nothing yet that indicates that the New Zealanders saw airplane wreckage. Later, Emily's father sees airplane wreckage and I believe Emily said she saw it from shore lying just north of the Norwich City. However, Gallagher reports nothing, yet we know from the bones find that he is keenly aware of the Earhart disappearance in the area. Then, Tapania (sp?) reports she sees a wing on the reef years later. The reef isn't overlain with sand so it's not like objects are being covered and uncovered. It's weird. It's almost like some other force is at work here? Any ideas? The only thing I note is that, with the exception of the westerner who saw the fisherman using a piece of line from an aircraft, but not wreckage on the reef (Mims?), isn't it only non-westerners who report actually seeing chunks of aircraft on the reef? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Or, put another way, it's only people who live there and spend a lot of time out on the Nutiran reef that report seeing airplane wreckage there. There is also the possibility that wreckage that initially went seaward was thrown back up on the reef in a later storm event. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:30:25 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Electra on reef I agree about the rapid destruction of the Electra. Two years ago while vacationing in Estero Beach Mexico, a 55 foot sailboat ran aground on a sandbar very visible from the balcony of our room. In a little over a week the boat had been reduced to a pile of rubble in only moderate surf. On another note, if anyone is interested, I'm assisting in a search for anyone who might have known or flew with George Putnam while he flew B-29's in Saipan during WWII. I've e-mailed a gentleman who belonged to the 499th Bomb Group which GP was a part of requesting any information available about GP. Any thoughts or suggestions? Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:09:48 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Radio Riddle/Practical appl. For Bob Brandenburg, An excellent, albeit technical, explanation. The time, sun, angle, distance and other atmospheric conditions all affect the radio wave transmission. Perhaps a complex set of variables that must be calculated to determine distance. I think your latest review of the variables better explained the "whys" regarding a possible period of silence. (I'm not sure if that explanation was in the 8th ediiton) For many the reception differences on the same frequency seemed to be inconsistant if only dependent upon distance. Thanks, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:16:17 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: Electra on reef I've seen documentary footage of a WWII Avenger fighter plane ditch in the ocean and it sank in about 45 seconds. If the Electra was swept off the reef OR she ditched off shore relatively undamaged and with empty fuel tanks, how long would she float assuming the cabin door was open and they jumped out? What if they didn't jump out ? (unconscious) Also, how long would a charged battery run the radio without an engine running? I know those old tube sets took a lot of power to run. Also is there sufficient sand just above the flat reef for a radial engine to be buried? Chris in Petaluma ************************************************************************** From Ric With all those empty fuel tanks the Electra was, technically, quite buoyant but there's a lot of debate about how long she'd stay that way. Transmitting would run the battery down very rapidly. The amount of sand on the shoreline varies over the years. Sometimes and in some places it's quite deep - certainly deep enough to hide an engine. At other times and in some places the beach is scoured clean down to the coral. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:17:14 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Electra on reef For Chris Kennedy Chris, in Amelia Earhart's Shoe we do discuss how all these observations and non-observations of wreckage might work together. And of course it's been the subject of endless discussion on the Forum. Given the dynamics of the area, I don't think it's at all hard to account for them, but I don't think there's much point in rehashing the matter. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:18:50 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: impliedly >> From Kerry Tiller >> Actually, it may be time I got a new dictionary. > ----------------------------------- > > Kerry, there's no need for a new dictionary. > http://www.onelook.com/ > searches 757 online dictionaries simultaneously. > It's WONDERFUL! > Suzanne > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > Sounds great but I couldn't get the URL to work. The URL works just fine for me. Thank you for giving me what should have been an obvious source tool. (Sigh.) I'm going to miss the big volume with the thin pages and small print (I won't miss reaching for the bifocals, though). I still get my local news paper delivered. I refuse to give that up to electronic media. Although I admittedly use the computer to read the Japan Times, the Bangkok Post and the South China Post on line. LTM (who likes her paper after dinner) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************** From Ric I got the URL to work. My fault. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:22:06 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: GP in the war I am sure that there are others who will have the complete story on GP and his war service----but I have always been under the impression that GP was not a pilot....He did serve in the USAAC but only as a staff officer who was in air intelligence and debriefed bomber crews........ Jim Tierney ************************************************************************* From Ric That is also my understanding (but make that USAAF). Tom King was able to get the following information from a friedn on Saipan: There is a 73rd Bomb Wing Association that might be of help. It is organized by Bomb Group and each BG has its own historian. Unfortunately, the last roster I have for the organization is dated 1994. At that time, the Chairman of the Association was Glenn McClure, 105 Circle Drive, Universal City, Texas 78148. The historian listed for the 499th BG was Earl Myers, P.O. Box 3732, Vero Beach, Florida, 32964 (telephone 407 234-4444). They might be able to provide appropriate contacts. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:24:40 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Recovery Opportuntities > Maryland TV owner? What the TV trailer at the bottom of the screen says is that "A Maryland TV magnate............." It did not give a name. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Magnate....yeah....you could call him that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:28:22 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Electra on reef >From Ric, > >Even light surf would be devastating to an object as small and >delicate as an airplane Hmmm... in all the sources of information I've read over the years, decribing AE's Electra 10E, I've never seen it described as being 'delicate' ... in fact most of the sources are more concerned with emphasizing the durability & strength of it's construction... & while it might be considered 'small' ... in comparison to a B-29 or a B-52... this aircraft was not a Piper Cub ! Now... considering the 'Gossamer Albatross'... or Dick & Burt Rutan's round-the-world 'Voyager'... those are _delicate_ aircraft ! (Though... come to think of it... the exotic/composition materials used in the construction of Voyager... may have made it's strength & durability exceed that of the Electra 10E.) Don Neumann ************************************************************************* From Ric Delicacy is relevant. As small transport aircraft go, the Electra was quite robust. Compared to the forces generated by a small Pacific roller coming acroos the reef at Niku, it was a basket of eggs. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:30:42 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: Electra on reef When you think of the electra on the reef and what happened to it dont forget about the large amount of bouyancy from the empty fuel tanks and the cabin shell. I calculate that the bouyancy of the fuel tanks alone was somewhere near 9000 lbz displacement. The tail would be in the water so when the very first high tide arrived it would have floated up with the surf and began twisting and turning the aircraft from side to side and weather cocking creating large side loads on the gear. The landing gear legs are not designed for side loads as any tail dragger pilot will tell you and so the gear wuld have quickly colapsed. (its also possible that one of the gear legs colapsed on landing and one wing was in the water) Then you have a boat floating around with no tethers twisting and turning and jerking around with every tiny wave. Also take a look at the Lambrecht photo. It depicts the exact surf conditions during the time in question. Large swells are white capping onto the beach amd over the reef,, maybe as large as 4 to 6 feet high, and all around the edge of the reef you can see that large swells are significant just prior to breaking over the reef edge. This is enourmous power relentlessly pounding without stopping. If youve ever been tied up at the dock slurping on a cool one,,and some jerk blows by in his speed boat and just the tiny swells from his wake sends your 30 foot catalina crashing into the side of the dock,, then you know what I mean.. the stoker,, who is thinging about having a happy thanksgiving,, and wishes the same to all.... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:31:48 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Radio Riddle/ Final Quesion For Bob B. A final, final question. In your post, your calculations indicate that Itasca could hear AE from a distance up to 250 miles on 6210 before 2215 GMT. After that distance,and time, sun,etc, would prevented Itasca from hearing her signal. You also note that Itasca could have heard AE on 6210 "all the way to Gardner any time BEFORE 2200Z." (My emphasis] Based on these calculations when AE switched to 6210 at 2013 she must have been OVER 250 miles from Itasca or she would have been heard . Correct? (Absent radio fuse, or malfunction) Thanks much, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:41:52 EST From: Malcolm Andrews Subject: Re: impliedly As a journalist I find one of the joys of the English language is that it continues to grow. New words such 'impliedly' eventually make their way into the language through common usage. But I must admit the pedant in me still stops me from using words such as prestigious (original meaning, gained through cheating) and fulsome (original meaning, obscene). If others want to use them (eg prestigious award or fulsome praise)...well, fair enough. Malcolm Andrews # 2409 ************************************************************************** From Ric We all plant our flags on our chosen hills. One of mine is "hopefully." (And if you ever catch me using "impliedly", just shoot me.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:46:21 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Recovery Opportuntities Speaking about Glenn Miller... I remember that he disappeared in December 1944 flying as a passenger in a single engine Noorduyn C-64 Norseman to conduct his orchestra in Paris at a Christmas show for the troops in liberated France and was shot down by "friendly fire". In this case "friendly fire" was from a British warship, some trigger happy HMS cruiser was mentioned though I forget her name. The trigger happy Britsh tars tars used to fire at anything that flew over within firing range in those days in the belief that the best way to survive the war was to shoot first and ask questions later. Does anyone have any info on this ? LTM (who thinks playing music at Christmas is dangerous business in wartime) Herman *************************************************************************** From Ric No Herman. It is not Miller Time. Hopelessly off-topic. Anyone wishing to correspond with Herman of this subject can write to him directly. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:47:30 EST From: Terry Ann Linley Subject: Re: GP in the war Hello, all! I live just across the county line from Vero Beach, Florida. Earl E. Myers (Ret. Col.) lives there. Have a safe and fun Thanksgiving! Terry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:51:02 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Recovery Opportunities >What the TV trailer at the bottom of the screen says is that "A Maryland TV >magnate............." It did not give a name. >Alan >#2329 *************************************************************************** >From Ric >Magnate....yeah....you could call him that. All "reporting" is biased . . . even TIGHAR's. Regards, S. Wesley Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric Including your report that TIGHAR's reporting is biased? :) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:44:29 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Recovery Opportunities >All "reporting" is biased . . . even TIGHAR's. ************************* >From Ric >Including your report that TIGHAR's reporting is biased? :) Indeed and touche'. Regards, S. Wesley Smith ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:11:43 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re impliedly The one that drives me the most nuts is "He goes..." meaning "He said..." ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric Sadly, perhaps the most common one is "your" for "you're". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:17:57 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Electra on reef I have read many accounts on just how buoyant (while empty of fuel) the Electra was. If the Electra managed to stay afloat for several hours, where would the currant take her? Perhaps out to deeper water where she finally sank? If this is true, then the Electra could still be fully intact. Lawrence ************************************************************************* From Ric I will resist the temptation to make obnoxious references to the delightful image of the Electra being carried out to sea on a small berry and assume that you mean "current". I'm not an expert on the subject but I would be surprised if the surf could come in and pluck the airplane up of that reef and waft it out to sea without tearing the thing to pieces in the process. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:19:54 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio Riddle/ Final Quesion > From Ron Bright > > For Bob B. > A final, final question. > In your post, your calculations indicate that Itasca could hear AE from a > distance up to 250 miles on 6210 before 2215 GMT. After that distance,and > time, sun,etc, would prevented Itasca from hearing her signal. > You also note that Itasca could have heard AE on 6210 "all the way to > Gardner any time BEFORE 2200Z." (My emphasis] > Based on these calculations when AE switched to 6210 at 2013 she must > have been OVER 250 miles from Itasca or she would have been heard . Correct? > (Absent radio fuse, or malfunction) Not quite. AE could have been heard on 6210 all the way to Gardner at any time before 2200. But during the 2200 hour, conditions had deteriorated to the point that she could not have been heard beyond 250 miles from the Itasca. So the 250 mile constraint applies only to the 2200 hour, and not to prior times. In other words, if AE had transmitted on 6210 at 2013Z, she would have been hearable at the Itasca no matter where she was between the Itasca and Gardner. That she wasn't heard leaves us with only speculation to explain why. Perhaps she changed her mind and decided not to transmit on 6210. Perhaps when she said she would repeat her signal on 6210, she meant at the next hourly schedule at 2215Z - - not knowing that she would be beyond the 250 mile limit then. Without additional information, we'll never know. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:21:14 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: Electra on reef If AE did ditch off shore with the cabin door open and with all those fuel tanks empty, wouldn't she float almost indefinitely even if the cabin flooded? The tanks are sealed and it seems it would take a long time for them to flood. With the tides, if a plane ditches off shore on Niku, is it necessarily swept onto shore or does that depend strictly on the tides? If AE's plane was taken out to sea then it could be intact anywhere in the vicinity of Niku. If she did make a reef landing and the tide finally broke off her landing gear, isn't it possible with the relatively smooth bottom of the Electra to be swept out to sea without a terrible amount of damage? And maybe float a while? If all of this is possible and you have a theory about where she might landed would you be able to trace the currents directions and have a possible path on the water of the Electra? I know, sounds far fetched. Guess there's no way to test this theory. Chris in Petaluma ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:23:54 EST From: Herman Subject: The Kammerer search The Top Headlines From AVweb's Expanded, Illustrated > > News Coverage At . > > AMELIA EARHART EXPEDITION GOES HIGH-TECH: Finding Amelia Earhart's lost > > airplane has become a technologically advanced haystack search. Media > > entrepreneur Mike Kammerer announced that his In Search of Amelia > > Earhart LLC, will be sending a state-of-the-art underwater autonomous > > vehicle (ARGUS) into the equatorial Pacific Ocean to find the famed > > aviator's Lockheed Electra 10E. The missing airplane has long been > > suspected of residing near tiny Howland Island in the Pacific and > > the expedition has marked a search area in nearby waters. > > > > NOTE: Visit AVweb's Newswire at for a few > > more details. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:25:03 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: GP in the war Thanks to you & Tom King for the info about GP's bomb group. My dad used to live in Universal City & and one time he flew the B-29's. They might have even known each other. Thanks again for the tip. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:41:57 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Electra on reef out of interest did anyone take a metal detector on your fact finding missions **************************************************************** From Ric For many years TIGHAR has enjoyed the sponsorship of White's Electronics of Sweet Home, Oregon who have supplied us with excellent pulse-induction metal detectors for use on all of our expeditions from Maine to Newfoundland to Nikumaroro. On Niku IIII we made extensive use of eight of White's "Surf P.I. Pro" underwater units. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:37:16 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re impliedly Well, I must differ. Somehow, in the past few years, "issue" has become synonymous with "problem". I don't know why but definition wise they are completely different. I have a problem with this issue. Regards, S. Wesley Smith *********************************************************************** From Ric This is all wildly off-topic but until we get the artifacts up on the website (gettin' close) it's more interesting than radio riddles. I suspect that "problems" have become "issues" out of a politically correct desire to appear less confrontational. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:53:55 EST From: Stuart Subject: Re: Electra on reef There's a third possibility that I've been mulling over ever since this "Electra on the reef" thread started. I hardly dare to mention it, for fear of being ridiculed right off the forum. But here goes anyway: Is it at all possible that the Electra could actually have been FLOWN off the reef again? What I am getting at is the possibility that they landed in tact, went ashore for a few days to await rescue, one of them died there (thus the grave, skeleton and camp site), then the remaining person decided to try to fly the Electra off the reef, since no sign of rescue had been seen. This flight was not successful, and the Electra never made it back to Niku again. At least, not in one piece. Of course, this scenario assumes that the Electra somehow survived several low/high tide cycles and stayed on the reef undamaged, which seems unlikely from what the expeditions have seen of tides. However, if those tide tables that we looked at a couple of weeks back are applicable to Niku, it is within the realm of possibility that the tide *could* remain below the level of the reef for several days, even at high tide. In that case, it is conceivable that the Electra could have been safely parked out there for a few days. Of course, there isn't really much point in trying to get the Electra airborne again to actually GO anywhere, since there would have been precious little fuel remaining at that point. Not nearly enough to make it to anywhere at all. But there might have been enough fuel to attempt to climb high enough to establish radio coms one last time, or at least to send off distress messages until the tanks ran dry, and/or to look for rescue ships in the area, rather than to actually head for another island. I'm assuming that this final flight was not successful, and the Electra could not be landed on Niku again, but rather that it was ditched off shore, and sank. Has this possibility been considered before? It's a real way-out theory, I know, but it would explain pretty much everything that TIGHAR has discovered, including the lack of any large pieces of wreckage on the reef (engines, undercarriage, etc), the radio messages days later, etc. OK, I'll shut up now, and let the experts demolish my theory, which I'm sure they will. :) Stuart *************************************************************************** From Ric Sure. We've considered the possibility. Coulda happened. Who can say it didn't? Climbing to send radio calls isn't the issue with HF that it is with line-of-sight VHF, but if you've just watched airplanes fly over and not see you there would be a great temptation to go and try to find the ship they must have come from. Of course, if we're right about the sequence of events, the Electra had been wrecked by then. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:55:34 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: Electra on reef I suppose if AE ran out of gas while circling Niku looking for a suitable landing spot she might have been forced to ditch in the ocean. Did they have life preservers? Or a raft? Any survival kit? Flare gun? Probably low on food too? Chris in Petaluma **************************************************************************** From Ric Short answer: nobody knows. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:56:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Electra on reef I have sat on the taffrail of my yacht and watched my "unsinkable" aluminium dinghy held ten feet under by water pressure after a wave broke over it. Having tested the dinghy full of water and with four people in it I can vouch for its buoyancy. I cut the painter and expected it to bob to the surface, but it stayed down, held by some suction at the edge of the reef. With calm weather a few hours later we bagan a search, but over the next few days we found no trace of the thing. The sea is a strange place.... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:04:13 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: electra on reef Having swept pertinent areas of Niku with metal detectors,, I wonder if its safe to say that there aint very much metal to be found. Therefore,, if the Electra landed on the reef,, it must have left the reef to parts unknown. Leaving the reef intact without damage is not very likely to me,, a wing would have dug in,, twisted off a chunk,, twisted around dug in some more and etc... It seems like wing parts that contain fuel tanks would have floated off easily as well as the main cabin containing tanks,, The cabin and wing areas would have quickly filled with water and sank,, but the fuel tank pieces could have sailed on for hmmmm quite some time..Maybe yes? Maybe no?? Could it be that what the natives saw as an airplane on the reef was only a piece of a wing or something laying submerged at high tide?? Any who,, the plane is gone now the Stoker,, ************************************************************************* From Ric Although we can't say that we've swept all of the "pertinent areas" of Niku with metal detectors, I do think that it's a pretty safe bet that the airplane - as an airplane - is gone. However, I also think that it's very likely that some components still survive but they're real hard to find. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:06:16 EST From: Alexander Subject: detections did anyone find anything and which key areas did you search...i went to a coastal town a few months back called FILEY with one.the area around there is well known for ship wrecks so i spent all day sweeping the beach and i didnt even turn up a bottle top,infact later i went fossil hunting along the cliffs and i found an english penny laid in a pool of water...and that was without the M/D...although i hope to have more success soon. *************************************************************************** From Ric Where we searched and what we found will soon be up on the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:07:36 EST From: Dusty Subject: Re: GP in the war To the best of my knowledge, George was not a pilot, but worked in the Intelligence end with the 468th Bombardment Group in China and India. LTK - Dusty ********************************************************************* From Ric LTK? Now what... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:09:36 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Radio schedules >Perhaps she changed >her mind and decided not to transmit on 6210. Perhaps when she said she >would repeat her signal on 6210, she meant at the next hourly schedule >at 2215Z - - not knowing that she would be beyond the 250 mile limit then. Without >additional information, we'll never know > >Bob Not being a radio expert, maybe I'm just not reading this correctly or I'm simply missing something here, but if (what proved to be) AE's _last_ radio transmission was heard by Itasca at 2013, would not the _next_ hourly scheduled transmission have been broadcast at 2113? Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:25:49 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Forensic Training TIGHAR's November 2001 Hypothesis on the website contains the following statement concerning the bones and, presumably, Dr. Hoodless: "Although at first suspected of being the remains of Amelia Earhart, that possibility is later discounted by British authorities after a doctor (with no forensic training) pronounces them to be the bones of a short, stocky male." Could you please provide a reference to support the "no forensic training" statement? Thanks, --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric David Hoodless was basically an administrator. He had returned to England to get his medical degree and had only recently returned to Fiji when the whole bones issue came up. In those years forensic medicine (such as it was) was a specialty and not part of the basic MD curriculum. I think you'd find that the same is true today. The real mystery is why Sir Harry Luke chose to have the bones examined by Hoodless, who seems eminently unqualified for the task, rather than by Jock MacPherson - an experienced doctor who does seem to have had some forensic training. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:37:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Forensic Training To be strictly accurate, we don't know what forensic training Dr. Hoodless had, and as Kar puts it in our book, he did apply the appropriate standard measurement protocols in use at the time. It IS a mystery why Jock Macpherson didn't make the measurements, especially since Macpherson was privvy to the discovery and put together the list of questions that Vaskess asked Gallagher about it. Could be that Hoodless, being just back from training in England, was thought to have more current expertise; could have been that Macpherson was off-island. We just don't know. TK *************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Thanks. So, when you conclude that Dr.Hoodless had "no forensic training", TIGHAR means that it hasn't found that Dr. Hoodless had specialized forensic training evidenced by a degree, or its equivalent. As to the bigger mystery, is the Jock McPherson you mention (the "experienced doctor who does seem to have had some forensic training") the same Jock McPherson who writes Vaskess on April 18, 1941 the following: "I have read Dr. Hoodless' report with interest and agree with his conclusions." [reference #39 in TIGHAR Bones Chronology]. If this is the same McPherson, do you have any ideas as to why McPherson would write such a thing if he didn't, really, agree with Dr. Hoodless' report? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************* From Ric Same MacPherson. What makes you think that he didn't agree with Hoodless? Where are you trying to go with this Perry Mason routine? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:41:24 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Radio schedules Another question is that Log Jam says that in her 2013 transmission Earhart said she would repeat the 2013 GMT message on 6210. This seems to indicate that she intended to repeat immediately on 6210---not wait until later. Otherwise, what sense would it make to report the same message hours later when the situation might be much different? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it seems most likely that she intended to repeat the message immediately but there is no way to know for sure what her intentions were or what she actually did. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:42:17 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: GP in the war I think she was intending to send that message to me. Oh well. I think the LTK was supposed to be LTM. Be nice now. Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:56:13 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Forensic Training Thanks, Tom. I would add that Dr. Hoodless also used the respected Karl Pearson formula for stature (which was appropriate for persons born in the 19th century, as Earhart was), and his notes show that he was familiar with (and making) the appropriate types of orbital measurements to be made to determine ancestry, and, of course, he was looking at the pelvic bones, which are the best bones to look at for the sex determination. I believe I was told that FORDISC uses only cranial measurements (perhaps Kar can clarify this), which are second best for sex determination (also, even though Hoodless had only half a pelvis to analyze, because the pelvic bones are bilaterally symetrical you only need half a pelvis, as I understand it. Again, perhaps Kar can help). Recall that Hoodless was very firm in his determination that the bones were "MALE", and even our FORDISC analysis was an extremely close call that they were female. In any event, I am just wondering why we apparently put no credence in McPherson's opinion that Dr. Hoodless was correct, since he apparently, and quite clearly, says he agreed with the report. In all honesty, that is why I am asking whether this is the same person. Or, we may want to double check that in transferring the quoted language to the website that some mistake wasn't made. Otherwise, well, I think we have to admit that someone TIGHAR feels is qualified made a timely confirmation of the accuracy of Dr. Hoodless' report, and, by clear implication, the competency of Dr. Hoodless to undertake the forensic analysis. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric First of all, I only said that MacPherson was an experienced doctor who seems to have had some forensic training. I did not say that I thought he was "qualified" to make an accurate assessment of the bones. I only said that he would appear to be a better choice than Hoodless. Secondly, MacPherson's agreement with Hoodless' conclusions is pretty meaning- less if he didn't see the bones himself - and there is no indication from the correspondence that he did. Thirdly, I'm not "qualified" to get into the finer points of forensic osteology with you. I'm sure Kar Burns would be happy to but she's in New York now doing important forensic work on the on-going collection of partial skeletal remains. Finally, I think a strong case can be made that it was no secret among his subordinates that Sir Harry Luke did not WANT the bones to be Earhart's. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:01:13 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: Electra on reef I think I remember you saying that most of the artifacts are invariably found just outside the search perimeters where you think they should be. Too bad this can't be applied in the water around the island. Didn't you say it is quite deep beyond the reef? Too deep for a satellite to see anything? If you had unlimited money, would you be able to hire NASA or whomever to scan closely the island and perimeter for metal objects or has that been done? The likelihood of those radial engines still existing are good and are close together to each other and camouflaged wherever they are. Happy Thanksgiving all! Chris in Petaluma ************************************************************************** From Ric I just got a call the other day from Jeff Glickman at Photek asking for our permission to use the satellite photo in the development of new automated computer enhancement techniques for picking out man-made objects in natural environments. I, of course, said yes. The tests will start right after the first of the year. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:03:26 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio schedules > Not being a radio expert, maybe I'm just not reading this correctly or > I'm simply missing something here, but if (what proved to be) AE's > _last_ radio transmission was heard by Itasca at 2013, would not the > _next_ hourly scheduled transmission have been broadcast at 2113? > > Don Neumann Nice catch, Don!!!! It has nothing do with radio expertise. It just a dumb mistake. Indeed, her next scheduled transmission would have been at 2113, and she would not have been beyond the 250 mile limit until 2215. Mea culpa, Bob ************************************************************************** From Ric Strictly speaking, Earhart's transmission schedule was every half hour, at quarter past and quarter to the hour. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:12:20 EST From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Southwest crash site. Last week I sent in a posting about a telegram sent from G.Putnam to F.D.R. in which I thought would give more credence to artifact 2-2-V-1 . You tried to find it in Brennan's book Ric but could not and asked if I could find the page.Well as it turns out I was wrong,it was a letter sent from G.P. to the Sec. of Navy dated Oct. 16th 1936.In the letter it mentioned the Electra's range and rebuilding the fuse.There is no number on the page Ric,but if there was it would be 182,the page #'s stops at 180 ,it has a document #7762 .I owe you and the forum an apology for posting wrong information,but I still hope this could help towards 2-2-V-1. Happy Thanks Giving to all and again Iam sorry for the screw up. Terry Lee Simpson (#2396) LTM (whose son is brain dead) *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, I know that letter. It's Putnam's pitch to FDR for the screwball aerial refueling plan. There is no reference to rebuilding the airplane. He merely says that the fuselage has been strengthened by eliminating most of the windows. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:18:40 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Impliedly Actually, what sets my teeth to gnashin' is the use of an apostrophe to form plurals, as in the sign I saw a couple weeks ago: "Cat's and kitten's for sale." Seems to be an increasing tendency here in the midwest. Where have all the grammar teacher's gone? LTM (who assumes the seller was dealing in entire animals and not unspecified parts thereof) Pat Gaston ************************************************************************* From Ric As long as we're bitching, "utilize" - how is it different from "use"? "preventative" - how about "preventive"? "pre-planning" - aaargh! Sorry I got started. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:19:30 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: Electra on reef Hey thats a pretty good theory,, I never thought about flying back off the reef,, Given a chance to walk the reef and pick out the best pathway,, provided the electra was not damaged,, it would be easy to fly back off the reef using soft field techniques...the empty electra would have ju;mped into the air,,, Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:36:06 EST From: Barb Norris Subject: Dr. Hoodless & Forensics As Tom says the fact that the bones were evaluated by Hoodless and not Macpherson is cause for some serious head scratching. When we researched the life and times of Hoodless at the Fiji Museum it was clear that his expertise did not lie in the area of forensics. Could it be that Hoodless was given the bones task because he was the most available at the time? Or maybe, as Tom points out, it was thought that Hoodless would have had more state-of-the-art expertise. Macpherson may have agreed to the conclusions as a professional courtesy, perhaps because he was too busy himself for the bones job. Jock may have been ahead of his time in the area of political correctness. Regardless, the highly-respected and much loved Dr. Hoodless got the job. We could spend forever speculating "why". Blue skies, Barb Norris *************************************************************************** From Ric There's nothing new about giving the boss the results he wants to see. Sir Harry Luke had been stone-walling the thing ever since the bones were found the previous October. His second-in-command, Vaskess, twice pushed him to contact the the Americans. MacPherson suggested that the bones be sent to Australia. Luke kept the lid on tight. The decision to send the bones to Hoodless for analysis seems to have taken place on or about March 31, 1941. A memo was sent by Paddy MacDonald (Vaskess' assistant) to Jock MacPherson: "The Central Medical Authority We have spoken by telephone concerning this matter & I am sending you the file & the coffin to the Central Medical School to Dr. Hoodless. 2. H.E. will be glad if the bones may be examined & and a report submitted in due course. P.D. Macdonald Asst. Secy. W. P.H.C." H.E. is, of course, His Excellency, Sir Harry Luke, the High Commissioner. It would be nice to know what was said in that phone call. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:39:47 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: Exact Science Exact, certain and absolutely? Where are Kammerer et al experts getting their information ? As we have seen on the Forum the factors in the equation--fuel consumption, navaigation, LOP, signal strength, ocean currents, tides, etc, etc. etc. -- are either an unknown or an indefinite quality. How are they able to speak of absolutes ? The only thing for certain is that the "crashed and sank off Howland theory" depends on Earhart and Noonan being exactly on course and absolutely out of gas ! Ric, Im sorry about the Glenn Miller remark I did not mean for it to be taken seriously. ************************************************************************* From Ric No apology necessary. Many crazier things get suggested on this forum and are meant to be taken seriously. I'm afraid I can't answer your question. I agree with you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:34:09 EST From: DavyFlyer Subject: Re: Electra on reef Why would you want to fly it off the reef, if you just landed because of being low on gas? DavyFlyer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:35:35 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Forensic Training Chris says: >I would add that Dr. Hoodless also used the respected Karl Pearson formula >for stature Response: So did everyboth else who had anything to do with measuring bones at that time. I was taught Karl Pearson's formula as an undergraduate anthropology major in the 1960s. No big deal. Chris says: >In any event, I am just wondering why we apparently put no credence in >McPherson's opinion that Dr. Hoodless was correct, since he apparently, and >quite clearly, says he agreed with the report. Response: Not "no credence," but taking it at face value would be like accepting the many assurances we've had that Lambrecht, as an experienced pilot, couldn't possibly have missed wreckage or castaways on the island. MacPherson's comment reads to me like simply the comment of a good old boy on what another good old boy has said. In any event, it certainly can't be taken as a reflection of an independent analysis. If you had MacPherson on the stand, Counsellor, and he made a statement like that, what would be the next question you'd ask? TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:42:40 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: impliedly "Point in time" - as opposed to what other kind of point? "Basis" as in a regular basis . . . . why not say regularly? Crazy... and you are so correct about "pre-planning". What is that, the plan before the plan??? Keep pushing!! Regards, S. Wesley Smith ************************************************************************ From Ric Ahhh .... redundancies. Some common gems; "partially damaged" "totally destroyed" "free gift" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:44:23 EST From: Michel Subject: Re: Dr. Hoodless & Forensics > ... Macpherson may have > agreed to the conclusions as a professional courtesy, perhaps because he was ... This sounds likely to me, such professional courtesies are quite routine. But I would point out that this is not the same thing as a 'second opinion'. For that, a doctor would want to directly examine and test the patient (or in this case handle and measure the bones) themselves, get his own results, and make his own conclusion and interpretation of them. In a statement of professional courtesy such as this doctor #2 is stating agreement with the interpretation drawn by doctor #1 is reasonable based on what #1 says he observed, nothing more. Understood and unstated here by #2 is their assumption that #1 took appropriate measurements, took them accurately, etc. Had Macpherson done this himself, he may have looked at other factors, taken different measurements, given more weight to some things than others, and come to a different conclusion; all he's really saying is Hoodless' interpretation is reasonable based on what he tells me he observed. It's entirely possible he could privately be thinking "geez, if only the idiot had measured the anterior obfuscation we could have nailed this down for sure...". Michel ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:46:13 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Forensic Training Thanks, Ric. Actually a lot of the material I discussed on forensics came from communicating with Kar and buying and reading her book "Forensic Anthropology Training Manual". Happy Thanksgiving, --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Good. Then I'm sure you've learned to respect her expertise. Happy Thanksgiving. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:07:19 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Dr. Hoodless & Forensics Let's see the argument that's developed: First, we argue that Dr. Hoodless isn't qualified, but McPherson seems to be and we wonder why he didn't do the analysis. Next, when it's pointed out that the otherwise apparently qualified McPherson agrees with Dr. Hoodless' report, well, maybe he wasn't as qualified as we think, or maybe he was "giving the boss the results he wanted to see". We also point out that we don't know whether he saw the bones when writing his agreement with Dr. Hoodless, we just assume that he didn't (just like we assume Dr. Hoodless had "no forensic training") which means that his review of the report would of course be without merit. Of course, we didn't see the bones either, but our report has merit because we're scientists and so much better today than these people were back then. Then, perhaps what's really going on is "stone-walling" and a conspiracy at the highest levels of the WPHC, evidenced by speculation as to what may have been said in otherwise apparently innocuous phone calls. Happy Thanksgiving, --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric No Chris, we do not argue that MacPherson seems to be qualified. We argue that he seems to have better credentials than Hoodlesss. There's a difference. We do assume that he never examined the bones himself because the correspondence very definitely gives that impression and we have no reason to believe otherwise. And yes, we do suggest that science has made some advances since 1941. Nobody has suggested a conspiracy (that is, an intentional mispresentation of the facts) but Sir Harry Luke's anti-American sentiments and his deliberate rejection of repeated urgings by his subordinates to contact the Americans and seek expertise outside his own little world are a matter of record. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:19:39 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Exact Science You see ? Here comes Glenn Miller again. Anyone knows the nbame of that HMS cruiser who shot him down ? LTM (who think that if TIGHAR cannot find EA's Electra, perhaps it shoud try locate Glenn Miller's C-64) **************************************************************************** From Ric I've never heard any theory about a cruiser. The best work I've seen on the subject is by British historian Roy Nesbitt who thinks that the Norseman in which Miller was a passenger strayed into an area over the Channel where the RAF jettisoned bombs that could not be dropped due to weather. Supposedly a tail gunner in a Lancaster saw a low-flying small aircraft knocked out of the sky by a jettisoned "blockbuster" bomb that detonated near the surface. The Norseman had a steel tube frame. It's probably now gone and, if it isn't, trying to finding it among the clutter on the bottom of the Channel would be almost as silly as searching the bottom of the Pacific for Earhart's Electra. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:20:51 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Southwest crash site. Was there a special place for FN to sit in the back of the Electra or did he sit in the right seat with AE? Just curious. Happy Thanksgiving to you & Pat. Your work is much appreciated by this newbie who enjoys being a member of TIGHAR tremendously. LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric Noonan seems to have spent most of the time in the right seat. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:24:22 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Electra on reef While I've not made the personal visits to Niku as you have, the aviator in me says: 1. It would not be a simple task to takeoff from the reef. If the Electra's tires didn't have trouble accelerating to takeoff speed in the sand, any coral would shred them to pieces in hurry. 2. Having owned a Twin Beech for awhile I cannot picture it or an Electra "jumping" in to the air even on solid ground with minimum payload. They just don't fly that way. Nice idea, but doesn't seem plausible. Then there's the fuel........ Happy Thanksgiving to all Forumites. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric There's no sand out there and, in places, the coral is quite smooth; but I agree with you. A takeoff would be hairy. I might try it in Cessna 185 or deHaviland Beaver with fat tires, but not in a cabin-class twin. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:26:00 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Reef Take Off. To Claude Stokes. While it may have been possible to take-off from the reef, there is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that the airplane remained on the reef and was eventually destroyed in the surf. Fuel had to be in very short supply even if there enough to take-off. It is doubtful that there would be sufficient fuel to fly to another island and which direction do you fly to try and find a search ship? If the Electra was intact and capable of being flown and a search airplane pass overhead you would expect a follow up search. In all probablity the airplane was already destroyed by that time or it would have been seen. If you do take-off you have a good chance that you might not make a successful landing the second time or even have enough fuel for a second landing. You can only take-off and land at low tide so if you take-off when the tide is at its lowest the landing area will be covered with water when you return unless it is a very short flight. Fuel was needed to o perate an engine so that the battery could be charged in order to opperate the radio. Given all the evidence: radio signals, native reports of an airplane in the surf, airplane fragments, the bones, the shoes, etc it is hard to consider that a take-off was really made. It simply doesn't fit the evidence. Dick Pingrey 908C ************************************************************************* From Ric My sentiments exactly. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:36:34 EST From: Subject: Re: Forensic Training Shouldn't somebody ask the renown Dr. Cyril Wecht about this? He is one of the leading forensic pathologists in the world. He is currently the Coroner of Allegheny County (PA), this I know because I live in Pittsburgh. *************************************************************************** From Ric If you know Dr. Wecht maybe you could see if he is interested. When this first came up we sought out the best people in the field. They don't come any better than Dr. Richard Jantz at University of Tennessee, Knoxville. When Tom Crouch at NASM asked the forensic experts at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History to critique Jantz's findings about the Niku bone measurements they politely declined. Others, of course, have rushed in where experts fear to tread. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 08:59:17 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Not the Radio Riddle again! >From Ric >Strictly speaking, Earhart's transmission schedule was every half >hour, at quarter past and quarter to the hour. Bob, Believe Ric is correct regarding the scheduled times for AE's radio transmissions... so then, potentially, we actually have _three_ unexplained 'lapses' of AE's regularly scheduled radio broadcasts... one scheduled for 2043, one scheduled for 2113, & a third scheduled for 2143... _none_ of which that can be accounted for because she had flown _beyond_ the claimed 250 mile range of her signal strength. Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric Don, you're making the same mistake that Chris Kennedy made. Bob does not claim to know where Earhart was at any particular time. He has only worked out the probable limitations of radio propagation and posed some "if, then" examples. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:01:08 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Diplomacy Nothing to do with the affair of the bones, but the correspondence between Sir Harry Luke and Sir Harry Batterbee, high commissioner in New Zealand, threw up two examples of the way diplomats of that era got the result they wanted, or tried to, if not quite by devious means, then by going round the houses and getting another to procure it. No doubt they still do today. In one letter, Batterbee points out to Luke that the temporary consul to Tahiti, Archer, who is due in Fiji en route, appeared very unwell before leaving New Zealand. He suggests that Luke suggest he see a doctor. No indication that Batterbee has suggested the same, but if he has then Luke will be reinforcing his point. Luke would, of course, be perfectly capable without being prompted of suggesting Archer see a doctor if he is still unwell, but Batterbee seems not to want to leave it to chance. In another, Batterbee suggests Luke invite the New Zealand PM, Fraser, to send his defence secretary to inspect Fiji's defences, acknowledging that Luke may be intending to do just that. Luke seems not to have thought of it before being prompted, as only two weeks later does he write inviting Fraser as well. Fraser subsequently takes up the invitation. LTM (who thinks Jeff Bridges would be a good Perry Mason) Phil Tanner 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:03:34 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Forensic Training Personally, I would love to see Dr. Wecht involved in our project. He was the only forensic pathologist to my knowledge who publicly debunked the "magic bullet" theory that the Warren Commission would have the American public believe about President Kennedy's assasination. I think he's a man of high integrity. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************** From Ric Don't even SAY "Kennedy assination". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:24:06 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Forensic Training That's a fair question, Tom: If that opportunity were available I would show him the statement and ask Dr. McPherson the background and basis for his agreement with Dr. Hoodless (the "foundation") before assuming that he was merely making the statement that he agreed with Dr. Hoodless out of good old boy courtesy or to "please the boss". Of course, we don't have this opportunity and he was not on the stand and part of an adversarial proceeding when he made this comment in this communique, so I wouldn't expect to see a detailed reason of why he agreed with Dr. Hoodless or a re-hashing of the opinon in the communique. This means the lack of a detailed reason doesn't raise any eyebrows to me. The mere fact that Dr. McPherson didn't subject himself to trial on his statement doesn't automatically mean that the statement wasn't supportable. So, we are left with the fact in the record that Dr. McPherson unambiguously stated his agreement with, and support of, Dr. Hoodless' report that the bones were not those of Amelia Earhart. A contemporary and associate of Dr. Hoodless (with "some" forensic training) agrees with Dr. Hoodless' opinion and conclusions. Period. What I find troubling, here, is that after making a case that Dr. McPherson, rather than Dr. Hoodless, had "some" forensic training and should have done the analysis (and that the fact he didn't do the analysis indicates something is up), TIGHAR then assumes (when subsequently presented with Dr. McPherson's statement) that he was, essentially, unethical (whether Dr. McPherson made this statement as a courtesy, as part of a cover-up or whatever that's what TIGHAR's allegation of falsity amounts to). Indeed, it all makes me suspect that IF the statement made by Dr. McPherson had been something to the effect that he agreed with some, but not all of Dr. Hoodless' conclusions, that TIGHAR might be trumpeting this as conclusive proof from a seasoned professional that Dr. Hoodless was wrong on everything. No witness stand cross examination would be required of the Dr. in that case. I am sorry to be so blunt, but the way all this looks now is that TIGHAR is "cherry-picking" the bits and pieces of the story it likes, then making totally unsupported bases and assumptions to denigrate the parts of the story it doesn't like. You take the bad with the good. --Chris Kennedy ****************************************************************************** From Ric You needn't feel so troubled. TIGHAR has not alleged that MacPherson was unethical or that anyone made any intentionally false statement. We've merely made the observation that MacPherson's endorsement of Hoodless' opinion is essentially meaningless if MacPherson did not himself examine the bones - and there is no suggestion in the correspondence that he did. That's not "cherry-picking." You also needn't feel troubled about what you imagine TIGHAR might "trumpet." (psst...your agenda is showing.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:28:00 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Forensic Training > communicating with Kar and buying and reading her book "Forensic Anthropology > Training Manual". > > Happy Thanksgiving, > --Chris Kennedy > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > Good. Then I'm sure you've learned to respect her expertise. Actually, it made me wonder why more of her expertise wasn't included in the Bones paper you co-authored (particularly a discussion of the unique problems that the FORDISC computer program has on making sex determinations). --Chris ****************************************************************************** From Ric I see. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:37:51 EST From: Angus Subject: Duke of York? One of the problems with Betty's note book - or any of the other post-loss messages, for me, is the lack of any reference to their landfall. This suggests that either Noonan had been ill for most of the flight and Amelia had decided to navigate herself or they had made some fundamental mistake resulting in such a large error in navigation, that they were unable to reconcile the island with their idea of position. Neither scenario is impossible of course. Noonan was middle aged, possibly hung-over and therfore dehydrated and had been flying for a long time in a cramped unpressurised aircraft. He was ripe for an attack of DVT, especially if he spent long periods relatively immobile, sitting on an unupholstered seat. According to Betty, he was acting strangely, complaining of his head, apparently forgetful ("what did you ask me to do?"), yelling, grabbing the mike and saying things like "take it away" and "hello bud" as though he were hamming it up. Its just possible he was suffering from a cerebral haemmorhage or thrombosis as a result of DVT. Would Amelia have mentioned it over the air? Probably not because she may have assumed he was drunk and had brought alcohol onto the aircraft. She would hardly have wanted to broadcast the fact and would have hoped he would sober up. An incorrectly set compass, or one made unreliable by movement of ferrous objects in the aircraft after calibration is also a possibility. However one thing that was repeated many times was "New York" or similar. Are you aware that Atafu used to be called "Duke of York Island"? It is close to the 157/337 LOP through Howland and it is possible that they thought they were much further south than they actually were (if they were in fact on Gardner). As far as I can ascertain, Atafu was inhabited at the time. However there may be reefs close by where they could have landed. The distance seems to make Atafu an unlikely landfall. However, consider this. Buttonwood called at Atafu in late January 1947. This was the supposed date of the wreck photo. Is it possible that the discovery of the aircraft was hushed up to save the US Navy some embarrassment. The aircraft could have been dumped at sea in the cover-up. This might explain the missing logs. The other photo (of the Brits) would then be just a blind. If the island was indeed inhabited as I suspect, that would scotch this idea (unless of course the inhabitants were paid off) but its an interesting coincidence. Regards, Angus. ------------------------------------------------------- Ric, The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that AE & FN believed they were on Atafu. Betty heard "N. Y" repeated many times. Norwich sounds little like New York and also Betty wrote NY not NYC. Whatever she heard must have sounded very like NEW YORK indeed. DUKE OF YORK fits the bill very well. Its also close to the LOP. Again in Betty's notebook the sequence 8 33 occurs twice. Atafu is at 8.33 S. Another post loss message gives the numbers 17, 170, 1 23, 23, 6 14. Atafu is at 172.30 W. A quick calculation by trigonometry assuming that lines of longitude are parallel at the equator (not quite true in this case) gives a distance of Atafu from Howland of 619.6 nautical miles. Perhaps someone with a nav planner could see if that should really be 614miles. Since so much else points to Gardner, I wonder if AE guessed their position as being at Duke of York from a chart using her known LOP, not realising that they were much further north than she thought, and merely gave its coordinates and name. If they had flown north and then south along the LOP, she may have lost track of just how far north or south she was, especially if Noonan was incapacitated for any reason. The only alternative on this hypothesis would be that Noonan actually measured their position and realised the island was Duke of York Island from the chart, but this would mean a landing at Atafu which is unlikely because it was at extreme range and certainly inhabited in 1938. However, if they did land on a reef in the area, they may not have been seen and the aircraft quickly broken up by the surf which at Atafu breaks very violently on the reef apparently. It might explain why they couldn't find Howland though. They were far too far south of their intended course. I think the finding of the radial in the Phoenix group rules this idea out however. Regards Angus ****************************************************************************** From Ric Allow me to "cherry-pick" your speculations and say that I think that your suggestion that Earhart may have thought they had reached "Duke of York" is a very interesting one. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:45:14 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Ships One of my hobbies is collecting Earhart first day covers. Today, I received a cover dated, July 2, 1937, with a cancellation mark of U.S.S. Snapper. I searched the Naval Vessel Registry, but no ship by that name is listed. Do you or anyone on the forum recognized this ship? Was this ship part of the Earhart search? Thanks, Lawrence ************************************************************************** From Ric I know of no USS SNAPPER that was involved in the Earhart search. My 1937 Berne's List of shipboard radio stations shows two ships named SNAPPER, both warships, one British and one American. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:55:07 EST From: Joe Subject: Re: Exact Science I hate to bust anyone's bubble....but Glenn Miller was my idol...think the story by a German magazine is closer to the truth...that he died of heart failure in the arms of a French prostitute! Joe W3HNK ************************************************************************** From Ric That's a myth that Nesbit was able to put to rest quite conclusively. At the time of Miller's death there was much confusion about his whereabouts. He had been expected in Paris for a concert and never showed up. For several days nobody could figure out what happened and rumors flew - including the prostitute story. The problem, it turned out, was that on the flight manifest he had been listed by his real name, Maj. Alten G. Miller, and it took a while for the authorities to figure out that the light aircraft that left England for France but never arrived (just one of many wartime lost aircraft) had been carrying the famous band leader. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:09:54 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. This HAS to be right! I just checked with a distance calculator on the net. The distance from Atafu to Howland is 613.03 nautical miles. Atafu atoll is south of the village islet and the reef floods and separates the islets at high tide. I know Howland's N/S position was a little innacurate in 1937, but I'm not sure by how much. If they were on Atafu they were on the southern reef which is just a mile south of the centre of the atoll @ 8.33S. Atafu is square unlike Gardner but they may have just thought the chart was inaccurate, if indeed they had a large scale chart. If however they mistook Gardner for Atafu and had added a mile to its charted distance from Howland ( assuming the N/S position of Howland was roughly right), this would place them one mile south of the centre of Gardner. This would put them "at the southeast coast/corner of the island" or the Loran Station area. This description by Gallagher doesn't of course preclude the Aukeraime south coast close to the station. Another reason for a Southwest landing site. Of course this all supposes that for whatever reason (Noonan raving, Amelia unable to navigate her way out of a paper bag etc) they were unable to check their position by means of a fix after landing. Regards Angus ****************************************************************************** From Ric Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. - AE and FN land at Gardner thinking that it's Duke of York island (okay, I can buy that as a possibility) - The double occurence of the number sequence 833 in Betty's notebook leads you to the conclusion that it is intended to be 8.33 degrees South latitude, which AE or FN had obtained from a chart rather than a celestial observation. - Because 8.33 S is a mile south of the middle of Atafu (Duke of York) you conclude that they may really have been a mile south of the middle of Gardner, which would put them on the southeast (what you call the southwest) end of the island where Gallagher found the bones. I can't say that it's not possible but I'd say that it's a bit thin. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:32:26 EST From: Stuart Subject: Re: Reef Take Off. I get the impression that Dick Pingrey is replying to Claude Stokes comment on my post, without having read my post himself. He raises a lot of questions that were all discussed in the original post. To recap, the idea was that the electra MIGHT possibly have been flown off the reef by the sole survivor, in a desperate attempt to A) make radio contact or transmit a distress call from a higher altitude (attempting to get greater range), and/or B) look for possible rescuers in the area. I never suggested that the Electra would have been able to get to any other island, and I commented on the fact that precious little fuel would have been available, good for nothing more than a short climb to altitude, with the intention of landing back on the island again. This scenario assumes that the second landing was not successful. There is nothing about this scenario that does not fit the evidence: "radio signals" (made after the initial landing, but before or during this final flight), "native reports of an airplane in the surf" (parts of the wreck, washed ashore long after the unsuccessful second landing, perhaps after having been long buried in sand off shore and later uncovered by unusual tidal action), "airplane fragments" (ditto), "the bones" (from the occupant who had died on shore after first landing, before this takeoff), "the shoes" (ditto). I don't see anything contradictory in there. Yes, it sure is an unlikely, but it also does not contradict the evidence. However, Ric seems to feel that this scenario is extremely unlikely, given the tides at Niku and his own personal experience of the island and with the investigation, etc., and I'll certainly bow that, and accept it: I think Ric knows more about the entire subject than anyone else, so if he feels it is far fetched, then he's probably right. I've never been to Niku, and only been following the forum for a few months, so I'm certainly no expert, and I certainly do not claim that the scenario I outlined really DID happen. I just offered it as a suggestion of something that COULD have happened, that I hadn't seen discussed anywhere else, and which seems to explain the absence of more substantial pieces of wreckage on or close to the reef, such as engines and undercarriage. To be honest, I seriously doubt that this scenario could have happened. But it does fit the evidence. Stuart **************************************************************************** From Ric If we can explain all the pieces of the puzzle without greatly complicating the hypothetical scenario (and I think we can), we're probably better off keeping it simple. (And no, this not an example of Ockham's Razor.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:34:38 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: Electra on reef It seems to me that the kind of airplane is not as revelant as the technique. If you have a very lightly loaded plane,, the weight on the tires is not as important as the weight on the wings.. I saw the movie clip of AE takeoff from Lae,, and she jumped,, and bounced,, and at last got airborne,,in about 3000ft,, keep in mind at gross weight,, The idea behind a soft or rough firld takeoff is to very quickly get all the weight on the wings instead of on the wheels,, thus,, I believe the electra with almost 1100 horsie power wuld have jumped into the air quite nicely in about 900 feet,, (if after landing at Niku,, I discovered maybe where I was located, I might have taken off again to fly over to one of the larger islands hoping to find humanity) Have you ever watched the twin beach stunt show at sun and fun?? or watch Bob Hoover pop an aero commander up up and away?? the stoker,, "happiness is flying thru the rain,, and watching your fuel gauges increase" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:36:53 EST From: Joe Subject: Re: Forensic Training Id rather see Dr Michael Baden myself! Joe W3HNK ************************************************************************** From Ric Apparently everyone has a favorite forensic osteologist. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:42:38 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Atafu Whilst I still support the Niku hypothesis, there are some additional points to consider re Atafu as an actual rather than their believed landing site. Tokelau labourers were working on Hull at the time of the disappearance. Possibly there was either a skeleton staff (no I don't mean AE & FN!) at Atafu or no-one at all if they moved their families with them, hence the place may have been uninhabited or a landing on the southern reef, three miles from the village, unnoticed at the time by the few people that were around. Secondly the Achilles received a message purporting to come from KHAQQ. The ship was southwest of the Phoenix group at the time. Thirdly a message was picked up in Oz. "plane is between Howland and Samoa, ten hours west" or similar. This seems to indicate that they were sufficiently unsure of their north/south position that they included the Tokelau group and thus Atafu in the area of uncertainty, although of course this doesn't disqualify Gardner. Fourthly the control cable, heard of after the war, could have originated in Atafu and been brought to Gardner by the Tokelau workers employed in the clearing and planting on Gardner, months or even several years after the landing. It would explain why no-one on Gardner seemed to know the site of the aircraft only seven or so years later. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric If you'd like to pursue the Atafu Hypothesis I'd suggest that you research just what was going on at Atafu in 1937 and how likely it seems that a plane could have arrived there and nobody ever find out about it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:19:04 EST From: Ric Subject: Forum's Choice Our offer of a CD of the daily expedition reports illustrated with lots of great photos from the actual expedition for $50 has been less than enthusiastically received. We've had a grand total of three orders - not enough to justify the considerable time it would take to finish producing the CD. Accordingly we'll either refund or credit those who wanted the CD. Obviously we guessed wrong about what you want. That's okay. We have lots of fund-raising ideas. Some have been great successes - like the $100 satellite photo and the $25 grid maps. Others have been flops. Of the 60 Niku IIII T-shirts we had produced, we sold only 5 at the $20 price. Go figure. We gave away 20 to the crew of Nai'a. We'll remainder the rest for $12.50. We have a couple of new offers - a year-end membership/renewal sale and a video aerial tour of Niku - that we think you'll like and I'll be putting them up as separate posting on the forum. We've also talked about making the Forum Highlights more searchable and there seems to be a good deal of interest in that. What other information products would you like to see? How about a second volume of the Earhart Research CD that included all of the official government search reports? A CD of historical photos of Nikumaroro from Bevingtons's 1937 visit and the 1938 New Zealand survey up through World War II and beyond? A CD of high-resolution photos of the most intriquing artifacts recovered from Nikumaroro? We can produce any and all of these, and much more, but we can't afford the time to do them "on spec." Tell us what you want and we'll try to deliver. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:27:11 EST From: Ric Subject: Put a cap on it Get a FREE TIGHAR Cap and save money with the Year-end TIGHAR Membership and Renewal Sale On January 1, 2002 the cost of a basic one-year Associate Membership in TIGHAR will increase to $55. The Student/Senior Membership (fulltime student or over 65) will be $45. Other membership categories will remain unchanged. BUT----- Between now and December 31, 2001 you can join TIGHAR, buy a gift membership for a friend, and/or renew your own membership for as many years as you choose at the old rate of $45 per year ($35 for Student/Senior). Join or renew for two years or more and get a TIGHAR Cap -- a $29.95 value -- FREE! This is NOT your father's TIGHAR cap. The first TIGHAR caps were khaki colored and featured the high-front "golf cap" style. It's still a great hat (and now something of a collector's item) but we think this new cap has a classier look with its modern low-profile cut and pre-shaped brim. The color is "stone" with a line of dark blue trim in the brim picking up the blue in the finely embroidered TIGHAR wings. The adjustable back strap has a sliding metal keeper (no plastic, thank you very much). A very nice hat indeed. This offer has been sent to all TIGHAR members this week along with the new TIGHAR Tracks newsletter. It will also be up on the TIGHAR webite sometime next week. A Short History of TIGHAR Membership Costs When TIGHAR was founded in 1985 the annual membership fee was $25. Members received a small newsletter quarterly. First Class U.S. postage was .22/oz. In 1987 the membership fee increased to $35. The quarterly newsletter was a bit bigger and postage was still .22/oz. In April of 1988 postage went up to .25/oz. and then up to .29/oz. in February of 1991. In 1993 the basic TIGHAR membership was raised to $45. By then TIGHAR Tracks was a full-size magazine that went out three or four times per year. Today postage is .34/oz. and the USPS has asked for an increase to .37/oz. effective September 2002. TIGHAR members presently receive an eight-page (or more) newsletter every month. The membership fee increase which will become effective January 1, 2002 is less than the anticipated percentage rise in mailing costs since the last fee increase eight years ago. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:33:40 EST From: Ric Subject: An Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro An Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro TIGHAR will make available, to members only, a thirty minute VHS videotape of an aerial tour of Nikumaroro. This is the entire, unedited footage shot from a Hughes 500 helicopter which, through an almost unbelievable series of fortuitous events, suddenly and quite unexpectedly became available to TIGHAR on August 31, 2001 -- Day 3 of the Niku IIII Expedition. For the incredible story of how it came about see the Expedition Report in TIGHAR Tracks (August 27- September 2 issue). This is broadcast-quality video shot by professional cameraman Mark Smith from the doorless right-hand seat of the helicopter on a gorgeously clear day. To say that it is spectacular does not do it justice. Taking off from the beach near Tatiman Passage (Sector WI13 on your Nikumaroro Grid Map) the flight proceeded along the Nutiran shoreline to the island's northwestern tip (Sector WF03), picking out the workers at Grave 3 (WD10) along the way. Rounding the corner, the helicopter traced the coastline all the way down to the Seven Site (ER29) where it circled the work being done there (and yes, you can see the strange white "G" feature on the ground that wouldn't be discovered for almost another week). Continuing around the southeastern tip (EU37) the flight surveyed the entire southern coastline of the island, past Bauareke Passage (WV26), over the landing channel (WG21) and completing the first circuit at Tatiman Passage where it lined up on the wreck of the Norwich City (WB09) and began a gradual descent. The first tour around the island exterior was done at altitudes varying from roughly 200 to 500 feet. The descent toward the reef flat beyond Norwich City was intended to simulate a theoretical landing approach at an angle and speed estimated to be similar to that of a Lockheed Electra. With the floats nearly brushing the water on the reef (the tide was high), the helicopter continued straight ahead for a wave skimming run toward the expedition ship Nai'a, anchored off the atoll's northwestern tip. Pulling up and around the ship, the helicopter then headed southward and began climbing for altitude in order to get an overall view of the island. During the climb the camera was turned off. A vantage point of roughly 2,000 feet about one mile off the southwestern end of the island provided a good view of the entire atoll from which another descent was made to the reef north of the Norwich City. Circling back around through Tatiman Passage the helicopter then makes another complete circuit, this time down on the deck following the lagoon shore and going counterclockwise around the island to give the camera a clear view. Returning ultimately to land on the shore of Tatiman Passage the tour ends where it began. This is Nikumaroro as it has only been seen by a very few, perhaps including Amelia Earhart. As a research tool it is invaluable. As a way of thanking you, the members of TIGHAR, for your continued support, it is unsurpassed. Order your copy today with a $50 contribution to TIGHAR. We expect to begin shipping tapes by December 3rd. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:34:55 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Duke of York? Using 8.33s by 172.3w for atafu and .75n by 176.6w for Howland,, my calculator says that Duke of yourk is 694sm (603nm) from Howland on a true heading of 155 Im not sure if my lat long for Howland is exact,, but its not off by much,, the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:49:23 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. Not quite right. 8.33 S, the latitude of Atafu (which I suggest they discovered from the chart), is 613 nm from Howland. They knew (in my scenario) they were 1nm S of the centre of the island they were on. If it was Atafu, ergo they must be 614nm from Howland which is the number picked up in the post loss message. If true, then we would have a southerly landing site, where as you say, Gallagher found the bones. I don't agree its a bit thin. First I have to show they really thought they were on Atafu. 1) Duke of York almost identical to New York 2) Most post loss messages give the impression they were unsure of where they were. 3) Atafu close to LOP 4) They couldn't find Howland which supports the idea they were unsure of their N/S position. 5) The Achilles picked up a post loss message which gives a position between Howland and Samoa. Assuming the message was not a hoax, if they knew they were on Niku not Atafu, why include such a large range and one which encompasses Atafu? 6) Atafu just within maximum fuel range as we calculate, so they might have reached the same conclusion. 7) 614 figure fits with distance to Howland from Atafu. 8) 8. 33 fits betty's notebook, 172.30 fits another post-loss message. 9) Once one accepts that they believed they were on Atafu, the southerly landing site follows in my opinion. Noonan was used to giving positions as accurately as possible. If the northwest coast was the landing site I think he would have given the figure 611 or 612nm. 10) The other points I made earlier, independently suggest a southerly landing 1) Radial probably not found in sight of NC 2) Message "on reef southwest of unknown island" 3) Location of bones site as described by Gallagher 4) Location of 1991 site and shoes 5) Thorough search in north unsuccessful QED Regards Angus. ****************************************************************************** From Ric As I said, I think the idea that they thought they were on Duke of York has some merit as an explanation of the "N.Y., N.Y. or something that sounded like New York" in Betty's notebook. I've seen no source that says HMS Achilles heard a message such as you describe nor an I familar with an alleged post-loss message that contains 172.30. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:58:51 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Forensic Training Chris, as a member of the Board of Directors, I really have to object to your characterization of what "TIGHAR" says and does. While Ric is certainly TIGHAR's primary spokesperson, what he says is essentially what he says, and shouldn't automatically be attributed to the organization as a whole. That said, I think Ric would agree with me when I say that in the absence of some evidence that Macpherson actually examined the bones and came up with an independent opinion, we have to give his stated subscription to Hoodless' conclusion very little weight. From what little we know of Hoodless, his training, and his times, there is also no reason to take the results of his analysis as authoritative. Of course, the distance in time and space between the physical handling of the bones and the analysis of Hoodless' measurements by Burns and Jantz make it impossible to take the results of their analyses as authoritative either, despite their being clearly far better qualified than Hoodless and their having used more informed analytical procedures. We have no certainty about whose bones they were, and we're not going to get it by arguing about Hoodless' qualifications or what Macpherson meant by his endorsement. We'll get certainty, if it's to be gotten, by finding the bones. With all due respect, why don't you turn your critical skills to something that will actually advance the research, rather than just bedeviling Ric? Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:11:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. Ric -- Re. your comment on Angus' Atafu hypothesis, that "I can't say that it's not possible but I'd say that it's a bit thin." -- it seems to me that you're making the same mistake Chris Kennedy keeps making, wanting everything to add up perfectly, and rejecting it if it doesn't. I think Angus has something very interesting here -- whether you assume Atafu as the actual landing site or assume that they landed on Niku but thought it was Atafu -- and it definitely needs investigation. How about an Atafu Project, a la the Noonan Project, the Celestial Choir, etc. to look into the matter. LTM Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric Me? Kennedy? You really know how to hurt a guy. Don't get me wrong. I LIKE the Atafu idea. I've said so. Let's run with it and see where it takes us. We'll call the research team the "Dukes of York" (sorta like Dukes of Hazard). I'll ask Fergie if she'll give us an endorsement (where did I put that phone number?). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:18:50 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Exact Science Ric is right. Glenn Miller left England as a passenger in a USAAF Noorduyn C-64 Norseman on 15 December 1944 for Paris. The aircraft never arrived. The Norseman was a small single engine high wing utility transport with fixed classic landing gear. It had a 600 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp radial engine, a crew of two and had accommodation for up to eight passengers. The type was used on a large scale as a utility transport by the USAAF in Western Europe at the end of WW II. Speculation on how the aircraft disappeared is still going on. One theory is the aircraft was hit by bombs being dumped from RAF Lancasters coming back from a raid on Germany. This theory is based on reports from air crew being debriefed after returning from a raid and declaring having dumped bombs in that general area on their way home around the time the aircraft could have been there. According to an other report the aircraft was shot down by the trigger happy air gunners of a British warship who mistook it for a German recce aircraft, not being familiar with that type of slow high wing aircraft. This version seems to be more or less officially accepted in the UK. A third possibility is that the single engine quit over the sea and that the aircraft ditched, as hundreds of single engine fighters ditched in the Channel during WW II. The RAF Coastal Command used to send Supermarine Walrus amphibians to pick up any ditched flyers, who routinely wore inflatable life vests, transports and bombers carrying inflatable life rafts. But as it was no-one had seen the aircraft go down and it was never found. The only thing known for sure is that it didn't land at Paris or anywhere else in France and is still missing until this day. We shall never know what exactly happened because, as Ric pointed out in a previous posting, if the aircraft is still at the bottom of the English Channel chances of finding it or at least part of its steel tube construction are small indeed and the sea bottom is littered with debris of literally hundreds of other aircraft, E-boats, U-boats, war ships, transport vessels etc. that went down in that area. The aircraft is still one of thousands "missed in action" during WW II. LTM (who still loves the music of Glenn Miller). *********************************************************************** From Ric Thus endeth the thread I said we weren't going to pick up. I'll never learn. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:21:21 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. Angus says: 9) Once one accepts that they believed they were on Atafu, the southerly landing site follows in my opinion. I don't think we should get hung up on what the Atafu hypothesis suggests about where (on either Ataful or Niku) they might have landed. I've been thinking about why I find Chris Kennedy's natterings so annoying, and have realized that it's (in part at least) because he wants the data to support far more precise conclusions than they're capable of supporting. We don't have a basis for either accepting or rejecting Hoodless' conclusion about the skeleton, but we have reason to question it, and that's enough, particularly when put together with other data, to justify further investigation. In the same way, I don't think the Atafu hypothesis can be relied on to tell us where on the island they might have landed, but that's not the point, and we shouldn't get sidetracked arguing about it. Angus has come up with something that makes sense out of several occult references in Betty's notes, and that makes it worth some study. Let's not waste time arguing about whether it can tell us where exactly they put their wheels down. LTM (who's always suspicious of too-exact sciences) Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:23:34 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Membership Renewals, Goodies Membership renewals at the current rate, free hats, and aerial survey movie of Niku? WOW! Now this is the best deal I've heard of since drinking beers with Don Corlione'. Ric, set aside 1 cap, 1 VHS tape, and consider my membership renewal done. OK forumites............who's next and who's with me? Doug Brutlag Still #2335 and in the future ********************************************************************** From Ric Gee...I was hoping for an enthusiastic response. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:34:51 EST From: Ric Subject: Bulletin is up Okay gang, the long-awaited Research Bulletin "Mysteries of the Seven Site" is now up and running. You can go to it directly with this URL: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/33_SevenMysteries/33_SevenMysteries.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:36:21 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Ships/USS Snapper Typically US Navy vessels named after fish are submarines (at least prior to the 70s or so). A quick check of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships does indeed show a Salmon-class submarine named USS Snapper (SS-185). Funny thing is, on July 2, 1937 this USS Snapper was still under construction at the Portsmouth (NH) Naval Yard. She was not launched until the following month and commisioned that December. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:45:27 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Duke of York? This idea, it seems from here, is based on the premise that FN was out of action. I thought it had been fairly well established that he was in good condition before they left. Mike Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric All this premise requires is that they not be sure where they are when they land and that Noonan, for whatever reason, is incapacitated (ala Betty's notebook) after the landing. *************************************************************************** From Dan Postellon a DVT (deep venous thrombosis) is certainly possible. This could cause leg pain, and if the clot (thrombosis) dislodged, it could move through the right side of the heart, after which it could lodge in the lung. This might cause chest pain, coughing up of blood, or even sudden death, but not a clot or bleeding in the brain. Dan Postellon MD. TIGHAR# ************************************************************************* From Angus Murray Claude, Howland as I understand it, is 0.48N 176.38W hence the discrepancy. I agree with your heading. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:50:45 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. Bevis report : On 3 July the British cruiser HMS Achilles in the Pacific had reported that "at 11:30am we heard an unknown station on 3105kc make a report as follows: "Please give us a few dashes if you get us'. The station then repeated KHAQQ twice, then disappeared." The next morning - 6 JUL 37 - a Los Angeles operator, Louis Messier, reported he heard a weak code signal at 3:30 am (Howland midnight). It was sent very slowly and Messier logged it as: "17 na u 61 4 southwes 1 23 sou owl 23 ja so not nx call equen 170 sou sec will sou nant now sou". (In my opinion, radio Hams might recognize some useful meanings from this poorly sent and received message.) I interpret 1*23* as 172.30. 172 spoken as "one seventy (two)" would account for "170" Red letters above maybe errors. Hence interpolating: 17(2.3 W),NM 614 SOUTHE(A)S(T) (HOWLAND,) 1(7)2.3(W) ,SOU(THEAST H)OWL(AND) (17) 2.3(W) SO(UTHEAST H)O(WLAND) N(E)X(T) CALL (FR)EQUEN(CY 6210?) 17 (2.3 W) SOU(TH)E(AST) HOWL(AND) SOU(THE)A(S)T (H)OW(LAND) SOU(THEAST HOWLAND) The latitude may have been given and not picked up or alternatively, rather than give one they were not sure of they opted only to give longitude. This would actually give a unique point for an island, knowing that it was also 614nm southeast of Howland. Regards Angus. ****************************************************************************** From Ric What's the Bevis report? I don't have an account of the Messier message. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:54:26 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Ships/USS Snapper > From Russ Matthews (#0509CE) > > Typicaly US Navy vessels named after fish are submarines (at least prior to > the 70s or so). A quick check of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting > Ships does indeed show a Salmon-class submarine named USS Snapper (SS-185). A check of Silvestone's books about U.S. warships in WW1 and WW2 reveals two Snappers: SS-185 and SS-16. > Funny thing is, on July 2, 1937 this USS Snapper was still under construction > at the Portsmouth (NH) Naval Yard. She was not launched until the following > month and commisioned that December. And the previous one, the submarine finally called C-5, was sold as scrap in 1920. If there was a ship named Snapper involved, it was not a U.S. Navy ship. Who else had a Snapper in the Pacific in 1937? The British had a Snapper: 39S, of the first group of S-boats, launched in October of 1934. Offhand. I don't know how to find out where she might have been in July of 1937. Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric So a nonexistent US submarine issues a commemorative Earhart stamp on the day she disappears. This could be the start of a beautiful conspiracy. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:57:18 EST From: Dave Chase Subject: Re: Membership Renewals, Goodies Vanessa and I accept Doug's challenge and raise him one!!! Please renew memberships for both of us for TWO years each, (we'll take those two caps, thank you!), send us 1 VHS video, and two Niku IIII t-shirts (one extra large, the other medium, if not in stock, send large, or extra large). Please email if you need the credit card info again. We appreciate your tireless patience and down to earth wit! Great job, KEEP IT COMING! Dave and Vanessa ps: we're still working on getting Vanessa's Amelia Earhart History Day project on the web. We'll know next Thursday if Sacramento County will do it, or if we do it ourselves. One way or the other, we'll get those photos up by mid-January. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:03:22 EST From: Jonathan Feinstein Subject: Re: Bulletin is up (Glass Floats) Upon glancing at the new artifact page "Mysteries of the Seven Site", I immediately noticed that artifact 2-6-S-21a is a piece of a glass fishing float. I personally have never found a glass float, but I own some and have read some books about them. The first thing that occurred to me is that it might be possible to discount this as a piece of evidence based on its age. I immediately pulled down a couple of my books to check when glass floats started being used: "Beachcombing for Japanese Glass Floats" by Amos L. Wood, "Beachcombing the Pacific" by Amos L. Wood, and "Beachcombers Guide to the Northwest" by Walt Pich. In "Beachcombing for Japanese Glass Floats", Wood indicates that glass floats first started being used in the Pacific in the 1910s (pg 116, also Pich pg. 18-19) and started showing up on Oregon beaches in 1918 (pg 18, also Pich pg. 20), so it's perfectly reasonable to presume that floats made it to Gardner by 1937. According to Wood, at least one Japanese fishing company operated as far south as Antarctic waters by 1928 (pg 122), so distribution to southern waters is not an issue. While glancing through "Beachcombing the Pacific", also by Wood, I noticed a section titled "Amelia Earhart" in the final chapter (pg. 206). In this section, he describes the Earhart mystery and mentions witnessing the Electra prior to its voyage. Here is a quote from this section: "I well remember Amelia Earhart and this flying laboratory airplane. She was then on the staff at Purdue University while I was a student there. Her shiny new twin-engine Lockheed Electra was kept in the Purdue University airport hangar alongside our secondary glider that we flew daily, teaching fledglings the techniques of gliding and soaring. Shortly before her last flight I had occasion to inspect the airplane, noting that the seats had been removed to make way for auxiliary fuel tanks and other equipment." Wood continues by describing his experience as an aircraft accident investigator (he was an aeronautical engineer), his presumption that the Electra crashed at sea, and his expectation that resultant airplane parts would float for a long time. He speculates that pieces of wreckage could have washed up in Guam or the Philippines. He speculates that it is even possible pieces could have worked their way into the northern current and ended up on American shores by 1943. He recounts beachcombing in the Pacific Northwest in 1943 while fantisizing about finding wreckage from the crash. I'd be glad to quote this entire passage if folks are interested. It's too bad that Amos Wood is deceased (Pich, pg. 16) because it might have been worth tracking him down. He could have provided some useful descriptions of the Lockheed's interior and served as an expert regarding the glass float artifact (2-6-S-21a). The size and color of the float could provide important evidence regarding its date and place of origin. Regardless, parhaps Walt Pich could help identify the float. Wood makes a couple of statements in "Beachcombing for Japanese Glass Floats" that lead me to believe it might be possible to date this float. These are: "Floats were originally made in only a few specific sizes, depending on the type of fishing that was being done then, but in later years the number of sizes has been increased to meet new requirements." -page 30. (If the original float's size is one that was not manufactured prior to 1937, this would make it unlikely to have been around for use by Earhart or Noonan. It's hard to tell from the photo, but your float appears to my eye to be of a typical size -- 3-5 inch diameter) "It is said that an occasional Japanese float is found made from clear glass, free of bubbles and color, but this is hearsay only." (page 41) "American-made floats are generally clear and colorless." (page 42) (I think that American-made floats are typically molded. The artifact looks hand-blown, like a Japanese float.) "Although most of the Japanese beachcombed floats are blue-green in color, examples have been found ranging all the way from clear white to deep brown." (page 42) Only about one in 35 floats contains "colors other than blue-green". (page 46) (This is about 3%, so Amelia or Fred must have been pretty lucky to find a clear float. Perhaps a common source for clear floats in southern waters can be found.) LTM, -Jonathan Feinstein (#2460) (I've been lurking for several months. This is my first message to the forum.) **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jonathan. Perhaps one of the experts can help us put a not-earlier-than date the float that the artifact came from. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:09:44 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. >I've seen no source that says HMS Achilles heard a message such as you describe PS. A slip of the virtual pen there. The message about Howland and Samoa was heard in Oz not by the Achilles. Incidentally Atafu had a population of 380 in 1932 and there were "natives" there in 1938. Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric Oz? Sources on the population of Atafu? When, I wonder, did it stop being called Duke of York island? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:29:02 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Bulletin is up The knurled knob looks very much as if it might be made of diecast aluminium alloy (eg Mazak - a magnesium zinc copper alloy) A knob of this size might have been used as a vehicle distributor micrometer adjustment knob to set ignition advance/retard of the distributor baseplate.( Wasn't a vehicle roadwheel was found in the vicinity? Worth trying the vehicle the wheel came off for a match. Rim width, shape,diameter and stud PCD would probably identify the wheel.) In Britain such refinements appeared just before the war. Previously advance was controlled manually from the steering wheel. Of course its too easy to suggest that it is in fact the micrometer adjustment knob from a Ludolph sextant. For marine use I think brass would be the material of choice and in any case alloy doesn't lend itself to high quality scientific instruments. The toothed plates complete with woodscrews are a different matter. They could well have been used as retainers to prevent a sextant or its accessories from moving about within the fitted box. The toothed ends would make it easy to get a grip on them to turn them. Alternatively the toothed end might engage with the woodwork or some fitting to prevent the clip from turning by accident. I note that it was suggested that the sextant box was used latterly purely as a receptacle. This might have been deduced from the fact that the internal spacers and fittings had been removed. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric I'd be surprised to find vehicle parts at the site. The tire (not wheel) was found in the lagoon shallows at the far end of the island. According to the coast Guard veterans, the Weapons Carrier was never driven up the windward (northern) side of the island. That would be understandable. That beach is steeply sloped with deep, soft sand. Your thoughts about the sextant box are interesting. *************************************************************************** From Angus (again) Regarding item 2-6-S-0-3B, I think this should probably be flat and has been bent. The hole will probably engage with a pip on what it is designed to retain, the toothed area is to allow one sufficient grip to disengage the hole from the pip, bearing in mind that one has little leverage at this end. I would guess the material will be nickel plated brass. The screw will probably be brass as copper is a rather soft material. Item 2-6-S-0-3B seems likely to have been an insulator. This would be electrical or high-temperature or both. Possible use would be an HT lead separator for a vehicle. Its design would imply a six-cylinder engine. These were commonly made of "press-pan" a type of highly compressed paper or vulcanised fibre which was made in various colours including white. If made of such a material, though hard, it would yeild to a sharp edge. Porcelaine or ceramic would crumble. Did a weapons carrier use such separators? It looks like someone had a problem with their ignition system and out of pure frustration set-to on it with a hammer, breaking off the micrometer adjustment on the distributor and smashing the HT lead clip.(OK so you've got a better idea?? Maybe american mechanics are just plain clumsy) If porcelaine, I would guess some high temp application and perhaps a coiled element ran between the separators. An R1340 would, I imagine, not have grouped HT leads except perhaps in the area of the magneto and being a nine-cylinder, the clip would not be appropriate. **************************************************************************** From Ric I still like your idea about the sextant box. *************************************************************************** From Angus (In the photo of a Ludolph sextant box at http://www.antique-scientific-instruments.de/sextant.html) Take a look at the three securing clips on this sextant. There are two at the front, held by a single screw and designed to retain the scale, and one in the centre, much longer. It looks like you left one short one behind on Niku. - Careless!! Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric Bingo! I think you may really be onto something here. From what I can see, the clips work like this. The wood screw goes into a block of wood that usually has a felt pad on one side. The tab with the hole in it goes into a slot in the side of the sextant box and a pin goes through the hole. Thus attached, the block of wood can be rotated through a small arc to help hold the sextant securely in the box. The little teeth, as you've said, merely make it easier to get a grip with your finger to rotate the block. Ingenious, and quite unique. I wonder if this system is unique to Ludolph or was common on many types of sextants. There is no such device on the box containing the Noonan Ludolph at Pensacola but it is also apparent that that instrument is not in its original box - which raises an interesting question. Was Fred using the Ludolph box to hold a different sextant/octant on the World Flight? As you have noted, artifact -03B is bent and the screw is partially backed out. And as you've said, the Niku sextant box was said to have been lately used as a general container. How would they know that? Perhaps because the securing blocks had been removed. Artifact -03B exhibits just the sort of damage you'd expect from forcible removal from the box. If we can confirm this identification there are all sorts of implications. First and foremost it makes it virtually certain that we have found that the Seven Site is, indeed, the place where the castaway lived and died and where Gallagher made his discoveries. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:31:24 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Dukes of York >Angus has come up with something that makes sense out of several >occult references in Betty's notes, and that makes it worth some study. >Let's not waste time arguing about whether it can tell us where exactly >they put their wheels down'.... >LTM (who's always suspicious of too-exact sciences) Tom King >********************************* >From Ric >I agree. Wouldn't it also make just as much sense to _first_ complete the efforts to authenticate the fact that 'Betty's Notes' really were transcribed from radio signals actually transmitted from the Electra... before engaging in attempts to decipher the 'meanings' of her 'jottings' ? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric And how would you propose to do that? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:33:46 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Put a cap on it Ric -- please renew my membership for five years beyond wherever it ends now, and sign me up for a tape of your aerial adventure. You have my credit card number. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Tom. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:36:07 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Put a cap on it OK Ric, I' m renewing my membership. You can charge my Visa. I take it you still have the number. By the way, I've turned 66. Does that mean I qualify for $ 35 ? All the best. Herman ************************************************************************* From Ric Sho' nuff (that's Amurican for "yes.") ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:37:42 EST From: Mike E. Subject: Dukes of York >We'll call the research team the "Dukes of York" (sorta like Dukes of >Hazard). Given the circumstances.... "Dukes of Hazard" sounds perfectly fine to me. The TV characters were the "Dukes of Hazzard." Draw thine own conclusions. LTM (who in her day was a hottie like Daisy) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:40:27 EST From: Dave Subject: Re: impliedly How about "for free" instead of the correct "free"? If you HAVE to insert a preposition, please use "for nothing"... Not to mention the horrible "irregardless" when you mean "regardless"... And don't even get me started on "impact", "empower", "paradigm", and "proactive"... Oops! I almost forgot... the use of "gender" (purely a grammatical term - masculine or feminine) when the writer actually means "sex" (male or female)... Praying for the end of PC-ness... LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:45:35 EST From: Dave Subject: Re: Forensic Training As an adherent to the theory that "words mean something", I would suggest that since Dr. McPherson neither duplicated the measurements on the bones nor examined them personally, McPherson would have been better served, and would have been unambiguous had he stated that he "concurred" with Hoodless' findings rather than he "agreed" with them... Semantics, yes... But an important case of such. LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric One last observation about Dr. Duncan Ewan Campbell MacPherson - "Jock" was not above taking the authorities to task. In his report on the death of Gallagher he solidly lambastes the Colonial Service for not taking better care of its young officers. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:51:04 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. Ric I'll resubmit this as I had forgotten it was CW so I have modified appropriately. Bevis report : On 3 July the British cruiser HMS Achilles in the Pacific had reported that "at 11:30am we heard an unknown station on 3105kc make a report as follows: "Please give us a few dashes if you get us'. The station then repeated KHAQQ twice, then disappeared." The next morning - 6 JUL37 - a Los Angeles operator, Louis Messier, reported he heard a weak code signal at 3:30 am (Howland midnight). It was sent very slowly and Messier logged it as: "17 na u 61 4 southwes 1 23 sou owl 23 ja so not nx call equen 170 sou sec will sou nant now sou". (In my opinion, radio Hams might recognize some useful meanings from this poorly sent and received message.) I interpret 1*23* as 172.30. Red letters above maybe errors. Hence interpolating: 17(2.30 W),NM 614 SOUTHE(A)S(T) (HOWLAND,) 1(7)2.3(0W) ,SOU(THEAST H)OWL(AND) (17)2.3(0W) SO(UTHEAST H)O(WLAND) N(E)X(T) CALL (FR)EQUEN(CY 6210?) 17 (2.3)0(W) SOU(TH)E(AST) HOWL(AND) SOU(THE)A(S)T (H)OW(LAND) SOU(THEAST HOWLAND) The latitude may have been given and not picked up or alternatively, rather than give one they were not sure of they opted only to give longitude. This would actually give a unique point for an island, knowing that it was also 614nm southeast of Howland. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:53:40 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Reef takeoff >Given all the evidence: radio signals, native reports of an airplane >in the surf, airplane fragments, the bones, the shoes, etc it is hard to >consider that a take-off was really made. It simply doesn't fit the >evidence Since the radio signals have never been proven to have originated from the Electra... the native reports being simply anecdotal stories, un-corroberated by any physical evidence... the aircraft fragments, the bones, (never preserved as evidence) the shoes, etc... while they all might be traceable to that era of the 1930's... still lack any valid confirmation as having any demonstrable connection to the Electra, the crew or their personal belongings aboard the Electra... & hence, do not seem to fit the definition of 'evidence'. Rather, they are a very curious & interesting collection of 'artifacts' &/or 'clues' (if you will)...which, if it can be established that such items have a provable, bonafide relevance/pertinence to the Electra, AE/FN or their personal belongings aboard the Electra... _then_ such items could be considered as evidence. No preponderance of artifacts/clues can presume to carry the same weight as a prepoderance of bonafide, documentable evidence. Never-the-less, I still agree with Dick, _no_ take-off from Niku, they simply couldn't possibly have flown anywhere else, given the miniscule amount of useable fuel, all the 'experts' insist they would have remaining at that stage of the flight. If in fact the Electra _did_ land safely, with wheels down, & if in fact AE/FN _did_ have any reasonable expectation of being located & rescued... they _might_ have expected to obtain sufficient re-fueling from their rescuers to take-off again & continue the flight... of course we all know that the normal wave & tidal action at Niku, during that first week, knocked that idea into a 'cocked-hat' by either smashing the Electra to bits on the reef flat or washing it out to sea with the outgoing tide. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:55:50 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Membership Renewals, Goodies Ric: I have a year left on my sub, but I'll happily stump up 50 of your American bucks plus shipping for a tape IF it is also available in a format viewable in the UK. ************************************************************************** From Ric That should be possible. Let me look into it an get back to you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:57:56 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Ships/USS Snapper > From Russ Matthews > > Typicaly US Navy vessels named after fish are submarines (at least prior to > the 70s or so). A quick check of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting > Ships does indeed show a Salmon-class submarine named USS Snapper (SS-185). > > Funny thing is, on July 2, 1937 this USS Snapper was still under construction > at the Portsmouth (NH) Naval Yard. She was not launched until the following > month and commisioned that December. With only a month to launching, the "pre-com" (pre-commissioning) crew would be at least partially assembled; mostly the the administration type personnel including the postal clerks. The offices were typically in buildings ashore at the ship yard, but functioning as ship board offices for the processing of the newly arriving crew members (living in barracks ashore). Ships' names were usually set in advance of construction. Names could be changed anytime up to commissioning (due to some event like the untimely death of a president), but rarely changed after launching. I have no problem with the Snapper's post office being functional a month prior to launching. LTM (who received a lot of letters from USS/FPO addresses) Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:59:03 EST From: Shirley Subject: Re: An Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro You have my card number. Please sign me up for a video. Thanks, Shirley2299 ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Shirley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:09:23 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: 2-6-S-45 Nice job on the artifact photographs ! 2-6-S-45 looks familiar to me. Ive seen a similar artifact in a Treasure Hunting magazine identified as the adjustment knob from a Coleman lantern or hurricane lamp type of light. The wheel is used to adjust the height of the wick. If it is the same the lettering would be a patent number. *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe, but it seems awfully complex for a simple wick adjuster. If we can pull up those letters and numbers on the face we may be able to tell for sure. The best way to do it, according to Jeff Glickman at Photek, is to shine a powerful focused light (such as a microscope light) on it at an angle of 85 degrees from the verticle, then photograph it with a really good micro lens, rotate it slightly, photograph it again, rotate it again, and so forth. We have everything but the special light. They're about $300. It might come in handy for other artifacts. Anybody care to sponsor that acquisition? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:10:22 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: Ships (or submarines) >From Lawrence >U.S.S. Snapper... Does anyone on the forum recognize this ship? I checked an internet search engine: http://www.google.com/search?q=uss+snapper and in a few seconds saw that the submarine USS Snapper was commissioned in 1937. Maybe this is the ship on your First Day Cover? http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/SS/SS-185_Snapper.html I too recently bought a 1963 Earhart First Day Cover on eBay for $3.24. The person I outbid was "hcnoonan" Hmmm.... a descendent of FN? I'm tempted to write and ask! Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:12:11 EST From: Craig Subject: Forum Indexing After doing some thinking about your proposed indexing of the forum, here's my opinion. I'll preface this by saying I'm a Computer Science student working on a graduate degree - and to make a long story short, it would be a great master's thesis project for someone interested in databases/graph search problems. The basis behind indexing such a huge amount of information is cross-reference ability. You can do many things with Acrobat Reader, HTML, etc., but in my opinion, to have the search power you would need to make this a full-fledged research tool - and not just a huge "book" with a table of contents - you need to get this into a database of some sort. If I wanted to search the forum for occurrences of the phrase "noonan", that's fine, but what if it was "FN" in the file you're looking for? Or "nonan"? Or "Fred"? Or "navigator"? Or "he"? I know you understand the dilemma here. Throw the entire forum into a database, and build a custom web-application around it. Cross-reference every word in the forum with every other occurrence. Then add custom cross-reference rules such as "noonan" = "FN", "Nikumaroro" = "Niku", etc. We all know the forum is a veritable goldmine of information, and I suggest you treated it as such. You'll probably only try to organize it once, so let's do it well. It's certainly not as expensive as a trip to Niku, and at this stage, it might even provide more tangible information than Niku itself. So, I'd try to find a graduate student willing to take on this project as a thesis. Get it done for free basically. And I'm sorry if I got your hopes up, but I'm working on my thesis already, but it would have made a interesting project idea for me about 6 months ago... Hope this helps, Craig ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:13:27 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Forensic Training > From Ric > > ** " Other's " **, of course, have rushed in > where experts fear to tread. See, even Ric does them sometimes !!! Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Did I really do that? Ouch! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:16:07 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. You asked ...What's the Bevis report? I don't have an account of the Messier message. Bevis and his esteemed partner - B--thead, are well known conspiracy researchers. LTM - who doesn't like conspiracies, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:18:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ships/USS Snapper > So a nonexistent US submarine issues a commemorative Earhart stamp on the day > she disappears. This could be the start of a beautiful conspiracy. Wait a minute. Did the Snapper actually ISSUE a commemorative stamp, or did someone simply SEND something with a commemorative stamp on it, postmarked Snapper? If the Snapper was launched a month after the stamped item was sent, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a member of her crew -- no doubt by then assigned and on duty, if maybe living in portside barracks -- to have sent a letter, perhaps as of the first date the boat's post office was up and running. Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric As Kerry Tiller has pointed out, the ship's post office was indeed probably up and running. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:21:36 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: impliedly While we're complaining, what is the difference between "going forward" ["Our cash flow going forward . . . .] and "future" or better yet "problematic" ["Ted's attitude is becoming problematic . . ."] vs "a problem?" LTM, who is easily confused Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:25:45 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Southwest landing site. > From Ric > > Oz? > Sources on the population of Atafu? > When, I wonder, did it stop being called Duke of York island? 1) OZ - The wonderful land of OZ. Have you never heard of Oz - where people think a bison is somethin' for washin' your foice in? 2) Population - Jane Resture - the net- history of Atafu. 3) No idea Which reminds me of a joke. What do you call a deer with no eyes? - No idea? Ok so what do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs? Still no idea??? *************************************************************************** From Ric You're a sick man Angus. Brilliant, but definitely ill. My kinda guy. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:30:53 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Duke of York? > From Dan Postellon > > a DVT (deep venous thrombosis) is certainly possible. This could cause leg > pain, and if the clot (thrombosis) dislodged, it could move through the > right side of the heart, after which it could lodge in the lung. This might > cause chest pain, coughing up of blood, or even sudden death, but not a clot > or bleeding in the brain. Dan Postellon MD. TIGHAR# I believe I'm right in saying that one in four people have some sort of a hole in the heart even if rather small. It is now apparent that 50% of people who have visual aura type migraine have a hole in the heartallowing mini clots to reach the visual cortex without being filtered by the lungs. Larger holes can be asymptomatic until middle age and provide a route for dangerous clots to reach the brain. Ok so its pretty unlikely, but that part of the argument was mainly tongue in cheek to explore why they seemed, from the lack of any place name in the post-loss messages, to have no idea of their position after landing. If Noonan was well pre-landing why didn't he give Amelia some idea of where they were heading? Of course he could have been completely lost himself at that stage and injury on landing merely compounded the problem. I answered the question by noting that they did repeat "New York" many times, just as one might expect a place name to be repeated. *************************************************************************** From Ric Whatever "N.Y., N.Y, N.Y..." is, it does seem logical that it's an attempt to say where they are. What other phrase or piece of information might logically be repeated in this context? "Help us, help us"? Hardly seems necessary. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:12:43 EST From: Thomas Hamberg Subject: renewal sign me up for two more years and the video. Watching Niku from above, dressed in my new cap will be the ultimate Christmas experience this year. Think you got my Visa? LTM Thomas Hamberg #2380 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:31:53 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Atafu population > Sources on the population of Atafu? > When, I wonder, did it stop being called Duke of York island? My regional geographical handbook published by the (British) Naval Intelligence Division in 1943 uses "Atafu" throughout (at first read I didn't see any reference "Duke of York" apart from one saying it was given that name by the British in 1765) and gives the population in 1936 as 378 (p 508). Without getting into the navigation/fuel issues of whether Earhart and Noonan would have had any grounds for thinking they were on Atafu after in fact landing on Gardner Island, a map at the address http://www.janeresture.com/tokelau_islands/atafu.htm shows the shapes of the atolls are similar. LTM Phil 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. The overall size of the atoll is very similar to Gardner but the land area is considerably less. With 378 people this was a fairly densely populated island in 1936. I think there is a possibility that AE and FN thought they were on Duke of York (especially if they did not have inforomation about whether the island was inhabited) but I don't think there is much of any chance that they were really there. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:36:13 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: impliedly, and a question A few years ago, I drove by a restaurant here in the Detroit area which had a big sign out front advertising a lunch special that included a "picture of beer." It must not have been very popular, as that restaurant is now out of business. An on-topic question: You mentioned something in passing a week or so ago which led me to believe that you had to pay some sort of fee every time someone visited the TIGHAR website. Is this true? I go there (NOT their or they're) several times a week to refresh my memory on various things, since there's that warning about not copying stuff. LTM, a retired English teacher Dave Porter, 2288 (who hopes he's not costing you money every time he visits www.tighar.org) *************************************************************************** From Ric We buy service that allows up to certain quite generous number of hits per month. We only had to pay more in August and September when expedition-generated traffic put the hits through the roof. Lots of hits are a GOOD THING. Visit the site as often and for as long as you want. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:51:50 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Impliedly Could you be a humanitarian and deep six the impliedly subject before I puke? Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************* From Ric There's a threat I think we need to respect. The thread is dead. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:52:46 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Membership Renewals, Goodies I'll join Phil Tanner if the video is compatible to the European standard VHS PAL. The US system is different from this European standard and therfore US videos are useless over here. But if you can provide a compatible copy I'll join the crowd. Herman (#2406) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:44:01 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Membership Renewals, Goodies I almost hate to bring this up, but I have the capability of making PAL tapes from NTSC tapes. I usually use the system for PAL to NTSC, but I can do it the other way too; also SECAM, M-PAL and N-PAL. I would be happy to make some conversions, but, of course it would require tapes being sent through the mail an extra time (adding days to the whole process). I can only copy one tape at a time, so, realistically, we would probably be looking at a one day turn around time at my house per tape. If you have no other feasible source, my offer stands. LTM (who doesn't know one color system from another) Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Kerry. Let's first confirm what system(s) we need. Phil? Herman? What system do you use? I also suspect that our Aussie and Kiwi friends need something else. Do tapes rotate the other way down there? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:18:58 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: impliedly >From Dave Porter >A few years ago, I drove by a restaurant here in the Detroit area which had >a big sign out front advertising a lunch special that included a "picture of >beer." It must not have been very popular, as that restaurant is now out of >business. My favorite Detroit businesses were the "Somber Party Store" and the "Abrasive Sales Company". I wonder if they did any business. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 (former Detroiter) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:25:54 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Membership Renewals, Goodies We use VHS PAL over here. I can't speak for Phil but the videos I get from England are also VHS PAL which is used throughout Europe. VHS SECAM is used in France and some countries that chose the French system (including Russia). Herman ************************************************************************** From Ric So far we have no backlog of orders from France or Russia. ************************************************************************ From Alexander their,there,theyre...most vids are ntsc compatible here in uk these days,daze or daise even... can give a link to a uk company who do standards converters,i have one of their macrovision copiers so theyre reliable...i couldnt resist the impliedley link pity it died,maybe we will receive POST IMPLIEDLEY MESSAGES...heehee-- ************************************************************************* From Kerry Tiller > Do tapes rotate the other way down there? You just have to load the tape upside down. I believe the only system I can't convert is the one the French use. Also, I can play MESECAM (Middle East), but only in B&W, and I'm not sure I can go NTSC to MESECAM. I should be good for the rest of Europe and Asia. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:02:07 EST From: Stuart Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 "...a powerful focused light..." Would a laser pointer fit the bill? I'm thinking of the type of laser pointer commonly used in business presentations: They're pretty cheap. Laser light is powerful, focused, of one single color, and also coherent. Don't know if that makes any difference, photographically, but since holograms are made with laser light, I guess it might. Just an off-the-cuff suggestion. Stuart *************************************************************************** From Ric I suppose any bright focused light would suffice but the recommendation was for a microscope light. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:06:08 EST From: Suzanne Subject: More Antique Sextants On The Web For comparison purposes of tiny parts! home page & sextant index: http://www.buddel.de/antik/index.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se.htm individual items in the same order as the index: http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1011.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1010.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1008.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1007.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1006.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1003.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1004.htm more items not on index: http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1005.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1009.htm http://www.buddel.de/antik/se1001.htm more searches: http://images.google.com/images?num&hl=en&q=antique+sextant http://images.google.com/images?q=antique+octant&hl=en http://images.google.com/images?q=sextant&hl=en http://images.google.com/images?q=octant&hl=en **************************************************************************** From Ric Phew! Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:09:51 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: locating atafu Angus,, using those numbers you gave for Howland,, my new calcs are atafu to Howland is 671 sm or 583nm on a true heading of 155,, im using an equation from the ssa that uses great circle math based on the arc length using the radius of the earth..you can see at a glance that .48 us closer than .75,, heres a thought,,,, Basic Flying Rules: 1. Try to stay in the middle of the air. 2. Do not go near the edges of it. 3. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there. ************************************************************************** From Ric Ezekial saw the wheel way in de middle ob de air. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:12:58 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: USS Snapper - examples of postmarks >From Tom King >Wait a minute. Did the Snapper actually ISSUE a commemorative stamp, or did >someone simply SEND something with a commemorative stamp on it, postmarked >Snapper? The Snapper was "big" into postmarking commemorative USPS first day covers. There are two for sale on eBay at this moment: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1300923753 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1301050737 and seven completed auctions: http://search-completed.ebay.com/search/search.dll?ht=1&query=uss+snapper&Sort Property=MetaEndSort LTM (Who is almost afraid to post in this group for fear that her English might not be up to snuff!) Suzanne **************************************************************************** From Ric Whoever the swabby was who go to be the Snapper's postal clerk was evidently a stamp freak. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:23:59 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forensic Training > David Hoodless was basically an administrator. He had returned to England to > get his medical degree and had only recently returned to Fiji when the whole > bones issue came up. In those years forensic medicine (such as it was) was a > specialty and not part of the basic MD curriculum. I think you'd find that > the same is true today. There is a vast difference in "knowing" the basics of forensic science and applying them. It would appear Dr. Hoodless would have been hard pressed to have had much if any experience. It is also possible, I suppose, that someone else actually did the examination and he only signed the report. Possibly someone he thought a little more qualified than himself. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:26:52 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio schedules > Strictly speaking, Earhart's transmission schedule was every half hour, at > quarter past and quarter to the hour. I suppose we could guess that schedule went out the window when she couldn't find Howland. It would have for me. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric She made a couple of off-schedule transmissions around 8 a.m. when she was trying to DF on the Itasca's signals but otherwise, somewhat surprisingly, she seems to have stayed on schedule. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:38:41 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forensic Training > If you had MacPherson on > the stand, Counsellor, and he made a statement like that, what would be the > next question you'd ask? That's not fair, Tom. I'm an attorney also and a great percentage of our meanderings would fail to meet that muster. If we put this on trial it wouldn't get much past Lae. But , seriously we DO need to try to keep separate what we know for a fact and what is pure speculation AND all that stuff in between. The good part of our speculations is that they may provide frameworks in which to place "known" information to test its validity. The radio exercise we are going through is a good example wherein various scenarios are being shot at and disected. Maybe something useful will come out of it in spite of all the many unknowns. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric I have to disagree with you Alan. I think it IS a fair question in the context of Mr. Kennedy's lawyerly (there's a word for you) arguments. What we're trying to do is much tougher than any legal case. We're facing the court of public opinion and our jury numbers in the millions. If we only had to convince twelve good men and true it would be a piece of cake. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:40:13 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forensic Training > If that opportunity were available I would show him the statement and ask > Dr. McPherson the background and basis for his agreement with Dr. Hoodless Chris, that's what makes the legal system fun -- lawyers see things differently. I would have simply asked McPherson if he had personally seen and examined the bones. The answer would have been "No." That puts him in the position of accepting someone else's measurements as being accurate and assuming Dr. Hoodless was capable of correctly applying forensic technics and correctly interpreting them with limited or no experience. I don't think I would have much trouble keeping his testimony out and his concurrance out of evidence. I see no weight to it at all. On the other hand if McPherson could testify of Hoodless' great expertise and experience in the past of doing this I can see his testimony coming in but not given all that much weight since he didn't see the bones himself. Rats! I hate going to court on Mondays. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:52:14 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forum's Choice Ric, don't give up so quickly. I'll buy a CD. Will it make a difference now that you have 4 orders? Where is everyone? The guys have put in a lot of hard work and to have all that on CD sounds great. Is there anyone on the forum who can't spring for fifty bucks? Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Here's the problem. As originally envisioned, the CD would contain Pat's daily expedition reports integrated with photos from the actual expedition. Putting that together would require many, many hours of layout and design work. Realistically we'd probably need a minimum of 50 orders to make it worth doing. We're not going to get 50 orders. Let me suggest an alternative. We can put together a CD that is basically a photo album of the best images from Niku IIII. That's a lot easier to produce. I'll pick the best 50 or so images from the expedition and add a brief caption to each so you'll know what you're looking at. Is that worth a $50 donation? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:54:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Put a cap on it Ric, you have my credit card number so add two more years to my membership at the senior rate of course. (This is my seventieth year) And I would be happy to have a new TIGHAR cap. My membership expires in May of 2002 so extend me to 2004. Requesting two more years in no way implies you're not going to figure this AE mystery out in the next couple years) Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric You've discovered the secret. We pace the project according to renewals. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:57:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: An Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro Ric, I couldn't be there so I guess the tape is the next best thing, you mercenary. Add a tape to my renewal request. None of those damned T-shirts though. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Hey, the people who were THERE didn't get to ride in the helicopter. I'll NEVER live that down. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:01:10 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: New Mystery After studying the man made G figure, I started asking myself what it might resemble. I suggest that it is possible that someone tried to draw the island as seen from the air. However, doing it from memory, they got the Tatiman passage on the wrong side. One end of the island is definitely more pronounced (ie larger) similar to the "head" of the G shape. If drawn from memory, it would be easy for someone to reverse the shape or possibly, if approached from a relatively low angle, might have thought that the passage was on the right hand side instead of the left. The map might have been made to leave directions to anyone who followed or it might have been to allow the person drawing it to be able to map out their situation and evaluate what to search next. But lets say that you first saw Gardner from the larger head end, and landed near that portion, then later tried to draw it from memory. The large end (closest to you) would seem to be the largest and the rest might be compressed due to the distance and angle of approach so that it seemed more rounded than it actually was. If it was left as a "clue" then perhaps there is a purpose to the actual arrangement of each shell in the formation INCLUDING those that are grey shells. I don't know that someone would have done that, it is pure speculation, but first we form an hypothesis, then we test it. Comments? LTM - Lets Trace a Map Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric How would you propose we test such a hypothesis? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:49:38 EST From: Anthony Lealand Subject: Radial on a Pacific Beach http://www.janeresture.com/wartarawa/index.htm which is a long page,has a picture of a radial on the beach at Betio, Tarawa. It has lasted rather well. Anthony Lealand *************************************************************************** From Ric Been there, done that. There are several engines on the reef at Tarawa. Van Hunn and I got up close and personal with them last March. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:51:38 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bulletin is up sextant research For an interesting look at sextants and boxes, go to www.stanleylondon.com and click on sextants at the side. Especially have a look at the "British Admiral's Antique Reproduction" for an "old fashioned sextant" that just happens to be brass and "painted black". An interesting point about the micrometer adjusting knobs is that while they are a different shape from the artifact, they are not brass coloured at all. Another interesting point is that if you dig around among the large quantity of very clear images which, when you click on them give even larger very detailed extremely clear images. The range of "old fashioned" sextants is remarkable and many of them are replicas of sextants dating back to the 1800s, many of them having adjustment knobs that are similar to the artifact 2-6-s-45 except for the material. There are also some very detailed pictures of sextant boxes in really fine resolution for most of the sextants. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. I'll take a look. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:52:41 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Membership Renewals, Goodies > From Ric > > Thanks Kerry. Let's first confirm what system(s) we need. Phil? Herman? > What system do you use? I also suspect that our Aussie and Kiwi friends need > something else. Do tapes rotate the other way down there? Very Funny..... PAL is the standard in civilized countries.. (Australia) Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:17:04 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 A large part of the problem in reading any numbering on 2-6-S-45 is the lack of contrast hence the idea with the lamp. A much easier solution would be to clean off the oxide coating. Some time ago I did some research on exactly this problem ie to remove oxide coatings from aluminium alloy without any damage to the substrate. The answer is undoubtedly "dry-ice blasting". Powdered solid carbon dioxide is propelled at high pressure against the surface. When it strikes, it instantly vapourises and the pressure of the gas between the oxide and the artefact forces it off. It causes absolutely ZERO damage and is used in industry for cleaning the most delicate items without damage.(eg printed circuit boards) You could get it done as a sample for nothing. You could clean the side without numbering first to reassure yourself. There are a number of companies in the US who could do it. Look on the net. I think the idea that it is a wick adjusting knob is a very good one. Could the larger nickel coloured pressing also be part of a lamp of some sort? A pressure operated kerosene hurricane lamp is just the sort of thing Gallagher would have brought with him to Gardner for use in the evenings, especially as he was such a workaholic. Worth looking too to see if any of the glass could originate with a lamp. Certainly the brass loop could be a suspension loop for one. Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric Good idea. I'll see if anyone locally here does dry-ice blasting. There may, of course, have been some kind of hurricane lamp at the site but we did find several components of what seems to have been a pre-war British-style light bulb near the water tank at the site. We found the base in 1996 and on this trip we found a piece of glass from the bulb itself, the glass post from inside, and a hard rubber (?) collar into which the base fits very nicely. There has been some speculation that it may actually have been a flash bulb for a camera but the frosting on the glass and big chunky collar seems to suggest that it was a conventional light bulb. The only piece of glass from the site that might be from a lamp is the flat plate (2-6-S-18) but most hurricane lamps I've seen have curved glass. <> I'm not sure which artifact you mean. The "brass loop" (if you mean 2-6-S-46) may or may not be brass but I about have myself convinced that it's the handle of a small cup. In a film clip of Earhart exiting the cockpit hatch at a stop in South America she is carrying a small thermos bottle and it sure looks like the cup that also serves as the top has a small handle of similar construction, but the resolution is not nearly good enough to be sure. Maybe we can find other photos of that thermos bottle. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:20:31 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Opposite spin Ric said: "Do tapes rotate the other way down there?" OK, I'll bite. Were you serious or do VCRs actually turn the opposite way "down there." I know the water swirls down the drain in the opposite direction, but a VCR? Tell me the two are not connected. LTM, who is embarrassingly gullible at times Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Neither water nor VCRs swirl any differently down there than they do here. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:22:31 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 Looking at the list of Gallaghers personal effects, there are listed "Tilly(sic) vapourisers and mantles" and "Hurricane lamp". Possibly the "hurricane lamp" was actually a Tilley lamp. Tilley lamps should be the first port of call for a comparison on the knob. Could the "fishing float" actually be part of the globe from a Tilley lamp? Certainly some models of Tilley had a globular glass. Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric Okay. Let's look at some Tilleys. Any pictures on the web? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:24:25 EST From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: An Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro Sign me up for the Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro video AND renew my membership for two years. You have my credit card number, supposedly. LTM (who knows a good deal when she sees it) Tim Smith 1142CE ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jimmy. (inside joke) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:26:39 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: locating atafu You have to distinguish between 0deg 48minutes and 0.75degree. 0.75degree is 45minutes. I think you're using decimal degrees in which case use 0.8degree (ie 48/60) and you'll get the right answer! I used euclidean geometry to get an approximate answer which gave 619.6nm. Adjacent lines of longitude converge of course (I assumed they were parallel near the equator) and so one should be using a spherical geometry. This means that the true great circle distance will be slightly shorter. Hence 613 not 620. Angus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:29:56 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forensic Training > I have to disagree with you Alan. I think it IS a fair question in the > context of Mr. Kennedy's lawyerly (there's a word for you) arguments. I was being facetious, Ric. That was what the "" was supposed to convey. Certainly you are correct. We need to be extremely cautious in accepting ANYTHING without qualifying it carefully. That's exactly why I shoot at statements that imply they are absolute facts when so few are. It is so easy to get drawn down a very expensive rabbit trail only to find there are no rabbits. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric You may have just solved the riddle of the meaning of the "G" feature we found on the island. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:36:52 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Artifact IDs A couple of earlier posts regarding Niku IIII artifacts 2-6-S-03A and 03B hinted that they may have possibly come from the inside of a sextant box, possibly used to hold the instrument or its attachments in place. In June, 1999, I looked at about two dozen sextants and their carrying cases held in the Weems collection at the Smithsonian Institution. To my recollection, none of them had fittings similar to artifacts 2-6-S-03A and 03B. I could be mistaken and would happily go back to the Smithsonian to look again if needed. The determining factor in my opinion is that the screws attached to the artifacts are too long (approximately 3 cm, each) and dissimilar to what would be used on a sextant box. While most of the sextant boxes I inspected were strictly utilitarian in design, a couple of them exhibited considerable workmanship. And though utilitarian, the ordinary boxes were not sloppily made or haphazard in design, and like the instruments they protected, they were well-crafted. The "average" sextant box was constructed from a fairly thin (1/4 to 3/8 inch) lightweight wood, which appeared to be similar pine or poplar. The four corners are usually dovetailed, or in some cases nailed with small brads (and glued?). The tops and bottoms of the boxes were usually single pieces nailed with fine brads (and glued?) to the sides. The inside supports to hold the instruments are glued to the inside surfaces. None of the boxes, as I recall, exhibited any type of external fastening device (nail, screw, brad, staple etc.) on the bottom or the top to secure an inside support piece. Most of the boxes did have something to hold the instrument within its support piece. But the ones I remember were simple pivoting pieces of wood -- a hole is drilled in the center of the pivoting piece, fastened to the top of the support using the a light screw or nail, and then pivoted to release or lock the instrument. Occasionally the "locking mechanism" would be a piloting hook that would latch onto a nail/screw or eyelet. The screws used in those cases were fairly small, about 1 cm in length I would estimate. A 3 cm screw of proportionate width would be a gross overkill for this type of latching mechanism. LTM, who acknowledges the limitations of her memory Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric No argument Dennis, except that the photo of the Ludolph sextant box at http://www.antique-scientific-instruments.de/sextant.html does appear to show just this type of device. If so, these little do-dads (technical term) may be unique to Ludolph - which would be very interesting. I've emailed the owner of the box and asked for more detail. With hs help we should be able to confirm or deny whether we have a match. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:43:24 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Fish net float Jonathan Feinstein (#2460) writes: << It's hard to tell from the photo, but your float appears to my eye to be of a typical size -- 3-5 inch diameter) Only about one in 35 floats contains "colors other than blue-green".>> My impression of the artifact, having held it in my hand, is that the diameter of this particular float would be more like 16 to 18 inches, not 3 to 5 inches. Also, if memory serves, the glass does have a tint to it that is bluish or blue green. This color may not be evident in the web photo due to the small amount of material there is to work with, much like a glass full of water looks clear, but if you fill the Pacific basin, it is clearly blue. If you look at an intact hand made glass float, there is a glass plug at the "top" to seal up the hole where it was blown. Artifact 2-6-S21a is interesting as it includes this glass plug material, you can see it in the photo as the circular part between Ric's thumb and forefinger. The plug makes that part thicker, and therefore easier to hold onto. Johnathan, what were other common sizes for hand made floats? Ric, what is your guess of the diameter and color? LTM (who's always been intrigued by glass floats) Andrew McKenna 1045CE **************************************************************************** From Ric The artifact has been sent to an expert in prehistoric tools to determine whether the sharp edge has been used to cut things, so I have to go on recollection and photos just like you. I agree that the glass is blue or bluish green, Definitely not clear. And, like you, I would put the diameter of the float at considerably more than 3 to 5 inches. The plug is very apparent. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:48:32 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Thanks to the wombat! Thanks Ross! The site provided by Ross http://www.stanleylondon.com/ gives an excellent example of what I was trying to describe. Click on the a "Brass British Admiral's Sextant" and then click on the carrying box. That style box is similar to a lot of the stuff in the Weems/Smithsonian collection. LTM, who appreciates those down under Dennis O. McGee #1049Ec ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:53:01 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Artifact 2-6-S-43 I was checking out the artifact # 2-6-S-43 tonight on the web. Excellent job & very professional looking. I have a thought about this artifact. It could have been a clamp for a fuel or oil line on the off-road vehicle used by the Coast Guard. The black paint could have been undercoating or rust inhibitor of some sort which could be tested. I know these tests are costly but I wanted to share my ideas with the forum. Also, this clip could have come from the Norwich City, and if so, the black paint might be burned on fuel oil. I know this is a bit thin. In addition, this artifact could have been a wall clamp from the Electra for controls, electrical or fuel lines. I'll end my guessing. Again, Ric, nice job on the postings. A+ LTM Mike Haddock #2438 **************************************************************************** From Ric This thing was not permanently attached to anything. It was designed to be secure when in place but removable without undoing any screws or other fastening. It's very light and finely made. Not at all appropriate for a clunky military vehicle or a steamship. Whatever this thing was once a part of was quite hi-tech and probably expensive. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:16:22 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Engine(s) On The Beach Just viewed the Tarawa site. Looks like an interesting part of the world to visit. I noticed heavy corrosion on the beach engine. Besides the salt & moisture you need oxygen to cause corrosion. If you find an R-1340 on the next expedition & it be underwater can one assume it might actually in good shape? Until it hits the surface that is, and O2 starts the corrosion process? One would think so, but then the Titanic is sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic literally dissolving like an alka-seltzer. Did you have a plan for this contigency had the divers found something? Was there any possibility you could have salvaged a piece the size of an engine and got it back to Fiji for shipment back to TIGHAR HQ? Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric The dissimilar metals bolted together on airplane engines characteristically causes some fairly spectacular degradation no matter how deep they are. Had the divers found an engine we would have left it right where it was until we could return with the assets to do a responsible recovery. Had security concerns forced us to do an "emergency" recovery we would have had to accept the probability that the artifact would suffer considerable damage. If the above causes anyone to wonder whether we did, in fact, find something and are keeping it quiet for security reasons, let me assure you that we didn't and we aren't. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:33:23 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: House built for Gallagher? Ric and Tom, what is your current thinking about the Seven Site also being the site of the house built for Gallagher? ************************************************************************** From Ric My current thinking is that Laxton was shown something at that site in 1949 that he was told, or he interpreted as, a "house built for Gallagher." I don't think there was ever a house built for Gallagher in the sense that Irish ever intended to live there. I think there was some kind of infrastructure there involving a water tank and some corrugated metal that was probably used to collect rainwater and direct it into the tank. There were also other construction materials present such as strips of green copper screening, sheet asbestos, asphalt siding/roofing, some finished wood, and some more corrugated metal - but we see no evidence of a "house" ever having been built. How much of this activity was related to Gallagher's "thorough search" of the bone discovery site is hard to know. It seems clear that the site was still being visited by the colonists during WWII and possibly still at the time of Laxton's visit in 1949, but to what purpose is not at all clear. Maybe it was just a good place to cut through to the ocean beach to gather turtle eggs. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:37:53 EST From: Ric Subject: ammo crate locking tabs? The following email came in from a visitor to the website: <> Can anybody find a picture of an old-stlye wooden ammo crate? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:43:22 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: VCR systems > From Ross Devitt > Very Funny..... > PAL is the standard in civilized countries.. (Australia) > > Th' WOMBAT You might be right Wombat. About the only folks who use NTSC are us gun totin' "Mercans and those people whose national sport is big fat guys in g-strings trying to push each other out of a ring. Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************** From Ric It has to say something about cultural affinity that the French and Russians share one system. The Americans and Japanese another. And Europe, Australia and New Zealand a third. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:00:03 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Thanks to the wombat! Dennis, I don't think the Gardner box was of the type you describe. It was specifically described by someone who had seen it (in Fiji?) in terms which would make it very likely a mahogany box with french dovetailing. French dovetails are really only a slim version of dovetails and say little about the origins. I think there is little doubt that the artefacts are catches of some sort. The single screw mounting and toothed edge make that very likely. I don't agree with Ric as to the method of use however. I think these were simple swing catches and used no retaining pin through the second hole. A second hole is often made in plated parts merely to make quantity jigging easy for electroplating so I don't necessarily think it has any function. If it does have any it would be to engage a protrusion on what it secured. If it were mounted on a block the toothed edge would protrude sufficiently to allow a grip when turning it. We have no idea what brand of sextant Noonan was using and its even possible the clips were from the Octant box. Ludolph, or anyone else for that matter, almost certainly would have used different fastenings at different times. A 3cm screw seems a bit of an overkill but it would not be too long for a supporting block All the stuff on that website is repro and useless for comparison purposes. Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:11:04 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 You may charge a $50 donation on my credit card toward the purchase of the bright light. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you sir. $250 to go. Who else will help? ************************************************************************* > From Ric > > Okay. Let's look at some Tilleys. Any pictures on the web? http://www.btinternet.com/~skeeves/tilleys.html Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric Hmmmm.....interesting. All the glass is curved. No two-part knobs that I can see. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:12:09 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fish net float > From Ric > ... like you, I would put the diameter > of the float at considerably more than 3 to 5 inches. The plug is very > apparent. "Out of all the floats, the round (spherical) float is the most common-comprising about 75%. These range from 1 " to 24" in diameter. Out of these, those exceeding 12" and under 3" are considered rare." http://www.wholeshebang.com/treasure.html Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:14:30 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Fish net float There is a little three-legged gadget that your local optician may have for measuring the curvature of lenses, even partial broken ones. You could use this on the fishing float to get a useful diameter. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ************************************************************************ From Ric Cool. When we get the thing back we'll seek the help of our local optician. He'll freak. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:23:38 EST From: M van Holsbeck Subject: Re: Thanks to the wombat! <> At the bottom of the page is a 3 inch brass Box or drum sextant. Enlarge it and look at the knob. Same shape and inset. There are many styles of knobs there but I hope you can get to the letters or numbers for a possible match. ************************************************************************* From Ric Interesting. I think we can say, at least, that our knob is not inconsistent with knobs found on some sextants. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:33:33 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? Re: but we see no evidence of a "house" ever having been built. Yes we do. Next to the tank there's a polygonal deposit of ferrous metal that looks like a tin roof that collapsed to the SW, twisting as it went. The two posts on the ground next to the tank are consistent with this, and the posited roof would have been in a position to drain water into the tank. Not much of a house, but as much of a house as you see at most house sites in the village. Whether this is the "house built for Gallagher" or not is another question. The fact that Laxton says it was a "house" while all the Coast Guardsmen saw was a water catcher is a puzzle, but then, so is the whole panoply of colonial-post-colonial artifacts and building material on the site. I'm not prepared to offer an opinion until we've done some more analysis and, I hope, found someone to talk with who was on-island in the 1950s. TK **************************************************************************** From Ric That's what I was talking about when I said: <> I think we agree that we're not ready to call it a house. Do we see collapsed corrugated roofs at house sites in the village? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:36:28 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: ammo crate locking tabs? > Can anybody find a picture of an old-stlye wooden ammo crate? Yes, but it's probably not old enough and not clear enough to be useful. http://www.ebygone.com/dbimages/254D2463.jpg There are a multitude of "ammunition crates" referred to on the web. A military museum might be more helpful, I suppose. Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric Ah yes. Looks familiar from old war movies. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:38:59 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: ammo crate locking tabs? Ric, is there a way you can ask the person who sent this information for more details as to the size and composition of the tabs they are referring to, and also ask whether the tabs on these ammo boxes were all externally affixed (i.e., nothing was recessed into the side of the box). Something which concerns me about the sextant box connection is that the artifacts are very small and seem to be made of pretty cheap material. A locking tab, which also rotates about a center pin recessed into the side of a box, with wood blocks attached to hold the heavy instrument (but still leaving space at the end for fingers to contact the serrations), would seem to have to be a good bit larger than the artifacts to work. Also, from looking at the pictures and reading the e-mails these sextant boxes seem often to be made of high quality materials, whereas our artifacts don't appear to be made out of particularly high quality stuff. Of course, we already know that there was a lot of shooting at the site so there is that possible connection to an ammo box. ---Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric You can ask him yourself. He just signed up for the forum. His name is Stan Kosinski. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:41:55 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? Thanks. I wonder if there was some sort of structure that was cleared out. In other words, we are, in part, looking through a demolition site. This might explain why we are finding shards of glass that were once part of something larger, but didn't find the other pieces. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric That's certainly a possibility but if something gets broken (a bottle, a window, etc.) during disassembly or demolition at least some of the other pieces should still be there, shouldn't they? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:42:55 EST From: Marjorie Subject: Re: Fish net float In my years in the Marianas (1963-1970) the typical fishing float -- at least the ones displayed on people's lanais and patios -- were the larger volleyball-sized ones. They were almost always that bluish-green color. The little softball-sized floats existed but were certainly not typical. We once found one that was shaped sort of like a very fat hotdog (maybe eight inches long) with "necks" at both ends that would have made it ideal for tying onto a fishing net. It was, as I remember, a darker green color. I'm afraid I lost custody of it in a long ago divorce. LTM (an incorrigible beachcomber) Marjorie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:46:01 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? > Do we see > collapsed corrugated roofs at house sites in the village? Yes, though rarely, in the Laxton-era village. Also, of course, there's a semi-collapsed corrugated roof on the Co-op store and one still in place on the wireless shack. TK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:13:43 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: magnetic variation Can you give me the position for Howland as known in 1937? Am I right in thinking that the bearing 157/337 would have been magnetic and therefore the true bearing over ten degrees less than this? Do we know the magnetic variation for the Howland area in 1937 since it is slowly changing? Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric The map produced for Earhart's first World Flight attempt had Howland at 0.49N/176.43W. The variation was shown as 9 degrees East. Itasca had Howland correctly at 0.48N/176.38W Whether Earhart had the correct coordinates is unknown. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:38:51 EST From: Jonathan Feinstein Subject: Re: Fish net float Here are the approximate size distributions of glass floats, based on the survey of a 3,000-float collection during the 60's ("Beachcombing for Japanese Glass Floats", p. 29,44): Size (dia. in inches): Percentage of Total --------------------------------- 2"-3": 2% 3"-5": 55% 5"-6": 20% 6"-8": 8% 8"-10": 6% 10"-13": 3% 13"-14": 2% Over 14", below 2", and non-spherical shapes: 4% In short, if the artifact really is a glass float, a diameter of 16"-18" would be very large and unlikely today, although in the 30's large balls seemed to be significantly more common, including balls as large as 20". I base this on the following three quotes: "By the mid 1920's, glass balls ranging in size from the original 3 inchers to monster 20 inchers were being deployed Pacific wide. As early as the 1930's, Japan was producing glass balls for export to the world fishing fleets. The heyday of production was from the early 1920's through the late 1970's." (Pich, p. 19-20) "The typical glass ball of the day (the 1930's) was a beachball sized sphere of blue glass; the glass was low quality material, displaying thousands of tiny bubbles. Many manufacturing flaws were evident in the glass balls found during the 30's, and examples of these are now considered the rare and valuable specimens found in contemporary collections." (Pich, p. 20-21) (Note that the reference to "blue" glass is not inaccurate. See the following quote indicating that the predominant color changed to blue-green. If the artifact is truly bluish and not blue-green, this may be an indication of its age.) "As time progressed, the Japanese became more proficient at manufacturing glass balls. Glass quality improved and the bubbly blue glass became a thing of the past. Color and size changed. Ninety percent of glass balls were made of transparent glass cast with a blue-green tint similar to that of traditional glass coke bottles and old glass powerline resisters. Size also evolved. Any balls larger than basketball size were becoming scarce." (Pich, p. 21-22) I based my estimate of the float diameter on the diameter of the glass plug. In the photograph of the artifact, the plug measures about 4.5 cm, or about 1.75 inches. I personally own three glass floats. Here is a comparison of their float diameter to plug-diameter ratios: 3" diameter :: 1.66" plug 4.15" diameter :: 1.4" plug 14" :: 3.66" plug (yes, I own a 14" diameter float) You can see examples of the diameters of other large floats at the following URLs: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1036680288 (14" diameter, plug looks to be about 4.5") http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1489575316 (12" diameter, plug looks to be about 3" based on the knot size) This is certainly not scientific but my intuition tells me that larger floats have larger plugs. The artifact itself is less than three inches long, but I can see substantial curvature in the photo. My eye says to me that it's surface shows as much as 60 degrees of curvature (that is, the tangent at one end of the artifact is offset by 60 degrees from the the tangent at the other end), which would indicate a diameter of about 5 inches based on the artifact size. It would be nice to see an edge-on photograph. Ric, I'm curious. I presume that you have seen other glass floats on your trips to Niku. How many have you seen? What size/color did they appear to be? Were they generally intact or broken? With or without nets? How were they distributed relative to the ocean/lagoon? One general comment regarding recent and past discussions about light bulbs: light bulbs are commonly beachcombed. I myself have found several lightbulbs on the beaches in California and Oregon. The possibility that lightbulb parts were carried to Niku via ocean currents and not via direct human intervention must be considered. The same hold true for other types of glassware: * bottles and beverage containers * pill bottles * radio vacuum tubes * saki jugs * ship porthole fixtures near shipwrecks LTM, Jonathan Feinstein (2460) **************************************************************************** From Ric Here's an estimate from the person who now has the artifact: << I drew a series of curve segments with a compass and matched the arc of the glass ball fragment to the closest curve. Given the usual caveats and disclaimers, it appears that the glass float was about 16-17 cm in diameter.>> That's ballpark 6.5 inches. A fairly rare float. We've seen a few (maybe a three or four total in all six trips) intact floats at Niku, although I'll confess that I haven't paid much attention to them. I think our Kiribati rep collected one on this last expedition, still with the net. I really don't recall much about size or color except to say they're roughly soccer ball size. Such things are almost always found on the ocean beach and ususally on the windward (north) shore of the island. On this last trip somebody found a large (maybe 18 inch diameter) gray plastic float - no net - on the beach not far from the Seven Site. We typically find rubber shower shoes (flip-flops), various plastic bottles and caps, and flourescent light tubes (unbroken) along the beach. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:42:28 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Island Video OK. I've always kinda wanted to go to a remote Pacific island paradise. Problem is, I don't like the sun and hot weather. Not too excited over sand either. So count me in for the fly-over video. I figure I can supply the funny fruit drink and simulate the real experience from my lounge chair. Checks in the mail. blue skies, jerry ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you. Gotta be more comfortable, if slightly less exciting, than hanging head down out of the back of a Hughes 500 trying to see back behind and under the helicopter. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:56:28 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? My thought is that what we're seeing is "some of the other pieces". In other words, what we found may be parts of something larger that was cleared out, not things which were used as tools. There was some broken piece of glass you found, that you thought might be a cutting tool. One of the reasons you gave was that you didn't find the rest of the pieces of the broken object. Hence, perhaps a tool. Or, possibly, the remains of something larger that was broken and carted out? --C-- *************************************************************************** From Ric If you'll look on the website you'll see photos of four pieces of glass. All were found within a few meters of each other. Two of them, -21a and -21b, were found side by side. Each artifact gives the impression of being a from a different original object. No other pieces of glass were found.* It is possible that a fishing float, a couple of bottles, and a pane of glass were all broken there and, in each case, all but one piece of the broken glass was carefully collected by the environmentally conscious, Keep Niku Tidy, Coasties or colonists - but that just doesn't seem real likely to me. *That's not quite true. Way off to one side we found a couple pieces of thick brown glass, one of which had quite obviously been in a fire after it was broken. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:08:04 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? One difference I can see is that we come across concrete foundations for many of the buildings at the village, yet don't (I think) find a foundation at the Seven Site, at least not yet. Yet, we do find a water tank that is similar to ones found in connection with buildings having concrete foundations at the village. This is one thing which peaked my question that we may have a somewhat unique structure at the Seven Site----something sophisticated and long-lasting enough to warrant its own tankage, yet something not so major as to need a permanent foundation, and perhaps something which may have been broken down and "carted out", so-to-speak, leaving the types of bits and pieces we found. --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric The concrete foundations are all in the "old" village and are apparently associated with the early days of the colony when a lot of attention was paid to the construction of permanent infrastructure, typically under the supervision of Jack Petro. The tanks also seem to date from the early period. I don't recall seeing concrete foundations or those square tanks around the Laxton era (1949) "new" village. We know the tank was at the Seven Site as early as 1944/5 when the Coasties were there. At that time it was apparently still in use to collect rainwater. It may have been there as early as 1941. We see something of that same size and shape, but apparently up on legs like a condensing unit, in the 1941 aerial photo, but it's farther out toward the beach than where the tank is now. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:12:42 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 > Hmmmm.....interesting. All the glass is curved. No two-part knobs that I > can see. How about the fuel filler / pump thing on the right of the red one http://www.btinternet.com/~skeeves/x6tank.html ? Could this be something like that, with the hole for the pump shaft or whatever that is? - Bill #2229 ************************************************************************ From Ric No. The dimensions are different. Our knob is deeper than that if seen from the side. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:21:54 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Thanks to the wombat! Ric says: "I think we can say, at least, that our knob is not inconsistent with knobs found on some sextants." This sounds like the beginning of another "not inconsistent with..." something associated, with Earhart, her clothing, the Electra teaser. I am accused of demanding too much in the way of proof, but, in this case, can we get a little further along before we make such a predictable "auto default" conclusion? It's also "not inconsistent with" a lamp wick adjuster, and so far Angus seems to be making a lot better case for the adjuster. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Look....we KNOW that a sextant box was found at the bone site. We STRONGLY SUSPECT (some of us anyway) that the Seven Site is the bone site. It is LESS of a reach to think that there might be a sextant part at the Seven Site than it is to think that there might be part of a hurricane lamp there, but we're investigating BOTH possibilities and any others that seem at all reasonable. Why don't you demonstrate your brilliance by finding something that matches one of the artifacts. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:28:43 EST From: Jdubb Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 Looks more like a metal button from a pair of pants or a coat to me. It looks similar to those on the fly of blue jeans. Jdubb ************************************************************************* From Ric Well....that's the limitation of photography. If you could hold it in your hand you'd see that it's way too deep, heavy and complex to be a button. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:29:47 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? I wonder if Laxton got a translation wrong, and that the 7 site was the "homesite" for Gallagher. The natives would know that this area was set aside for Gallagher, and I believe the later maps indicate that is so. I wonder if it is possible that Laxton mistook future home for house, and seeing the water collection device, believed is was some sort of lean-to or shanty, a preliminary house? Lots of ifs, ands, but it is an intriguing thought. Anyone know the Kiribati words for home and house? Are they similar? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:44:08 EST From: Stan Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO When I saw ARTs A and B, they immediately reminded me of something I'd seen on PBS (who needs cable!) earlier this year. The show was Secrets of the Dead II, Day of the Zulu. The episode dealt with the forensic reconstruction of the great battle between the invading British Army and the Zulu nation, the poor Brits didn't fare so well. One theory behind the loss was some sort of problem with the ammunition. Artifacts found an the battle site included ammo box "tabs", the condition of which led to the conclusion that as the battle heated up, the boxes where opened with increasing haste, hence some of the tabs bent. Anyway, looking at those artifacts reminded me of bent and unbent "tabs" in the show, and you mentioning something about target practice and a lot of shell casings laying around the site, I was just putting 2 and 2 together. It may not add up to four, but the woodscrews, and the bent tab (ART B), in my mind, make a good case. (I can just picture some frustrated solder or sailor using a crow-bar/K-Bar on an uncooperative, humidity swollen wooden WWII ammo box as a handy target of opportunity like a land crab goes crawling by.) The PBS web site (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets2/case4.html) didn't have anything specifically about the tabs, but can show you the show I'm talking about, if you want to take a look. Given the subject matter, I bet someone in your crew has series on tape! Guess I'm going to have to rent it now and watch it again :) I enjoyed your page (and envy your work)! Hope this helps in some small way. ************************************************************************* From Ric Well, Nikumaroro is rather a long way from Isandhlwana and bent tabs on British ammunition boxes in 1873, while interesting, probably don't have a lot of bearing on events at the Seven Site. Nevertheless, we should check American WWII ammo boxes to see if they have anything similar to our artifacts. Incidently, although it seemed like hundreds when we were finding them, we only collected twenty .30 calibre shell casings from the Seven Site. There are almost certainly more there but it's not like the place was a frequently used firing range. We could be looking at the results of one or two visits. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:48:40 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? The whole matter of a demolition highlights what's driving me nuts about all the building material (lots of corrugated iron sheets, some heavy iron channel pieces, the screening) on and around the Seven Site. I can't figure out what anyone would have been building there, or why, or why we don't have any record of it. Of course, there's always the possibility of an abortive Amelia Earhart Memorial Museum. But seriously, folks, Whatever Happened In The Late 1940s or 50s is one of the big Mysteries of the Seven Site. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric Amen. There is no reference to it in any of Gallagher's reports or in the later correspondence and records we reviewed in Tarawa except that the area is designated on two post-war maps as "Komitina" (Commissioner - i.e. Gallagher) and "Karaka" (Gallagher). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:49:45 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: locating atafu Angus,, you solved the problem,, yes I read your post as decimal 33 and decimal 48 etc.. so assuming now all your posts were in degrees / minutes,, im using the following decimal equivalents,, 8.55 and 172.5 for atafu,, 0.8 and 176.6 for howland This calcs out as 705sm and 613nm true heading of 156 degrees on the great circle line,, the stoker ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:55:42 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Forum's Choice Ric, to help with your "market research": > of fund-raising ideas. Some have been great successes - like the $100 > satellite photo and the Is it still available? (From Ric: You betcha.) > We have a couple of new offers - a year-end membership/renewal sale and a > video aerial tour of Niku - that we think you'll like and I'll be putting > them up as separate posting on the forum. We've also talked about Now that my finances are better, I might join at last for the above deal: what is the package deal, with shipping to Canada? (From Ric: No penalty for being Canandian.) > Forum Highlights more searchable and there seems to be a good deal of > interest in that. That would be nice. > What other information products would you like to see? How about a second > volume of the Earhart Research CD that included all of the official > government search reports? A CD of historical photos of Nikumaroro from > Bevingtons's 1937 visit and the 1938 New Zealand survey up through World War > II and beyond? A CD of high-resolution photos of the most intriquing > artifacts recovered from Nikumaroro? I'd be interested in lots of historical photos, particularly hi-res air photos... *************************************************************************** From Ric Anybody else interested in a CD of Niku historical photos? Fortunately most of them are government photos and are not copyright encumbered. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:58:19 EST From: Lee Subject: Re: ammo crate locking tabs? Ric....I have a wooden ammo crate from WW2.......and the locking tabs are close....but no cigar. Of course........the time frame is wrong, but I think there were many different "wooden ammo boxes"......depending on what ammo it contained. Or has that great thought occurred to everyone else....and I'm just now thinking about it. -Lee *************************************************************************** From Ric How do the locking tabs differ from the artifacts? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:03:33 EST From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: sextants From the site http://www.mat.uc.pt/~helios/Mestre/Novemb00/H61if_2.htm "The Portuguese Navy, who had rights to the development, contracted with the prestigious German firm of C. Plath for production. In 1929 Captain Wittenman navigated the Graf Zeppelin around the world using a Coutinho sextant. With this spectacular record, the design was the hit of the 1930 Berlin Air Show. It was used by many of the major airlines of the world throughout the 19301s. In addition to an artificial horizon, aircraft sextants needed a device to average the values of six or eight sights taken in succession to average out the small errors in aligning the sight and to compensate for the rapid movement of the aircraft. " Did Noonan use the actual horizon or an artificial horizon? Dale Intolubbe **************************************************************************** From Ric We know that, prior to the first World Flight attempt, Harry Manning borrowed a Pioneer Bubble Octant from th U.S. Navy for use on the flight (Manning was in the Naval Reserve). Following the wreck in Hawaii, Manning quit and Noonan signed for the octant (we have the receipt). We presume that this was the instrument he used during the second attempt, but we don't know for sure. We also know that it was Noonan's practice to carry a conventional nautical sextant as a backup. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:04:18 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: gadget for measuring glass spheres I finally found a description of the gadget used to measure the "radius of curvature"of a lens. It should work well for measuring the spherical glass fishing float, because it is called a spherometer! (duh) If you have way too much time on your hands, put "spherometer" into Google or your favorite search engine, and see how it works. You can even get directions for building your own, or buy an antique one. Dan Postellon TIGHAR# 2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:05:16 EST From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: Fish net float The fishing float I have that was retrieved on one of those islands when I was there is 12 inches in diameter. The plug is 3 inches to 3.5 inches and not perfectly round. The color is a very light blue green. When looking through the ball, one must remember you are looking through 2 layers of glass. The green then looks darker then when looking through one layer, I would then state, my guess is it would look almost clear, looking through one layer. This particular ball has about 8 to 10, 1/32 of an inch air bubbles imbedded in the glass every square inch from the process of making the ball. LTM Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:08:41 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Betty's notebook Wouldn't it also make just as much sense to _first_ complete the efforts to authenticate the fact that 'Betty's Notes' really were transcribed from radio signals actually transmitted from the Electra... before engaging in attempts to decipher the 'meanings' of her 'jottings'? Don Neumann ********************************************** From Ric And how would you propose to do that? ********************************************** We can't... just like all of the other alleged post-flight termination broadcasts, none of which have ever been authenticated as actually having been transmitted from the Electra, the 'Betty Notes' have no more provable relevance to the AE/FN disappearance than the others; so our efforts to 'make sense' out of her 'jottings' simply adds additional layers of speculations & suppositions to a mystery that already is top-heavy with unproven & often unprovable theories & hypotheses. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric So....if we could show that Betty's transcription contains information she could not possibly have had unless the transmissions were genuine, you would not consider that to be significant? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:18:25 EST From: Bruce Yoho Subject: giant clams Tom King recording Giant Clams at trails end. >Our subsequent work on the island has not turned up any natural explanation for the "trails," but we have identified a possible explanation for at least one of them. Among the signs of human activity at the Seven Site are two locations, each of which contains the shells from exactly 15 giant clams.< Those must have been baby giant clams. The shells we found would have made a very comfortable chair for Tom to have sat in while recording his findings. These were from 2 to 3 feet across. No mistake 2 to 3 FEET. LTM Bruce ************************************************************************** From Ric Oh yeah, they do get that big, but not in the lagoon. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:31:09 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Artifacts I was looking at the new pictures on the website today, and have a couple of observations. I can't help but think that the ceramic do-dad (2-6-S-32) with the pin in it looks suspiciously like the sort of gizmo that one would find inside some kind of heater, to space the coils. Okay, based on its (or, in keeping with the recent thread, is it "it's" ?? - sorry I couldn't help myself) anyway, based on its relative size, a pretty small heater - or maybe some other type of contraption that requires heat and / or electrical insulation of exposed wires. Heater coils seemed most logical to me, but might it be something from the innards of a radio? Then I got to looking at the little knurled metal object in 2-6-S-45. Remember, the Luke Field inventory of AE's stuff included a bottle of "Collyrium" - which we identified as eyewash. This thing looks more to me like the cap to a little bottle, than a control knob. The hole in the center might be where a rubber eyedropper bulb was attached, and it could have been fixed up with a cork stopper. It seems to have the sort of shape that one might find set up that way. Which brings me (the long way around) to Mike's posting - I recall that we had some discussion a while back regarding the control wheel that was stacked up on the pile of stuff outside the airplane door (the pile include what looked like a nitrogen cylinder, parachutes, and the wheel, which was right on top). Interestingly, the Luke Field inventory also lists a control wheel (I noticed it when I was refreshing my memory on the Collyrium). Of course it doesn't indicate if it was a spare (why would you carry one?) or the one from the right seat pedestal. Things that make you scratch your head and say "Hmmmmmm". All in all, the new pictures are pretty exciting. ltm, jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric Artifacts 2-6-S-43, 2-6-S-21F, 2-6-S-32 and 2-6-S-45 all look to my untrained eye like they could be part of a radio but none of them looks familiar to Mike Everette. When Tom King first found -45 he too had the impression that it was a cap for a small bottle, but it's not threaded and it's really quite heavy for its size. It also has that curious channel set inside. Its a separate structure and probably accounts for the unusual heaviness of the piece. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:36:58 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Dukes of York >I'll ask Fergie if she'll give us an endorsement (where did I put > that phone number?). I think it's in the kitchen on the shelf next to the Slim-Fast..... ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric You got that right. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:49:00 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: What island is this? The net difference from AE original map for howland and the itasca coordinates is 5nm to the east at 101 degrees true. The line from howland to gardner is on a 157 true heading, the line from howland to atafu is on a 156 true heading ************************************************************************* From Ric Well....if you're running down that line and you come to an island and you know it's not Howland but you don't know how far off north/south-wise you might have been, you'd have two choices - Gardner or Duke of York (if that's the way it was shown on maps in 1937). What, I wonder, would make you think Duke of York rather than Gardner? If the available map of Duke of York was fairly accurate - as opposed to the wildly inaccurate map of Gardner - and you had such maps - I can see drawing that conclusion. Also, if the nformation you had about Duke of York indicated that there was a shipwreck there (and I have no idea if there was) and the available information about Gardner did not include mention of a shipwreck (which it did not at that time), I can also see drawing that conclusion. Anybody got Sailing Directions for Atafu for 1937? Was there a shipwreck there? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:52:21 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Engine(s) On The Beach > If the above causes anyone to wonder whether we did, in fact, find something > and are keeping it quiet for security reasons, let me assure you that we > didn't and we aren't. Was that PLAUSABLE DENIAL Ric !!! *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't win. Is my credibiity THAT bad? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:53:19 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: VCR systems i think you may find that JAPAN and that region has NTSC & PAL...they use NTSC because of proximity to USA and PAL cos they build video,tv,dvd for everyone who has it...thats why here in blighty we get dual standard equipment which has both,i dont think SECAMS as popular cos i hardly see it on equipment and when i do it costs a few hundred $quid more--- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:56:30 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Bones analysis >That puts him in the position of accepting someone else's >measurements as being accurate and assuming Dr. Hoodless was capable of >correctly applying forensic technics and correctly interpreting them >with limited or no experience. I don't think I would have much trouble >keeping his testimony out and his concurrance out of evidence. I see no >weight to it at all. >On the other hand if McPherson could testify of Hoodless' great >expertise and experience in the past of doing this I can see his >testimony coming in but not given all that much weight since he didn't >see the bones himself. >Rats! I hate going to court on Mondays'... >Alan >#2329 Would not this same scenario apply equally to anyone writing a forensic examination report (60+ years later) based upon an _original_ report of an examination of the bones by someone else, without any way of accurately determining _that_ person's degree of expertise in the field of forensics... or the opportunity to actually examine the bones themselves ? Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric Different situation. Burns and Jantz were applying analytical tools to the measurements that were not available in 1941. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:09:30 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? > From Randy Jacobson > > I wonder if Laxton got a translation wrong, and that the 7 site was the > "homesite" for Gallagher. The natives would know that this area was set > aside for Gallagher, and I believe the later maps indicate that is so. I > wonder if it is possible that Laxton mistook future home for house, and > seeing the water collection device, believed is was some sort of lean-to or > shanty, a preliminary house? Lots of ifs, ands, but it is an intriguing > thought. Anyone know the Kiribati words for home and house? Are they > similar? Interesting thought. What was the entire reference in the book that Laxton made to the house/Gallagher? This might help explain things by giving more of the context in which the comment was made. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric It was not a book. The reference is in an article Laxton wrote for the Journal of the Polynesian Society. He's describing a tour around the island: "At the eastern tip the wedge-shaped area is taken up partly by great pools, set in the coral and rain filled. The buka trees rise here sixty feet high, and were partly cleared to accomodate the neat grey quonset huts of the U.S. radio installation, neatly sealed, awaiting dismantling and transportation. Turning the tip to return to along the northern rim, narrow, thundering with surf driven by north-east trade winds, the path ends in a house built for Gallagher on a strip of land cleared from lagoon to ocean beach so that fresh winds blow easily through. Beyond this there is no path, save along the steeply sloping sandy ocean beach." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:12:27 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Fish net float next trip collect the floats,find the rarest then auction them on ebay which then provides income for you...just a thought--- **************************************************************************** From Ric No can do. The only artifacts we collect from the island are those directly associated with our research. They belong to the Republic of Kiribati and we only hold them in trust for research purposes. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:15:48 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO We might want to expand the search to British-style ammo boxes, as well, as Gallagher had a pistol and we were also speculating that he might have been one of the persons shooting guns off at the site. Looking through the web last night I found lots of hits on ammo boxes, but so far nothing helpful in the way of pictures and descriptions. --C-- *************************************************************************** From Ric I have no objection to checking British ammo boxes but I'll point out that Gallagher was not in the military and his pistol was an American Colt .22 automatic. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:17:32 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Thanks to the wombat! I just e-mailed one of the world experts on Tilley lamps. He's sure the knob & other bits are not off a Tilley and probably not off a pressure lamp but he's e-mailing another wick-type lamp expert who has a different area of expertise. Thanks for the Lat /Long info. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric Excellent. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:20:58 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 There's a pic and description of the pre-war Tilley lamp that Gallagher probably had at http://www.base-camp.co.uk/instruction.html *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, yes. We've seen bases like that up in the village. Don't you agree Tom? I might even have a photo of one someplace. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:23:50 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Fish net float (plug) The "plug" is technically called a pontil, and strongly suggests that the float was hand blown. The size of a pontil is related to the diameter of the iron tube used for glassblowing, not the size of the ball. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who blew glass, but never inhaled.) ************************************************************************* From Ric Interesting. Okay, forum.....today's vocabulary word is "pontil." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:25:40 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? I looked in the Kiribati dictionary for the word house & the only reference to "house" was the word "maneaba" which means "village/island meeting house". LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************* From Ric Yes, we're very familar with maneabas. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:30:22 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones analysis Of course it's the same situation if, as Alan Caldwell claims, the only question you ask is "did you see the bones?" In the Caldwell analysis everyone's report/comment gets tossed other than Dr. Hoodless' (TIGHAR's [Ric's?] and Dr. McPherson's agreement). This is why Ric has to add things to his side of the equation. However, the "analytical tools" (FORDISC) that Ric adds and that Burns and Jantz applied only includes cranial bones/features in the data base. These are NOT the best bones to determine sex. Per Dr. Burns' own book "Forensic Anthroplogy Training Manual" (p.151): "Table 12.3 (on page 152) summarizes the basic sexual differences in the normal skeleton. The most reliable differences are in the pelvis". Dr. Burns confirmed this to me in an e-mail as well. Of course, Dr. Hoodless was looking at the pelvic bones, he was firm in his conclusions that the bones were those of a male. In contrast, the FORDISC conclusion that the bones were female was based upon the bones that were not the best (according to TIGHAR's own expert) and, indeed, the conclusion they were female was very weak and tentative. To quote Dr. Burns: "Assuming the skull represents a person of European ancestry, the FORDISC analysis indicates that the individual represented was most likely female. Unfortunately, the level of certainty is very low...." --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Chris, would you like to give us your hypothesis about whose bones Gallagher discovered? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:54:11 EST From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: Bones analysis > Chris, would you like to give us your hypothesis about whose bones Gallagher > discovered? Chris makes a very good point. Moreover, in order to disprove the bones theory, it is only necessary to show that the bones Gallagher found did not belong to Earhart. One needn't postulate to whom the bones actually did belong in order to prove they were not Earhart's. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Very true. I was just trying to get something - anything - constructive out of Chris. Chris has given his reasons for preferring Hoodless' conclusions to those of Burns and Jantz. I would be surprised if he claimed that his preference proves anything any more than ours does. Perhaps he, or you, would care to try to show that the bones did not belong to Earhart. Unless and until somebody can do that I suggest that it is reasonable to continue to look for information that does establish the identity of the castaway. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:08:55 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: .22 casings While you were on the island this past summer, and after you located the 22 caliber cartridge cases, I located a cartridge "expert" on the net and made an inquiry. Attached is my inquiry and response. From: Michael Pfeiffer/R8/USDAFS [mailto:mpfeiffer@fs.fed.us] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:38 PM To: Michael Muenich Subject: Re: CartridgeBiblio Dear Mr. Muenich. My apologies for my belated response but I have been extremely busy. .22 caliber cartridges with a P headstamp are very common. They were manufactured by the Peters Cartridge Company from the 1890s until the company was purchased by Remington about 1915. Peters Cartridge Comapny continued to produce ammunition as a subsidiary of the Remington Arms company up into the 1960s. Their centerfire ammunition would have an R-P headstamp but their rimfire line continued to have a single P headstamp. They were manufactured in huge quantities and sold around the world. Instead, if you know the exact type of firearm she carried, I would contact the Columbia International Forensics Laboratory, 202 Casey Court, Newport, Washington 99156-9363, (509) 447-2067, e-mail Gaylen Warren at: 4n6@povn.com Website: http://www.povn.com/~4n6/4n6.htm I hope this assistes in your search for information. Sincerely, Smoke Pfeiffer Smoke (Michael A.) Pfeiffer, RPA Ozark-St. Francis National Forests 605 West Main Street Russellville, Arkansas 72801 (501) 968-2354 Ext. 233 e-mail: mpfeiffer@fs.fed.us *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, thanks. We later found another .22 casing with "U" on it. As far as we know, Earhart did not have a firearm with her. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:40:45 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: locating atafu It strikes me that the 157.337 LOP would have been a magnetic heading as aviators tend to quote magnetic rather than true by radio. This would put their true heading at 166/346 degrees. This heading would have missed Gardner by a large distance (50 or 60 miles) and Atafu by an even bigger margin. Or am I missing something? Regards Angus *********************************************************************** From Ric Yes. The 157/337 LOP is, by definition, true rather than magnetic. It is 90 degrees to the 67 degree (True) angle of the rising sun on that day in that part of the world. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:42:17 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: 2-6-S-21F & 43 Do the holes on the left side of the lower photo of 21f line up with the slots on 43 ************************************************************************* From Ric No. The holes in 21F are much closer together. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:42:43 EST From: Subject: 2-6-S-32 One last guess for the day. Ceramic/Porciline might be an insulator for some type of electric component. As noted, the pin could be a pivot which might have been magnetized by an electric current. The glob of metal at the tip of the pin could be from a short. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:42:50 EST From: Ric Subject: Artifact #2-6-5-46 We received this via the website: Sir I am writing reference to your article and request for help on the sight seven Artifacts found during Niku IIII .First let me tell you I've been a military pilot for 20 odd years and have worked with a number of older airframes.Haveing said this let me offer a wild guess and differing hypothesis for Artifact #2-6-S-46 that you describe as" possibly a handle to a small cup". It is not uncommon(and infact found on most aircraft with a overhead consul) to have a wireloop hook or a strip of sheet medal in a hook shape to hang your headset on when not in use.In hanging it overhead you avoid getting tangled up in the cable when getting in and out of the pilots seat or nav station .I am not familiar with the Electra and it may not even have such a hook but a phone call to Linda Finch or one of the other Electra owners would quickly confirm or discount this wild hypotheses .Let me know if you find out anything one way or the other. CW4 Gregory S.Schneider ************************************************************************** From Ric Truth be told, a hook to hang a headset on was my first thought when I looked at the thing. Then I said, "Nah. How would an internal fixture get broken off and end up at the Seven Site?" I still can't answer that question but the fact that someone else has now had the same glimmer of recognition forces me to reconsider. Does this thing look familar to any of our other ancient pelicans on the forum? Have you ever hung up a headset on something like this? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:43:01 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: artifact 2-6-S-03B It is good to see hard "evidence" again on the forum. In looking at the posted items, this one caught my eye. I have seen something like this before, but for the life of me, I can't make the connection. I think the "notches" on the perimeter opposite the hole are for your fingers or thumb to "grab", they are like the "knurls" on small thumbscrews. The hole is a pivot point and the wood screw was affixed to a cam that acted as a locking device or latch. To operate, you would roll the cam with your thumb by using the notched edge and the cam would pivot into a slot or groove. If the wood screw was the attaching point, there is no need for the notches to "grab" the wood, nor is there a need for the hole, unless it held a second screw. If so, I would think it would be the same diameter as the existing hole and screw assembly. If I looked further before I leaped, I would have seen two of em, A & B. You note that they are nearly identical except for one is thicker and bent. Fastened on either side of a case, with a dowel between them, you would be able to roll the cam assembly with your left and right thumb. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:43:12 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: artifact 2-6-s-32 Does the pin on 2-6-S-32 fit into the holes on 2-6-S-03A & B? ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes, but with lots of slop. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:43:22 EST From: Pete Gray Subject: Hartlepool library and SS Normanby Here's the long awaited response from NC's hometown: Dear Mr. Gray Further to your enquiry regarding SS Normanby, we can confirm the ship was built in 1911 by William Gray & Co. of West Hartlepool, the engines being supplied by Central Marine Engine Works, West Hartlepool. Whilst we can't positively identify sister ships we can give you the names of ships built for the same company (London & Northern Steamship Co. Ltd., London) during the period 1904-1914:- SS Runswick (1904), SS Escrick (1910), SS Langholm (1911), SS Normanby (1911), SS Dunsley (1913), SS Hackness (1914). We have the yard books for William Gray & Co. and could photocopy the entries for the SS Normanby. There is, however, a minimum charge for this service (L35.00) and should you wish to proceed further we will need your address. Yours sincerely, Mary E. Hoban Reference Services Officer ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:43:38 EST From: Ric Subject: More fun with Artifact 2-6-S-46 Going back to my cup handle hypothesis for this artifact, Margot Still says she remembers handles like this on cups from her childhood: <> Do any of our Coast Guard veterans remember cups like this? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:43:50 EST From: Rob Subject: Noonan and Musick Can I congratulate you on a wonderful web pages and your extreme professionalism regarding the work you do. Its a joy to read and your last trip to the Phoneix group looks like to be very interesting. In following your activities for some time down here in New Zealand, I wonder about a couple of things as a Commercial pilot and someone who has spent quite a lot of time sifting through world war 2 wrecks on the Solomon Island vanawateu etc., A lot of the wrecks I have looked at are under water or in shallow water and make no mistake about it all the storms in the world have not done a lot to them. Especially the engines.Tin just sits on the bottom in sand and getting a couple of 450H.P. Wrights with props on to move in the sand is a big problem. So I wonder if that Electra landed on the beach it must surley be in the tide there.The other point is if the coast guard were there shortly after surly there has to be some accurate files about what they did there and surly at site 7 they must have noticed something as I know from experence living on an island is a tough Boring business, and one tends to beach comb every after noon and early morning in the hope to find something new on your patch before you decided to settle for a cold beer at the end of the day, or worse still during the day. I also wonder Ric do you know that Captain Music flew down here in the 30,s with Fred Noonan as a navigator and Music son was in New Zealand last year collection data on his fathers adventures to write a book. I feel sure that he would have some information on Fred. I feel also that Fred on the way back would have had a real good look at the lay of the land on the way home and on the earheart flight he would be very familiar with the real estate on the starboard side of the Electra, and I think that was a card Fred was going to play, to turn left at the position line as he really knew what was down that way. I have a friend an ex navigator who flew Orions with the NZ airforce in the 70,s and 80,s and is digging out quite a lot of video footage of stuff he shot through the phoneix group and he says he remembers the island well. Rob *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Rob. Unfortunately, Noonan was already missing when Ed Musick made the first survey flights to Samoa and New Zealand. Noonan was only on the Northern Pacific flights. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:44:01 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Notes on Hoodless Over the past few weeks there has been much discussion on the Forum about Dr. David W. Hoodless and his medical qualifications, or lack thereof. Ric asserts that Hoodless was "basically an administrator" who had "only recently returned to Fiji when the whole bones issue came up." Alan Caldwell speculates that " Dr. Hoodless would have been hard pressed to have had much if any experience [in forensic science]." Not that it will convince anyone who is determined to view Hoodless as an unqualified hack, but for what it's worth here are some excerpts from Margaret Guthrie's "Misi Utu: Dr. D.W. Hoodless and the Development of Medical Education in the South Pacific" (Institute of Pacific Studies, Suva, 1979). The author is the daughter of Dr. Hoodless and his wife, Hilda Adlington Hoodless. From a medical standpoint it's a story of determination and dogged perseverance. After winning a scholarship to King's College, London, Hoodless graduated in 1909 with a degree in mathematics. His first appointment was as an assistant mathematical lecturer at Manchester University. ["Misi Utu," at 2] The deaths of his parents and rejection by his first love -- "an auburn-haired beauty named Olga" who dumped young David for a Canadian engineer -- perhaps contributed to his decision to join the Colonial Education Service. He was posted to Suva as assistant master of the Queen Victoria School in December 1911. During the war years he developed an interest in medicine -- particularly anatomy and physiology -- and began his medical education in those fields at King's College during 1919-21. [Id. at 10] Hoodless' medical training would continue intermittently for the next 15 years. Essentially without sufficient funds to chuck his "day job" in Suva, he would teach until he had racked up enough accrued leave to take a paid sabbatical in London. After returning to Fiji in 1921, Hoodless was named Superintendent of Schools. He resumed his medical studies in 1928 at Charing Cross Hospital. Although he completed most of his coursework, complications from a duodenal ulcer prevented Hoodless from taking the finals, and the dream of a medical degree had to be deferred again. [Id. at 15] He returned to Charing Cross in 1934 and earned his M.D. the following year at the age of 44. [Id. at 34] By that time, Hoodless already had been "tutor" of the new Central Medical School in Suva for six years. After receiving his degree he transferred from the Education Service to the Medical Service and assumed the title of CMS' principal. Evidence of Hoodless' standing among his Colonial Service peers comes from the fact that in 1936 -- one year out of med school -- he was offered the deanship of Singapore's King Edward VII Medical College. [Id. at 40] At CMS, Hoodless personally taught anatomy and physiology. [Id. at 31] "The student sat three class examinations in each subject [i.e., anatomy and physiology] and then was ready for a second qualifying examination. Every student was required to be able to give a lucid demonstration to his fellow students on any anatomical region." Hoodless' instruction was augmented by a staff of honorary lecturers in ten subjects, including forensic medicine. [Id. at 20] With respect to the latter, "While attached to the medical ward, students were required to attend and assist at all post-mortem examinations performed, and were thus instructed in the method of conducting such examinations and in the keeping of proper records. Here, too, lessons in gross pathology were given, and anatomical knowledge was revised." [Id. at 21] The author does not specify who presided at these post-mortem exams, but it is reasonable to infer that they were conducted by Hoodless, the school's only full-time faculty member and its specialist in anatomy and physiology. What did his Colonial Service superiors think of Hoodless' qualifications? "The Colonial Office made arrangements for DWH to visit medical schools within the various colonial territories at the beginning of his overseas leave, due mid-1939. He was to visit the King Edward VII Medical College, Singapore; the Ceylon Medical School, Colombo; the Medical School at Makarere, Uganda; the Khartoum Medical College and then after an overland journey across Africa, a Medical College in the city of Dakar run by the French, finally ending up in London, where he would report his observations, prior to his holiday." [Id. at 43-44; the trip was cut short by the outbreak of WW2. Hoodless was in Uganda at the time and eventually returned to Fiji via Indonesia, New Guinea, Australia and NZ] Recall that all of this -- the offer of a deanship in Singapore, the "inspection trip" halfway around the world -- took place >prior< to Hoodless' examination of the Niku Skull in 1941, when his professional standing would have been even greater. No doubt Dr. Hoodless was a top-notch administrator, but that does not detract from his medical qualifications. He developed an interest in anatomy and physiology as early as 1918, and his very first medical courses at King's College were in those subjects. He personally taught anatomy and physiology at CMS until his retirement in 1947. He probably conducted scores, if not hundreds, of post-mortem examinations. Moreover, he was a degreed mathematician whose anatomical measurements are additionally trustworthy for that fact. He obviously enjoyed the trust and confidence of both his Medical Service peers and his Colonial Service superiors. The evidence suggests that, in appointing Hoodless to conduct the examination of the Niku Skull, McPherson indeed tabbed the best man for the job. With respect to that examination, I would add that Hoodless' reference to the missing "right zygoma and malar bone" was exactly correct according to the medical nomenclature of his day. The assertion that this terminology "raises some question about the extent of Hoodless's skeletal knowledge" says more about Hoodless' latter-day critics than it does about Hoodless. But more on that another time; this post is long enough already. LTM (who is quote proud of her boy David) Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric Hoodless sounds like a fine administrator and an experienced anatomist. He may have been, as you say, the best person available for the job but that does not make him an expert in the forensic analysis of badly damaged remains. Nice to hear that his measurements were probably quite accurate. The change in terminology regarding the "right zygoma and malar bone" was apparently not known to Burns and Jantz whose expertise IS in forensic osteology. That hardly invalidates their critique of Hoodless' conclusions. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:44:10 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: What island is this? If I was flying I would look at my clock when I crossed the island, then I would figure my ground speed to see how far Ive gone. Since gardner is 354nm from howland, and el dukiee is 613nm I cant see any reason to think I was at el dukiee,, thats a long way more to go than 354nm,, about 2 more extra hours of hard flying,,(remember, AE was already in the air 24 hours just to reach gardner),,no one ever has said AE did not know how to make calculations *************************************************************************** From Ric Uh ... Claude... if Earhart had been able to time how far she was from Howland we wouldn't have a mystery to try to solve. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:44:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO > We could be looking at the results of one or two visits. But we don't know how our sample relates to the total distribution of ordnance on the site as a whole, whose actual boundaries we don't even know. There could be a lot more bullets back in the scaevola. The ammo box hypothesis to explain the "tab" artifacts certainly needs to be carefully checked. Many of us who held the items in our hands on-site felt like we'd seen something of the kind before, but none of us could quite put a finger on where. There may actually be a number of things with such tabs. Of course, not all such things are likely to have been at the Seven Site, but the presence of an ammo box certainly seems reasonable. TK ************************************************************************* From Ric Aren't we being a bit overcautious about the ordnance? We covered a pretty good chunk of real estate with metal detectors (much more than the area that we cleared). There seems to be a scattering of shell casings around and they're annoying as hell when you think you might have found something interesting and it turns out to be just another geedee shell casing, but I do think that we were able to get a feel for the general density of distribution - don't you? Surely it's not unheard of to draw impressions from sampling. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:44:33 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Artifacts 2-6-S-45 looks to be about the right size and configuration to be the micrometer drum knob from the index arm of a sextant. The interior channel might be where the knob fitted onto the calibrated micrometer drum. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ************************************************************************* From Ric Wouldn't that be nice? Gotta get those numbers deciphered. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:44:45 EST From: Craig Subject: Re: Bones analysis > Perhaps he, or you, > would care to try to show that the bones did not > belong to Earhart. > > Unless and until somebody can do that I suggest that > it is reasonable to > continue to look for information that does establish > the identity of the > castaway. Without throwing gas on this fire, I'd just like to say that everyone here is trying to help in their own way. Proving those old bones don't belong to Earhart is as useful to TIGHAR as proving they do. I personally don't know that we'll ever be able to prove _those_ bones belonged to anyone until you are holding them in your hands. Having the measurements are great, and we can debate all opinions and results of those who worked with them until we are blue in the face (fingers), but I don't know that it will _prove_ anything. I don't believe Chris is trying to proove or disprove anything - I see him as just keeping our feet on the ground about these things. They have a good probability of being Earhart's, yes - just like they could have belonged to anyone else that ended up dying on the island. I hope they are hers, but I too am trying not to let my hopes get in the way of what we have in front of us at this point in time - which are measurements taken by someone of possibly questionable atributes, taken over 50 years ago, using appropriate methods of the time. We can cast a shadow on his "anti-Americanism" as you put it, by not wanting the bone to be Earhart's, but if so, why can we even trust his measurements? And again, we've narrowed down to whom they _could_ have belonged, but we have to show they belonged to Earhart, not that they didn't. And our 21st century science is great, as long as the measurements we have are accurate to the bones. Anyway, I mean not to argue anyone's particular point here - just that we're all trying hard to contribute with what skills we can offer... Craig **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. We're all after the truth, but let's not kid ourselves either. There are three camps on this forum - those who think the Niku hypothesis is probably correct and are hoping to be able to prove it; those who think the Niku hypothesis is probably NOT correct and are hoping to be able to disprove it; and those who are on the fence and enjoy watching the others slug it out. That's a healthy way to conduct an investigation. You are absolutely correct, however, that nobody is going to prove or disprove anything about the bones by debating how competent Hoodless was. If we could find the bones we might be able to identify who they belonged to, but if any of the artifacts we've recovered from the Seven Site turn out - for example - to be conclusively linked to prewar civilian aviation I think you'd agree that it would influence some opinions about whose bones those were. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:44:57 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Engine(s) On The Beach > From Alexander > > Was that PLAUSABLE DENIAL Ric !!! > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > I can't win. Is my credibiity THAT bad? Yep. We're all hard-nosed scientists here, you know. We don't believe everything we hear. We doubt authority. We question everything. We're not even sure that you exist, you-who-are-said-to-be-Ric. Before you make any more claims about Niku, you first have to prove that you exist, that I exist, that Amelia existed, and that Niku exists. And you can't give us your proofs over the internet, because we men of science don't believe everything we read, either. :o) Marty #2359 ************************************************************************** From Ric It's nice that I can always count on my Confessor (and I'm not even Catholic). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:45:07 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? > Anyone know the Kiribati words for home and house? Are they > similar? But Laxton's description strongly conveys the impression that it's based on his own observations, and he'd certainly distinguish between a house built for Gallagher and a homesite for Gallagher. And of course there's no translation between his manuscript and his publication; both are in English. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that he'd distinguish between a house and a homesite but where would he get the idea that it was associated with Gallagher unless somebody told him it was? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:45:22 EST From: Mike van Holsbeck Subject: Re: Thanks to the wombat! Wow What a can of worms this is. Chris, I was simply looking at photos of sextants and saw a very close match. If (allegedly) a sextant box was found there and part of an inverted eye piece (discarded) then why not another part of the missing sextant? IF a box and eye piece were found there by colonists, Whos to say that other pieces are not scattered around also. I did not say that is what it IS. But what it could be. Did you even look at the knob on the sextant I referenced? Each one I saw had different styles of knobs, but since we don't know what style was in the box, we can't be sure. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:45:32 EST From: Tom King Subject: Tilley lamps I'm not able to display the page for some reason, but I'll bet I know what you're talking about. We've seen several lamp bases in the village, but never collected one. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:16:09 EST From: Denise Subject: Tyres? Ric says: "The tire (not wheel) was found in the lagoon shallows at the far end of the island." Just checking that you're aware that island boats use tyres as bolsters on the side of their boats. Chances are ... LTM (who remembers these tyres with great fondness - sitting inside them and eating ice cold mangoes on a journey to somewhere lovely) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, and it' seems likely that the old American military tire we found in the lagoon shallows near the village was once used for just such a purpose. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:17:03 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: VCR systems > From Alexander > > i think you may find that JAPAN and that region > has NTSC & PAL...they use > NTSC because of proximity to USA and PAL cos they > build video,tv,dvd for everyone who has > it...thats why here in blighty we get dual > standard equipment which has both,i dont think > SECAMS as popular cos i hardly see it on > equipment and when i do it costs a few hundred > $quid more--- Japan and the Philippines are NTSC, Korea, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia are PAL. I'm not sure about the rest of Southeast Asia, but I assume they are PAL. Hong Kong uses PAL-K, others use PAL-M and PAL-N. My system is auto-detect for play. I just have to know which color system I want to use for out put (to monitor or record on another VCR). Kerry Tiller (who has tapes from all those places). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:17:44 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Fish net float (plug) > From Ric > > Interesting. > Okay, forum.....today's vocabulary word is "pontil." I like "pontil" a lot better than "Impliedly". I'll see if I can work it into conversation tomorrow at the red neck gun shop I work in. Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:20:05 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? > From Ric > > Yes, we're very familar with maneabas. We're not talking private residence here? A "maneaba" sounds more like a Samoan "fala". Is there a word for a single family dwelling? Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure there is. I just don't know it. But as Tom King points out, Laxton saw the thing - whatever it was - with his own eyes so translation is probably not an issue. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:25:23 EST From: Graeme Clinton Subject: Duke of York Island - Atafu 1. Angus raised the possibility that Earhart could have believed she was on Duke of York island and a miss-hearing of "Duke of York" explains the repeated N.Y. in Betty's messages. 2. Many Forumites reasonably hold reservations about Betty's Notes on the grounds that if they were to be marooned on Gardner they would use their last moments on air repeatedly transmitting, in blind, significant "signature facts" such as KHAQQ, Earhart, Gardner or some other position information. But if, as is proposed in the TIGHAR hypothesis, AE had landed on Gardner and was still able to operate the radio then any external inspection of the aircraft would have shown the reason for her earlier the lack of reception and one could then hypothesize that she would switch to using the loop antenna for reception. Obviously the loop antenna at ground level would not have been the most helpful receiving antenna one would choose. But, if what Betty recorded is a reasonable record of the messages it seems likely they may be one side of a difficult two way conversation - with a close station presumably a ship. Then reasonably, the "signature" we would all wish for may well have only been at the start of such a supposed "conversation" and may have been lost by the transmission path variability previously outlined, or missed in those early moments when the name Earhart attracted Betty to record the station. The only tests for Angus's hypothesis that I can think of for the present is that amongst the Post-loss Messages there may be a message - long discredited perhaps - that gave Duke of York Island as the landing point. Such a message would be discredited perhaps because it was so easily tested as the island had significant population. The other possibility, it may be possible to find out if there was any specific enquiry about Earhart addressed to Duke of York Island administrators that indicated the enquiry was based upon a radio message. You're doing a difficult job with style and my thanks. Graeme Clinton Who is temporarily "marooned" in Sarawak East Malaysia ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:29:06 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Sextant Box We know a sextant box was found on Niku, now a possible retaining nut was discovered. If you found a complete sextant on Niku, what exactly would that mean? Would there be a S/N on the sextant that could be traced to Fred? If so, there is the "smoking gun". Thanks, Lawrence ************************************************************************ From Ric Certainly if a Pioneer Bubble Octant, serial number 12-36, turned up that would be a smoking gun to everyone but a few people I can think of. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:30:08 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Forum's Choice I think the historical photos would be a treat for forumites, we could all look at the photos of trails, etc, and know exactly what the subject is. BTW, if you have any grid maps left, I'd like one, I'll have to snail mail it though. I'll have to do the renewal just a little later. LTM Pete #2419 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:36:34 EST From: Christian D Subject: Rain water... Interesting that at the time of his visit Laxton seems to believe at least some of the ponds retain rain water... *************************************************************************** From Ric There are two ponds where Laxton was, down at the southeast tip - a big one that dries occasionaly and seems to be tidal, and another smaller one that has fish in it. I think his impression that they contained primarily rainwater was incorrect. John Clauss? Bill Carter? Van Hunn? You guys were down there this trip. Do you agree? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:44:48 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? In all those islands, abandonned buildings are very valuable, and quickly dismantled and moved. For example the topo map for Kanton still nowadays shows plenty of buildings all over the islands; except for the village all is gone -except for cement foundations... Isn't it possible that there was indeed a Gallagher house and it was salvaged. What if it was built with little or no cement foundations? And only unwanted stuff was left behind? Christian D. *************************************************************************** From Ric That's certainly one possible explanation but some of the stuff doesn't fit. For example, there's a roll of asphalt roofing or siding material with green shingling on one side that seems to be unused - except we found a piece of it that was folded over and had a mat of what looked like some kind of padding between the folds. Very odd. We don't know what to make of it but it could have been a makeshift shoe. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:46:30 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO I've been known to rattle 100 rounds of .30 Carbine with my M1A in about oh, say, 5 minutes........ LTM (from someone who shot his first gun 'bout the time he learned to walk) Troy *************************************************************************** From Ric How many rounds in a magazine or clip? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:48:13 EST From: Denise Subject: Right! Let's Set The Perimeters of Hoodless Alan #2329 says "It is also possible, I suppose, that someone else actually did the examination and he only signed the report." Right! Let's get something straight! No, it is NOT possible Hoodless "only signed the report" on an examination done by someone else. I think you don't realise, Alan #2329, exactly the type of man Hoodless was. From everything I've heard from everyone who knew him, he was a giant among mere mortals; not just charismatic, talented, enormously self-confident, charming, with personal power and the ability to make lesser mortals - like ourselves - fall in behind him and become vassals of his will ... he was also a man of enormous decency and honour. If he signed the report, then he DID the examination. You shouldn't even have thought to question it. Remember, we are talking about a man who founded a medical school at a time when it was 'common wisdom' that Pacific Islanders "lacked the fixity of purpose" to engage in more than a modicum of education. He took on the world at every level to achieve his aim, and, carrying along everyone with the sheer power of his personality, succeeded at something not imagined possible. OK! He may not have known much about forensic medicine, but it might help if the Forum took this on-board: whenever I've asked anyone who knew him a Forum-related question about Hoodless the answer has always been "If Hoodless said it, then it was so. If he asked for it, then it was done. Everything the man said and did was always the best possible thing for anyone to have said or done on every possible occasion!" And that, Alan #2329, is the perimeter for judging the deeds of Hoodless. LTM (who, although normally cynical about everyone, thought Hoodless "a marvel") Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:02:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Searching under Ren Tree If the hypothesis is correct that TIGHAR has located the place where the poor, unfortunate castaway died, then is the tree on the site likely to be the tree where the skeleton was found? Has TIGHAR excavated around the base of the tree in searching for lost teeth or other small bones? Marty #2359 P.S. If you don't get the full $300 you need for the high-intensity light, you may use my $50 donation for other purposes. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Marty. One of the frustrating things about Niku is that we can't be sure about tree age. The old counting-the-rings thing doesn't work because the place doesn't have seasons. There are two good-sized trees standing within a few meters of each other on the site. One is a "te ren" (tournafortia argentia) and the other is a "te uri" (Guottarda speciosa Linn). Some of the asphalt roofing/siding material was found way down in the roots of the "te uri" so it seems that that tree has grown considerably since whenever the material arrived there. The age of the "te ren" is unknown but once we get the site mapped really well in our satellite photo we should be able to pick out that tree and see if there is a tree in the same spot in the 1938 aerial shot. We did excavate around the base of the "te uri" and found lots of animal bones. We did not have time to excavate around the base of the "te ren". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:04:03 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: locating atafu When your talking about maps,, its almost always about a true heading. The only time I refer to a mag heading is in reference to a VOR track,, and there were no VOR's in 1937. What a pilot usually talks about is compass heading,, thats the number under the lubber line,, so what about deviation and wind correction angle?? This has to be applied to get to a mag heading. There are so many variables for magnetic heading but there is only one possibility for a true heading. All the maps I eva used are laid out as a grid to true north,, even on an IFR chart the grid is true north.. only the vor radial changes it to a magnetic. Therefore, I think that the line on a map 157/337 would have been meant as a true heading,, and not magnetic.. the stoker heres another thought,,,It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:06:34 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: : True v magnetic I agree that the sun's azimuth is measured with respect to true north rather than magnetic north but it seems inconsistent to give magnetic headings and yet true LOPs in radio reports. Evidently from what you say this is not unusual. I just wanted to make certain there was no possibility that the LOP had been translated to a magnetic heading for the purposes of making a radio report. Re the alloy knob and other parts, it might be a good plan to check survey (theodolites etc) and meteorological instruments for anything similar seeing as a psychrometer part was apparently found at the site. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric I assure that this has been beaten to death a hundred times. 157/337 is a true course. The psychrometer part was found on a different part of the island. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:07:29 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO Nothing wrong with impressions; I just think we've got to remember that that's what they are. Fine as far as they go, and all we have to work with, but impressions nonetheless. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:09:29 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? > where would > he get the idea that it was associated with Gallagher unless somebody told > him it was? No argument with that, but that doesn't mean he needed to translate the word "house." Suppose I drive past TIGHAR Central and the person I'm with says "That's Gillespie's house." I then write "drove past Gillespie's house." What I write reflects both what I was told (it's where you live) and what I saw (it's a house). Somebody must have told Laxton that the house was built for Gallagher (unless it was recorded somewhere), but he didn't have to be told it was a house, and if he'd been shown a house SITE I don't think he would have called it a house. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:27:08 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Thanks to the wombat! In his reaction re. sextant pieces, Mike has hit on what's so irritating about the Kennedy Kritiques. Chris seems to want absolute certainty before we even consider possibility, and to cut off any line of inquiry that isn't based on certainty. That's a nutty way to pursue the facts about anything. *********************************************************************** From Ric Attempts to cut off lines of inquiry are not limited to Chris. There's a whole bunch of people who think that it's silly to investigate Niku at all because they're convinced that she didn't have enough fuel to get there or that it doesn't make sense for her to run down the LOP rather than fly a "square search" or head back to the Gilberts. And then there's the attempt to cut off investigation of the possibility that the bones found by Gallagher were Amelia's by asserting that Hoodless could not possibly have been mistaken. Maybe they see themselves as the Defenders of Reason or something, but nobody is ever going to prove anything by discouraging research. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:29:55 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: What island is this? "WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT WE CANT SEE HYOU" I think AE figured she was right near howland when she started down the line 157..but did not know if she was norht or south,, I think she would have looked at her clock when she started heading 157. I think she would have known her compass heading. I think she wud have looked at her clock when she reached gardner,, (oh look fred,, thers an island and it only took us 3 hours to get here),,and I think she could have known how far she traveled.and I think she would have looked at her map ,,I believe she had a plotter too,,.once reaching gardner however it was point of no return by that time...the stoker,,,also,,,New FAA motto: "We're not happy, till you're not happy *************************************************************************** From Ric Only taking 3 hours to get here is meaningless if you don't where you started from. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:31:49 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Thanks to the wombat! Yeah, I did look at the one you referenced. The subject of my e-mail concerned a long-term trend I've seen at TIGHAR, not you. --Chris **************************************************************************** From Ric The long term trend at TIGHAR is that we find answers. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:34:30 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Notes on Hoodless Wow, lots of interesting information here to consider, both about Dr. Hoodless and TIGHAR's own report. --Chris Kennedy ********************************************************************* From Ric I can hardly wait. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:35:42 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Perfection!? Denise said, quoting an unnamed source regarding Dr. Hoodless: "Everything the man said and did was always the best possible thing for anyone to have said or done on every possible occasion!" Sounds like God to me, or at least one of His deputies. Which, of course, would make him -- Hoodless, not God -- a prime target for the Forum skeptics. The guy may have been good, but I don't think he was perfect. LTM, who purposely avoids perfection Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:04:05 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher I hate to beat what is now appearing to be a dead horse, but consider this scenario: Laxton is walking the island with a native, who speaks rather poor English. Laxton probably doesn't speak Gilbertese well either. When they come upon the 7 Site, Laxton finds a ramshackle building, and asks what this is all about. Native says "built for Gallagher". Hmmm. Laxton knows that the site was set aside for Gallagher, and concludes that this was a house started for Gallagher, only to be abandoned when Gallagher dies. Little does he know that it was built only as a temporary structure while the search for AE's bones was going on. Based upon what is present now, the structure(s) seem hardly substantial enough to be called a house, let alone when Laxton was there. And then again, maybe Laxton saw a Thunderbox, and decided that it truly was once a house. *G* *************************************************************************** From Ric Not a bad hypothesis. "House built for Gallagher" could mean merely "house built at Gallagher's direction" and it doesn't take much in Polynesia to be a "house". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:09:03 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Betty's notebook >From Ric >So....if we could show that Betty's transcription contains information >she could not possibly have had unless the transmissions were genuine, >you would not consider that to be significant?... I've spent some time reading & studying her 'jottings' (as have many others on & off the forum) & if anyone can extract any information of substance, known only to AE/FN, from 'Betty's' notes, without first confirming that the Electra was the _source_ of the signals 'Betty' was receiving, I must confess, I would be astounded ! None of her 'jottings' resemble any of the _other_ alleged, post-flight transmissions... & with almost every _official_ government & civilian radio operator, (most with far more advanced radio equipment) throughout the Pacific & especially Hawaii & the West Coast of the US, straining to hear even the faintest hint of any transmissions from the Electra, _none_ ever reported hearing what 'Betty' hears from her radio, on the other side of the globe! Betty cannot remember the exact date she claims to have heard & recorded these notes, nor can she identify where on her dial she was positioned at that time. What we've had ever since TIGHAR learned about her notebook, are speculations, suppositions & presumptions about the notes themselves (as recorded by 'Betty' ) & her own (60+ years later) recollections as to what she _thought_ she heard & what _she_ thought it all meant. Many folks, on & off Forum have spent much time & effort to try & authenticate _any_ of the 'jottings' , most all of it fragmentary, bits & pieces, of conversations, resulting from either 'Betty's' inability to keep pace with the rapidity of the full content of the broadcast... or it's 'fading' in & out of audibility. To my knowledge, no one has succeeded in finding any such connection with anything AE/FN may have uttered in previous, public comments or written communications, or information gleaned from personal accounts, communicated by others, concerning AE/FN... nor has it been _clearly_ established exactly what 'Betty" really did _know_ about the AE/FN flight, disappearance & search effort... how or when she might have known. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Same old problem. You want conclusive proof before we investigate possibilities. Are you by any chance related to Chris Kennedy? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:39:04 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: What island is this? Ric wrote : "Only taking 3 hours to get here is meaningless if you don't where you started from". I disagree. When they started out they may not have known exactly where they were but at least they knew they started out from very near to Howland which for some reason they had not seen. After all AE has radioed "We must be on you but cannot see you". And all indications (Itasca logs) prove that they were as her signal was loud and clear, indicating they were very near indeed. If we accept they flew the 157 heading at all, we must accept the fact that they took this LOP to be on or at least very near Howland. We'll never know why they they didn't see Howland. But we do know they were on the their 337/157 LOP. Even if they were a few miles off because of FN's sun shots perhaps not having been as accurate as they ideally could have been, flying down the 157 leg for three hours from a point where FN had calculated Howland to be would bring them to the Phoenix Islands. Give or take a few degrees and it sounds credible that AE or FN or both believed they had hit upon Duke of York Island. Neither of them had ever been there before and neither probably not even thought of Gardner Island or even dismissed that possibility. This scenario gives credence to Betty's notes. She wrote down alleged post missing messages which look convincing to me since they contained information Betty could not have had at the time. I'm willing to believe that AE has indeed said "Duke of York" and that Betty misunderstood her and took this to be "New York". LTM (who believes the best way of finding out where you are is flying along your LOP until you can identify a landmark - or make landfall) *************************************************************************** From Ric Look....if Earhart had been sure that she was very close to Howland she never would have flown for hours away from that point. At 19:12 she said "We must be on you but cannot see you." All that means is that, at that ime, she thought they were where they were supposed to be but they couldn't see what they should have seen if they were right - so the logical conclusion, if you're Amelia Earhart, is that something is wrong and you are clearly NOT where you thought you were. That is all she knows. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:39:43 EST From: R.L."Doc" Holloway Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO Magazines for .30 caliber carbines were normally either 15 or 30 rounds. LTM (Who loved the carbine for its lack of recoil.) Doc ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:48:14 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Notes on Hoodless 1. To Denise: You go, girl! I think I'm in love .... 2. Look, I am not trying to "cut off investigation of the possibility that the bones found by Gallagher were Amelia's by asserting that Hoodless could not possibly have been mistaken." Certainly he could have been mistaken -- as could Burns and Jantz. However, their approach is permeated throughout with the insinuation that Hoodless was not merely mistaken, but unqualified. This starts early on with the assertion that the malar and zygoma are the same bone, thus (per Burns and Jantz) raising "some question about the extent of Hoodless' skeletal knowledge." In fact, when Hoodless took his medical training, "malar bone" and "zygoma" were the preferred terms for what would today be referred to as the zygomatic bone and zygomatic arch. In other words, the authors' opening shot at Hoodless is based upon his failure to use 1990s medical terminology, without bothering to inquire as to whether that terminology may have changed over the years. I am just trying to defend the reputation of a guy who is no longer around to defend himself against latter-day insinuations that he was not qualified for the task entrusted to him, or was somehow sloppy in his work. As you may recall, I have tried to do the same for Lt. John O. Lambrecht, who over the years has been accused on this Forum of virtually everything except doing his damndest to find Earhart. 3. As to the difference in qualification between an "experienced anatomist" and a "forensic osteologist," I think we desperately need to clarify some terms here. What is the difference between a "forensic osteologist" and an "osteologist," or for that matter, a "forensic anatomist" and an "anatomist"? I don't pretend to have the answer, except to say that to me, the term "forensic" means "having to do with the law." The question is, would an experienced anatomist -- in fact, an anatomy teacher -- be as qualified to opine on the age, sex, ethnicity, stature, etc., of the skeletal remains as a "forensic osteologist"? With all due respect to Ric, I would like to hear from the Forum's medical contingent on this question, either on the Forum or privately at Patrick@Gaston.as. 4. Denise is quite right -- the accusation that Hoodless would sign his name to somebody else's work (as opposed to merely >adding< his name as an indication of concurrence) is an insult to any principled physician. LTM Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, by all means, let's hear form the medical contingent. I'm sorry that Kar Burns is too busy to weigh in on this, but I think way too much weight is being given to the terminology question. As I recall, Kar's main problem with Hoodless is that, on one hand he says that the features needed for determining all sorts of things are missing due to purported crab damage and then he proceeds to draw all sorts of conclusions anyway. It is my impression that "forensic" refers not to legal but to investigative expertise. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:29:56 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry You asked for some constructive recommendations on the forensics work. Before I go into this, let's clear the air over my attempts to "cut off lines of inquiry" and "discourage research". I seem to remember that I funded $1000 of your's and Kenton's trip to England to find the bones telegrams; I funded $1600 worth of work done by Photek on the Bevington photo; I funded $2000 of charter hire for the "most successful Earhart expedition yet" when you were in danger of losing the charter altogether, and I was, of course, a sponsor of the previous expedition. So, with that out of the way let's turn to the question you asked me. On at least two separate occasions (the review and preparation of the "Shoes" book and in a private e-mail to the expedition group), I set-out a constructive recommendation concerning firming-up TIGHAR's various expert opinions, particularly the forensics opinion. This was rejected, but I will go through this again in more detail for the entire Forum: First, it's important to identify the problems I have noted with the current forensics report that makes additional work necessary (when you do this, the additional work required almost suggests itself), and I'll concentrate on what I think is clearly the major problem among maany. That is, there is a fundamental weakness in the FORDISC computer data base system used that was not disclosed, apparently not considered AND which directly and fundamentally effects the analysis. FORDISC is one those "black box" computer technologies that often show up in expert opinions but are seldom explained in any detail. That was the the case with the TIGHAR forensics report, yet the devil is in the details. FORDISC is basically a compilation of cranial measurements of persons of known ancestry and sex. The fact that the ancestry and sex of the skulls measured is known, and that there are multiple measurements of the skulls where the ancestry and sex is known, enables a database of "typical" measurements of particular ethnicities and sexes to be compiled. This assists the anthropologist when trying to determine the ancestry of a skull and the sex of the individual. However, the general problem is that the FORDISC data base utilizes various cranial measurements to make BOTH ancestry and sex determinations. With respect to the ancestry determination, the best bones to make the ancestry determination are the cranial bones/measurements. However, with respect to making the sex determination, the best bones are the pelvic bones, NOT the cranial bones. Dr. Burns has confirmed this to me by e-mail, and the cite I gave to her textbook also discusses this. Thus, at the outset it is important to understand that there is a qualitative difference between the ancestry and sex determination made by FORDISC. FORDISC is simply not using the best bones to make the sex determination. None of this was discussed in our report. How do these problems with FORDISC affect our analysis? First, I can find no mention made at all of the fact that FORDISC does not even include the best bones in its reference data base. One would think that a FORDISC ancestry and sex determination are of equal reliability. They aren't, and yet the report is all about the reliability of our work and the unreliability of Dr. Hoodless'. Let's then be clear that Dr. Hoodless was looking at the best bones to look at for making the sex determination and that we were not. . Second, you will note that the "certainty" of the FORDISC conclusion on sex (female) was also "very low". Dr. Hoodless, looking at the best bones, was quite certain that these bones were MALE. So, in essence, let's also be clear that Dr. Hoodless was actually looking at the best bones and very firm in his conclusion, whereas our analysis is not supplemented by visual inspection, did not consider the best bones for determining sex and, ultimately, found that the level of certainty that the bones were female was "very low". Third, our report mentions that a slight difference in cranial measurements by Dr. Hoodless ("a couple of millemeters") would shift the sex determination to male. This does two things: It shows that FORDISC is using cranial measurments for both the ancestry and sex determination, yet it also raises the question of what a change of "a couple of millemeters" to the cranial measurements would do to the ancestry determination. The logic would seem to imply that if the same set of measurements are used to determine both ancestry and sex, that a change in those measurements that changes sex might also change ancestry. In other words, do we still have a "Norse" skull? I don't know, but let's be clear that it's a pretty obvious question that our analysis, again, fails to mention, let alone discuss. Fourth, "a couple of millemeters" isn't much, generally speaking. Concentrating solely on the issue of the sex determination, I asked Ric and Tom whether we are really in a situation, using FORDISC, where it's too close to call. Here's the reasoning: In many sciences, standards involving measurement exist which differentiate between "reproduceability" and "repeatability". These differences relate to whether you have something being measured twice by the same scientist in the same lab, or being measured twice by separate scientists in separate labs. The particular discipline involved may do things differently, but the end result is that discipline will then often establish standards that results that fall within certain of these ranges are considered, for all interests and purposes, the same, or too close to call one way or the other. Does forensic science have such a standard? If so, how does "a couple of milimeters" fit in----it's important, here, as the difference is between the bones being those of a male or a female. So, as far as the sex determination is concerned, let's be clear that that TIGHAR never saw the bones (Hoodless did), TIGHAR's analytical tool doesn't even include the best bones for determing sex (Hoodless looked at the best bones), TIGHAR' s work finds a very low certainty that the bones were female (Hoodless was certain they were MALE) and only "a couple of millimeters" separates TIGHAR's report from agreeing with Hoodless that the bones were male, and, moreover (forget Hoodless), there is no discussion of whether this "couple of millimeters" in FORDISC falls within a general industry measurement variance standard. There is also no discussion of whether a "couple of millemeters" also changes FORDISC's ancestry determination; we already know it changes the sex determination to male and that, under FORDISC, both ancestry and sex are determined using cranial measurements. So, now that we know the problems (at least the major ones that I have looked into and mentioned here, others may have found problems not mentioned here with respect to the ancestry determination, among other things ), I think it's more constructive to take the following constructive steps to supplement (and if necessary correct) this report rather than simply rattling off the mantra that Dr. Hoodless was "basically an administrator", Dr. McPherson was pleasing the boss and didn't see the bones, that "we have so much better instruments today"--we might, but this report sure doesn't indicate they were fully used, or that I am trying to stop the research in its tracks after funding a chunk of it: 1. The fact that the FORDISC data base does not use the best bones to determine sex needs to be brought out of the closet and discussed. If this is not considered to be a problem, both generally and vis-a-vis Hoodless' observations of the best bones, then this needs to be stated and reasons why provided. 2. If a "couple of millemeters" changes the sex determination, what, if anything, does it do to the ancestry determination? Some day someone else (e.g., Tom Crouch, Elgen Long) will recognize and ask this question, so it's an answer worth knowing. Again, there's complete silence on this in the report, yet the logic is inescapable that there could very well be a change in the "Norse" determination, or it may strengthen it, or it may give us a better match to Earhart. Also, I would ask our experts to identify WHICH of the Dr. Hoodless' measurements they would change. When you look at his notes (reproduced in the report), there are four cranial measurements. Is the "couple of millemeters" for just one measurement, or could it be spread over several? 3. Is there some forensic standard which might indicate whether a "couple of milimeters" measuring difference, both in this case (different measurers/ different labs) and generally, is significant? Or is it to close to draw a distinction such as the one made here (female vs. male). Anyway, I'm sure all this will be rejected again, so TIGHAR will be pushing one more ball of incomplete work in front of it as a basis for reaching still other conclusions. This is what is going on with the Seven Site. The danger is that we are continually pilling cards upon a weak foundation, and that some day the entire investigation will collapse. That will do more than I ever can do to stop the research. While I hardly expect us to achieve "certainty", to use Ric and Tom's pro forma misrepresentation of me, we can do better than what we currently have done. To conclude and answer Ric's question about the identity of the bones, I think it is clear that, when you include a discussion of the structural deficiencies of the FORDISC computer data base, that Dr. Hoodless' conclusions as to the sex of the bones being male are far more supportable than our's, even though they were done many years ago. If it's male, it's (hopefully) not Earhart, and once we cut through the semantics both Hoodless and TIGHAR agree that the bones are far too short of stature to be of Noonan. That's a pretty good reason to do some supplmental work. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Let me once again thank Chris for his support and hard work on the project over the years and address the concerns he raises. I regret that neither Burns nor Jantz are here to defend themselves and I have no more expertise in this subject than Chris does, but I'll give it a shot. First, the "best bones for determining sex" question. We all acknowledge that the best bone for determining sex is the pelvis. Hoodless had half of a badly damaged pelvis. He says that his determination of sex is based upon "the half sub-pubic angle of the right innominate bone, the 'set' of the two femora, and the ratio of the circumferences of the long bones to their individual lengths". Neither his reports nor his notes say what the angle or the set or the ratio is, so we're are forced to just take his word for it. It is not necessarily the case that Hoodless had something good to work with in determining the skeleton's sex. Second, the "degree of confidence" question. I know this is what bothered Kar Burns the most. Hoodless says, "All these bones are very weather-beaten and have been exposed to the open air for a considerable time. Except in one or two small areas all traces of muscular attachments and the various ridges and prominences have been obliterated." It is my understanding that it is exactly these features that Hoodless says have been obliterated that are used to determine the angle, set and ratio upon which he bases his conclusion that the skeleton is "definitely...MALE". Kar does this kind of identification for a living and is regarded as one of the top people in the field. To her, the kind of blythe confidence Hoodless expresses is a sure sign of an amateur in the forensic assessment of damaged remains. Her own cautious language in stating the likelihood of the skeleton being female is a sign of her own professionalism. Third is the "couple of millimeters" question. I really don't understand the problem. The numbers are what they are. If there was a standard that indicated that this was "too close to call" I have to assume that our two distinguished professionals would know that and say so. Yes, if the numbers were different - even a little bit different - the results would be different, but they're not. Yes, it's a close call - and we've never said otherwise - but it DOES come out on the side of white Norse female. What would be gained by determining just how the results would be different if the number were different? Short of finding the bones, I really don't see what more could be done. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:31:36 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO Fifteen (15) in the standard-issue GI clip. M1A1 (full auto) Carbines probably used 30 round clips. ************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt Fifteen rounds in mine. A 30 round mag was available at some time but I don't know if it ever became standard issue on the M1. It would have been on the M2. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:35:02 EST From: Craig Subject: Artifact Distribution Do you have anything (graphic) that shows the exact/rough positioning of where these objects were found? I'm getting the impression that it seems as if these artifacts were in a "not quite" random distribution, but also not exactly an organized one. What's your feeling on this? Do you feel that the position you found these objects in was the last place they were left by their owner, or does it look as thought they were kicked around for the last 60 years? Any anthropologists care to shed light on what we can gain from positions of artifacts such as these, and whether we can actually make any observations as to the possibility the positions indicate the presence of someone other than just the occasional person passing through and dropping said items over time? i.e. there might have been a noticable structure to the items before Gallagher arrived in the area and possibly "randomized" their distrubution. LTM (who messes up my organized structure all the time) Craig **************************************************************************** From Ric As we speak, Tom King and I are working on a detailed map of the site using the satellite photo. It's rather a large job but it's coming along. When it's done we'll put it up on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:38:20 EST From: Malcolm Subject: Re: Put a cap on it Please renew my membership for two years (so I can add another 'tit for tat', as we say in Aussie rhyming slang, to my cap collection). It's a real struggle. Once our dollar was worth more than yours, now its worth only 50 cents US. And our Government assures us the economy is running smoothly. As the proverb says: 'Pigs might fly, but they are very unlikely birds." You have my Amex card (or is it Mastercard) number. Keep up the good work Malcolm Andrews # 2409 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Malcolm. If we don't have your MasterCard we'll let you know. We are trying to get our AmEx account up and running but our terminally provincial bank is slowing us down. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:39:50 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Sextant Box > From Ric > > Certainly if a Pioneer Bubble Octant, serial number 12-36, turned up that > would be a smoking gun to everyone but a few people I can think of. I don't think it would prove much.. Fred could have loaned it to the castaway somewhere else on his trip....... *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, good point. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:42:06 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? I've packed away my one and only Kiribati ethnography (temporarily), but my recollection is that there are names for each of the structures that makes up the traditional homesite -- the sleeping house, the cookhouse, the household shrine, and sometimes other structures (as at the Manybarrels Site, where there was apparently a roof (without walls, I'd guess) under which household work like handicraft production was done. But I don't know the names, either. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:53:48 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Website improvements and questions Since the weather today proved unsatisfactory for my annual leaf raking project, I decided to devote my unexpected 'free' time to some extensive 'surfing' on the TIGHAR website... & was pleasantly surprised by the improved format that significantly enhances accessing of all the site's features... my compliments to the webmaster (person?). The photos of the various items recovered during NIKU IIII were impressively sharp & detailed... however I'm afraid I struck out trying to ID any of them... although I must confess that the metallic artifacts exhibited bear a very strong resemblance to items my father used to save in tin cans & that I salvaged when he died... on the theory... 'You never know when you're going to really need one of those things'... I was also impressed with the depth of the 'gravesite' holes you dug out, (About two feet deep?)... would the surviving castaway have been able to 'bury' it's partner that deep, using only the glass shards that were also recovered ? Reviewing the Bones Timeline again, I noticed this time (others have probably already observed) that in all the various telegrams that were exchanged between the parties involved, no one ever suggested the possibility that the bones discovered _might_ have belonged to FN... since Hoodless' report seemed positive that the bones were that of a _male_, in fact FN is never even mentioned in _any_ of the correspondence, nor is any reference made as to searching for the vehicle that would have brought them both to Gardner's shores... the Electra.... it must be a British thing ! Additionally, I also noticed in the inventory for Gallagher, completed upon his death, there is listed an outboard motor, fishing gear (rod/reel & line) & two canoes... I don't seem to recall, in any of the Forum postings regarding the research on Gallagher, anyone mentioning that he was a fisherman... or whether he ever put the canoes &/or the outboard motor to use, during his somewhat abrieviated tenure on the island... & _if_ he did, to what area(s) of the island he might have gone to 'wet-a-line' or paddled (motored?) his canoes... maybe around the NWC structure(s), where the fish would naturally be attracted ? Thanks for a pleasant afternoon of website surfing . Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric My wife and partner Pat Thrasher is the TIGHAR Webmistress and that recent overhaul was a pretty big job. Nice to see that it is appreciated. It is odd that the bones file makes no mention of Noonan, although it is clear from other files that the WPHC had received information in 1937 that mentioned Noonan. Was Noonan not considered a possibility because Galllagher was sure from the shoe parts that the castway was a woman? But then, Steenson says that some of the shoe parts are from a man's shoe. And later Gallagher seems content to dismiss the castaway as being some unfortunate native. It is also perhaps odd the Gallagher makes no mention of even looking for an airplane wreck back when he thinks the bones might be Earhart's. Fishing out by the Norwich City is probably not something you'd do with a canoe and outboard. Getting out over the reef would be very dicey. It's more likely that the canoe and outboard stayed in the lagoon. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:55:42 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher? Christian -- I feel fairly sure that the Gallagher house, whatever it was, had no concrete foundations, so even if it wasn't salvaged there wouldn't be much left to see today. The problem we have, though, is that Laxton's description of it as a "house" is LATER than the Coast Guard description of it as simply some posts with something draining water into a tank. So -- options seem to be: 1. The original house deteriorated to the condition observed by the Coast Guardsmen, and then it was rebuilt before Laxton saw it. 2. The house built for Gallagher (HBFG) and the Coastie Tank (CT) are not the same things (and either one could be the Seven Site Tank (SST). 3. There's a rend in the fabric of space-time...... TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:56:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Searching under Ren Tree Actually there are several te rens and several te uris, and we don't know how old any of 'em are. There are also two largish dead trees, I don't know what flavor, a bit to the west along the ridge from our main excavation area (Ridge Locus), just southeast of our smaller Morrissey Locus excavation (where fish bones and fire remnants were also found), and just upslope from the "hole." Another bone/fire feature turned up in the last minutes of the last day pretty close to the base of these trees, but there was no time to excavate it. Point is, we don't really know how far the bone/fire features of the Seven Site extend along the ridge, or which one(s) of them (if any) may have been the one(s) observed by Gallagher. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:57:54 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Thanks to the wombat! > And then there's the attempt > to cut off investigation of the possibility that the bones found by Gallagher > were Amelia's by asserting that Hoodless could not possibly have been mistaken. Right, and while I agree entirely with Denise's characterization of Hoodless, based on all I've read, I doubt if he would himself claim to be infallible. Further, if we're going to accept Hoodless' word because of his impeccible credentials, why not accept Isaac's? Why indeed didn't Hoodless accept Isaac's? It's all silly; Hoodless may or may not have been mistaken; Burns and Jantz may or may not be mistaken; Isaac may or may not have been mistaken. But there's no way we're going to find out without finding the bones. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:01:50 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Perfection!? This discussion reminds me of something a photography instructor once told me about the number of pictures a photographer is satisfied with on a single roll of film. "If you get one or maybe two shots you are really pleased with, be happy about with it. You are doing better than many professionals. If you meet someone who is pleased with all the pictures on his role of film, ask him to take one of himself walking on the water, because I want to see it myself." LTM, MStill, 2332CE (and worked HARD for it) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:02:36 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Dr. Hoodless Wow Denise, It seems that Alan, and possibly others, got your attention in their mention of Dr. Hoodless's capabilities. Dr. Hoodless may have been a giant among men you suggest but the fact remains that two qualified anthropologists disagree with his judgement on the bones. That doesn't make him wrong nor does it make them right but it leaves open, the possibility that the bones were indeed those of Amelia Earhart. Even the most respected people do make mistakes. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:07:24 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Marty's philosophy > From Ric > > It's nice that I can always count on my Confessor (and I'm not even > Catholic). There are more things in heaven and earth, Marty, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (With apologies to Shakespeare's ghost.) In this case, I would bow to Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" ["I think, therefore I am"] and say that if Ric thinks he's real, than that's good enough for me. Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Ric I wish I was that sure. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:08:34 EST From: Craig Fuller Subject: Mystery G Are the photos on the back page of the current TIGHAR Tracks of the mystery "G" up on the web site? I could not find them and I sure would like to see them in color. Craig Fuller **************************************************************************** From Ric Not yet. Soon. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:14:57 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO - M1 carbine 15, 30, and 45 round clips. There is also a mini one, I believe, that has 5 or 10 (I think) LTM (who says the more rounds the merrier) BTW, I didn't mention that those are the clip sizes today. I don't know what the standard sizes were when first issued; only my gun is original, my magazines are modern. Troy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:18:09 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Sextant Box I always think the discovery of the (subsequently lost) sextant box is THE big pointer to Earhart and Noonan having been on Gardner. Much more than the bones - every human being has bones, but how many have sextant boxes? I'm looking down the investigative process at 180 degrees from the scientific method, but it strikes me anyone arguing they weren't there has to explain away the box. The only other contenders would seem to be the Norwich City survivors (but would a box survive in the open air for 11 years in that environment and the lettering remain legible?) or the New Zealand surveyors (but would a sextant in their use ever stray far from its box, and would a group leaving the island at leisure be so careless as to leave such an important part of their professional kit behind?) What did a sextant cost in the 1930s? I assume we are talking large sums and the 2001 equivalent would be someone leaving a laptop lying around, correct? LTM Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, the critics would say that they don't have to prove or explain anything. It's up to us to show that it's connected to Earhart or Noonan. Yes, I'd agree that a sextant and its box are not the sort of things you'd misplace. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:18:52 EST From: Joe Ward Subject: The New Mystery Let me have a wack at the "6" or "letter G" on Niku; ok? I'm not at all versed in the spatial relationships involved but, using the hat in the photo in Tighar Tracks for scale, how do you like this scenario? You're a castaway who's found a deposit of very white coral to make a signal for airborne eyes. Where the coral is found is not where you want to construct the signal message; because of background color, wave-erasing action, elevation, etc.. You have to carry the coral; in a piece of clothing, a remnant of doped aircraft elevator fabric, a sextant box, whatever. As you carry your coral in your ersatz "bag" the bottom starts to fall out or you lose your grip on one end. You very humanly turn (just as you turn to look back when you stumble over nothing) 180 degrees to your left as the remainder of the coral spills. I'm looking at the pattern, Ric. The big deposit before they (she?) reacts; the thin trail next as they quickly react; the thicker trail as centrifugal force assists in emptying the container; and the trailing-off of coral as it emptied. Why didn't the castaway pick up the spill? Any number of reasons: the container was not repairable; distraction (a second castaway cried out); exhaustion; depression; delirium; change of plan. Does anyone besides me think this is a possibility? The Best, Joe Ward TIGHAR #2246 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:20:15 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Samoa survey flight >From Ric >Thanks Rob. Unfortunately, Noonan was already missing when Ed Musick >made the first survey flights to Samoa and New Zealand. Noonan was only >on the Northern Pacific flights According to an article on the PanAm website, describing the first survey flight to Samoa/New Zealand, the flight actually occurred concurrent with AE's flight to Hawaii to begin her _first_ attempted round-the-world flight... In fact, Musick's flight actually saw the Electra in flight on it's way to Hawaii... so Ric is correct, obviously FN was not Musick's navigator, since he was aboard the Electra at the time. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:21:45 EST From: John Dipi Subject: Re: Noonan and Musick There Is a Monument For Eddie Musick C anton Did Any Of You Guys See It On The South Side When YOU WERE There **************************************************************** From Ric 'Fraid not. We were never down on the south side. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:26:04 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: 2-6-S-46, cup handle >From Ric > >Going back to my cup handle hypothesis for this artifact, Margot Still says >she remembers handles like this on cups from her childhood: I also have seen cups with wire handles that look like this. ************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder if we can get more specific. If we have an exact match to a military-issue cup that was used by the Coast Guard, I think we can say how the artifact got there. If we have an exact match to a 1930s thermos bottle cup like the one Earhart had with her, that would be pretty interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:28:07 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Notes on Hoodless << It is my impression that "forensic" refers not to legal but to investigative expertise.>> Very strictly speaking it does mean just "legal", but here in the UK at least the connotation of "investigative" has pretty well taken the word over, thanks to too many bad TV series where the doc is in on every intimacy of the case. LTM, Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:30:19 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Carbine clips Dredging up long-lost memories from basic training at Lackland AFB in Texas in 1962 I seem to remember the 30-cal. M-2 carbines we used for qualifying held five rounds on a thin clip attached to the rear of the cartridges. This stack of ammo was inserted from the top, through the firing chamber, and pushed into an internal magazine. When the fifth round was fired the "clip" would fly out with a noticeable "ping!" telling the shooter he'd fired his last round. LTM, who often fires from the hip Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric One of the artifacts we found appears to be a "stripper clip." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:34:39 EST From: Wood Subject: Can Probability Theory Help? Hi, all, this is my first post to the list, my name is Woody Brison. Just call me Wood. I'm an electrical engineer with Lockheed Martin in Denver. I've been reading about the search for Amelia Earhart on the TIGHAR website and elsewhere for several months, having heard about it thru my company's news sheet. Your purchase of some Ikonos imagery prompted the editors to print a photo and a very short news item (Lockheed built Ikonos it seems; and the editors thought it ironic or something that we built the Elektra also). You are looking for a 'smoking gun' to the Nikumaroro hypothesis but can't seem to find it. I don't know if some evil spirit or native curse is hiding every bit of conclusive evidence, but even if the Fates Themselves have been against you finding The smoking gun, I wonder if the smoke could be revealed over a span of smoke detectors, each a bit too weak alone to detect the puff. In my personal studies, I've been intrigued by what probability analysis can offer. I don't know all that much about it, but was wondering if maybe you people know how it works. Where you've got multiple sensors, each supplying a less-than-perfect picture, they can be combined to give a composite with higher resolution than any of them individually. This is exactly what they are doing when they take multiple readings with a sextant and average them together. If you know one of those readings was made when the aircraft was holding steady, then you can weight it heavier in the average. The same can be done with a million situations, in court with multiple witnesses, with imagery, etc. Has anyone ever considered calculating probabilities associated with the various bits of evidence you've found: the plexiglas fragment, the dado, the shoe parts, the castaways noted by Galagher, the natives' accounts of the aircraft wreckage on the reef, etc. -- and then combining them, to see if this yields any insight? Sort of like Marvin popping out with something like, "the odds against our surviving this are 3,127,806 to 1." That sounds a lot more scientific than C3PO saying: "Oh, no! We're doomed." I'm not sure how it ought to be done, or could be, but at any rate, I thought I'd just throw this idea in to see if y'all call the bomb squad to come and take it away again. I do have some ideas but what do others think first. Wood **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Wood. I think that many of us are doing exactly what you describe on an intuitive level. I've often wondered myself whether it could be quantified. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:36:05 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Forensics Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says: forensic: 1. belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussions and debate 2: argumentative, rhetorical 3: specializing in or relating to forensic medicine. forensic medicine : a science that deals with the relation and application of medical facts to legal problems. LTM, who likes clear-cut answers Dennis O. McGee #1049EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Den. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:43:07 EST From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry But the Burns/Jantz analysis was conducted using the Hoodless measurements; ergo, Burns and Jantz must consider the Hoodless measurements to be reliable. Otherwise, their analysis is just as shaky as that of Hoodless. Hoodless actually had the bones. One must either grant credibility to his analysis and conclusion or accept that any analysis based on his is faulty. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Not so. It's not Hoodless' measurements that Burns and Jantz fault. Hoodless drew conclusions about sex, ethnicity, stature and age which - acccording to Burns and Jantz - could not be reliably drawn by anyone from bones in the condition he says they were in. Burns and Jantz derived their possibilites and probablilities from Hoodless' measurements by applying them to information that was not available to Hoodless. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:49:57 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Betty's notebook In spite of having suggested the Atafu hypothesis in its alternate forms, I too do have severe doubts about the veracity of Betty's notebook, not only for the reasons given by Don but also because very few of the numbers given can actually presently be made to fit any of the distances, bearings or positions associated with either Niku or Atafu or anywhere else on land for that matter. The striking thing about all the numbers is that nowhere is there a seven. Whether east or west of Howland, any position should include this number (unless of course they landed with the wheels either side of the date-line). Only the "raving Fred and hopeless Amelia" scenario explains why they did not at least transmit a longitude unless one assumes that Betty just happened to miss the vital numbers amongst all those tramsmitted. The "58 338" string has some significance as a possible reference to an LOP (as well as a possible reference to 8.33S) but even this would likely be given as a bearing (eg "158 degrees from Howland" and in fact Niku bears 159 degrees from Howland and Atafu 156)so I would be exceedingly dubious about basing the idea just on the notebook. However, the Messier message has the right ingredients. It appears to be comprised of a repeated message, it contains the vital 17 component twice and it also contains the string "equen" which very likely refers to frequency, a matter with which AE would have been concerned. It is worth noting that some of the words and remarks recorded by Betty are so strange that one really wonders whether a schoolgirl would have been subtle enough to include such unlikely things in a hoax. Did she really happen by accident upon "New York" when it is most unlikely she would have known that Duke of York island was close to the LOP? Did she really invent Fred's irrational behaviour to disguise the lack of positional information when she probably had no idea of Amelia's skills - or was she just lucky? Its all very puzzling. Regards Angus. ****************************************************************************** From Ric You say that Betty's notebook only makes sense in the context of a "raving Fred and hopeless Amelia" scenario, and yet that is exactly the context that the notebook presents. Did you explain where the Messier message came from? What is the Bevis report? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:03:31 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: 2-6--S-45, The knob Bob Brandenburg wrote: >2-6-S-45 looks to be about the right size and configuration to be the micrometer >drum knob from the index arm of a sextant. The interior channel might be where >the knob fitted onto the calibrated micrometer drum. >From Ric >Wouldn't that be nice? Gotta get those numbers deciphered. It also looks like the micrometer knob on my theodolite. A theodolite is, in laymen terms, an instrument used by land surveyors....and, of course, land surveyors have been on Niku. Hopefully the numbers will narrow it down. I believe I sent you pictures of my theodolite, and the wooden box it is stored in, a number of years ago when the alleged sextant box was being discussed. Check the Spading correspondence file. LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric A search of my files does not bring up anything under theodolite so I apparently don't still have it. Does the knob look like an exact match or just the same sort of thing? The first land surveyors we know of on Gardner were the New Zealanders in late 1938/early 1939. Then came the U.S. Navy Bushnell survey in November 1939. For the castaway, whose skull seems to have been first discovered around April of 1940, to have had a theodolite and box somehow left behind by either of those surveys, the castaway would have to be on the island and alive after those events took place. The island was inhabited by the first colonists for that entire time (since Dec. 20, 1938). Of course, you can speculate that the Arundel coconut planters of the late 19th century had and lost a theodolite and box, but the box found by Gallagher with legible numbers on it doesn't sound like something that had lain around for almost 50 years. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:30:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: House built for Gallagher I still have trouble with the idea that a couple of posts and some drooping fabric over a tank would be read by Laxton as a "house," rather than "ruins of a house," or "house site," or something like that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:33:53 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: survey gear >From Ric: The psychrometer part was found on a different part of the island >[than the potential sextant/theodolite knob]. I assume you are trying to state a simple fact here and not use the locations for where the two artifacts were found to discount either from being from a survey crew. Others on the Forum should note that some of the surveys of the island have included trips to many different places and of course folks can carry stuff any where. LTM Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:35:14 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Notes on Hoodless > It is my impression that "forensic" refers not to legal but to investigative > expertise. Right. There are all kinds of forensic experts. A forensic anthropologist like Kar deals with physical anthropological data (including but not limited to bone data) to support investigation of things like crime scenes. A forensic osteologist deals specifically with bone data for the same purpose. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:36:15 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Artifact Distribution > Any anthropologists care to shed light on what we > can gain from positions of artifacts such as these, > and whether we can actually make any observations as > to the possibility the positions indicate the presence > of someone other than just the occasional person > passing through and dropping said items over time? Lots, and that's what our analysis of the Seven Site will be all about. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:39:03 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The New Mystery > Does anyone besides me think this is a possibility? I think the spinning bag scenario makes a lot of sense, but where's the message the castaway was trying to construct? I know, lots of things could have done away with it, but that leaves us unable to test the hypothesis. Here's another thing -- why is the "G," however it was created, on a slight hummock that looks like backdirt from an adjacent shallow hole, and why is that hole exactly 20 meters SE (along the axis of the island) from another similar one (which we called Skeet's Hole after its discoverer)? I don't have answers, but at least I think we can posit that at least one of the holes came before the "G." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:40:17 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: magazine capacity of .30 carbines .30 carbines had 2 magazine sizes. A 15 round straight box, and a 30 round curved "banana clip" magazine. I 'd have to look it up to be certain, but I think the 30 rounders were purpose built for the fully automatic M-2 carbine. They would, of course, work just fine in an M-1, but for a single unit of Coasties on an isolated island, I'd suspect that they had semi-auto M-1's and 15 round mags. Maybe Dick Evans will remember??? Have you found magazines at the 7 site? I know one time you said that you found what you thought were .30 carbine stripper clips. For anyone who's confused, a magazine fits into the gun, and holds the ammunition. A stripper clip is a flat strip of metal with upturned lips along the long edges which holds ammunition by means of the lips engaging the extractor groove of the cartridges. One would use stripper clips and a guide piece to load magazines rapidly, rather than thumbing in one round at a time. Also, some rifles have a stripper clip guide machined into the top of the receiver so that one can rapidly reload the magazine without having to remove it from the gun. I don't recall if .30 carbines had that feature, but I can easily check if you need me to. LTM, who wishes I had a different hobby Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:08:38 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Mystery G > From Craig Fuller > Are the photos on the back page of the current TIGHAR Tracks of the > mystery "G" up on the web site? Any chance that the G played a role in tribal initiation rites? Were there any such rites among the islanders? Any symbol like that in their jewelry or dress? Any artifacts near it that would date it to the castaway rather than to a later era? "G" for "Gardner" or "Gallagher" (I know, not in the native language, but an Englishman might have written his own name--or marked his own patch of land--in his own language). Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Were there tribal initiation rights? You tell me. The guys who found the bones were Catholic. In fact, Teng Koata, the Island Magistrate at that time, had a plan to restrict the colonization of Nikumaroro exclusively to Catholics. (The Brits didn't buy it.) We've wondered if the design might be traditonal I-Kiribati iconography ( I learned that neat term from Tom King.) - for example, a traditonal way of drawing some animal, perhaps "te rapano" (Mr. Eel). To follow up on that, I called the former Cultural Officer in Tarawa, Bwere Iletaia, and asked him to look at a photo and description of the feature to see if it rang any bells. Bwere is eager to help but so far the gods of email and fax have thwarted my attempts to get the information to him. I'll keep trying. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:09:24 EST From: Marty Subject: Re: The New Mystery > From Joe Ward > ... Does anyone besides me think this is a possibility? Yes. I wondered whether the "snake's head" could have been a spill of material and not part of the design. Somebody sometime did a lot of work to make that shape, whatever it is. Ah, how about a surveyor's mark of some kind? Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:13:37 EST From: Michael Craig Subject: AE's frequencies Can anybody answer a simple question? Was the radio transmitter used by AE fitted with crystals for different frequencies, or was it manually tuned? [i.e. 'infinitely variable'] If it was crystalled, then does anybody know what crystals were fitted - i.e. what frequencies it could transmit on? If AE was desperate, with limited power available [on the ground?] might she not have tried other frequencies in the hope of being heard? Was there a 'standard' aircraft HF distress frequency at that time - there certainly was for ships. Might she have used that frequency, and if so, was anybody listening to it?? I'm just sowing some seeds of ideas! Michael ************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart's Western Electric transmiter had three crystal-controlled frequencies 3105 kcs 6210 kcs 500 kcs Those were the only frequencies she could send on. 500 kcs was the standard nautical distress frequency but earhart had no way to transmit effectively on that frequency because her antenna was way too short. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:15:42 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Forensics Argumentative about covers it. As an MD with an undergraduate degree in anthropology, I can tell you that there is a big difference between anatomy and forensic anthropology. Anatomy is based on the idea that most people are alike, and stresses this for medical purposes, like where to drill that hole in the skull so that you don't cause bleeding. Forensic anthropology/osteology stresses differences (this structure is bigger in males than in females, that ethnic group is more likely to have an extra cusp on their molars, etc.) Both use the same "landmarks" for measurements, so I suspect that the measurements are relatively accurate. Interpreting the data requires a large database, and these would not have been readily available at the time that the bones were found. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:20:20 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Can Probability Theory Help? > From Wood > ... Has anyone ever considered calculating probabilities associated with > the various bits of evidence you've found ... People made this wish a year or two ago. Two problems: 1. In quantitative analysis, you have to have a good method for assigning the numbers you do. It's easy to calculate the odds of getting any bridge or poker hand (um, easy for someone better at combinatorial math than I am) because you are dealing with a perfectly designed set of circumstances (13 cards out of 52 in a deck dealt among four players for bridge). There is no closed set of possibilities against which a reliable probability can be assigned for the presence of a doohickey that looks like the base of an old electric light bulb being near a place where two holes were dug, one smaller and maybe deeper than the other. There is no closed set of possibilities for juvenile crabs dragging single pieces of broken glass off the beach and into the forest primeval. In my view, it's much better to go the feeling/intuitive route on this than to assign meaningless numbers. 2. Even if you could create a monster number showing the improbability of [insert correct number: 25, 50, 75] clues being found in conjunction with each other, skeptics have no problem dismissing probabilities with a wave of their hand. "All the big number proves is that strange things do happen." This is how Carl Sagan dealt with the improbability that the universe popped into existence out of nothing and that life then evolved strictly by chance mutations and natural selection. There isn't any number of any magnitude that could be calculated for these twin improbabilities that would faze him. Even if a tooth were collected from under a ren tree at the seven site, and even if DNA analysis were done on the tooth, it would only give a probability, not proof, that it was AE's tooth. It might have been hers, but planted there by the wily Japanese in order to throw the alien abductors and TIGHARs off the track. It might have been her grandmother's tooth, dropped from the window of a passing plane. It might have been a random mutation from among the islanders. Nothing in the laws of nature prohibits two people from having identical DNA just by accident. And so on, and so on. The issue is essentially one of reasonable doubt. At what point should a reasonable person conclude the case is closed? In a court of law, the jury is supposed to apply the law to the matters of fact. They are not supposed to be making up the rules as they go along. In this argument, we get to debate the rules of evidence, the nature of reasonable doubt (and reasonable belief), and the matters of fact. I like your account of getting a sharper image out of multiple sensors than any single sensor can provide. In my view, the various strands of evidence form a rope stronger than any single strand. I'm betting that the Niku hypothesis is correct. I've put money down on it (not as much as Chris Kennedy!). The Niku hypothesis could be disproved by finding the plane and bodies elsewhere. Then, no matter how much it hurts, all of the evidence pointing to Niku will have to be reinterpreted. I sure wish Niku IIII had found a radial engine with AE's serial number on it. If she was there, it should be there somewhere. :o( Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:21:47 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Odds.... First, welcome, Wood, to the chaotic search for Amelia and Fred. Next, Wood said: "the various bits of evidence you've found: the plexiglass fragment, the dado, the shoe parts, the castaways noted by Gallagher, the natives' accounts of the aircraft wreckage on the reef, etc" I would add: 1) Remaining fuel on board the Electra upon Earhart reaching Holland Island. 2) Earhart's statement, "We're flying the line 337/157." 3) The fact that Nikumaroro Island lies on the LOP, within range of the Electra's remaining fuel. 4) Betty's notebook. 5) Other post loss distress transmissions received. 6) Etc, etc, etc.... The odds of all of these facts surfacing as the result of TIGHAR's investigation and, that these facts support TIGHAR's hypothesis, must be astronomical. Add TIGHAR's willingness to consider evidence and, after listing such evidence in support of it's hypothesis, discovering that a specific conclusion is not valid, admit it's error, and proceed with the investigation. Considering all of the evidence TIGHAR has produced in support of it's stated hypothesis, if Little Joe was ask, "Is the TIGHAR hypothesis valid?" Little Joe would enthusiastically respond, "You betch'um Red Rider !!" Ric and the primary researchers continue to do an outstanding job accumulating even more evidence as time goes by. Some day, gun smoke will fill the air and the discharged weapon will be identified and seized for the unbelieving to view, touch, smell, and probably discard. LTM, Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:24:51 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry Ric: Answer this - what are the "typical" cranial measurements for a polynesian. Then what are the "typical cranial measurements for a "norse" female. This to me would be the most logical way of putting this to bed. I would like to see the measurements as a "range". Thanks, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't have that information. The FORDISC program devoloped by Jantz takes thousands and thousands of measurements from thousands of skulls and automatically looks for the best fit.