========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:11:09 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Forensics Dr Hoodless used the "Karl Pearson" formula for stature in arriving at his conclusions that the skull and bones represented a MALE. Perhaps it was the only published scientific stature table in 1940s. I am not sure if he used it for the determination of sex as he refers to various pelvic bones, ratios, etc. Drs out there, what is the criticism of Pearsons formula. When was it printed? What was the data base? Are there any scientific challenges or reviews of his formula? Would his data base be far different and inferior from the Fordisc or the Trotter and Gleser stature table published in 1952. Would there significant differences? How much smaller was his data base? etc. Heck maybe it was better! Curious in Seattle., Ron Bright ************************************************************************* From Ric Good point. Science was much more advanced in the early 1940s than it is today. (Sorry. Don't mean to be nasty, but really.....) Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:17:53 EST From: Craig Subject: Re: AE's frequencies Wow - that was a rapid reply - thankyou! I guess the next question / supposition is that IF she did transmit from the ground, and Betty actually did hear AE, then the aerial must have been intact? And no part of it in the sea? [aircraft landed on terra firma] Could AE have rigged a jury aerial - did she have the necessary knowledge to do this? I would suggest that, to achieve the range necessary for Betty to have heard AE, AE must have been at some height [flying?] with an undamaged aerial. Just a point of note - the 500kcs marine distress frequency was, I think, CW [Morse] only. As you say, she would not have used this frequency anyway. *************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart could not, realistically, have rigged a jury antenna unless she had a small emergency radio with her (and there is no evidence that she did). You might find it instructive to read Bob Brandenburg's research paper "Could Betty Have Heard Earhart on a Harmonic?" on the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:30:02 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Mystery G > From Ric > Were there tribal initiation rights? You tell me. The guys who found the > bones were Catholic. ... Conversion sometimes takes a while. Trace elements of former religions can be found wherever Christianity is new: mixing pagan rituals with Christian. This is true of Europe, the Caribbean, Africa and Latin America; my guess is that it might be true of the Pacific, too. The islanders might have rituals that they didn't discuss with the priests (did priests ever visit Niku?). Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, you're correct. I was yankin' your rosary. Sorry. Yes, there was a certain amount of clinging to the old ways. After all, the island was named after the traditional home of the spirit ancestor Nei Manganibuka and we have it from a later resident that there was a place somewhere on the island that was said to be sacred to her and included a shrine of some sort. This place was known as "Niurabu" but nobody we've talked to so far seems to know where it was. We do have a translation of what was known as "Nei Manganbuka's Chant." It goes: Blow strong winds Rain fall Lightning, lightning Coming with thunder Roaring her footsteps Her traveling From her abode in Niurabu That's Nei Manganibuka Stronger, stronger Welcome Madam Over there, over there There is your enemy. Clearly, Nei Mangnaibuka is not to be messed with. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:35:20 EST From: Harry Poole Subject: Bevis Report >From Ric > >What is the Bevis report? Here is a copy of the report as sent to the forum in June 6, 1999. Harry Poole #2300 Subject: Bevis and McMenamy Date: 6/6/99 From: Angelo Campanella Palmer Bevis report of McMenany & monitor radio signal receptions in Los Angeles 2-7JUL37. In February of 1940, Palmer Bevis, hired previously by the "Amelia Earhart Foundation " of Oakland, sent a detailed report to Eleanor Roosevelt to inspire a new expedition to find AE. I quote from a copy of Bevis' report copied from the Roosevelt Library: That report includes an account of Walter McMenamy who was one of AE's previous radio experts that was noted for being able to " pick up AE's signals when others could not". The story goes that after Lockheed learned that AE was overdue, they called McMenamy and asked him to listen. In the company of another radio amateur, Karl Pierson, some signals were picked up that they "positively identified as being from the Earhart plane". Shortly after 11pm 2 July 37 (LA time, GGT-8= 07CGT 3JUL37, Howland +3:30 = 19:30 2JUL37, trip-hour 31), a weak signal was received on 6210kc, not understood. On another radio receiver set tuned to 3105kc in the same room, they heard two distinctly separate signals they say were from the Itasca and from the plane; apparently not hearing each other. [Itasca ship's log indicates searching near Howland at that time. I do not have Itasca radio log information for that time.] Early the morning of 3JUL37 (LA time) McMenamy & Pierson heard a distress signal on one of those frequencies, that McMenamy positively identified as being "...from the plane, poorly sent". All three radio operators now present in the room "state that this first SOS signal was repeated over and over again for about five minutes". Further distress calls and garbled attempts to give position were received until about 9am (06:30 Howland time). Some signals were sufficiently loud to be heard on the loudspeaker. On 3July 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." Later, the Government San Francisco monitoring (receiving) station made several receptions with their antenna that was beamed to the pacific. The more credible (my opinion) were: 4JUL37 shortly before midnight (about Howland 9pm) Itasca was heard calling the plane, asking for an answer. Shortly after a carrier was heard on the Earhart frequency and this was reported 15 to 20 minutes past each hour until 9:05 the next morning 5JUL37 (Howland 5:35am). That same morning, McMenamy et al telephoned (to the monitor station?) to say that they picked up more Earhart signals - the "first in two days". They reported hearing the Itasca call Earhart, and also definite answering signals from the plane, the last of which ended "in a decided sputtering". At 6:17 the same morning (Howland 02:47 5JUL37) the monitor heard Itasca call KHAQQ, and a man's voice answered on the Earhart frequency. Only one word, "one", was distinguishable. The "Press Wireless" also reported hearing signals which they could not identify on the Earhart frequency. Howland Island (Itasca?) reported that same morning at 10:43 (5JUL37, but who's location?) hearing "KHAQQ" quoting a bearing of 281 degrees - with no reference & hence of no use. Pan American Airways also the same morning heard apparently the same signal on which they found a bearing of 155 degrees from Wake Island. 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.) The next morning (7JUL37) McMenamy and Pierson heard their last sounds from the Earhart frequency, a rippling carrier at 1:22am (Howland 9:52pm). This same effect was heard by Honolulu amateur stations from 9:17pm to 10:37pm (Howland 8:47pm to 10:07pm) the same day. Ang. Campanella 6JUN99. ******************************** From Ric Very interesting. I wasn't aware of the Bevis Report and I'd love to have a copy of the complete report for our files. This information illustrates the difficulties in assessing the post-loss messages. Walt McMenamy is a problem. He represented himself as "one of AE's previous radio experts" but we've never been able to find any independent documentation to back that up. He and Pierson got lots of media attention at the time of the dissapearance but McMenamy later made all kinds of wild claims about the Navy and secret missions. I have a 1955 audio tape of an interview with him that should be called the Butthead Report. I suspect that we could have a lot fun with the fragmented message reported by Messier, but in the end it would all be guessing. I think that the best we can say about the post-loss messages is that some of them may have been genuine but there is no way to tell for sure - yet. LTM, Ric **************************************************************************** From Ric Lordy, I had completely forgotten about that. Just goes to show how much we need to get the forum highlights indexed. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:38:35 EST From: Barry Limoges Subject: Correlations? Photos from the Colorado searchers of 1937 and the photos from the seaplanes from the Leander point to drought conditions on Nikumaroro during that time. Also, according to Smithsonian botanists, the famous "wreck photo" shows sick palm trees. Could there be a connection? We know that Emily remembers the wreck being out on the reef. Of course, the plane in the "wreck photo" may have been one in the same, washed up onto shore. All this leads me to the thought that George Carrington might be a big help. Is he still alive? Is he now willing to help us even though he is still at odds with his theory in regards to AE? It would be very helpful to identify the British seaman who gave George the picture (if the seaman exists) LTM Barry Limoges (who often puts two plus two together and gets five) *************************************************************************** From Ric Repeated attempts to get more information from Mr. Carrington have been unsuccessful. Suffice it to say that he seems to be a rather troubled individual. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:54:16 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: The New Mystery A surveyor's mark crossed my mind as well, but in the US, these are usually brass discs sunk in concrete. Did the Niku land surveyors set up towers for triangulation? If so, maybe the pits were their foundations. Someone on the list had photos of one of the original survey maps. Were there any "benchmarks" marked "G" on this map? Is this a likely location/size for a taro growing pit? Jane resture's Pacific Island site mentions that these were tried during the P.I.S.S., but abandoned due to saline water. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ************************************************************************ From Ric Good thoughts Dan. There is a U.S. Navy survey marker set in a concrete plinth up near the village. The 1939 Bushnell survey erected three towers along the north shore but none anywhere near the Seven Site. The map produced from the Bushnell survey shows the tower locations and observation points, but there is no "G" benchmark. The depressions near the G are way too small to be babai (taro) pits. We see several examples up on Nutiran and in the village. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:59:16 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The New Mystery I didn't realize that the white coral outline of a "g" was near an adjacent shallow hole. Hmmm....perhaps that was Gallagher's way of marking where the skull was buried, buy putting up an obviously man-made marker, large enough to be recognized from the ground. The hollow might be the actual burial site. The letter "g", of course, would mean Gallagher, and indicate a non-Kiribati letter. Makes sense to me! Plus, this hypothesis is testable: were there any diggings around this marker? *************************************************************************** From Ric I dug some very shallow test pits around the area to see if there was an underlying layer of white coral (there isn't) that might explain the feature as something dug up by a crab making a burrow. Remember that Gallagher did not bury the skull - he dug it up. If he made a G on the ground to mark where he dug up the skull, how would you test that? It also doesn't explain why there are other similar depressions/holes in the area, none of them marked with white coral. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:02:47 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Sextant Box Wombat wrote: > 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. what would be the odds of him giving it to some 'person' who at a later date ends up a castaway on the same island where AE possibly crashed ?...anyone care to add it up out there ************************************************************************ From Ric We were kidding. We do that sometimes. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:05:25 EST From: Alexander Subject: forum mystery now we have a new mystery...which is...RIC is he real,what evidence is there ? ********************************************************************* From Ric You really don't want to know. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:09:55 EST From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Re Atafu population Today I sent email to several people who live on Atafu, have lived on Atafu or have worked on Atafu to see what they have to say about some of the thoughts express on the Tighar Forum recently. So far one has replied. I have copied Peter McQuarrie Email below. Lee Boyle 2060 ------------------------------- Dear Chuck, Thanks for your e-mail. I am sorry but I cant answer your questions very well because I don't have much information on the topics. 1. I don't know about the ship "Janine" but there are quite a few American purse seiners in the Pacific with helicopters and many of them make unofficial (illegal!) stops at islands. 2. I understand that Atafu was named Duke of York Island in 1765 by Captain Byron who was the first white man to lay eyes on the island. 3. I know nothing of a plane crash on Atafu in the mid 1930's and I would be very interested to learn more about this. The first record of planes in the area that I have is Earhart and Panam survey flights, both in 1937. Then there was a flight in Tuvalu(Funafuti only) in 1938. Then the next record I have is April - June 1941 in the lead up to WWII.. 4. I also have no record of any shipwreck on Atafu in the 1930's and would be interested to hear more of this. Regards Peter ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:12:26 EST From: Marjorie Subject: Polynesian vs Micronesian > From Dave Bush > > Ric: Answer this - what are the "typical" cranial measurements for a > polynesian. Also today, Ric referred to Polynesian house styles with regard to "Gallagher's house." In my island days, the Gilbert Islands (now Kiribati) were considered to be Micronesian islands. While the Phoenix Islands are inside the Polynesian triangle, weren't the settlers from the Gilberts? And thereby we also need to consider Micronesian house-building habits and cultural icons and cranial measurements. Or perhaps anthropologists no longer perceive a difference? We used to think the distinction was obvious because there was one Polynesian outlyer, Kapingamarangi, inside the boundaries of the Trust Territory which was otherwise all in Micronesia (although not all of Micronesia was in the Trust Territory). Anyone who visited the Kapinga settlement outside Kolonia, Ponape (now Pohnpei) was very aware of cultural (house styles, artifacts) and linguistic differences -- and, we thought, that there were clear physical differences. LTM (who always thought those wasted years in the Western Pacific might come in handy someday), Marjorie ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let a card-carrying anthropologist answer that one. Tom? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:15:52 EST From: Dave Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry Bones, schmones... am I the only one who thinks that from the neck down, AE looked more like Jimmy Stewart than she did Ginger Rogers? I'd be ashamed for the above opinion if it wasn't so obvious :) *************************************************************************** From Ric Esthetics aside, it is true that Earhart had a slim build and had never had any children. How much that might make her pelvis appear more "male" is outside my pay grade. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:16:56 EST From: Dave Subject: Re: 2-6-S-46, cup handle I'm willing to do some research on the thermos bottle issue, if that's alright... One question... Was Thermos the only brand of glass insulated vacuum beverage container in 1937? LTM (wow! this coffee is still HOT) Dave ************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. Anybody know? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:31:23 EST From: Dave Subject: Re: magazine capacity of .30 carbines For an additional reference, the M-1 Garand used stripper clips to load an internal 8-round magazine ******************************************************************** From Ric Okay, here's a kicker. The "stripper clip" found at the Seven Site amidst several .30 cal shell casings does not fit a .30 cal shell but does fit a .306 cal shell found out on the ocean beach and somewhat north of the Seven Site in 1991. To my eye it looks like you could get five .306 rounds in the clip but we found no .306 shell casings at the Seven Site. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:33:15 EST From: Mike E. Subject: The "knob" Something occurs to me, perhaps this possibility has occurred to others and even been mentioned before: I wonder if the knob-like object, Artifact 2-6-S-45, might be the metal "core" of a larger knob? Many knobs on early radio equipment -- and more than likely, other scientific apparatus, such as surveying instruments etc -- were made of Bakelite, and were molded around a metal core which included the hole for receiving the shaft to which the knob was affixed. These knob cores would have "teeth" around the outside edge of the core for the Bakelite to "grip." If there was a hollow collar (now missing) for a shaft to slide into, there probably would be some threaded holes in this collar -- or perhaps in the core itself -- for set-screws to attach the knob to the shaft. Some knobs had one set-screw, but better quality stuff (aviation or military grade) used two, at 90-degree angles. Bakelite is an extremely durable material, and it takes a good bit of effort to remove the stuff from whatever it's molded to... unless you drop the knob (or whatever) and it hits "just right" against something hard, and cracks the Bakelite. The size of this thing makes it appear that it could have been such a core for a large knob, let's say an inch or inch and a half in diameter or even bigger. One reason the core could have separated from the Bakelite, would be if the thing was used as a tool of sorts, to pound something -- and broke. But then you'd expect to find pieces of the Bakelite scattered around... maybe. Pure speculation, yes. LTM (who always speculated on what her kids were up to) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:44:12 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: Politically incorrect forensics Did Gallagher suspect that he had found a womans bones because there was more than one pair of shoes near the body ? Oh, I can't believe I said that ! But seriously I wonder if there was a reason why he may have thought that it was a woman other than the shoes. The type and size of the shoes does not seem to be enough to determine the sex of the bones and there were more than one pair. So how did he guess which shoes belonged to the body ? I wonder if there may have been clothing fragments or something else that made him identify the body as female. **************************************************************************** From Ric Exactly what Gallagher and the others said about that is all in the Bones Chronology in the Documents section on the TIGHAR website. It seems that Gallagher initially found only part of a sole that he was quite sure was from a woman's shoe. Later, his more thorough search appears to have turned up part of a man's shoe. The presence of shoe parts from two individuals - one male and one female - was never addressed by the British authorities, at least in any of the notes and correspondence in the file. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:44:47 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Forensics > From Dennis McGee > > Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says: Dennis, you're on dangerous ground here. You have the same the dictionary I do; the one that doesn't have "impliedly" in it! Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:52:53 EST From: Mule Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry > From Ric > > Third is the "couple of millimeters" question. I really don't understand the > problem. Would it be fair to say that the conclusions drawn by modern experts based on the measurements of a "forensic amateur" have no more credence than they are willing to give the amateur's own conclusions? Dr. Burns indicated that the technique of measuring the cranium can change the measurements significantly, which makes accurate measurements critical. If the conclusions of an amateur are suspect due to a lack of expertise, aren't his measurements suspect for the same reason? A couple of millimeters makes all the difference according to Dr. Burns. In her paper, she said a couple of millimeters would change the FORDISC classification to male. When I first read Dr. Burns' paper on the web site I accepted that there is a possibility that the bones are Earhart's and I still hold that opinion. What bothers me about this thread is that in previous discussions where a contemporary source conflicted with a more recent source, Ric staunchly defended the contemporary source. Bases on what has been written previously, I would have expected a "close call" to go to the contemporary source. Except, apparently, for close calls that strongly support the working hypothesis. Mule **************************************************************************** From Ric I understand your concern but I really do think there is a difference between accepting the most original source for issues of "what happened" and using the best available analytical techiniques to evaluate the information in the original source. We've applied the very same standard to the questions involving of radio transmissions. We rely on original sources to tell us what people heard but use modern computer modelling to understand why and how they heard them. As Dr. Dan Postellon has pointed out, if Hoodless was an accomplished anatomist his measurements should be reliable but the forensic conclusions he drew from them may be less so. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:54:24 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO - M1 carbine > From Troy > > 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. The 5 and 10 round magazines are modern. New legislation passed in 1994 makes the manufacture of magazines of more than ten rounds for civilian use illegal. It's not illegal to have "high capacity" (hi-cap) magazines, or even to buy them, as long as they were made before 1994. Current manufacture hi-caps are stamped "for police or military use only". It is illegal for private citizens to own magazines so stamped. Consequently, new M1s as well as all semi-automatic rifles come with magazines of ten rounds or less (at least here in the U.S.). That means original hi-cap magazines currently sell for premium prices, as there is now a finite number of them. These magazines that attach to the bottom of the receiver should not be confused with stripper clips which hold five rounds and feed from the top of the receiver. The M1 has an attachment on the front of the rear site base for such stripper clips. I don't think the carbine version had that option (I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong - I used M14s in the navy). Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:01:46 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry In response to Chris Kennedy's latest, I could and probably should just say that I agree with Ric, which I do, but I can't resist elaborating a bit. Chris says: >FORDISC is simply not using the best bones to make the sex determination. Well, Chris, as we science types often say, "well, DUH!" You don't use what you don't got, and we don't got the pelvis. Chris goes on: >None of this was discussed in our report. Uh, no, I think we kinda thought it was obvious that what we didn't have wasn't subject to analysis. Chris goes on: >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. That's more or less true, depending on what shape the pelvic bones he looked at were in. It's odd that his notes don't contain any metrical data on the inominate that he must have looked at. I've forgotten most of what I ever knew about sex determination from bones, but there are quite standard measurements that one normally takes as a basis for inferring sex from pelvic bones, and he doesn't include them. So yes, he was looking at the best bones, but for some reason he either wasn't looking at them very rigorously, or didn't report it. I suspect that the inominate was too crab-chewed to make reliable measurements possible, but that's only a suspicion. Chris summarizes: >(1) So, as far as the sex determination is concerned, let's be clear that >that TIGHAR never saw the bones (Hoodless did), I rather thought that WAS clear. We hardly obfuscated the fact. >(2) TIGHAR's analytical tool doesn't even include the best bones for det- >erming sex (Hoodless looked at the best bones), See above >(3) TIGHAR' s work finds a very low certainty that the bones were female >(Hoodless was certain they were MALE) Yes, and as a dabbler in the law, I can be very certain about how a given law should be interpreted, but a professional like yourself, counsellor, with access to modern case law databases, is likely to have a much more authoritative opinion -- which I'll bet would tend to be more guarded, less absolute, than mine. I think that's a meaningful distinction between the Hoodless and Burns/Jantz analysis: Hoodless says he's certain; B&J (and FORDISC) say "we think it's likely." >(4) only "a couple of millimeters" separates TIGHAR's report from agreeing >with Hoodless that the bones were male, Sex differences in bones tend to be measured in millimeters; it's in their nature to be small and subtle. You'd prefer cubits? >(5) there is no discussion of whether this "couple of millimeters" in >FORDISC falls within a general industry measurement variance standard. I'm not altogether sure what you're getting at, here, but FORDISC is all about the application of standard statistical measures; if the "couple of millimeters" weren't statistically significant based on "industry standards," FORDISC shouldn't have come up with the diagnosis it did. Our paper was not an exhaustive description and rationalization of FORDISC (Jantz has published extensively on the subject). >(6) There is also no discussion of whether a "couple of millemeters" also >changes FORDISC's ancestry determination; Well, suppose a couple of millimeters would change the ancestry call from Nordic to Polynesian. So what? A couple more or less might change it to African, or American Indian, or Vulcan. We got measurements; we work with the measurements. Why in the world should we consider what might happen if we had some OTHER measurements? Where would one stop? The measurements might have been off by meters, kilometers; the castaway could have been a giant or a midget. What's the point? But no, Chris, I am not asking for your answers. I really don't think this is a useful argument, but when you impugn the integrity of the analysis that Burns and Jantz did and that Ric and I helped report, it's irritating enough to require some kind of response. After reiterating his arguments in the guise of "constructive recommendations" (Let's come out of the closet and admit what's perfectly obvious and has never been denied, that we're working with marginal data and therefore have ambiguous results), Chris goes on to moan that: > 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. And with THAT, Christopher, you go over the line. Just what do you think is "going on with the Seven Site?" I haven't seen you peering over my shoulder as I've sorted the bird from the turtle from the fish bone, nor have I seen you puzzling over the mapping data, the shellfish data, or much of the artifact data. But you feel quite free to jump to the conclusion that our analysis is going to be biased. OK, baby, let me tell you what I'm most afraid of that may bias our analysis: it's the possibility that we didn't collect consistent bodies of data from all the excavation units, which would make our comparative analyses questionable. And why do I worry about this? Because I repeatedly heard you joking over the screen about how silly it was to keep all these little bones and scales. Are all the little bones and scales really important? I don't know, but I do know that it was my job to collect as accurate a body of data as I could about the phenomena that make up the Seven Site, and it bothered me considerably to think that you either didn't understand or weren't concerned about this responsibility. To have you now not only presume to impugn Burns and Jantz' analysis in retrospect, but to prospectively impugn my analysis, really goes beyond the pale. Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Tom. That needed saying. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:05:04 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Artifacts O3A &B Something in my memory is nagging at me regarding these tabs with the screw and teeth, but I'll be darned if I can dredge it up. What does come to mind though, is that I seem to recall this type of hardware being used to hold something else in register. In other words, the adjustable part is kept from moving (sliding? rotating?) by engagement with the teeth on the tab. The hole certainly could fit over a pin, or be stabilized somehow. The bent one looks much too uniformly radiused to me to have been bent by accident, but who knows? ltm, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:06:28 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 No two part knobs, but look at the cap for the fuel compartment - it's got the pressure pump built right into the center. My Coleman lantern has something similar. The opening in my lantern is not all that large ( maybe slightly larger than a penny in diameter), and the cap is aluminum with a knurled rim. ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:08:08 EST From: Subject: Jon Watson Re: .22 casings My cartridge book (_Cartridges_, by Herschel C. Logan), shows the "U" indicates cartridges manufactured by the Union Metallic Cartridge Company, later Remington-UMC. We (the forum) looked up and discussed quite a bit of information on Colt .22's while you were galavanting around the South Pacific. Colt had two that might fit the bill. The Woodsman and the .22 Ace, which is essentially a Government Model 1911 in .22 caliber. I would speculate that it is most likely that Gallagher's was a Woodsman, which was more of a target pistol. I have the conversion kit for my Government Model, to switch it to .22, and would be happy to send you one or some cases for firing pin, extractor and ejector comparisons if you like. I don't have access to a Woodsman, but as I recall there were some out there who did. ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:12:57 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Artifact #2-6-5-46 > 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? Or maybe the microphone? I don't recall ever seeing earphones hanging up in the cockpit photos, but then I don't recall seeing the microphone hanging around either. I will go back and look through my pictures. Remember, the hatch was right over the pilot's head. ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:13:49 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Mystery G >From Ric > > 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. Sacrifice a small pig, burn the carcass, and then lose the bones. That should work. LTM (who apologizes for this. Really.) Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:16:49 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: M-1 carbine Interesting, the number of us who own or have owned an M1 carbine.. One of the nicest little firearms ever built.. Unfortunately I had to hand mine in for destruction when the gun laws were changed in Australia, but I still have magazines and ammo lying around the place.. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Don't anyone even THINK about launching that thread (and that goes for you too Mr. Heston). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:17:38 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: AE's frequencies Just out of curiosity, am I correct in thinking that a quarter wave antenna for 500kcs was about 468 feet? Or is this another bit of my Air Force radio theory I've forgotten over the last 25 years.... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:18:24 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: ARTIFACT INFO A small correction for Skeet Gifford, according to my Dept. of Army and Air Force tech manual dated 1953 The M1 and the M1A1 carbines used 15 round magazines. It was the M2 and M3 that used 30 round magazines because they could be switched to full auto fire. The only difference between the M1 and M1A1 was the latter had a metal folding stock with a wooden handgrip while the M1 had a fixed wooden stock. Both types of magazines were interchangeable. Chris in Petaluma (who also likes his WW2 I.B.M. M1 carbine) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:19:58 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: magazine capacity of .30 carbines I believe the rifle that used the stripper clip is the M1 Garrand and not the M1 carbine. I believe the Garrand was also a 30 caliber but had a more powerful load of gunpowder behind it, thus the shells were longer. Chris in Petaluma ************************************************************************ From Ric Wasn't the Garrand a .306? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:21:12 EST From: Denise Subject: The Word on Hoodless! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC says about Hoodless: "The guy may have been good, but I don't think he was perfect." Dennis, sweetheart, no one said the guy was 'perfect' ... they - his contemporaries - said he was 'a marvel'. And when you take into account the calibre of the people who found him 'a marvel' - who themselves would be seen as 'marvels' by we lesser mortals - I think we need to assume as a bottom-line that Hoodless was pretty damn special! Look, Fiji's ex-President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara - himself a giant among mere mortals and I'm not just referring to his height - was (until his calibre was realised and he was sent off to study at Oxford) one of Hoodless's medical students and, to this day, still considers Hoodless one of the best people he's ever known - and Mara's met just about EVERYBODY important in the entire world. I think that really says something; don't you! LTM (who once ranked Indira Gandhi, Margaret Whitlam (wife of former Australian P.M. Gough Whitlam) and Dr Hoodless as the three most personally impressive personalities she'd ever met ... and M. also had met just about EVERYBODY important in the entire world.) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:22:05 EST From: Denise Subject: Have you considered ... Ric says: "Short of finding the bones, I really don't see what more could be done." Well, I know nothing at all about forensic science, but even I can see two things which can be done ... 1) Find the photographs that Gallagher very likely took of the bones on their disinterment, and do some sort of superimposition computer-generated thingy looking for a match. 2) Find that tooth which went missing between Gallagher and Vaskass and DNA test it. See, easy peasy! Two perfectly viable options! Of course, I could be overlooking a thing or two when I call these operations "easy". LTM (who loved a challenge) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:24:15 EST From: Denise Subject: The Mysterious Vanishing of Noonan! Don Neumann says something that has suddenly struck me as very odd. He says: "in fact FN is never even mentioned in any of the correspondence (re: Earhart)" Don, this is so true. I've never noticed before, but in all the discussion I ever heard about Earhart as a child I never once remember Noonan's name mentioned. In fact, I was never given any reason to assume other than she flew alone on this trip. And I think you're right when you suggest "it must be a British thing!" The only reason I can think for this omission was that these good ex-pat folk would normally have considered it an impropriety for a young woman to travel unchaperoned with a young man and so unconsciously mentally edited Noonan out of the picture. Because everyone admired Earhart - thought her "a dashed fine lady" - it was just so much more convenient to have him not there than having to think about Earhart in terms of the moral issues involved. LTM (who herself never gave Noonan a moment's thought) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric It could also have something to do with Putnam doing his damndest to downplay Noonan's role. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:30:05 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Electra on reef A couple of points. Who on the Forum was it that searched the Winslow reef area and what area did they cover? (I've accidentally dumped a lot of old e-mail) Does the first round the world map mark Atafu and describe it as such? There are some excellent high definition pics of Earhart and the electra (including close-up of DF loop and attached cable) at http://www.atchison.org/Amelia/earhartgrp1.html I note that these are courtesy of Mrs Gabrielle Bresnik, widow of Earhart's official photographer. Perhaps she has other photos that might be of use. If we could ascertain when they were taken they may be of use regarding rivet spacing etc. I note from the report of Amelia's marriage that she had a platinum wedding ring but these pics show no sign of one. It would certainly be a useful identifier if ever found. Regards Angus **************************************************************************** From Ric Cam Warren visited Winslow Reef. He didn't recover anything as far as I know, except possibly from seasickness. We're very familiar with the Bresnick photos. None of the photos of Earhart taken during the World Flight that I have seen show her wearing any kind of jewelry except a wristwatch. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:48:52 EST From: Marty Joy Subject: Re: magazine capacity of .30 carbines Ref. Dennis McGee's recollections of the M1 Carbine: Methinks he is confusing the M1 Carbine with the M1 Garand. The "stripper clips" for the Carbine were made to fit on top of the magazine and load it by pushing down on the ammo. These ammo clips were normally carried in cloth "bandoleers." On the other hand, the clips for the M1 Garand were, as Dennis said, loaded into the top of the receiver into an internal magazine. And yes, they did make a distinctive "ping" when ejected with the last round. This "ping" also alerted the enemy that you had to reload. I've heard that the Marines in the Pacific Theater in WWII, used this to their advantage by "pinging" one of these clips by hand, against their rifle causing the enemy to expose himself. LTM ( Who is NEVER off topic) Marty Joy 0724C **************************************************************************** From Jeff Bolen I think you need someone who knows something about firearms. The M1-Garand did not use "stripper clips" It used a very unique "en bloc clip" It was a u shaped piece of steel which held 8 rounds in a staggered fasion, and the big complaint of combat troops who used it was the distinctive PING it made when the last round was shot and the clip was ejected from the rifle. The Garand does use the .30-06 cartridge, which was developed in 1906, hence the 06 designation. The military has used this cartridge in various firearms from 1906 until today. The predominate rifle in use in the 30's was the Springfield A303. This rifle uses the .30-06 cartridge and does use a 5 round stripper clip. The bolt is opened and the rounds are "stripped" from the clip into the magazine inside the rifle. The Garand was first developed in 1936, but wasn't redily available to the troops until the start of WWII. As far as I know there is no cartridge called a ".306". There are two that are close, one is the .303 enfield, in use during the 30's and the .308 which didn't see manufacture until the 50's. The base of the .308 and the .30-06 are identical, and both would fit into a .30-06 stripper clip. The .308 is a shortened version of the .30-06. The M1 Carbine was not developed until after the start of WWII. It was a replacement for the officers sidarm. It was distributed with a 15 round clip. It fires the .30 carbine round and is a straight walled cartridge, as opposed to the .30-06 which is bottle-necked. It is now sometimes used in handguns as well. The civilian version of the M14 is called the M1A It is not the original M1, and it has a guide for a stripper clip. The M1 Garand does not I hope this info helps. Jeff Bolen Florida *************************************************************************** From Ric My error. I had thought that the "aught six" in "thirty aught six" (.30-06) had to do with the diameter of the case. If we have a 5 round .30-06 stripper clip it sounds like we have evidence of the presence of a Springfield A303, which is rather interesting. I wonder if the Coasties in 1944 may have had an old Springfield or two. If the M-1 Carbine was only issued to officers, that really narrows down the identity of our Seven Site marksman. There was only one officer stationed at Unit 92 - Ensign Charlie Sopko. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:52:48 EST From: Dave Chase Subject: Re: The New Mystery Just a follow up on Randy's 'g' musings: Perhaps Gallagher found the skull and then dug some other test holes looking for other bones. Having no luck in the other test holes, he simply marked the location of the skull. On another subject: I'm assuming from the conversation about the thermos bottle that you do not have a picture of it? I could swear I saw a picture of it somewhere. If you confirm that you don't have one, Vanessa and I will bust open her research boxes and start looking! Dave Chase ***************************************************************** From Ric The other holes seem too widely scattered to be attempts to dig up other bones. Thermos bottles appear in several photos. The tricky part is finding one that shows a cup handle. I haven't had time to really look. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:54:22 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: The "knob" Did Irish have a metal telescope, microscope or binoculars with him on Gardner? The "knob" just might be an adjustment wheel of some sort rather than a lock-down for a sextant. Thanks, Lawrence ************************************************************** From Ric There's a list of Gallagher's personal effects on the website in the Document section. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:57:18 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry Pending Dr. Burns' availablity, something to remember is that the "couple of millemeters" qualifier (discussed in the following posting), and the fact that it swings the sex determination from female to male, was first raised by Dr. Burns, herself. It would seem to be unnecessary to the conclusion reached in the paper, yet for some reason Dr. Burns felt that it was important to bring it up. Anytime that the writer of a paper brings up issues that are technically not necessary to the result and would change the result, it raises a red flag. That is what got me to wondering whether forensic science, like most sciences involving measurement, has a generally accepted "standard of error" for measurements---that is, where a slight difference in measurement (here, a "couple of millimeters") brings about two totally different results (the change from female to male), the result is considered too close to call one way or the other, one is as likely as the other. Also, while Ric is correct that FORDISC contains many different racial data bases for purposes of ancestry determination, it is not a system where you just load in your numbers and come up with, ping, a winner---there is a subjective element in determining which of many "matches" is the best match. Also, ethnicities are not equally represented within FORDISC. As I appreciate it, the data base available on FORDISC of possible matches for Pacific Islanders is rather thin compared to other ethnicities. This complicates the FORDISC analysis of the Hoodless bones, and also increases the difficulty and importance of the subjective element in determining which is the "closest" match----you can see the difficulty of this analysis, yourself, by taking a look at Figure 1 to the TIGHAR analysis. Note the interesting (and quite diverse) alternative matches available in relatively equidistant proximity to the "Nikumaroro" skull. "Norse" is hardly the clear winner. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric This really is getting ridiculous. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:59:53 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Emergency radio Although there is no list of equipment AE and FN carried aboard the Electra, I was under the impression an inflatable raft, portable radio, and yellow signal kite (doubled as an antenna) was on board. George Putnam stated this in several interviews/statements with the press. Thanks, Lawrence ************************************************************************ From Ric Putnam, of course, was not with Earhart during the world flight. I think you'll find that kites were just kites, not radio antennas. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:02:05 EST From: Jeff Bolen Subject: Re: magazine capacity of .30 carbines I would bet the coasties had ONLY the bolt action Springfield, the Garands were reserved for the frontline troops, and the training of them. And I mistyped it, it's the 03A3, sorry.... The first model was the 03, made in 1903 and it used a .30 cal cartridge similar to a .30-06 but the army standardized on the .30-06 in 1906, and the Springfield was modified and then used .30-06 since then. The Garand was just being issued at the start of the war, so most troops in the field had the Springfield. As far as the .30 carbine some non-comms used it too, but not many. Also, remember the .30 carbine ammo was issued in 15 round magazines, not stripper clips, as well as the fact that a .30 carbine round would not fit in a .30-06 stripper clip. You can still find all this ammo and clips if you go to a gun show in your area. A lot of these dealers are also collectors and are a wealth of information. They will gladly answer any questions you may have, and maybe even have an example to show you. Jeff Bolen *************************************************************************** From Ric By coincidnece I just received the following snailmail letter from Unit 92 veteran Lou Pantages: Ric I have checked with several more CG's who served on Gardner but no one has a knowledge of any .22s. The guys all remembered their carbines, several Springfield .03s, some hand grenades (good for fishing) and the officers had .45s. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:03:08 EST From: R.L."Doc" Holloway Subject: Stripper clips Yes. The M1 Garand was indeed a .30-06 weapon. It was loaded using an eight round "en-block" clip that stayed in the rifle until the last round was fired, and then it was automatically ejected. My guess is that you have a five round stripper clip that was used with the bolt action, .30-06, U.S. Model 1903 Springfield rifle. LTM Doc ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:12:48 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re List of Equipment on Electra Roessler and Gomez,in AE, Case Closed?, list all of the Electra stuff from an inventory taken at Luke field in March 37 on the first Flight attempt. See p.173-180. Of course no such inventory exists for the second flight, but common sense would indicate that much of the same equipment, repair stuff, tools, etc., would have been in the Electra. It is a comprehensive list and Tighar would be looking for any of those items that may have been removed from the Electra by AE/FN on Niku. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric The list has been on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Luke_Field.html for years. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:13:37 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: The Word on Hoodless! The point is that Hoodless may have been a very special person, but that says nothing about his abilities as a forensic pathologist or anthropologist. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who was special.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:14:51 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry I vote that it's time this thread is buried. The bottom line is we have two different conclusions drawn by two different experts making judgements at two different time periods using the best information available to them. There is no way to prove, at this point, which of the two expert opinions regarding the bones is correct. Nothing more can be gained from flogging the poor beast further. Let's go on to more productive activities. blue skies, jerry *************************************************************************** From Ric I couldn't agree more. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:18:39 EST From: Craig Subject: Re: Emergency radio I would be surprised if AE had not carried a liferaft. If she did, and it contained an emergency radio, then would that radio be crystalled the same as the aircraft radio - to do so might be logical. As already discussed, 500kcs would not be much use as it was a maritime CW distress frequency. Incidentally, I am surprised that FN had trouble reading or sending morse - he was after all a 'sailor' and at that time morse was the most reliable and primary method of radio communication. *************************************************************************** From Ric Lots of things about the Earhart flight are surprising to many people. There was no liferaft aboard for the first attempt to fly to Howland Island. Neither was there an emergency radio. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:26:32 EST From: Ric Subject: A Tighter Forum This is to let everyone know that starting Monday, Dec. 3rd, I will be moderating the forum much more tightly in order to reduce the volume of postings for you to wade through and the time spent by me answering nonproductive speculation and questions that are already answered on the website. If your submitted posting does not show up on the forum you can assume that it did not make the cut. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:15:36 EST From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Officers at Unit 92 The muster roll for USCG Unit 92 also list as Commanding Officers Lt. George A. Finn, Jr., attached August or September 1945, detached March 1946 and Lt. Ralph A. Peterson, attached March 1946 and detached May 13, 1946, as the Station closed. Lee Boyle. *************************************************************************** From Ric I stand corrected. Thanks Chuck ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:32:37 EST From: Christian D Subject: Theodolite concentric knobs. > Spading replies: 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 Modern theodolites have 2 concentric knobs. Off hand I can't remember if one is a lock and the other one just a single speed -or if the 2 knobs can control 2 different speeds separately... Anybody knows when that technological arrangement first came about? I'll confess I don't know, but doubt it was a common arrangment in the 30's I think Ric had said the Niku knob seems to have had some mechanics down the center... I still think one should not dismiss the possibility it came from some pressure kerosene appliance just because it doesn't come from ONE particular Tilley lamp. There were several types of pressure parafin burner appliances, including cooking stoves, and like "Irish" own Coleman iron. I always thought Coleman was a US brand, by the way. Also, while that knob might have had the air pump piston rod going through it, it could also have had a tiny pressure relief valve instead, in the center, like an old stove I used to own. While a sepate pump was located elsewhere on the appliance. Ric: can you describe that artifact better? Are you positive there couldn't have been a thread on the inside surface, to make it into a cap? What is the "channel" you are mentionning? Just ONE single circular groove -like for crimping on something? Come to think of it: even the lack of a thread inside the thing doesn't disqualify it from coming from a pressure kerosene tank; this knob could have been brazed or crimped on an extension -or the cylinder of an air pump, with the thread and gasket on this extension... Christian D ************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds like we need to get more photos up on the website. - There are no threads on the inside. - The internal channel is a separate component inserted into the inside of the knob. It is a single cirucular groove which gives the impression that it once held a disk which rotated within it without causing the entire knob to rotate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:35:39 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: 2-6--S-45, The knob > 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. Very old sextants etc didn't have micrometer drums; they had instead an "interpolating subscale", the vernier, I believe it's called. Two questions: 1-when were micrometer drums introduced to sextants? 2-what type was the Florida sextant known to have belonged to Fred? Is the Niku knob similar, by the way? Regards. Christian D ************************************************************************** From Ric The Florida sextant was a Ludolph (Bremerhaven, Germany) dating from the first decade of the 20th century. Artifact -45 does not resemble any feature on that sextant. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:36:21 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Noonan and Musick > From John Dipi > > 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. I did, in 1996. Still there; but it seems to be beginning to work loose from the cement support. 'Hope nobody takes it away as a souvenir... Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:38:12 EST From: Christian D Subject: Lonely sextant box > From Phil Tanner > > 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? Another thought: Let's assume AE/FN salvaged the sextant and brought it to their camp; after quite a while in their ordeal they might have decided that the sextant had to be put on its own on the ground someplace, and the box used for a much more important function: with the major problem the crabs were, they might have used the box as a safe place to transport and save food items... You can't even leave food unattended in the open for 10min over there. The sextant box would have been one of the very few containers they had access to. This is one of the few simple reasons that could explain how a valuable sextant box came to be SEPARATED from its valuable sextant on the island of Nikumaroro... And while we are at it: once the sextant was laying in the dirt, and it was not going to be used again as a sextant, may be they started taking it apart in an effrort to make tools, etc. Use the telescope to start fires with the sun. Might also explain why someone might have found ONE piece of it in one place... Yes, a sextant INSIDE its box are quite valuable to ANYBODY -except perhaps, and only, to desperate castaways! Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:44:06 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry I think Chris Kennedy raises a few interesting points in his looong explanation. The "2 millimeters" question seems valid to me. If Kar was to measure, today, the skull (in the same condition it was for Hoodless) would her measurements be perfectly the same? The "tools" (or whatever...) could be different, applied differently, using different pressure, etc... The skull was very "weather beaten": was it a bit soft? Thinned by erosion? Also if FORDISC is just a database: how universal is it? Does it have a fair representation of Pacific Islanders? Let's say it was applied to the skull of a castaway who had drifted in a boat from the Marquesas... Would that mislead FORDISC into an erroneous determination, because its database doesn't know the first thing about Marquesan people? Hopefully Kar can give us some details, time permitting... Christian D. *************************************************************************** From Ric We're really not going to spend any more time on this. The paper stands as written. It does not pretend to draw firm conclusions. Anyone is free to accept or reject the likelihood of the bones being Earhart's. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:10:50 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Chronology of House built for Gallagher? > 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 You guys lost me... Obviously you have MUCH more documents than me: by coincidence I just received the "Shoes" book. I also have the recent "Conflict in Kiribati" by Peter McQuarrie. I just can't find the real dates when Kilts and Laxton did their observations, and the related document references... "Shoes" pg 117 says that Laxton reported in '49 seeing the sealed Loran buildings waiting to be dismantled... 1949 seems a bit late? Could he have taken his hike a few years earlier? Page 281 your book says that a USCG reference records Kilts as being on Niku in 46 to REPAIR an antenna tower... I don't have the San Diego newspaper article: is there a date as to when Kilts would have in fact dismantled the NIKU station? Come to think of it: what if all the stations were removed, except Niku's because the only access was trough the surf on the windward side? Peter in his book page 159, says the Loran was shut down soon after the last military transpac flight on Dec 3, 1945. With the stations decommisionned "soon afterwards". His reference is in the Kiribati National Archives. Everybody seems to assume that all was quickly removed after 1945, but is that documented? When was the LAST time that Kilts was on Niku? Any chance that all the stuff was just mothballed and never removed, much like on Kanton with the near new power station etc? Of course, now that I check this posting I come accross more "fabric rends'... Page 117 also mentions a Dr Richard Evans seeing a rain collector DURING the war ( I assume NO house?)... I suggest we rename this tank from "CT" to "Evan's". Then I also notice that Evans is told in 44/45 than the natives don't know the first thing about THIS tank!!! Did he check carefully with all of them? Did it look to him like an aircraft tank? Did he think "AE"? And then again: did he describe his tank in details? To me, his sketch page 118 shows a longish narrow tank, with the ROUNDED bottom corners -more like aluminum sheet. It needs to be propped by piles of rocks. Could the glass float shard tools have been used to cut open an aluminum tank? Now compare that to the Tarawa Police Tank (TPT for short?) found by Tighar, page 155: a cube 3ft to a side, made of riveted heavy iron! Do we indeed have 2 tanks in the same general area? Evan's is earlier and unknown from the natives? Hard to see that it could be AE's and it was not found during the Bone search by Gallagher -IF the bones were at the 7 site... But *soon-after-the-war* some of the natives take the site over, and build some simple house(s) nearby with their new TPT. Didn't Laxton get things rolling suddenly after the war? And he talks of "weekend houses" at times? Also as the Coasties are gone, they are free to settle closer to Ameriki -may be scrounge materials from the base? Evan's tank aluminum is more useful as sheet material back in the village, or something? If Gallagher had put his name on this plot of land before he died, then it is quite likely the natives would use his name to name the outpost they built there after '45 Did the Tighar archeologists manage to find the holes for the corner posts of the TPT? Is the pattern a long rectangle like in Evan's sketch on page 118? I'm sure I must have missed something quite basic by now and I'm waaaay out on a limb? (ie "galloping on a dead horse"?) Shoot guys! Regards Christian D. *************************************************************************** From Ric Let's take the various tank and house sightings and relate events chronologically. 1. Evans is there from the construction of the station in July '44 through (as I recall) December of '45. He thinks he and a couple of friends found the tank during an exploratory hike early in their stay on the island. Maybe September of '44. The tank he described is about the right distance from Unit 92 along the northern beach but seems to be closer to the beach and of a different shape than the tank TIGHAR found. He did not recall what it was made of. He made no mention of anyone target shooting. He thought it was a place where the natives came to do laundry. There was no thought of airplane parts or AE at the time. It was not familar to some of the natives who played baseball with the Coasties but Evans did not conduct any kind of extensive investigation. Herb Moffitt, who was with him, remembered that near the tank were bird bones and feathers, a fire site and a metal can with a wire handle. 2. Our next Coast Guard "tank witness" is Glen Geisinger whom I interviewed by phone just prior to Niku IIII. Geisinger arrived on Gardner in late 1945 and stayed though the closing of the station in 1946. He was a LORAN technician. Didn't explore much. Did not remember names of other veterans I mentioned nor did he remember Kilts. He has souvenirs acquired on Gardner with metal inlaid in a model canoe and other wooden items said to be from "a downed plane." (This matches Mims' story) I asked if it was his impression that the downed plane had been on that island or some other island. He said that he definitely had the impression that the downed plane had been on that island. He once saw a water holding tank that he thought might be an airplane fuel tank. It was "close to the Britsh end of the island" but not in the village. To get to the village you go left out of Unit 92 and drive up the shore across a lagoon passage that you can drive right across at low tide. To get to where the tank was you go RIGHT out of the station and go up that shore "at least a couple of miles". The tank was not out on the beach but back on higher ground. There were bushes around but he doesn't remember big trees. No buildings or anything else around it. The tank was "quite large", perhaps five feet long. He didn't remember if it was square or oblong. "I only saw it from one side." The tank was in active use for collecting rainwater. " One time of our boys put a .45 slug through one side of it and had to go back and fix it. I guess they patched it somehow." The tank at the Seven Site has two holes that were patched with bolts and washers. The holes line up and there was a .30 caliber carbine shell casing a few meters away along the suggested bullet trajectory. It appears that the Seven Site tank is the tank Geisinger remembers even though the distance from Unit 92, the size of the tank, and the type of gun used to shoot it are quite different. My own opinion is that the discrepancies between the tank at the Seven Site and Dick Evans' recollections are more likely due to the frailty of memory than the presence of a different tank. 3. Kilts was at Niku in May of 1946 to help secure the station after it was shut down. I don't know where the antenna repair story in "Shoes" came from. Kilts, of course, makes no reference to the tank. 4. Laxton visited the island in early 1949. There is no doubt that his account of seeing the "house built for Gallagher" dates from that time. 5. Apparently the U.S. had some intention to eventually recover the equipment that was secured in 1946 but that never happened. A 1955 article in Pacific Islands Monthly was headlined "Valuable Radio Equipment Rusts On Gardner Island." Excerpt - "Nearly ten years after VJ Day a great deal of valuable radio equipment and other machinery lies rusting in its buildings on Gardner Island, Phoenix Group - a part of the WPHC territory. The equipment is a complete Loran radio station, with several diesel generators to provide power, and other camp equipment, including several big refrigeration units. ... Whether the Americans wished the stations to be left intact in case of future trouble; or whether their disposal has been tied up with red tape may never be known. The Atafu station was finally purchased by the New Zealand Government and dismantled by a team under the the supervision of the Apia radio superintendent about three years ago - by which time much of the radio gear had suffered weather damage due to neglect. ...The Gardner buildings are no longer weather-proof and thousands of pounds worth of valuable dollar-source equipment appears likely to be left to perish. " It's apparent that the stuff was eventually liberated, appropriated, looted, salvaged (pick your verb) by the colonists because we see junk from the Loran station up in the post-Laxton era village - but it seems pretty clear that in 1949 when Laxton sees the "house built for Gallagher", the assumption was that the Yanks would be coming back for their stuff and, as late as 1955, it was still basically undisturbed. Makes you really wonder about Laxton. His "house built for Gallagher" does not seem to have been there just three years earlier. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:30:46 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: The New Mystery [To save time I'll answer Christian's questions as we go.] > From Ric > > Good thoughts Dan. There is a U.S. Navy survey marker set in a concrete > plinth up near the village. WOW! Why at the village??? When you say a Plinth, Ric, you mean as to mark an elevation? Is it fairly close to the water? Could there have been a tide gage nearby (it would have been surveyed into that Navy benchmark)??? Any chance there was tidal records made in '44/45? [From Ric: It's a concrete pillar about four feet high. Not close to the water. It's in the same location as the "observation point" in the map from the Bushnell survey. No sign of a tide gage. No record of tidal observations.] > The 1939 Bushnell survey erected three towers > along the north shore but none anywhere near the Seven Site. The map > produced from the Bushnell survey shows the tower locations and observation > points, but there is no "G" benchmark. Even if not Bushnell, it still can be later surveyors. Ric: are you saying you found the tower locations, and they had not put survey monuments of some sort in the center of the base? Strange. [From Ric: The tower locations are shown on a map from the survey. We found the concrete pads for the most northerly tower (up at the NW tip) in 1999. We didn't look for the others nor did we look for a survey marker at the center point.] Also: just checked a current topo map for Gardner. It shows 3 "Doppler Satellite stations", called: Gardner 2, about the sw corner of Ameriki. (could this be close to your helipad and jet fuel drums -AEs shoes page 93?) Gardner AZ, just a bit W of the center of Aukareime S ( I wonder how close this is to your site!) Gardner 1, at the very NE tip of the old village. Have you found any of them? No details on the topo, as to date established... I can only guess they were put in (in the 70s?) with the old "Transit" satellite system... I'd think whenever it was, those people would have been on the island for a few days. SAMTEC? [From Ric: Those "Doppler Satellite Stations" are from a 1985 Australian military survey. We found the Aukeraime South marker in 1991, almost completely washed away. We located the NE village marker on this last trip.] So why wouldn't a survey monument be next to the coral "G", or under it? Did you try a metal detector? May be some iron rod in the ground... What is the length of that "G" feature again? [From Ric: Yes, we metal detected all around that area. Just a few tiny rusty metal flakes on the surface a few meters away. No sign of a survey marker. The feature is about a meter tall by almost a meter wide.] > The depressions near the G are way > too small to be babai (taro) pits. We see several examples up on Nutiran and > in the village. What about the bigger holes? One is 9ft long by 2 deep: may be they were testing for a pit, and when they had'nt found sand and gravel at 2 feet, they were still in coarse rubble, they gave up? Babai is not the only veggie: they also dig smaller, shallower single holes for trees like breadfruits etc? [From Ric: There was only one bigger hole that I know of and that is the suspected "skull hole."] Regards Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:31:43 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Forensics Kar is far more knowledgeable about this than I, of course, but Karl Pearson's formulae were pretty much the industry standard in the osteology game in the 1940s, and were still being used (though supplemented by other stuff) when I learned what I did of osteology as an anthro student in the '60s. There's nothing wrong with them, but of course they were based on a much, much, much smaller data set than we have to work with today, and on a lot less detailed analyses, to say nothing of lacking access to the kinds of massive data-crunching computer-based analyses we have today. There's been a great deal of advance in osteological analysis in the last fifty years, based not only on computer technology but on the conduct (unfortunately) of many, many studies of genocide victims, where there's good controlled data on who the folks are you're digging up. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:37:21 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Atafu population Chuck -- Glad you're working on this. The absolute key question to try to get answered, I think, is this: were there people living on Atafu in July 1937, and if so, how many were there? *************************************************************************** From Ric Didn't we already establish that there were 300 and some people there in like 1934? I do think it would be interesting to know what name was shown for the island on maps available in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:38:36 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Polynesian vs Micronesian Marjorie -- You're right, Micronesians are different in all kinds of ways from Polynesians, though on the whole (particularly physically) there are a lot more similarities than differences -- and probably more differences WITHIN what we call Micronesia than between the eastern Micronesians and Polynesians. Linguistics, physical anthropology, and archeology over the last 30 years or so have led to the general conclusion that parts of Micronesia were settled in multiple waves out of SE Asia over the last several thousand years, and then by a sort of back-migration out of Polynesia during the great expansion that resulted in the settlement of Hawaii and Easter Island. I Kiribati and Marshallese people are generally more like Polynesians than, say, Yapese and Palauans. Linguistically, the I Kiribati and Marshallese are a good deal closer to Polynesian than they are to the western Micronesian languages (Palauan, Yapese, Chamorro). In terms of things like house styles, those in Kiribati and the Marshalls are at least as much like many Polynesian forms as they are like those in nuclear Micronesia -- where as you say there are some very distinctive types on places like Pohnpei. Anyhow, the Phoenix Islands were settled primarily by I Kiribati, who are Micronesian, but also by Tuvaluans ("Ellice Islanders"), who are Polynesian. I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between their house styles. Sometimes a low platform of coral rubble surrounded by low coral slabs, then posts or slabs to support a raised floor, with corner posts, a thatched roof, and roll-down matting walls. Gallagher's house in the village was a grand-style version, with a concrete floor and milled lumber used to frame the walls, as well as the massive concrete bathroom. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:39:34 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones analysis/Lines of Inquiry > How much that might make her pelvis appear more "male" is > outside my pay grade. > Kar Burns tells an amusing story about taking the bones of a bag lady she'd known as a living breathing bag lady, and laying them out in front of a bunch of her colleagues, most of whom unhesitatingly identified them as those of a male. Sexual differentiation is no more a black and white matter in the skeleton than it is in any other aspect of physiology or psychology. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:42:49 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: 2-6-S-46, cup handle Walking through San Francisco International Airport yesterday, where there's an exhibit on "car culture," I saw a boxed set of auto-picnic equipment, no date but certainly no later than the '50s, that contained nested food service containers, kind of like mess kits, with lock-over handles that looked a lot like 2-6-S-46. I was just passing through; maybe someone in the neighborhood would like to look into this one. TK **************************************************************************** From Ric Aargh! You didn't smash the glass and collect a sample? You could have gotten out of the terminal by running down the up escalator and losing yourself in the crowd. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:44:25 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: A Tighter Forum Thank you. If there are things that need answering off-forum so people won't feel completely unresponded-to, or for other reasons, I'd be happy to help. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. I'll let you handle the bone measurement questions. :-) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:47:21 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: DNA ? It just came to me last night that a DNA match may be available to you. One of the artifacts that you found appeared to be a makeshift shoe from roofing material and some sort of padding - if the padding was next to someone's skin it will contain shed skin, therefore, it will contain DNA. Now, if its still viable after 60 years, I don't know, but the padding is still there, so maybe there is a chance. Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Dr. King thought of that and we've been very careful to avoid contaminating the artifact (such as by handling it without gloves). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:53:40 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Bevis Report Analysis I compared the Bevis report to the complete radio message database of Itasca and Howland Island, and my comments are below. Original message paragraphs start with ">>" >>Shortly after 11pm 2 July 37 (LA time, GGT-8= 07CGT 3JUL37, Howland +3:30= 19:30 2JUL37, trip-hour 31), a weak signal was received on 6210kc, not understood. On another radio receiver set tuned to 3105kc in the same room, they heard two distinctly separate signals they say were from the Itasca and from the plane; apparently not hearing each other. [Itasca ship's log indicates searching near Howland at that time. I do not have Itasca radio log information for that time.] Randy: First, the time zone transcription is wrong. LA is +8, Howland is +10.5, and Itasca is +11.5. During the time cited, no transmissions from Itasca on 3105 or 6210. Itasca was monitoring the PBY plane flying down from Hawaii. Itasca was also monitoring 3105 and 6210, but heard nothing during this time. >>Early the morning of 3JUL37 (LA time) McMenamy & Pierson heard a distress signal on one of those frequencies, that McMenamy positively identified as being "...from the plane, poorly sent". All three radio operators now present in the room "state that this first SOS signal was repeated over and over again for about five minutes". Further distress calls and garbled attempts to give position were received until about 9am (06:30 Howland time). Some signals were sufficiently loud to be heard on the loudspeaker. Randy: No start time for this sequence of radios, but we do know that Itasca never heard an SOS, nor did anyone else. >>On 3July 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." Randy: Well, this is interesting, as we have a good set of actual transmissions made in message traffic. First, the Achilles only reported that this was said at "0600GMT/3", not 11:30 AM. This report is well documented. >>Later, the Government San Francisco monitoring (receiving) station made several receptions with their antenna that was beamed to the pacific. The more credible (my opinion) were: 4JUL37 shortly before midnight (about Howland 9pm) Itasca was heard calling the plane, asking for an answer. Randy: Itasca broadcast on 3105, 6210, and 7500 at 0730, 0745, 0800GMT, respectively, repeating the cycle. Midnight Pacific time is 0800 GMT. >>Shortly after a carrier was heard on the Earhart frequency and this was reported 15 to 20 minutes past each hour until 9:05 the next morning 5JUL37 (Howland 5:35am). That same morning, McMenamy et al telephoned (to the monitor station?) to say that they picked up more Earhart signals - the "first in two days". They reported hearing the Itasca call Earhart, and also definite answering signals from the plane, the last of which ended "in a decided sputtering". Randy: 0905 Pacific is 1705GMT. Nothing in the radio logs resembling this, including any transmissions from Itasca. >>At 6:17 the same morning (Howland 02:47 5JUL37) the monitor heard Itasca call KHAQQ, and a man's voice answered on the Earhart frequency. Only one word, "one", was distinguishable. The "Press Wireless" also reported hearing signals which they could not identify on the Earhart frequency. Randy: 617AM Pacific is 1417 GMT/5. No calls made by Itasca during this time. >>Howland Island (Itasca?) reported that same morning at 10:43 (5JUL37, but who's location?) hearing "KHAQQ" quoting a bearing of 281 degrees - with no reference & hence of no use. Pan American Airways also the same morning heard apparently the same signal on which they found a bearing of 155 degrees from Wake Island. Randy: Two reports of bearings were made by Howland: both NNW or SSE (no degrees given) at 1105GMT/5 and 0812GMT/6. Wake Island's report was of 155 degrees at 1236GMT/5. >>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.) Randy: 0330 Pacific is 1130GMT/6. Itasca hears code on 3105 at 1111-1112GMT. During 1130GMT, Howland reports interference from a Japanese station, and can't make out the signals. >>The next morning (7JUL37) McMenamy and Pierson heard their last sounds from the Earhart frequency, a rippling carrier at 1:22am (Howland 9:52pm). This same effect was heard by Honolulu amateur stations from 9:17pm to 10:37pm (Howland 8:47pm to 10:07pm) the same day. Randy: 122AM Pacific is 0922GMT/7. Itasca is no longer tranmitting, and nothing was heard at Howland during this time. Randy's conclusions: This is an excellent example of how data gets distorted over time (wrong time zones, bearings, etc.). Almost all of the message traffic (e.g. Achilles, Pacific Coast beaming onto Itasca, etc.) was part of unencrypted radio traffic sent to/from Itasca from CG Radio Station in San Francisco, and any amateur would be able to read those messages. I think Pierson and McMenamy were listening in to the CG and Navy message traffic, and putting various pieces of the puzzle together (e.g. time zones, 281 degrees from another message (purported to be from Earhart) with a bearing from Howland, and Wake Island bearings being wrong. Perhaps much of the information was available in the newspapers. It's a shame we don't have Pierson's and McMenamy's radio logs. In truth, I don't think we can give much credence to the Bevis Report, as it is rife with known errors. The sections that are not substantiated, therefore, could hardly be taken as truth. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Randy. The Messier message looks like it be worth trying to authenicate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:56:13 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Holes Don Neumann said "I was also impressed with the depth of the 'gravesite' holes you dug out, (About two feet deep?)..." If you liked that one, you should see the crater that Gary Quigg, Bill Carter, and others dug at the suspected grave site up near the Norwich City. I believe it finally topped out at 2 meters wide, 3 meters long, and 2 meters deep. Moving 12 cubic meters of sand & coral rubble was no small task, and when we found nothing, we had the pleasure of shoveling it all back into the hole. Ric, you really should put one of those pics up on the website to show everybody how much fun it was. Andrew McKenna 1045 CE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:00:19 EST From: Bill Carter Subject: Ponds at SE tip When John and I were surveying the remains of the Loran Station on September 11, we walked past the large roundish sunken area that was devoid of vegetation and had some small pools of water in it. (I took a photo of this area). The ground is dark brown almost black with what I believe is (or was told) was some sort of fungus growing here. This area also appears as a large brown patch on the sat photo. The area could (and probably does) hold rainwater during a large rainstorm but the area is positioned such that the primary source of water is overflow from the lagoon and my guess is that most of the water in this area is salt water. Remember that for mosquitoes to breed and live they need pools of fresh water. There are no mosquitoes on Niku. Bill Carter #2313CE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:12:23 EST From: Gary Fajack Subject: Curious dumb question Why was so little time spent on Niku field work? Was this purely a budgetary constraint or were other factors involved. It seems that there was not enough time to do all that needed to be done this time around. Gary Fajack ************************************************************************** From Ric More field work was accomplished on this expedition than on any previous trip. For 21 days the team worked their asses off in very uncomfortable and, at times, dangerous conditions. Twenty-one days was roughly twice the length of most previous stays at the island, and you are correct, there was not enough time to do all that needed to be done. There never is. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:14:15 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Theodolite Knobs Ric wrote: >Does the knob [on my theodolite] look like an exact match >[to 2-S-6-45] or just the same sort of thing? It is the same sort or thing. It is not an exact match. I checked a friend's theodolite that is much newer than mine. It also has these types of knobs... in other words....knobs that resemble little bowls (if you ignore the shaft component). His knobs are not an exact match either...they are also plastic while mine are brass.... but then my theodolite was made in the 1930's of 40's. In comparing these knobs to pictures of the artifact...it appears that the artifact could be from a scientific instrument of some kind. By the way, the knob that resembles -45 is attached to what is called a "tangent screw" on a theodolite. >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). This is good information and you make some good points. However, We have to examine all the artifacts in the context of when they were found....in this case the year 2001. The artifact could have been lost/discarded any time time period prior to 2001 either before or after the Gallagher period. LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric Very true. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:17:30 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Atafu population > From Ric > > Didn't we already establish that there were 300 and some people there in like > 1934? I do think it would be interesting to know what name was shown for the > island on maps available in 1937. Yup - 378 people in 1936, says the British Naval Intelligence Division's 1943 handbook, which also uses "Atafu" almost exclusively in its text and on its one very small map. "Duke of York" seems to feature only as a name the island was given by the first European in those parts. But this only answers half the question, IMHO - did they land at Atafu? Pretty well inconceivable if there were almost 400 people there. But as to whether they landed on Gardner having initially thought it was Atafu/Duke of York - conceivable, particularly keeping in mind (as I sometimes fail to) that the one absolute is that they were lost, or they would have found Howland. If they knew Atafu was populated, it might have made them more inclined to put down, and maybe the Gardner shipwreck in its 1937 state would have suggested a populated island? LTM (who was six in 1937) Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric Makes me wish I had time to cruise some antique map stores and figure out when Duke of York became Atafu. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:20:14 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: 2-6-S-46, cup handle Ric said: "Herb Moffitt, who was with him, remembered that near the tank were bird bones and feathers, a fire site and a metal can with a wire handle." A wire handle? Hmmm, sounds familiar. Could this be artifact 2-6-S-46? LTM, who's wired real tight today Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Angus Murray >Herb Moffitt, who was with him, remembered that near >the tank were bird bones and feathers, a fire site and a metal can with a >wire handle. Is this is can the origin of 2 6 S 46 perhaps? Dejeuner sur l'herb? It seems far more likely to me that this was some kind of locally made handle than anything associated with AE. ************************************************************************* From Ric I don't think so. The impression I got was that what Herb saw was a can with a jury-rigged piece of wire to serve as a handle like the hoop-shaped "bail" on a bucket. Artifact -46 is obviously a manufactured item. ************************************************************************* From Tom King > Aargh! You didn't smash the glass and collect a sample? You could have the > gotten out of the terminal by running down the up escalator and losing > yourself in the crowd. I'll try that on the way back. Maybe if I disguise myself in a burkah..... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:23:21 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Re: Glass Floats Ric said: >We try, but we're not perfect. It would be foolish to think otherwise. My point is...a Niku float may have beem recovered and might prove useful for comparison to some of the Niku4 artifacts. KS *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. Trouble is, I don't know who might have a float. Thems as collect souvenirs don't advertise that to the boss. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:28:02 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Funafuti, 1938 Chuck B wrote quoting Peter Mc.: >The first record of planes in the area that I have is Earhart and Panam >survey flights, both in 1937. Then there was a flight in Tuvalu >(Funafuti only) in 1938. Then the next record I have is April - June 1941 in >the lead up to WWII.. Who flew to Funafuti in 1938? LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************************ From Ric I believe that Emily Sikuli told us that a British warship visited Funafuti (where she lived before moving to Gardner) in 1938 and sent its float plane ahead to prepare the way. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:29:52 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Gender and Shoes Jim P wrote: >The type and size of the >shoes does not seem to be enough to determine the sex of the bones and there >were more than one pair. There is anecdotal evidence that the gender association (female) with the shoe parts was determined based on the height of the heel. Gallagher may have assumed, based on his experience in a western culture (England), that a shoe with an elevated heel would have been worn by a woman. This anecdote is the only lead we have of how the female tag was put on the shoe parts. LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************************** From Ric What anecdotal evidence is that? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:32:30 EST From: Craig Subject: Point of Interest Pardon me if this is commong knowledge, but I found a picture today that shows Amelia and Fred standing next to one another. http://www.inca-productions.com/Amelia/photo1-small.gif We often make comments about how small and "non-typically female-shaped" (as P.C. as I can get) Amelia was, but in this picture, she looks beefy compared to Fred. I had not realized how thin he was. Craig ************************************************************************** From Ric That photo was taken in Bandoeng, Java about ten days before they disappeared. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:35:17 EST From: Craig Subject: 1937 Pics One last thing about pictures. Do we have a concept of how many exist from the last flight (that we know about)? Does TIGHAR have a CD or anything containing such pictures? I've been trying to compile as many as I can from the last flight, in case some day we need them to identify an object combed from the Seven Site. Is every photo showing both AE and FN in frame from the actual last flight, or were there promo photos done previous to the flight itself? Thanks, Craig *************************************************************************** From Ric The best source is the Purdue University website at http://www.lib.purdue.edu/earhart/images/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:41:07 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Chronology of House built for Gallagher? > I don't know where the antenna repair story in "Shoes" came from. Answer: The Unit 92 Station log at the National Archives reports a group including Kilts arriving from Kanton to repair the vertical radiator, which was one of the antennae. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric Doesn't it seem odd that they were repairing stuff that was about to be dismantled? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:43:18 EST From: Alexander Subject: Atafu research prt1 duke of york island... http://www.multimap.com/index/pp27.htm http://www.meltours/divesites_rab.html these links have maps and also tell u what it is like underwater. Atafu: dubbed DUKE OF YORK ISLAND by its first european visitor british commodore JOHN BYRON. Atafu is the smallest and northern most of the TOKELAUS 3 atolls Which has 42 islets which measure 3.5SQ KM. The population is around 500(1997).protestant ATAFU is the more traditional with rationed alcohol sales and a reliance on old style dug out canoes. The houses are more traditional due to their prized supply of KANAVA(wood), these houses are slowly being replaced by CYCLONE-PROOF CONCRETE & CORRUGATED-ROOFED housing.The wet season is between OCT~MAR and on average 350cm (12ft) of rain falls in a NORMAL year. The U.S whaler GENERAL JACKSON visited the area in 1835(FAKAOFO). The islands were annexed by BRITAIN in 1889 & incorperated into the GILBERT and ELLICE islands(now KIRIBATI & TUVALU) in 1916 by which time they known as THE UNION GROUP. The island has been administered by N.Z since 1925.the name TOKELAU ISLANDS was given in 1946.its a POLYNESIAN word meaning NORTH WIND...more to come but i need arest as i dont have keybord!imagine dreamcast type inut on a digibox...more ltr)--- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:44:12 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Curious dumb question A little more in response to Gary's question, which suggests that some people may not know how TIGHAR expeditions work. We're all volunteers, Gary, which means that most of us have to take time off from our day jobs. That creates one time constraint. Another is that Nai'a (or any other vessel) can only carry provisions for a certain number of people for a certain number of days. A third is that Nai'a (or any other vessel) costs a helluva lot to charter. The result is that three weeks or so on-island, with anywhere from six to ten days in transit to and fro, is about all we can cobble together, however much we'd like to do more. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:46:38 EST From: Tom MM Subject: 2-6-S-45 I don't see the piece given as 2-6-S-45(? I think) as a part of a two part sextant micrometer drum, but here is an example of such. The Cassens and Plath Horizon Ultra sextant at http://www.landfallnavigation.com/-nhu01.html This ad has a good photo, but does not tout the special feature. Other than Cassens and Plath sextants, I have not seen this available today (but I'm not a sextant historian). I do not know when this feature was introduced, but you might be able to find out from them whether this or anything like it was in production prior to 1937. This feature allows removing the index "error" (or zero offset) from the sextant without adjusting the mirrors. This is a convenience, not a necessity, and does not impact the accuracy of the sight when accounted for in the sight reduction. I have a simpler modern sextant with a standard drum, as well as a late 1800's vernier sextant which to this day is very accurate (in my view the biggest advance since then has been modern optics). Neither have anything like 2-6-S-45 (?). My guess is that such a system would have been a harder sell when equipment had to be affordable, simple and robust. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:51:15 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Ponds at SE tip I'm surprised no Tighar tasted the water. I, for one, always do. And, as well, I wouldn't disregard Laxton too easily: at the time that kind of knowledge was essential to them; I'm sure he must have checked whatever he stated. Although this is not all that important. Regards Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:50:16 EST From: Craig Subject: Re: Chronology of House built for Gallagher? > ...Glen Geisinger... > > He has souvenirs acquired on Gardner with metal > inlaid in a model canoe and > other wooden items said to be from "a downed > plane." (This matches Mims' story) Dumb Question of the Day: Has anyone seen or photographed these souvenirs to authenticate what they might be? Craig *************************************************************************** From Ric I haven't seen Geisinger's but I've seen souvenirs such as he describes that were collected by other veterans who were on the island. Typically they are kanawa wood boxes and canoes with little pieces of inlaid aluminum. Yes, we've had examples of the aluminum tested. It's aircraft aluminum (24ST Alclad) but there's no way to tell what airplane it came from. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:56:09 EST From: Doug Rainger Subject: Atafu or Duke of York? As any rational person would do at a time such as this, I turned to my 1936 edition of "Rand McNally World Atlas, International Edition," in which I find a speck named "Atafu" (not Duke of York) as part of the "Union Group" belonging to New Zealand. However that is the total amount of information on both the island and the group in this volume. ********************************************************************* From Ric Interesting. Of course, I have a modern globe on my desk which shows "Gardner Island." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:02:54 EST From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Rain water... > There are two ponds where Laxton was, down at the southeast tip - a big one > that dries occasionally 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? Yes, the water in the ponds is definitely tidal, following the lagoon level. Because of the high tides, this last trip, we were able to observe the level changes in the ponds. John ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:04:08 EST From: Stuart Subject: Re: Point of Interest > I found a picture today that shows Amelia and Fred standing > next to one another. On the same web site there is another photo of an Electra (THE Electra?) flying over scattered cloud, and apparently over the ocean, with the camera looking almost directly into the sun. It gives you a pretty good idea of how difficult it would have been to spot a small island under those conditions, even if it was pretty close. The only problem is that the photo is REALLY minute, but it does give you some idea of how tough it would have been. http://www.inca-productions.com/Amelia/photo2-small.gif Stuart ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:44:04 EST From: Christian D. Subject: THREE tanks?!?!? >From Ric: > > Let's take the various tank and house sightings and relate events chronologically. > > 1. Evans is there from the construction of the station in July '44 through > (as I recall) December of '45. He thinks he and a couple of friends found > the tank during an exploratory hike early in their stay on the island. > Maybe September of '44. The tank he described is about the right distance > from Unit 92 along the northern beach but seems to be closer to the beach and > of a different shape than the tank TIGHAR found. He did not recall what it > was made of. He made no mention of anyone target shooting. He thought it was > a place where the natives came to do laundry. There was no thought of > airplane parts or AE at the time. It was not familar to some of the natives > who played baseball with the Coasties but Evans did not conduct any kind of > extensive investigation. Come to think of it: we can't completely discount that a non-TPT tank might have been set up by a bunch of Coasties at a picnic site, at one time -and then forgotten... It sure looks like personel was rotated rather often during those 2 years.. > Herb Moffitt, who was with him, remembered that near > the tank were bird bones and feathers, a fire site and a metal can with a > wire handle. > > 2. Our next Coast Guard "tank witness" is Glen Geisinger whom I interviewed > by phone just prior to Niku IIII. Geisinger arrived on Gardner in late 1945 > and stayed though the closing of the station in 1946. He was a LORAN > technician. Didn't explore much. > Did not remember names of other veterans I mentioned nor did he remember > Kilts. > He has souvenirs acquired on Gardner with metal inlaid in a model canoe and > other wooden items said to be from "a downed plane." (This matches Mims' > story) > I asked if it was his impression that the downed plane had been on that > island or some other island. He said that he definitely had the impression > that the downed plane had been on that island. > He once saw a water holding tank that he thought might be an airplane fuel > tank. It was "close to the Britsh end of the island" but not in the > village. To get to the village you go left out of Unit 92 and drive up the > shore across a lagoon passage that you can drive right across at low tide. > To get to where the tank was you go RIGHT out of the station and go up that Ric, you mean the TPT, here??? > shore "at least a couple of miles". Ric: WHO is saying "a couple of miles"? > The tank was not out on the beach but > back on higher ground. There were bushes around but he doesn't remember big > trees. No buildings or anything else around it. The tank was "quite Interesting it could have been a tank alone? No rain catchment? Or there had been one earlier, but it was gone in 46? > large", perhaps five feet long. He didn't remember if it was square or > oblong. "I only saw it from one side." > > The tank was in active use for collecting rainwater. " One time of our boys > put a .45 slug through one side of it and had to go back and fix it. I > guess > they patched it somehow." > The tank at the Seven Site has two holes that were patched with bolts and > washers. The holes line up and there was a .30 caliber carbine shell casing > > a few meters away along the suggested bullet trajectory. It appears that the > Seven Site tank is the tank Geisinger remembers even though the distance from > Unit 92, the size of the tank, and the type of gun used to shoot it are quite > different. Ric I have to disagree here!!! For what I can tell from my laptop screen, until we can tell better we HAVE to take Geisinger's tank as separate. The only common details with the TPT is being shot up; all the other details point in a different direction. Whether there was one or 3 or 10 unattended tanks out in the bush, ALL of them were fair game to kids carrying guns, (and in 1946 they were shutting 'er down, leaving for good)... It's quite possible that the colonists had set up a couple of rain catchments, at weekend camps... 1---we postulate a plane got trashed on that island; so one or more of its tanks might have been discovered by the colonists somewhere and put to use in the early 40's... If not done previously by AE/FN... 2---55 gal drums are all over the place. Still, neither Evans or Geisinger use that simple easy and obvious description... 3---AND, VERY important, it seems to me: in 1996, on the TPT, Tighar could read a dim "Tarawa Police"... I'd say: somewhat unlikely that half a century earlier, neither Evans or Geisinger had been struck by those nicely painted names. > My own opinion is that the discrepancies between the tank at the Seven Site > and Dick Evans' recollections are more likely due to the frailty of memory > than the presence of a different tank. Concerning Geisinger recollections: he didn't "explore" much, but seems to be familiar with the village, possibly went there to acquire the souvenirs he does have, and the village could be *driven* to, part-ways if I remember correctly... While the TPT is reached by *hiking* up the wild windward coast... Seems to me there is a slight probability Geisinger is indeed talking about taking "LEFT" on the way to the village when he saw *his* tank... So for what I know, I'd say there might be 3 interesting tanks in the late 40s. And, no, I don't know how to test that hypothesis either -besides more look-see and more digging... > Makes you really wonder about Laxton. His "house built for Gallagher" does > not seem to have been there just three years earlier. By the way: I also have questions about the "1941" clearing shown in the PBY-taken air photo (page 150 of Tom King's "Shoes" book)... Like what is the difference between that clearing and the Seven site??? Also, Tom describes it as a 300ft strip along the ocean shore. Laxton specifically describes his clearing as crossing the land from shore to shore!!! So, if that big clearing was there in 41, with the TPT (?), Evans tank, "in the bush", might have been SE of there, closer to 92 (or may be even further away NW?) Also, if Evans tank is in the brush, it is less likely that that site was much used as a target range. By the way: at the Seven, can Tighar see what were the targets being shot at? Birds, trees?... Regards Christian D. *************************************************************************** From Ric We at first shared your feeling that Geisinger's tank was different from Evan's tank and the Seven Site tank, mostly because he placed it two miles up the northern shore from the Loran station. We examined the satellite photo carefully in that general area, could see an odd light-colored spot, and sent a team into that area to investigate. It's very thick going in there and we can not say that a thorough search was made, but neither did they come across any tanks. When we found that the Seven Site tank had what appear to be patched bullet holes, I (for one) became convinced that everyone was talking about the same tank. Regarding targets at the Seven Site: Among the artifacts we collected are two pieces of a broken stoneware dinner plate with a reddish brown edge design. One of the pieces also has the USCG logo incorporated in the design. We also have three other pieces of broken stoneware plate or plates, but with no design. It seems like a fairly safe assumption that the Coasties brought plates, perhaps already cracked or broken plates, from the mess hall to use as targets. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:45:24 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Holes > Moving 12 cubic meters of sand & coral rubble was no small task, and when we > found nothing, we had the pleasure of shoveling it all back into the hole. > > Ric, you really should put one of those pics up on the website to show > everybody how much fun it was. > > Andrew McKenna 1045 CE This is kind of interesting: were those 12 cu m a redig of an ancient hole -ie somewhat softer/looser material than in "virgin" ground? Then the Kanton dump might be doable without too much heavy machinery. May be just a few come-along and standard chainsaw-powered winches, to move truck frames and so on... This year I saw people dig a babai pit on Xmas, as far as I know original ground of hard packed coral sand and rocks... They were rather casual about it and slow... But then they used only pic and shovel; and I thought how a motorized post hole digger would have been of immense help to them. Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:48:38 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Atafu or Duke of York? There are several islands called "Duke of York", which may be why the island is listed as Atafu to prevent any confusion. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(who marched right up the hill, and marched back down again) ************************************************************************ From Alexander CONTINUED...(in my last post i made ref. to CORRUGATED-ROOFING would this describe the structure you found?) Tukelauans are POLYNESIAN, closely related to TUVALUANS, SAMOANS and COOK ISLANDERS. The sprinkling of european surnames is the legacy of the whalers and beachcombers who visited in the late 19th century. Their subsequent intermarriage has led to todays TOKELAUANS being described as AN IMPROBABLY BIZARRE GENETIC MIXTURE (what would this mean for the bones, would it change any data?) ATAFU wildlife is limited to RATS,LIZARDS,MOSQUITOES and BUGS,VISITING SEA BIRDS,DOMESTICATED PIGS AND PAULTRY. did anyone know that THE DUKE OF YORK had a hand in buying MANHATTEN in NEWYORK from the dutch and controlled all the land !! which brings us to the notebook,did ae know history if so d.o.y island = the duke of york = the guy who had NEW YORK CITY named after him,anyone follow my logic with this?...some more links... ATAFU: http://www.thenewforestnet.co.uk/alternative/newforest~alt/dec1sinkingisl.htm [the squiggle is either "-" or "~" ] GEORGE RAPER: http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/georgeraper/timeline/chronology-print.html also atafu is known as a UFO hotspot but its off topic unless you go the abduction route(?!!) ISLANDS: now then i noticed the name GARDNER on this link which contains maps and local names but with me only having net capabillities i had probs... http://www.galapagos.to/table-2.htm on my search i found 103000 sites and read through 200 for these posts,so if this info is any good to you i will continue with the research...im going now as its taken 2hrs with this remote to type this...thanks for reading my findings....alex(who now has stumps for fingers,but knows its worth it) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:57:31 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Clips, Theodolites Ric wrote: >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. Thus attached, the block of >wood can be rotated through a small arc to help hold the sextant securely in the box. The wooden box (with dovetailed joints) that houses my theodolite contains wooden, felt covered blocks, held down by scews. You rotate the blocks to release whatever it is they are holding down (accessories etc.). LTM Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:58:29 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: cup handles Tom K wrote: >I saw a boxed set of auto-picnic equipment, no >date but certainly no later than the '50s, that contained nested food service >containers, kind of like mess kits, with lock-over handles that looked a lot >like 2-6-S-46. o-k, yea, that's similar to what I remember...and now that you mention it...my memory connects them with with camping trips, I recall two styles 1. a tin cup with a looped wire handle...I think the handle could be folded over to fit inside the cup when it was stored 2. and a plastic "insulated" cup with a looped wire handle these types of wire handles may also have been used on frying pans and the like I will look around for an example LTM Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:07:52 EST From: Craig Subject: Take Off Video I was wondering if you could give me a bit more information about the Lae '37 take-off video. Did the EAA dub ALL of the original film, or do we have any speculation that there was more to the original then made it to the dub. Do we have any hope to find the original film? I assume the video version you have is of higher resolution then that on the web. It is available in any of TIGHAR's packages? Was there a report put together from the digital analysis of the video? I promise, I don't want to put it through the wringer - I'm just interested to know what was done and what the findings said, because I'm working a on my graduate degree in a similar area of study... Thanks, Craig *************************************************************************** From Ric The EAA dubbed everything that was on the film they had. There has been much debate about whether that film was the entire original film or edited cuts. My opinion is that it was the entire film. Is there any hope of ever finding the original? I guess there is always hope. We have a Beta SP dub of the video master made by EAA. We haven't made it available on VHS but I guess we could if there was enough interest. The research bulletin "The Lost Antenna" http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/20_LostAntenna/20_LostAntenna.html contains a final opinion letter from Jeff Glickman at Photek but that references a still photo we received that supplements the earlier work he did on the video. If you like, I can put you directly in touch with Jeff. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:08:57 EST From: Van Hunn Subject: Re: Ponds at SE tip In reference to the ponds at SE tip, Christian D wrote: <> Surely he is joking about doing taste-tests on strange bodies of water. The small amount of water in the shallow pond was the color of coffee, while water in the pond with fish was the color of dark tea. I agree with John that both ponds are tidal and salty. I believe both ponds are also overwashed by the lagoon during very high tides or storm surges. Van ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:10:30 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Atafu >From Ric >Makes me wish I had time to cruise some antique map stores and figure out >when Duke of York became Atafu. This page seems to have the most Atafu information of the several sites I "surfed" to. http://www.janeresture.com/tokelau_islands/atafu.htm Here is Jane's index page: http://www.janeresture.com/index.htm She has tons of Kiribati links. FYI from http://www.btinternet.com/~musyat/cook/pac_nz.html Byron's expedition came across uninhabited Atafu on 24th June 1765, and although they could get no anchorage, they sent the boats onto the atoll in order to collect coconuts. The crews of both the Dolphin and the Tamar were suffering badly from the scurvy at this time. With great difficulty they managed to bring 200 coconuts to the ships. Byron's journal describes them as an "inestimable treasure". The sailors were also able to bring back sea birds that were so tame as to be easily caught. Byron gave the atoll the name of Duke of York Island, in honor of his late royal highness. Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:21:07 EST From: Ric Subject: Artifact thoughts I have some new observations and opinions about our Seven Site artifacts from some knowledgeable people that I want to share with you all, and I want to lay out some probabilities that seem logical to me. 1. A friend of a TIGHAR member who has a lot of experience with old radios looked at artifact -43 and thought he recognized it as a "Mu-metal" tube plate or half of one. He says the holes are not round to allow for tabs to fit the halves together to hold a tube. (The flanges fit together.) He suggested that it covered an electron tube such as 6-AU-6. However, when I talked to him by phone he said that "Mu-metal" is not springy and the kind of electron tubes he's talking about did not become common until the 1950s. 2. Bill Weiss is a TIGHAR member who runs Instrument Sales & Service, Inc. here in Wilmington, DE. Bill generously provides us with the surveying gear and supplies we use our expeditions. Yesterday I showed him the actual artifacts that are depicted on the TIGHAR website, so he had a chance to handle them and examine them up close and personal. Here are his observations and opinions: Artifacts -03A & B No recognition. Artifact -45 He agrees that this is definitely a knob of some kind. The internal channel is ferrous (something I had not been able to check because I didn't have a skinny enough magnet). The knob appears to be an aluminum shell over the ferrous channel. Bill thinks that a post was seated in the channel and secured by a screw in the central hole. He agrees with me that the markings on the face of the knob say "Patent (illegible) ". Bill has never seen a knob like this on a theodolite or other piece of surveying gear. Artifact -32 Bill thinks the material is ceramic and that the scalloped features were once complete holes holding eletrical contacts for some sort of rheostat device - possibly a frequency selector for a radio. The pin is a central conductor. There is no doubt in his mind that this is part of some sort of electronic device. Artifact -21F Again, this is part of a very high quality eletronic device. It could be the top part of a shield that covered a tube or some other cylindrical component to prevent arcing. Artifact -43 Bill's immediate reaction was that this is an "RF shield" from a diode or power source in a radio transmitter. He does not think it is painted black but rather that it has been anodized or otherwise treated in a way that turned it black. Probabilities that seem logical to me: Within a fairly small area we have several artifacts each of which seems to be from a broken high quality electronic device. Because one does not routinely find eletronic devices in the bush on Niku it seems most probable that these pieces are all from the same device. At this time it seems most probable that the device was a radio with a transmitter. Given that hypothesis, I would include Artifact -18 (the piece of broken plate glass) as part of the puzzle. This could be from a rectangular glass face over a dial that measured 3 inches or more on a side. Also, the knob was found with the rusted-to-pieces remains of what was judged to have possibly been a small ferrous metal box. Possibly the case of the radio? Traveling further down this speculative (but not wildly speculative) road: Who would have such a radio at the Seven Site? Short answer: no one that we know of. - As far as we know the Coasties did not have portable radios and these parts, accoding to Bill Weiss, are definitley not part of a "Walky-Talky". - As far as we know, the colonists had only the big main government radio in the village. - It is my impression that military radios do not have patent numbers on the knobs. - As far as we know Earhart did not have a portable emergecy radio with her. It keeps coming back to the information on that knob. Gotta get it deciphered. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:00:05 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Gender and Shoes I wrote: >There is anecdotal evidence that the gender association >(female) with the shoe parts was determined based on the height of the heel. >From Ric: What anecdotal evidence is that? The natives that Goerner interviewed on Tarawa recalled that a "women's high-heel shoe" had been found on Gardner/Niku. A "high" heel shoe (tall heel), exhibited to someone (e.g. Gallagher) who was raised in a western culture, would imply a women's shoe. I speculate that Gallagher, although biased as we all are by our backgrounds, made the gender association based on the height of the heel. LTM K. Spading ************************************************************************** From Ric But then, neither Gallagher nor Steenson make any reference to a heel having been found at all. Gallagher, on October 6, 1940, says: "Only part of sole remains...Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal" Steenson, on July 1, 1941, says: "Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say." Neither of these primary source documented accounts would seem to support the unattributed anecdote reported by Goerner. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:05:24 EST From: CJSF Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts > - It is my impression that military radios do not have patent numbers on the > knobs. The "military" doesn't invent and manufacture its own radios, the same people and companies that make civilian radios do. If the knob was patented, it would be stamped such whether the "military" used it or civilians did. CJSF **************************************************************************** From Ric Do you know that for a fact? I assume that most equipment purchased by the government is patented, but it seems like there should be less concern in the military that the user understand that the device should not be copied without permission. I just can't recall ever seeing a patent number on a piece of military hardware, but I can't say that I've ever made a point of looking for one. Surely this must be an easy question to settle. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:16:00 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts I believe that the Loran station was for a long time mothballed and abandoned and that eventually the NZ government bought some of the equipment with other items being liberated by the islanders. It seems that any radio parts could well have come from this source. I would not think it impossible that proprietary equipment could have been used together with military equipment. It seems to me that the way to identify these items is to at least first positively identify their composition ie material, plating type etc by chemical testing or spectrographic analysis. This would narrow down the options. Next we should eliminate any radio equipment the electra could possibly have been using. This should be relatively easy by comparison with similar equipment which still survives. It would be pointless to spend a lot of time and trouble identifying extraneous items which would give no clue to the presence of AE & FN. Microscopic examination of the threads of the screws in the toothed plates may identfy the type of wood to which they were secured. If it were mahogany, for example, this would be an important clue. I would suggest that pics should also be circulated to large and long established radio equipment manufacturers for their assessment. And get that knob dry-ice blasted. A patent number would be a rapid passport to understanding what it is. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric The information I posted recently suggested that the NZ government did not purchase the equipment and that Unit 92 remained "unliberated" as late as 1955. We'll get the knob dry-blasted if conservators who are knowledgeable in the cleaning of historic properties recommend that process. If, after using the best techniques available, we are unable to decipher the patent number, or, if the knob proves to have come from something that can not be the source of the other components, then I'm sure you'll be the first to contribute toward paying for the sophisticated materials testing you recommend. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:09:17 EST From: Craig Subject: Re: Chronology of House built for Gallagher? > It's aircraft aluminum (24ST > Alclad) but there's no way to tell what airplane it > came from. That's such an cannibalistic kind of thing - in a Solient Green-type of way. To think, all those little trinkets could be tiny pieces of the Electra. Here they are right under your nose, leaving the island as pleasant little souveniers, and there's nothing you can do to figure it out. As an aside, this is the second Charlton Heston reference on the forum this week...bad week. Craig ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:15:08 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts About this dry ice blasting...do you have any contacts with the Wilmington PD who may be able to get a little help from the ballistics lab? I understand those labs can raise the ground-off serial numbers from firearms, so maybe they have methods to find out that patent number? I figure Tighar gets an assist and the pros get to prove to us all how good they are. MO is on the way for the map, not much I know, but at least you won't have to pass by the pay-toilet? LTM (who understands when forumites sometimes spend time on things other than studying) Pete #2419 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Pete. We do have access to some good police labs and there is a whole field of forensics that deals with pulling up serial numbers, but we have to remember that we're not dealing with a criminal investigation but an historical one, which adds another layer of considerations. We have to get at these numbers, if possible, without damaging the artifact. Tom King is helping us chase down some good expert advice. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:15:41 EST From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: Curious dumb question Thanks for the clarification. No criticism of the expedition was meant. I was just curious as to why, in my mind, so little time was spent at a destination that took so much planning, money and travel. I always thought months would be spent on such undertakings but my layman's assumptions were wrong. I can see now that many different elements come into play. Gary Fajack ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:21:05 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Mystery Feature The feature in the Tighar Tracks ("G" or "6") looks to me like a map of a Pacific atoll with a center lagoon and the entrance passage. Like a Rorschach test, it is open to various interpretations. It may have been used for some educational reason, although the area and environs doesn't seem to support a school type area, but you would know how it fits relative to other human activity. But it does look like an atoll. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes and no. Atolls are, as far as I know, always rings of one sort or another. If this were an atoll the "tail" should end up by the "beak". But as you say, it's like a Rohrshach test. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:21:40 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts Wasn't AE's radio a Western Electric product? If so, There is an AT&T warehouse (more like Ma Bell's attic) located in Warren, NJ. You can find almost anything AT&T (which Western Electric at the time of the flight) ever-made there (inlcuding a ringer-washing machine made by Western). I was there twice, they also have records, drawings, and photographs stored there. They may have reference material on her radio including specs. Just a thought, it may help identify some of the artifacts, LTM Ed of PSL ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:32:25 EST From: Andy Subject: Early map with Atafu <<>> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/polynesien_1859.jpg This link is to an 1859 Chart (in German) of "American Polynesia" and details all the islands of interest to the forum. Atafu (Oatafu in German) is identified as "Atafu or Duke of York." Simply put, we know Atafu was known as Atafu at least as early as 1859. If you do view this map I would highly reccomend that you right-click and select 'save picture as' for subsequent viewing offline. This map collection is one of the few websites that permits you to do this legally. LTM, Andy **************************************************************************** From Ric What a wonderful map! Fictional "Arthur Island" is shown north of McKean and fictional "Mary Letitia" is between Gardner and Hull. Gardner (or Kemin) has "beautiful trees, many birds, rats." Ausgezeichnet. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:40:03 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: High heel shoes. Spading wrote: >The natives that Goerner interviewed on Tarawa >recalled that a "women's high-heel shoe" had been found on >Gardner/Niku. A "high" heel shoe >(tall heel), exhibited to someone (e.g. Gallagher) who was raised in a >western culture, would imply a women's shoe. Formal receptions or semiformal events in Earhart's honor as the flight progressed might require her to wear a dress and high heel shoes. If so, Earhart's high heel shoes may very well have been aboard the Electra and subsequently transported ashore on Nikumaroro Island to be discovered by colonists and shown to Gallagher. Is there any record of Earhart wearing high heel shoes during the failed world flight? LTM, (who prefers barefoot in the sand when visiting tropical islands), Roger Kelley **************************************************************************** From Ric No, quite the contrary. Earhart described her wardrobe in a pre-first attempt newspaper interview. No fancy clothes at all. Photos taken during the World Flight show her wearing a blouse on dressy occasions that may have been silk but even so she wore trousers and her flying shoes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:43:54 EST From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts I can say with certainty that I regularly see patent numbers on military aircraft components at crash sites for WWII circa aircraft including components that were solely used for military aircraft. While I do not have any photographs of such, as I tend to only photograph items that can identify the particular aircraft, I do have a few tags that I have picked up at crash sites. No radio tags, but I do have a 1950's tag from a F-100 engine accessory component that has a patent number. I am fairly sure that the J-57 did not have any civil applications-- though perhaps some of the civil aircraft historians might correct me here. I made a few calls to other people I know have some WWII era aircraft components. While I found no radios I did find: A Water Injector Tank Gauge, GE type DJ-21 indicator, from a Grumman F6F that had several patent numbers stamped on the back. From a metal tag on a B-24 Liberator: American Bosch Corp, Springfield Mass Patented 3-2-43 Spec AN9511A Type SF-14LV7 DWG MJN14K301 Serial # 1?2992 Government Order # W535AF24592 Not sure what component it is from, and while it does not have a patent number on it, it does say patented. Craig Fuller TIGHAR 1589CE AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research ************************************************************************* From Mike E. the Radio Historian: > - It is my impression that military radios do not have patent numbers on >the knobs. Military radios can, and do, have lots of patent notices posted inside or on various parts. >The "military" doesn't invent and manufacture its own radios, the same >people and companies that make civilian radios do. CORRECT!! >If the knob was patented, >it would be stamped such whether the "military" used it or civilians did. CORRECT!! >CJSF >**************************************************************************** >From Ric > >Do you know that for a fact? That's a fact, Jack. If you need citations I can supply many. For starters, if anyone has access to an SCR-274N or AN/ARC-5 receiver from WW2, take off the top cover and look at the back of the "shield box" which covers the tuning capacitor. Many, many patents held by Western Electric, Hazeltine Corp., RCA etc ad infinitum are listed out by number. If a civilian component finds its way into a military radio, and that part has a patent number stamped on it in civilian configuration, it will 99% surely have the number if it's in a military radio. Example: the National Company "Velvet Vernier" dial drives which were used in many WW2-era Army and Navy radio transmitters. The knobs and/or dials may have been mil-spec specials but the drive mechanisms themselves all bear the patent numbers. >I just can't recall ever seeing a patent number on a piece of military >hardware, but I can't say that I've ever made a point of looking for one. >Surely this must be an easy question to settle. Hope this helps. LTM (who always has her numbers straight) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric I guess that settles THAT. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:45:13 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: (Oh NO, not another) bones question << Kar Burns tells an amusing story about taking the bones of a bag lady she'd known as a living breathing bag lady, and laying them out in front of a bunch of her colleagues, most of whom unhesitatingly identified them as those of a male. Sexual differentiation is no more a black and white matter in the skeleton than it is in any other aspect of physiology or psychology. TK >> Just a thought, but is it at all possible to "reverse engineer" whether or not AE's pelvis would be more or less "female" than normal based upon her stature as seen in photos of her? Kinda like reconstructing Joseph Mengele's face from the skull, only in reverse. Seriously, are there physical attributes of the bag lady mentioned above that might be related to the lack of feminine structure of her pelvis? Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:45:59 EST From: Mule Subject: Re: Chronology of House built for Gallagher? > From Ric > > Doesn't it seem odd that they were repairing stuff that was about to be > dismantled? Not at all. Up until the switch was thrown to the off position, I would expect that the facility would be fully maintained. Even if that weren't the case, the government uses money in strange ways sometimes. When Bergstrom AFB (Austin, TX) was closed, the Air Force had just completed an extensive runway resurfacing project, even though the base had been on the closure list for quite some time. Mule ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:49:24 EST From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Re: Atafu population Yes, I believe from the information Peter has sent that I copied below, people were on Atafu July 1937. Chuck Boyle. ---------------------------------------- To: Chuck Boyle Dear Chuck, 1. According to my records there were 419 people on Atafu in the 1937 census. 2. I don't think anyone knows for sure how long there have been people on Atafu. There may have been people before the Tokelauans. The original Tokelauan Atafuans are said to have scattered to outliers in the Solomon Islands, mostly Sikaiana Island. Anyway, the Tokelauans know that they have been on Atafu for several hundred years. Regards Peter McQ. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:59:52 EST From: Jim Subject: Garbled postings What is the " stuff throughout the newsletter... and the on almost every line? It appears like it might be data related to the posting of external emails... but it sure is a mess! Can we clean up this stuff (whatever it is)... Regards, Jim ****************************************************************** From Ric It's a tough problem to correct. What you're seeing is imbedded coding that only shows up after it has gone through the Listserve distribution program. It's not visible to me when I receive the submitted message and send it out for posting to the forum. Some email programs automatically insert html coding which then turns up as the junk you're talking about. In other cases, people write their messages in a word processing program and then paste it into an email program. Same problem. I wish there was an easy solution. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:02:55 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Ponds at SE tip <> Van Hunn wrote: > Surely he is joking about doing taste-tests on strange bodies of water. NO! I certainly wasn't! Just what I did on Kanton, Xmas, Funafuti, Palmyra, etc... Regards Christian D. *************************************************************************** From Ric Are you familar with the term "crazy brave?" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:06:11 EST From: Christian Subject: Re: cup handles if I remember from the website description, the end of that handle seems to have been welded? Could you please tell us if the weight of that item "feels like" aluminum, or does it feel heavier, like a copper alloy of some kind? The "welded" end: could it just be a blob of corrosion? If indeed it is welded aluminum, I seem to remember aluminum is rather hard to weld... Anybody knows when it became common to weld aluminum instead of just rivetting it? Regards. Christian D ************************************************************************ From Ric It's hard to say what the wire that makes up the loop is made of but it does look like it was welded to an aluminum surface. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:44:55 EST From: Christian D: Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts [From Ric - Lots of questions here. I'll answer them as we go.] I think we are testing the limits of website photos, here: my first impressions were QUITE different from those who have the thingies in their hands! My 10cents: > From Ric > > I have some new observations and opinions about our Seven Site artifacts from > some knowledgeable people that I want to share with you all, and I want to > lay out some probabilities that seem logical to me. > > 1. A friend of a TIGHAR member who has a lot of experience with old radios > looked at artifact -43 and thought he recognized it as a "Mu-metal" tube > plate or half of one. He says the holes are not round to allow for tabs to > fit the halves together to hold a tube. (The flanges fit together.) He I don't think these are halves of anything: the bottom pix clearly shows that the depth of the "channel" is the same as the diameter. Sure looks like a clip of some kind to me. [From Ric: I agree.] What I do find interesting is the small rectangular holes: Ric, do they seem machine made with regular spacing, not just staple holes? They look about 1.5 mm wide: rather tiny! Any old-timer manufacturing engineer out there, who would know when the technology advanced to the point of making these small holes common? If I was forced () to guess, I'd say it's fancy enough to be post-WWII? [From Ric: The holes are very tiny. They are made by bending back two tab that originally faced each other.] > suggested that it covered an electron tube such as 6-AU-6. However, when I> talked to him by phone he said that "Mu-metal" is not springy and the Isn't u-metal thick and magnetic, anyways? [From Ric: I had never heard of "mu-metal" so I can't say.] > 2. Bill Weiss is a TIGHAR member who runs Instrument Sales & Service, Inc. > here in Wilmington, DE. Bill generously provides us with the surveying gear > and supplies we use our expeditions. Yesterday I showed him the actual > artifacts that are depicted on the TIGHAR website, so he had a chance to > handle them and examine them up close and personal. Here are his > observations and opinions: > Artifacts -03A & B > No recognition. How conclusive was the suggestion it was a locking tab on a wooden ammo box? [From Ric: Not at all. No one has produced an ammo box with a fastener even remotely like these objects.] Sextant boxes usually have only the wood knob and a brass screw, and no metal plate. [From Ric: There's a Ludolph sextant box shown at http://www.antique-scientific-instruments.de/sextant.html which appears to show metal fasteners very much like artifact -03B.] > Artifact -45 > He agrees that this is definitely a knob of some kind. The internal channel > is ferrous (something I had not been able to check because I didn't have a > skinny enough magnet). The knob appears to be an aluminum shell over the > ferrous channel. Bill thinks that a post was seated in the channel and > secured by a screw in the central hole. He agrees with me that the markings > on the face of the knob say "Patent (illegible) ". Bill has never seen a > knob like this on a theodolite or other piece of surveying gear. I'm still quite confused as to the actual shape of this thingy: looks like a solid very short cylinder to me, except for the axial small hole... What exactly is that "channel"??? Could there be a circular groove on the "bottom" face? Where the end of a 3/4" tube might have fit? Otherwise the thing is solid steel? Except for the outside knurled shell? [From Ric: Let's try this - imagine an automobile tire with very shallow sides. Now think of that same shape but tiny and made of steel. Insert that tiny steel shallow-sided "tire" into the inside of an aluminum knob.] > Artifact -32 > Bill thinks the material is ceramic and that the scalloped features were once By the way: what color ceramic? All white? All brown? [From Ric: It seems to have originally been all white.] > complete holes holding eletrical contacts for some sort of rheostat device > possibly a frequency selector for a radio. The pin is a central conductor. Don't think its a conductor, if it is rusted. How come everybody who had the thing in their hands seem to think it is circular (the "central"...)? [From Ric: There is no rust anywhere on this artifact. The only metal part is the bent pin, which is ferrous but not rusted and so would seem to be stainless steel.] If the notches were "complete" holes holding contacts, was the complete part much bigger and circular??? On my laptop this doesn't look like a circular switch "wafer" -even a big power switch from a power plant. I see 4 notches, with one at one end missing a tiny piece. Does the other end of that "notch bar" seem broken as well? [From Ric: both ends have been broken.] The "base" (foot?) seems linear also... The straight bottom edge is a manufactured edge. Even if it was a switch of some kind, calling it electronic is jumping the gun; if I had to guess, I too would go for an insulator holding a hot resistor wire. Could be part of a radio coil form? The notches don't look rounded, but rather with very flattish "V" bottom... [From Ric: That is correct.] What are the lines and markings one can discern on the pix? [From Ric: The lines are shallow manufactured grooves. The markings on the head of the pin are random irregularities, not intentional markings.] What is the complete shape of the ends of what I call the "base"? In one pix, one end looks pointy and bent? [From Ric: Not sure what you mean here. The only thing that is bent is the pin.] > Artifact -21F > Again, this is part of a very high quality eletronic device. It could be Interesting how different the opinion when one is in person: I had thought it was some kind of cheap rusted tin-metal piece!!! Ric: you say it is magnetic AND not rusted... The bottom pix, on my laptop screen seems to show something mostly wasted away! I don't quite see how that pix fits with the rest of the top pix... [From Ric: It looks like it was once a metal tube but it is broken, not wasted away.] Is the "central part" kind of like a hemisphere? Or flattish? [From Ric: Kind of like a hemisphere.] > the top part of a shield that covered a tube or some other cylindrical > component to prevent arcing. Is the section really circular? Or a bit "oblong"? [From Ric: Hard to tell for sure but the original shape seems to have been a bit oblong.] Now for the bevelled glass piece: Ric, do you really mean the bevel has an angle which changes along its length??? I'd say this is quite remarquable; can't remember when was the last time I saw such a piece of glass... That's what I'm saying. I agree. It's very strange. > - It is my impression that military radios do not have patent numbers on the > knobs. I'd tend to agree with this: no advertising on the controls of military stuff. Again: can people who have access to them check the caps of pressure-paraffin appliances for Pat. numbers placed on knobs? > It keeps coming back to the information on that knob. Gotta get it > deciphered. [Amen] Cheers Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:47:51 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Curious dumb question The issue of length and scope of a mission vs its chances of success is an interesting one. It does seem apparent after a decade that if there is anything directly traceable to the Electra or their persons, it is not lying around in plain sight. The increasing intensity of debate on the forum has given me an idea - I think you are pitching your expeditition funding requests from the wrong slant. You need to start a "Send Ric Away to Niku" fund drive. Donors would pay to keep you there - out of range of the forum, etc. As long as they keep paying, you would have to agree to stay until you find a "smoking gun" or admit that the plane is not there. Of course, you would have amenities like a nuclear powered coconut opener and a watermaker, supply of butter for coconut crab dinners, a solar charged satphone and a visit by a camera crew once a year. TOM MM *************************************************************************** From Ric You've got a deal. Make the check payable to TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:49:19 EST From: Bruce Yoho Subject: ID Tag To Craig Fuller From a metal tag on a B-24 Liberator: American Bosch Corp, Springfield Mass Patented 3-2-43 Spec AN9511A Type SF-14LV7 DWG MJN14K301 Serial # 1?2992 Government Order # W535AF24592 This is a tag from a Magneto S-single Magneto F-flange mounted 14- 14 cylinders L-left hand rotation V-vertical mounted 7-change #7 common Magneto for the B-24 Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:53:38 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts The method used by police forces of raising filed off numbers involves etching the surface with acid. The metal compressed by a letter stamp reacts to etching differently from the uncompressed metal. Here we have a diecast number which would be completely unresponsive to such methods. The advantage of dry-ice blasting is that it is completely non-abrasive. For instance you can remove a layer of paint from a plated part with say 0.0002" of plating ( two tenths of a thou) without damaging the plated layer. You can use it on glass without etching it at all. All that is removed is material which is only lightly bonded to the surface ie corrosion, oxide layers, paint, burned on oil etc. You can use it to clean a printed circuit board so you certainly couldn't damage aluminium alloy. ANY other method will be abrasive or chemical. The only effective methods of chemically cleaning aluminium involve acid, usually chromic, phosphoric or hydrofluoric. These methods will ALWAYS involve a degree of etching even if slight. They also give rise to problems of "smutting" or black marking. Alloys such as Mazak (Magnesium Aluminium Zinc and Copper) are particularly difficult to clean using chemical brighteners and tend to end up black or grey. Incidentally dry-ice blasting was invented by Lockheed to clean paint off aircraft before repainting. It was ideal because it left no abrasive residue, in fact the only residue was the paint and oxide. Lockheed sold the rights to the process because it was outside their core activities. So if you want advice on it Ric, ask Lockheed. They know more about it than anyone. Regards Angus **************************************************************************** From Ric It does sound like an excellent technique. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:29:33 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: the numbers on the knob <> Be careful who and how you choose to get this done. Youre only going to get one shot at it. amck ************************************************************************** From Ric Well, my plan right now is to find a way to clean the thing without hurting it and then do the photographic technique outlined for us by Jeff Glickman at Photek. Once we have the necessary focused light we have everything else we need right here. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:39:27 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: cup handles The dark greenish surface looks typical of brass. Why don't you clean a square mm or so with a file to see the colour of the metal? Brass of course is yellow and aluminium silver-white.It would not harm the artefact at all. The ends appear to have been brazed or silver soldered from the yellow colour. Silver solder is expensive and only used in applications where it is important to get good flow. Aluminium can be welded, hard-soldered or aluminium-brazed but all these processes produce a joint of similar colour to aluminium. Aluminium oxidises to a white or grey colour although it can stain to other colours. Aluminium, being expensive to extract from its ore, only became common in the twentieth century especially with the cheap hydro-electric power needed to extract it. Napoleon's best cutlery was aluminium, his second best set was gold. It has been welded since at least the Victorian era. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric I didn't file it but I did hit a small part of it with a mildly abrasive all-purpose metal polish. The metal if the wire handle is definitely reddish in color with some green oxidation product in places. Seems to be either copper or brass, and I'd lean toward copper. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:42:33 EST From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: ID Tag There has been B-24 Lib parts found on Nikumaroro.Is it possible this knob could be from a bomb site.T L Simpson(#2396) LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric I guess anything is possible but it would surprise me if even the wreckage of a bombsight was not collected up by authorities after a crash. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:48:05 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts question: When they found the bones on the island originally was there any talk of whether they could have been placed there through a criminal act or non criminal act... i was thinking that if i came across some bones burried in a hole however shallow or deep i know i would have to inform the police about it... Then they would photograph the scene and other things they do... then decide if it was/wasn't/or undecided... i know in them days things may have been different but is there any documents or letters(anything infact) to either point towards that line of enquiry or not... it's just a thought...to get the brain cells revving... (from alexander who is on a proper keyboard today) p.s: is it possible to post anything other than text on the forum because if theres maps or pics that we all find we could then post the attachment which then goes through ric then ric could check it then post it in his postings to us...that way ric knows what it is and we could take a look at whatever it is.One could see what others may have missed...any chance ric ? *************************************************************************** From Ric Everything we know about how the bones were regarded is in the correspondence reproduced in "The Bones Chronology" on the TIGHAR website. No one suggested criminal activity. The forum software does not support attachments. Text only. Does your keyboard have capital letters? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:50:57 EST From: Jdubb Subject: Re: the numbers on the knob Regarding ways to read the numbers on the knob. I can think of three off the wall ways that might raise the numbers without cleaning or damaging the artifact. 1. X-ray. The object is small enough that a dental x-ray film would work. You might have to use a long exposure. Maybe you could get a local dentist to do it for free. 2. Transfer rubbing. Cover the artifact with a thin sheet of paper and rub it with a crayon or pencil. You never know, the bumps might be just legible this way. Any way it's quick and easy, can't hurt. 3. Hold onto your hats - coronal discharge photography. Otherwise known as Kirlian Photography. Please take a look at the images of coins produced with this method. Coronal discharge photography shoots a charge across an object and the electric field "exposes" the film. http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/Pages/Departments/Inter/edp_lab/photogal.html http://www.imagesco.com/catalog/kirlian/kirlian.html As long as you don't detect AE's "aura" on the thing the results would be reproducible. Jdubb p.s. I have my asbestos keyboard so feel free to flame away at these admittedly way out suggestions. **************************************************************************** From Ric If it's all the same to you I think we'll use whatever techniques are recommended by the best experts we can find. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:54:35 EST From: Ric Subject: Patent question for Brits A passing thought: Does the UK use a patent system similar to that used in the U.S. and are patent numbers often stamped on patented items - military or otherwise? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:04:18 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts > Sextant boxes usually have only the wood knob and a brass screw, and no > metal plate. > (From Ric: There's a Ludolph sextant box shown at > http://www.antique-scientific-instruments.de/sextant.html which appears to > show metal fasteners very much like artifact -03B.) I can see what appears to be 3 (apparently wooden) latches (1 middle left, 2 bottom) and what appears to be part of one under the sextant. I can't see anythig like the artifact clip. If these are the same fasteners, you can see the thickness of the one at the left middle - quite thick compared to the rest of the dimensions. On the other hand, if they are not, how am I not seeing them? Having said that I have been racking what's left of my brain to try to remember where i've seen those clips before. It doesn't seem all that long ago. I am trying to remember where and what. I have a funny feeling the scalloped edge was used to get a grip to turn the things so the other end slid into a slot cut into the timber but no matter how hard I try I only get fragments of the image in my mind. If I'm right, the other hole is where you stick a small nail or similar object to stop the thing turning back again. It was on something crazily simply (is crazily a word?). I just got a flash, but I'll have to wait to check it out. The back of an old mirror or picture frame or something. The glass is held in by the shape of the frame itself. There is a wooden backing board. The flat metal clips pivot to hold the backing board in place and are locked with a fine wire nail to stop them turning back. I'm probably wrong and I just can't remember for sure, but whatever it was, it was something that simple. I wonder if perhaps you might show it to some older hardware stores. I'll try the same here when I get back from the next two trips. Might be worth trying picture framers. It's got me stuffed, it is just so "vaguely familiar". Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The two "bottom" fasteners in the sextant box in the photo appear, to my eye anyway, to definitely be metal. The color values are identical to other known metal surfaces in the photo. The screw goes into a wooden block. The tab with the hole in it goes into a slot in the side of the box and is secured with a pin through the hole, thus permitting the wooden block to be rotated through a very small arc. The wooden block, usually padded with felt, holds the sextant securely in the box. The little teeth on the fastener merely make it easier to rotate the block out of the way with your fingertip. One argument against these artifacts being part of any very common or disposable item (such as an ammo box) is the fact that the wood screws are high quality brass or copper so they will not rust. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:44:31 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Re: Gender and Shoes Ric wrote in response to the Goerner/Tarawa anedcote referring to a "women's high heel shoe" and my speculation that Gallagher used the height of the heel to sex (suggest a gender for) the shoe. >But then, neither Gallagher nor Steenson make any reference to a heel >having been found at all. Gallagher, on October 6, 1940, says: "Only part of >sole remains....Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal" > >Steenson, on July 1, 1941, says: > >"Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male >person and a female person, I have nothing further to say." > >Neither of these primary source documented accounts would seem to support the >unattributed anecdote reported by Goerner. Your point regarding the primary source documents vs Goerner collecting a later anecdote is recognized. I have covered most of this before but it bears repeating for other forumites. The primary accounts indicate that Gallagher did not report everything that he found. For example, he did not mention the "corks with brass chains". And the bottle disappears from the record. He could easily have chosen to not mention the heel in the same light that he chose not to mention the corks and chains. So, the lack of a reference to a heel in the primary sources does not mean it was not there...in fact Gallagher's lists are clearly not exhaustive. The heel being there, even though it was not mentioned, could be argued for in any case....but Gallagher not mentioning the corks/chains indicates it could indeed very well be true. Beyond that, it is also easy to imagine that the heel may have been attached to what was left of the sole...and therefore the whole thing (sole with heel attached) was described simply as a "part of a sole". We can argue the semantics all day....in the end Gallagher did not provide an exhaustive list. In regards to the Tarawa high heel anecdote; I see nothing in the primary source documents that would lead me to discount it anymore than I would any of the other anecdotes. I do not advise ignoring it as a piece of the shoe puzzle. Which brings us to Gallagher's use of the word "stoutish" and "heavy". I checked into this a while ago to see if I could gain some insight into the use of these words, by someone with a background differnet from mine, in describing clothing. My Webster's 3rd International Edition, 1971 lists under stout: "sturdily constructed, durable, solid" or "a clothing style designed for the large figure, e.g. men's suits are available in longs, shorts, regulars and stouts" under heavy: "something (as in cloth or underwear) heavy in comparison to typical members of its kind" in regards to Webster's.....just food for thought LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric The validity of the anecdote Goerner recounts is one of those matters of opinion that could be debated endlessly. It is, by definition, "part of the puzzle" but you and I disagree about whether it is one that should be given much weight. As to how complete Gallagher's list of discovered artifacts may have been; recall that the last detailed accounting of bones and artifacts found at the site was provided by Gallagher on October 17, 1940. It is not until October 26th that Vaskess instructs him: "Your telegram of 17th October. Organised search should be made in the vicinity and all bones and other finds, including box, sextant and shoe, should be forwarded to Suva by the first opportunity for examination." By December 27th, Gallagher has conducted an "intensive search" and has apparently found more stuff that he doesn't describe in detail. His transmittal letter that accompanies the bones and artifacts to Suva says, in part: "The larger of these packages is the coffin containing the remains of the unidentified individual found on the South Eastern shore of Gardner Island; the second package is the sextant box found in the immediate locality and contains all the other pieces of evidence which were found in the proximity of the body. 2. The fact that the skull has been buried in damp ground for nearly a year, whilst all the other bones have been lying above ground during the same period, was probably not apparent from previous correspondence, but may be helpful in determining the age of the bones. In spite of an intensive search, none of the smaller bones have been discovered and, in view of the presence of crabs and rats in this area, I consider that it is now unlikely that any further remains will be traced. A similar search for rings, coins, keys or other articles not so easily destroyed has also been unsuccessful, but it is possible that something may come to hand during the course of the next few months when the area in question will be again thoroughly examined during the course of planting operations, which will involve a certain amount of digging in the vicinity. If this should prove to be the case, I will inform you of the fact by telegraph. " The next and only other commentary we have on the contents of the sextant box is Steenson's very brief notation to the file in which he mentions things not mentioned by Gallagher prior to the "intensive search" (part of a man's shoe and the "corks with brass chains"). From all of this I would conclude that it is safe to assume that there were a few more things found after October 17 and that Gallagher sent along everything that he had found, but we don't know for sure what those things were except to say that they did not include "rings, coins, keys." The reference in the Dec. 27th letter to planting operations and digging is interesting given our discovery of regularly spaced shallow depressions near the lagoon shore at the Seven Site. I wonder if the clearing was done and the holes for planting seed cocos were dug, but for some reason the rest of the planting operation was never carried out? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:50:34 EST From: John Clauss Subject: Re: cup handles > It's hard to say what the wire that makes up the loop is made of but it does > look like it was welded to an aluminum surface.< If it was welded to an aluminum surface then it must be made up of a similar alloy. Welding aluminum was going on well before WWII. John ************************************************************************** From Ric But we seem to have a copper or brass handle somehow stuck to what looks like an aluminum surface. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:03:53 EST From: Christian D Subject: Patents > From Ric > > I guess that settles THAT. I still have a doubt: while I agree there can be lots of labels with Patent info from the manufacturers protecting themselves discreetly, I still find it interesting that a *control knob" would have patent info showing... Do we have examples of such info right on control panels and on the controls themselves? But then, what else could it be, beside a knob! By the way, Ric: for what you can tell, is there *numbers* for sure on that artifact? Could it possibly be only "Patent Pending"? Sure would not help us... "Crazy brave" Chris ************************************************************************** From Ric From what I can see under magnification it does not say "Patent Pending" or "Pat. Pend.". It looks more liked "Patented" and then some figures that I can't make out. It could logically be a date or I suppose it could be some descriptive word or words such as "in USA". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:43:46 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts > The > tab with the hole in it goes into a slot in the side of the box and is > secured with a pin through the hole, thus permitting the wooden block to be > rotated through a very small arc. The wooden block, usually padded with > felt, holds the sextant securely in the box. The little teeth on the > fastener merely make it easier to rotate the block out of the way with your > fingertip. I'm sure this is not the way the clips on the ludolph box work. The blocks are glued to the base of the box as with most sextants. As the nearer two clips appear in the picture, they point towards the photographer. This is the unfastened position. When the sextant is placed in the box, the clips are rotated to point away from the photographer and then overlap the curved sextant scale. (It is just possible they turn 90 degrees to face each other and cover the arm of the sextant but this would be less secure). Similarly the centre clip rotates "east" to overlap and secure the frame of the sextant. To have articulating wooden blocks would be a clumsy arrangement. The weight of the sextant would easily move the clips as the box was moved around. Glued-in blocks positively locate the sextant preventing sideways movement, the clips preventing vertical movement. I have a 1930s Dunlop track alignment gauge in a fitted box which uses exactly the system I have described and I have seen it on many other instrument boxes such as dial gauges etc. All of them have fixed blocks and swinging catches. Regards Angus **************************************************************************** From Ric For the clips to work the way you suggest they would have to be wooden, otherwise they would scratch the sextant. They sure look metal. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:03:53 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Gender and Shoes Is it possible that Gallagher collected all that stuff because he wanted a break from routine? Is it possible that at anothe time he'd have discarded all that stuff without comment, but this time because the islanders seemed excited about it he decided to make a formal report? > As to how complete Gallagher's list of discovered artifacts may have been; > recall that the last detailed accounting of bones and artifacts found at the > site was provided by Gallagher on October 17, 1940. It is not until October > 26th that Vaskess instructs him: > "Your telegram of 17th October. Organised search should be made in the > vicinity and all bones and other finds, including box, sextant and shoe, > should be forwarded to Suva by the first opportunity for examination." I've wondered if perhaps this was not a vexing message, requiring that he spend a lot of time doing something that was of no value in his work. > By December 27th, Gallagher has conducted an "intensive search" and has > apparently found more stuff that he doesn't describe in detail. His > transmittal letter that accompanies the bones and artifacts to Suva says, in > part: > > "A similar search for rings, coins, keys or > other articles not so easily destroyed has also been unsuccessful, but it is > possible that something may come to hand during the course of the next few > months when the area in question will be again thoroughly examined during the > course of planting operations, which will involve a certain amount of digging > in the vicinity. If this should prove to be the case, I will inform you of > the fact by telegraph. " This sounds very much like a man saying "I'll get to it; it's not something on which I will put a great deal of emphasis." So, as he finds stuff, he puts it in a box and sends it off, hoping he's heard the last of it. > The next and only other commentary we have on the contents of the sextant box > is Steenson's very brief notation to the file in which he mentions things not > mentioned by Gallagher prior to the "intensive search" (part of a man's shoe > and the "corks with brass chains"). As long as we're thinking about this, is there any aviation use for "corks with brass chains"? > The reference in the Dec. 27th letter to planting operations and digging is > interesting given our discovery of regularly spaced shallow depressions near > the lagoon shore at the Seven Site. I wonder if the clearing was done and > the holes for planting seed cocos were dug, but for some reason the rest of > the planting operation was never carried out? Is there any way to explore this idea? Would the discovery of the bones have stopped digging for other purposes in that area? Might they have found other stuff that was forwarded but for which records have not been found? I take it there are no gaps in the correspondance? Mike Holt **************************************************************************** From Ric I would urge you to read the entire file and the other reports by Gallagher on the website. I definitely get the feeling that the discovery of the remains of a mysterious castaway that might just be Amelia Eahart was exciting to Gallagher and something he eagerly investigated. The last paragraph of his Dec. 27th letter is actually a bit sentimental about how the coffin was made from the wood of a kanawa tree that once stood near where the castaway died. He does not lose his enthusiasm until Isaac kidnaps the bones and sends him a dismissive telegram saying that this an elderly Polynesian. By the time Hoodless has given his opinion and Sir Harry has squashed any idea of informing the Americans, Gallagher gets with the program and adds his dismissive note to the file. As for the corks with brass chains: Steenson says, "Those corks on brass chains would appear to have belonged to a small cask." Yeah, like the small casks in which emergency supplies of fresh water were carried aboard ships like the ones that rescued the Norwich City survivors. We know that a cache of provisions was left on the island specifically for the use of any future "unfortunate individuals." It is hardly a stretch to presume that that is exactly what happened. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:09:41 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Rings and things Ric: When you were doing the testing of the crabs and meat, did you put any shiny objects like, keys, rings, etc. with the meat to see what the crabs do with those objects? Do they bury them, ignore them or trade them for new cars? LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric Tom King can speak to this better than I. Kar's experiment did not include anything but meat. Tom conducted a separate experiment using an old shirt and a belt. We also had occasions where the crabs got into the trash bag overnight and scattered junk far and wide, but I don't recall a case where they actually went off with a shiny wrapper or a Coke can. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:08:30 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: cup handles > But we seem to have a copper or brass handle somehow stuck to what looks like > an aluminum surface. Scratch the "aluminium" part with a pin to see how soft it is. If it is say plated steel you will easily tell the difference. Try a bit of aluminium scrap for comparison. It would be most unlikely that a brass or copper loop would be affixed to aluminium unless for some very special application. Why not use an aluminium wire which you can easily weld? It is just possible to resistance weld the two but it does not produce a good weld and the end of the wire in question looks very typical of a brazed joint. Incidentally brasses and bronzes come in differing copper content. Red brass has an 85% copper content as do some bronzes. This makes them fairly red. Generally copper is too expensive and too soft to use for anything other than specialist purposes (or where it needs to be easily drawn) A manufacturer would more likely use soft brass for a cup handle or something low tech (although copper would be easy to bend to shape) but a local artisan might well use a piece of recycled heavy copper wire to make a cup handle etc . Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric I really don't think this thing is local handiwork. The wire could be "red brass" and the gray colored metal where it was once attached to something does not seem to be steel but neither is it soft. Could be "pot metal." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:09:18 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts > For the clips to work the way you suggest they would have to be wooden, > otherwise they would scratch the sextant. They sure look metal. I've seen somewhere a case that had metal clips for equipment, but there were felt pads glued to the metal. Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:34:11 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: High Heel Shoes Roger Kelley wrote in response to my Tarawa anecdote "High Heel" shoe post: >Formal receptions or semiformal events in Earhart's honor as the flight >progressed might require her to wear a dress and high heel shoes. >Is there any record of Earhart wearing high heel shoes during the failed >world flight? Ric responded: >No, quite the contrary. Earhart described her wardrobe in a >pre-first attempt newspaper interview. We are not on the same page. I apologize for not explaining my point very well. When I refer to a woman's high heel shoe I did not mean a shoe with a spike heel as in the type of shoe a women would wear with a dress for semi-formal/formal occassions. I am speaking of a shoe with a tall heel...not a classic spike high heel shoe. In many cases, at least in western cultures, a woman's shoe will have a taller heel that a comparable man's shoe. I see it in my office all the time. I will be wearing black wing tips...and a female colleague will have on the equivalent female version only the heel is taller and generally the shoe is narrower (in no way akin to a spike high heel). I am suggesting that the shoe sole (or parts thereof) that Gallagher found had a tall heel. I speculate that the height of the heel lead Gallagher to surmise that it might be from a woman's shoe. The Tarawa anecdote points to the fact that a shoe with a tall heel may have been found. LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric But then you run into the problem that the "woman's high-heel shoes" in the anecdote related by Goerner carries the same connotation that Roger picked up on. In context, Goerner was on Tarawa in 1968 filming for a WWII documentary. He asked a Mr. Roberts, who was an assistant to the British High Commissioner, about the Floyd Kilts story. Roberts "gathered together some of the older Gilbertese who had been part of the colonizing activities at Gardner" and asked them about the Kilts story. Goerner reported, "After much conversation and deep-thinking it was decided that there was a legend about the remains of a Polynesian man being found on Gardner, what year or specific circumstances unknown. They were firm, however, that the skeleton of a woman had NEVER (emphasis in original) been found. There was, too, a strange story of a woman's 'high heel shoes' (quotation marks in original) turning up at some point on Gardner. This was a matter of some hilarity." Apparently Goerner was not present for the discussion and got the reactions of the former-Nikuites second hand from Roberts. The reference to a legend about the remains of a Polynesian man would appear to be a relic of Isaac's dismissal of the bones as those of a Polynesian man. The "strange story of a woman's 'high heel shoes' " is not connected to the legend about the bones. On the other hand, none of this disproves Kenton's hypothesis. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:39:49 EST From: Alexander Subject: Capital letters But we seem to have a copper or brass handle somehow stuck to what looks > like > an aluminum surface. I think the handle may have been soldered or brazed to another object. That object could have been ferrous and long since rusted away. The end where the wires come together and is 'silvered' appears to be covered with solder or brazing material. There was likely a three way joint between the two wires and whatever they were joined to. I would doubt that aluminum comes into the picture at all. John **************************************************************************** From Ric You're probably right. The gray colored material at the attach-point may be the medium used to weld or braze the wire to the whatever. (What's the difference beween brazing and welding?) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:56:38 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Rings and things > Tom conducted a separate experiment using an old shirt > and a belt. The crabs didn't do a thing with either the shirt or the belt, but it may be that the experiment didn't last long enough. There were two belts -- one with a metal buckle, one with a plastic one. They ignored them both, as far as I could tell. They DID drag away and completely reduce lamb bones, quite quickly, but burying bones under as little as half an inch of sand/rubble seemed to stop them cold, which is probably why the fish, bird, and turtle bones in the fire features have survived. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:00:01 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: Patent question for Brits >From Ric >Does the UK use a patent system similar to that used in the U.S. and are >patent numbers often stamped on patented items - military or otherwise? I'm not a Brit... but have one for a mother-in-law. She hails from Macclesfield. Net research tells me that: Great Britain has the oldest continuous patent system in the world! Patent #1 goes back to 1617. British patents have been continuously filed since then. Each country has a different numbering system, with "systems within the system" for improvements on designs, etc. In 1968 The International Patent Classification scheme was begun. The Japanese have their own system also. There are examples of old items on the net showing British patents stamped on them. I did not run across any military parts tho, so somebody else can answer that part. More links: --------------------- UK Patent Office Main Page http://www.patent.gov.uk/index.htm --------------------- British Patent Numbers in the years 1916 - 1981 The table on this web page shows the lowest patent number for specifications published in each calendar year. When you decipher your patent number, you can check this chart. http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/history/oldnumbers/after1916.htm ------------------------- The British Library Science Technology and Business (STB) The British Library STB holds the United Kingdom's national patent library. Its collections include over 40 million patent specifications, as well as abstracts and abridgements, official journals and gazettes, trade marks and designs, from almost every issuing authority in the world. http://www.bl.uk/collections/patents.html ---------------------------- The Spire Project, Free Patent Databases http://cn.net.au/patents.htm ------------------------- http://www.intellectual-property.org.uk/std/faq/patents/who_invented.htm How can I find out who invented something? If you know the patent number you can search one of the on-line database such as http://ep.espacenet.com/ Enter the number into the "view a patent application" box and click on the "Go" button. --------------------- US Patent Office - Patent Number Search Engine http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm Home Page http://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent Dates http://www.mwtca.org/mwpat.htm --------------------- I'm patently finished now.... Suzanne ************************************************************************* From Ric You're a gold mine. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:00:58 EST From: Angus Subject: Question for Cam Warren I have a question for Cam Warren. Can you tell me the area (in terms of coordinates) that you searched in the Winslow reef area? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:02:36 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: High Heel Shoes > The "strange story of a > woman's 'high heel shoes' " is not connected to the legend about the bones. Well, it's not connected in the account Goerner recounts Roberts telling him the ex-colonists recounted. Lots of room for interpretation there. Not only interpretations that separate the shoe from the bones, but interpretations about how they knew it was a woman's shoe. Easy to imagine Roberts asking himself that question and answering it for himself ("Oh, the heel must have been high") without asking them, or Goerner asking Roberts and Roberts making up something on the spot. Like the Kilts account itself, I think we have to be careful giving too much credence to the specifics of stories like this. TK ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 11:07:14 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: cup handles The essential differences between brazing and welding: Brazing is done with a filler metal, (usually a eutectic mixture of different metals having a combined lower melting point than either in isolation) which fills the joint by capillary action and is done at a lower temperature than the melting point of the parts to be joined. Dissimilar metals can be joined in this way. Welding, on the other hand, involves melting of the surfaces to be joined and cannot effectually join dissimilar metals. The filler rod will be the same material as the parts. Braze-welding involves "tinning" or coating of the parts to be joined more than capillary action and since the filler can be manipulated in the same way as when welding (rather than disappearing down the nearest crevice) it is thought of as a sort of welding although in reality it is nothing of the sort. Soldering is merely low temperature brazing and high temperature brazing is sometimes called hard-soldering. Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you. From your description I would say that the wire handle was brazed onto another surface and what we have left is the wire stuck to a "pad" of brazing medium which pulled away from that surface. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:47:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: cup handles > From Ric > ... (What's the > difference beween brazing and welding?) You just opened a can of worms. :o) Brace yourself (braze yourself?). Layman's view: in brazing (and soldering), the materials being joined do not melt; they are held together by alloys that melt and flow between the parts being joined. In welding, you melt the parts being joined along with any filler that might be used to round out the joint. But people disagree (please note that no one can disagree with the statement, "People disagree," because if they disagree, they provide evidence of the truth of the proposition). And engineers disagree. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:54:16 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Artifacts 03A&B Ross said: << Having said that I have been racking what's left of my brain to try to remember where i've seen those clips before. It doesn't seem all that long ago. I am trying to remember where and what. I have a funny feeling the\ scalloped edge was used to get a grip to turn the things so the other end slid into a slot cut into the timber but no matter how hard I try I only get fragments of the image in my mind. If I'm right, the other hole is where you stick a small nail or similar object to stop the thing turning back again. >> Many of us on the Expedition had the same eerie feeling that these things were somehow familiar, but none of us could place them. About the best we could do was speculate that they were for securing screening to a frame much like you describe the clips used in picture frames. Ric, any chance the holes were designed to secure a knob built into the sextant frame itself? That way they could be used as Ross describes on fixed blocks, and rotate to catch the sextant (or other instrument) directly on a part that was designed to fit in the hole. No worries about scratches in this scenario. Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric My suspicion is that the reaction of familiarity comes from the little teeth which might appear on all sorts of fasteners and serve a variety of purposes, but the really unique feature on these little doo-hickeys (technical term) is the hole. Could it be for a knob? Why not? The only way we're going to conclusively identify theses things is to find one, or a good picture of one, in a known application. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:55:22 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Question for Cam Warren To Angus - The area investigated was Winslow Reef itself, at 1°26'S., 174°57'W (and thereabouts) and the reefs reported in earlier years approx. 38 miles to the north, in the neighborhood of 0°56'S., 174°51'W. The later didn't (and couldn't, according to undersea charts) exist. Reports of these northerly reefs were due to inaccurate navigation, according to NOAA experts. In short, Winslow and Carondolet Reefs are the only ones visible (from the air) south of Howland. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:56:43 EST From: Michael Craig Subject: Re: Patent question for Brits I am Brit [Scottish] I have owned over the years a number of British ex military war time [ww2] radios. I cannot remember patent numbers as such, but they certainly had manufacturers names or ID on them. Also there was no obscuration of manufacturers names on the actual components inside the equipment. As has already been said - you NEED to read the writing on the artefact! ATB Michael ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:57:42 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: (Oh NO, not another) bones question Andrew asks: > Just a thought, but is it at all possible to "reverse engineer" whether or > not AE's pelvis would be more or less "female" than normal based upon her > stature as seen in photos of her? Interesting idea, but way out of my pay grade. Definitely a kwestion for Kar. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:59:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Atafu population I think we can take this as settled; it would be a pretty wierd situation that would depopulate the island for long enough to get AE and FN down undetected. But that doesn't at all mean that they didn't THINK they were on Atafu. ************************************************************************* From Ric Agreed, but they'd need to have a map with them that showed Atafu as Duke of York for the Betty's Notebook theory to work. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:04:24 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Glass Floats > Good point. Trouble is, I don't know who might have a float. I got the pointil part of a float that somebody else picked up and abandoned on Nai'a. I thought it might be useful (nice paperweight). ************************************************************************** From Ric Ah! Andrew McKenna asked about that and whether anyone had picked it up. I didn't think so. Once we have the artifact back from Rob's analysis it might be interesting to compare the two. I also now have a handle on who has a complete float collected on Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:18:20 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Gender and Shoes > From Ric > > The reference in the Dec. 27th letter to planting operations and digging is > interesting given our discovery of regularly spaced shallow depressions near > the lagoon shore at the Seven Site. I wonder if the clearing was done and > the holes for planting seed cocos were dug, but for some reason the rest of > the planting operation was never carried out? Ric: how do all these clearings relate to each other: ---the natural Seven site ---the 1941 air photo clearing parallel to the ocean shore ---Laxton's "house ventilation" clearing from ocean to lagoon ---the lagoon shore evenly spaced depressions clearing? Are they all the same, except for being rather overgrown with scaevola these days. I understand that 'vola is more like an opportunistic species which delights in taking over clearcuts. Christian D. ************************************************************************** From Ric They're all on the same part of the island but they're not all the same clearing. <<---the natural Seven site>> This is just a naturally-occurring 7 shaped patch of bare coral rubble near the ocean beach. <<---the 1941 air photo clearing parallel to the ocean shore>> This appears to be the effect of human removal of vegetation in the vicinity of the naturally-occurring 7. <<---Laxton's "house ventilation" clearing from ocean to lagoon>> This does not show up in any of the aerial photos that we presently have, although it should be visible in 1953 photography that we hope to get our hands on. <<---the lagoon shore evenly spaced depressions clearing?>> There are a number of naturally-occurring patches of bare coral rubble over near the lagoon shore, some of which have depressions in them. It certainly does seem to be true that the current density of 'vola, especially in the central part of the site where the artifacts and animal bones were found, is the result of earlier clearing and subsequent invasion by scaevola. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:40:49 EST From: Pete Subject: Closing the books (for now) Since we have the response from Hartlepool on NC, and since builder's photos were not commonplace then, can that line of inquiry be closed until further need? The extant markings compared to the building records show there was likely a boiler replacement (or other work that resulted in the "Lang Mar Eng Wks") done on or about the time of the name change from Normanby to Norwich City. I have the microfilm print claiming a device onboard the Electra that "converts human breath into drinking water" from the 1937 local paper. EVERY article in those dealing with AE are AP reports with no corespondents' (spell?) name given. I'll send those copies to you later so they can be on-file and compared with later submissions since there may be quite a few locations that have that same story (AP newswire). While I'm asking to be closing books, any more on WOJ? My inquiry on that station to FCC resulted in an answer of FCC had never heard of that station (I guess FCC does not read amateur radio mags). LTM (who will serve me a nice slice of Humble Pie and then slap me on the head for not studying) Pete #2419 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, it looks like you've gone as far as that Norwich City thread leads. It seems likely that she changed from coal to oil when she became Norwich City. Janet Powell reports that what looks like "Lang Mar Eng Wks" is almost certainly Cem Marine Engineering Works. <> Now THAT is interesting. Just the sort of technology one might be sure to have along and bring ashore should one perchance find one's self marooned on a desert island. I wonder how the heck we could find out what it looked like? I assume that no manufacturer's name was mentioned. WOJ is a dead horse. Betty heard something that she wrote was either WOJ or W40K (apperently spoken as Double U Four Oh Kay). Unbeknownst to Betty, the latter was the call sign of a ham who lived on the other side of the state but on the same Great Circle connecting Gardner and St. Petersburg (where Betty lived). Sometime before he died, he allegedly commented while watching a TV documentary about Earhart, " I talked to her once." His family is looking for his old ham logs but so far without success. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:42:10 EST From: Brandon Subject: Re: magazine capacity of .30 carbines I might be mistaken on this one, but I thought that I read in Guns N Ammo that the M1 Carbine had 10 round straight magazine I hope that I didn't confuse that with the M-888(new M1 carbines being made in Israel for export to the US). I hope that somebody can clarify this one for me. Thanks Brandon Marree KB3GPA ************************************************************************* From Ric Okay, but let's not reopen this theread. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:43:24 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Capital letters know what you mean but the system i have involves using a remote control and navigating around the menu...much like a dreamcast console...then when i use my mothers computer i tend to forget its a proper computer...i cant cut or past or any windows things.for instance those atafu postings took nearly two hours to type on this thing where as on a computer it would take maybe five minutes.i do have a compaq p50 but no modem.so as soon as i can aford one my grammer on postings will be better and i can help find info on some of queries--- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:45:16 EST From: Skeet Subject: Re: Garbled postings I use Eudora, and have checked the option: When sending mail with styled text (HTML) Send plain text only LTM (Who wishes that more of her friends would do the same) Skeet ************************************************************************** From Ric Eudora users please note. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:49:17 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: No mention of Electra or Noonan Ric wrote: >I definitely get the feeling that the discovery of the remains of a >mysterious castaway that might just be Amelia Eahart was exciting to >Gallagher and something he eagerly investigated. The last paragraph of >his Dec. 27th letter is actually a bit sentimental about how the coffin >was made from the wood of a kanawa tree that once stood near where the >castaway died. > >He does not lose his enthusiasm until Isaac kidnaps the bones and sends >him a dismissive telegram saying that this an elderly Polynesian'... Perhaps even more curious is the fact that in _none_ of his correspondence does Gallagher make any mention of the Electra, or even a suggestion that it might be a good idea to begin a search for any possible remains of the aircraft or it's navigator, who obviously had to accompany AE to the shores of Gardner/Nikumaroro Island. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. In fact, Noonan is never mentioned in the entire Bones File, even after Hoodless says the bones are male. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:51:28 EST From: Bertil Subject: Seven site and the g Just a note about an article I found on the following website that I found rather interesting. http://st.net.au/~dunn/japsland/land08.htm It's not my intention to try to tell the forum that I believe that the Seven Site on Niku is done by the japanese during WWII. But do you, Ric, see any similarities between the picture from the above website and from what you seen on Niku?? I have followed the forum for a longer time now from my corner of the world that is called Sweden and this is my first message to the forum. Bertil **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bertil. Very interesting. No, it doesn't look much like the feature on Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:30:25 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts I've been off for a couple days, so I'm probably really late with this, but you're dealing with an entirely different problem. On a firearm, serial numbers are stamped into the steel / alloy / etc, resulting in molecular compression underneath. The raising of such numbers after they've been filed off is a pretty distructive process, requiring filing and sanding of the serial number boss until it's smooth, then utilizing acids to eat away the metal. The numbers, since the molecules are compressed by the stamping process, will eat away slightly faster, thus "raising" the numbers. It won't work for articles such as the artifact, since you're dealing with a different process. Plus, it's not always successful. ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, we're not gonna do that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:38:46 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: No mention of Electra or Noonan >From Ric > >Yes. In fact, Noonan is never mentioned in the entire Bones File, even after >Hoodless says the bones are male. Is it possible no one thought of Fred? If so, why not? Mike Holt ************************************************************************* From Ric Well, it's odd. There are references to Fred in the WPHC file that deals with the search back in 1937 so you'd think that the powers-that-be would know that there was a man with Earhart, but it sure seems like they forgot that little tidbit of information when the Gardner bones were being eagerly dismissed. In fact, Steenson's comment that there were female AND male shoe parts found should have been a huge red flag that a couple had been marooned on the island (surely a more unusual event than a single male castaway) but no one picked up on it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:08:43 EST From: Ric Subject: Calling all Titanic fans It strikes me that, with all the talk of deep-water searches these days, it would be very instructive to know how large an area was searched by the various groups who looked for the Titanic over - how many years? It might be interesting to take that total area and lay it out on a map of the Central Pacific and see what it looks like. How, I wonder, does it compare with the - what is it? - 2,000 square miles hoped to be search for the Electra? How big was that debris field that led Ballard to the Titanic? In other words, how do the target size and search area size compare when the Titanic search is compared to the proposed Electra search? It might be interesting to see that mapped out on the TIGHAR website. I know we have some Titanic authorities out there. Here's a chance to use your off-topic expertise for an on-topic real world comparison. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:12:46 EST From: Pete Subject: Water from breath The device to make water from breath is mentioned only once. The AP article for 5 July '37 mentions it when stating the Electra had "several weeks" of supplies onboard, and an orange kite visible for 20 miles. No mention of who made the device. None of the stories printed in the newspaper give a correspondent's name, just credit to AP. LTM Pete #2419 **************************************************************************** From Ric It's pretty thin as evidence goes. The correspondent was probably picking up on pre-first attempt press releases and had no idea what was actually aboard the airplane when it left Lae. Still, it should be possible to find out what sort of device was available in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:49:00 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Titanic stuff Ric said: "I know we have some Titanic authorities out there. Here's a chance to use your off-topic expertise for an on-topic real world comparison." God knows I'm not trying to be bitchy here, but Ric, have you ever met Dr. Ballard? If not, would you like to? I would suggest you personally put those questions to him. I know you are short on time, but this may be too good of an opportunity to pass up. In the "p.r. bidness" there are three (among many, I'm sure) cardinal rules: perception is reality, always give the client three opportunities to say yes, and never run a Volkswagen in the Indy 500. Number three applies here. No offense to other TIGHAR members, but Ric YOU are the best salesman for TIGHAR, as you've aptly demonstrated over the past 10-plus years. Dr. Ballard has a wealth of experience that TIGHAR may be able to tap, and it never hurts to have REALLY famous and connected people associated -- or at least familiar -- with one's project. It's worth a shot, isn't it? LTM, who would NEVER own a Volkswagen Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric I must be missing something. Is Bob Ballard suddenly an expert on coral atolls? Has TIGHAR become interested in doing an open ocean deep water search for anything? Are we really looking for someone who can steal what little thunder we have? (And I happen to love my VW New Beetle.) Forgive me, but you seem to share the National Geo-promoted view that Ballard is somehow the be all and end all of finders of lost stuff in the water. I'm sure he is very competent but Randy Jacobson talked to him about our project ages ago and there really isn't much he has to offer. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:58:01 EST From: Dave Flyer Subject: water condenser? Hi Mr. Ric, The cup is called "An Armburst Cup " as ( " ") by Charles Lindbergh in his book "We" " I had an Armburst cup which is a device for condensing the moisture from human breath into drinking water. The cup is cloth covered and contains a series of baffle plates through which the breath is blown. The cup is immersed in water and then removed and blown through. The evaporation of the water on the outside cools the cup walls and baffle plates on which the breath moisture collects and runs down to the bottom of the cup." He had one in his equipment carried on his flight. Thanks Dave. **************************************************************************** From Ron Bright NEW YORK TIMES A San Francisco UP release on 8 July 37 reports an interview with Mantz and Putnam, both of whom claim that the Electra did not carry a water condenser as "previously reported".( nothing about breath). Putnam said the condenser, the kind used to make fresh water from sea water, was never a part of the Electra's equipment. He added that the Electra carried a months emergency rations and plenty of water. Through out the many releases in the New York Times quoting from Mantz and Putnam it is apparent the Electra carried a yellow-kite for signalling (includes the photo), life belts, and a Very pistol. Absent evidence to the contrary, I would believe she carried that equipment from Lae to Howland. This same UP release mentions Arthur Monsees ,a SF radio amateur, who reported hearing an "SOS" signed KHAQQ, also mentioning "East Howland" "Lights tonight", "Must Hurry" and "Can't Hold". It came in on 6250 but experts said Mr Monsees wave calibration could have been off. Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. That would seem to settle that question. As of a year ago Art Monsees was alive and well at 86 years. Mike Everette interviewed him about the signals he received. A description of the incident will be included in our long-awaited and much-delayed full report on the post loss radio signals. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:17:16 EST From: Michael Lowery Subject: Re: Calling all Titanic fans My local PBS station had a two hour Nova with Ballard on his trips to find various lost liners from roughly 1912 to 1916 (Titanic, Lusitania, Empress of Ireland, and references to Britannic) recently. As I recall, Ballard was searching a 10 mile by 10 mile area for the Titanic. The debris he first found was, I believe, a boiler. Best wishes, Michael *************************************************************************** From Pete A quick check of RMS Titanic, INC's website gives the 1985 search area as being 400 square nautical miles, with Le Suroit's magnetometers displaying the presence of a large mass of metal below the vessel on the first day (but ignored as suspected equipment failure) Expeditions for 1987, 1994, 1998, and 2000 are up on that site as well. LTM Pete #2419 **************************************************************************** From Bill Leary 1953: Risdon Beasley Ltd. used explosives for echo-sounding to try to get an image of the ship. They used her reported location. 1980 Jack Grimm used sonar systems to develop some 14 "targets" on the bottom, but was unable to use his cameras due to bad weather. 1981 Jack Grimm again. Eliminated all 14 targets from previous year. Also recalculated his "offset" from the previous year and moved his search area somewhat. Located what was believed to be a propeller of about the right size. Also discovered what today is called "Titanic Canyon." The "offset," by the way, is because basically nobody believed the reported location. Carpatia came upon the lifeboats too early for Titanic to have gone down at her reported location. It's believed that the location wirelessed was a dead reckoning based on a sun sighting taken somewhere around noon. If that data point is important to you, I'll look it up. 1983 Jack Grimm's last try. Tried to search same area again, couldn't relocate "propeller" and was basically stopped by bad weather. I've read conflicting data on how much ocean floor Grimm searched, but the estimates run from around 500 to 600 square miles in total for all his trips, with considerable overlap on each outing. In one of those "gosh darn it" things, after Titanic was discovered it was determined that he'd actually come within about 1.5 miles of Titanic in 1981. 1985 Ballard / Michel (U.S. Navy / Woods Hole / IFREMER. Took 21 days to search a 400 square mile area before finding the ship some fourteen miles from her reported location. All "miles" are nautical. Compared to the search for the Electra, the folks looking for the Titanic were given figures with pinpoint accuracy. - Bill #2229 *************************************************************************** From John Clauss It is not exactly a good comparison as electronic search techniques have made significant improvements over the last fifteen years. John ************************************************************************** From Ric That's true, but I would think that the improvements have primarily been in how well you can look down and examine what's below. The boat still has to cover the search area. It may now be possible to cover more area faster and more thoroughly, but you still have to go there. **************************************************************************** From Simon Ellwood. #2120 According to Ballard's book, on the trip they discovered the Titanic they searched an area with sides approx. 10miles x 12miles, i.e. approx. 120sq. miles. This area had been roughly defined by previous searches using some known co-ordinates (Titanic's reported position, position where lifeboats were eventually recovered etc.) The wreck was eventually found at the extreme easterly edge of this area, some 12 miles from the reported position of the sinking. I guess the aim here is to show just what a daunting task anyone searching for AE's Electra has - assuming she went into the sea. Titanic's position was pretty much known to within a relatively small area. All we have for AE are the signal strength analysis & interpretation, and the various sources of fuel/endurance calculations, and perhaps some educated guessing as to their intentions/contingency planning - to try and position the aircraft. But as we've seen from the forum and other sources (i.e. Long's book) there are so many interpretations of all of these imprecise sources that really, even beginning to define a search area has got to be futile. Simon Ellwood #2120 **************************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf (#2406) The fact is that Ballard found the Titanic because he knew where to look. Before Titanic sank the crew sent a distress signal, giving their position. This position proved not very accurate but accurate enough to find the sunken liner 70 years later within miles of the given position. But I think the question here was not whether Ballard can find AE's Electra (and steal TIGHAR's thunder as Ric puts it) but inform us on the size of the Titanic debris field on the Atlantic sea bottom. LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know Bob Ballard has absolutely no interest in looking for Earhart's plane and I do not mean to suggest in any way that he has any interest in "stealing our thunder." In fact, he has heartily endorsed "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" by Tom King et al. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:29:49 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Titanic Stuff Ballard can't find everything. In a just seen TV program, Ballard was looking for the Japanese sub sunk just before Pearl Harbor disaster. And this was in a lot less area then I assume the Titanic. However they made a TV program about it and someone paid for this no-find. Just my thoughts. Peter Pittsburgh Pete **************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Not to mention that Ballard's wasn't the only search. There have been many. The Titanic was a money pit. But then I've heard it said that the definition of a boat is a hole in the water into which you throw money. Sorry - I couldn't resist. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Terry Ann Linley, #0628 <> Ric, I have to agree with Dennis here. Why go to published accounts of the search for Titanic when you can get the answers to your VERY SPECIFIC questions directly from the horse's mouth? Dr. Ballard may not have much to offer in the sense of financing TIGHAR's efforts, but he IS a primary source for the information you seek. LTM (from someone who chooses a primary source over a secondary or tertiary one ANY day), Terry **************************************************************************** From Tom King I can't resist: "Although we still do not know where we might find Amelia Earhart's lost plane, here is a compelling scientific argument for one place to look." Robert D. Ballard, commenting on AMELIA EARHART'S SHOES: IS THE MYSTERY SOLVED?, from the book jacket. But I think Dennis' point was, if we want to know about the size of the Titanic debris field and such, we ought to go to the source. Makes sense to me. TK **************************************************************************** From Ric As you know, I am but the forum's obedient servant. It would, in fact, be very interesting to have Bob Ballard's thoughts on the challenges facing those who would search the briny for a plane so tiny. I'll see if I can get in touch with him. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:36:21 EST From: Danny Brown Subject: 2-6-S-45 I have been lurking on the forum since I joined TIGHAR back in the summer and have recently seen the speculation regarding artifact 2-6-S-45. Noting the email from Kenton Spading on 12-3 that it might be an adjustment knob on a theodolite, I have this to offer. I work near the State Capitol Building in Baton Rouge, LA and noticed a display of eight or so such instruments at our state land office. They range in age from the 1880s to the 1940s. The ones on display are complete with their original wooden boxes. Since they are behind glass in a store window type display, I have only seen them through the glass at a distance of 3-4 feet. However, most seem to have knobs that are similar in style. From that distance, I cannot tell if there is any writing on the knobs, but most appear to be brass or a silver colored metal (aluminum?) with a screw through the middle for attachment. The boxes do not seem to contain anything similar to 2-6-S-03A or 2-6-S-03B, but do contain screwed or glued b locks of wood to secure the instrument. I have made arrangements to examine and photograph all of the instruments and their boxes up close and personal tomorrow (Wednesday - 12-12). I will let you know what I find and send you photos and the instrument model and namebrand information if I feel they might be helpful to you. LTM Danny Brown #2426 P.S. As you may recall from our earlier conversations in the summer, I have been metal detecting as a professional hobbyist now for 33 years. Countless times I have found small. flat, washer-size knobs from oil lanterns. Most all are flat brass, about half the size of a penny, and have a hole in the middle where the stem attached at one time (most old homesites are now in plowed fields and everything gets torn apart by the plow over the years). It is interesting to note that most of the lantern knobs I have found have the patent date on the under side (back) of the knob. I tell you this not because I think that is what the artifact is, but because it seems to be a standard labeling on such type items from the 1870s to 1930s or so. Also, you might want to check into a type of 3-D scanning photography that photographs the surface in relief contours. This might let you read the lettering without having to clean the knob. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Danny. It will be interesting to see what you learn. The knob and other apparently hi-tech artifacts are presently being examined by our esteemed Radio Historian Mike Everette. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:54:45 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Deep-water searching >Has TIGHAR become interested in doing an open ocean deep water >search for anything?'... Perhaps the question might better be phrased... 'Should TIGHAR become interested in doing an 'up close & personal' deep water search off the edge of the reef flat?'... Those twin P & W engines have to be found somewhere, as they certainly haven't been uncovered in all the dilligent searching of the island itself... so why make the same mistake that Mr. Gallagher did, when he apparently forgot all about searching for remains of the Electra, after finding (what he believed to be) AE's bones? Seems to me that one of the original objectives of the 'Search for Amelia' on Gardner/Nikumaroro Island, was to determine whether or not AE/FN had, in fact, flown to & landed the Electra at the island... so why not start planning (at least) for searching in the one area not thoroughly examined in any of the previous Niku expeditions... the deep water areas immediately off the reef flat, as those P & W engines, even if they were washed off the reef flat, certainly didn't fall all that far away from the reef's edge. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric It comes as something of a surprise to learn that we have forgotten all about searching for the remains of the Electra. In addition to the thousands of man and woman-hours we've spent searching for airplane debris on land and in the divable depths surrounding the island, I have this distinct recollection of paying Oceaneering International about $125K to do a sonar search of the deep water just off the reef all the way around the island in 1991. You are, however, correct that the one area that we now suspect most of possibly harboring heavy components of the aircraft - the deep water off the west end near the shipwreck - was the one area not examined by in 1991 (due to hazardous submarine topography that ate a sonar "fish"). We do want to get that area looked at and we're considering various ways to do it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:57:41 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Titanic Stuff When I talked to Robert Ballard about the Earhart incident and the searches off of Howland, he "howled" with laughter (pun intended). No one really has a clue as to where she might have gone down in the water, and to search an area approx. 200 nautical miles around Howland with sonar gear with enough resolution requires towing it relatively close to the seafloor. That means towing at 3-5 knot speeds. That implies a big support vessel and a very long time doing the searching. Now you can search towing the sonar vehicle near the sea surface, perhaps at 10 knots, but then your resolution wouldn't be able to find anything the size of the Electra on the seafloor. In either case, one is talking about MONTHS of at-sea time, at a minimum of $10-15k/day just for the ship. Ballard has a reputation to protect, and the last thing he wants to do is spoil that reputation by spending countless months searching for something that may not even be there. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:06:10 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: magazine capacity of .30 carbines I'm not sure on that one either except I know the WW2 era M-1 carbine came with a 15 round magazine. In California, I think they outlawed the 15 round mag but 10 was ok. A 10 round mag must be a relatively new thing? (Ric, when do I get my new membership number so I can sign off with it! I joined today on-line) Chris in Petaluma #???? *************************************************************************** From Ric Arise Chris of Petaluma. You shall henceforth be known as Chris TIGHAR 2511. Your membership materials will be in the mail shortly. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:21:49 EST From: Ric Subject: Outside magazine Brace yourselves. The January issue of Outside magazine - now at your local newstand - has a feature article about the Earhart search. It is mostly about Mike Kammerer - the guy who bought the media rights to our last expedition and is now planning his own deep-sea search - and his adventures with me and Dave Jourdan of Nauticos. It is well-written and very entertaining. I don't agree with everything the writer, Steve Titus, says. He calls our Niku IIII artifacts "moldy trinkets" (Hrrumph!) and he describes me as "highly-opinionated but ...respected for his diligence and deliberate nature." (Me?? Opinionated??) But it's Kammerer you're going to get a kick out of. I won't spoil it for you. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:48:40 EST From: Dave Meek Subject: new to forum FIRST LET ME SAY I HAVE HAD AN UNQUENTABLE THIRST FOR THE EARHART MYSTERY. IT STARTED WHEN I BOUGHT A BOOK IN SECOND GRADE (1958) I HAVE BOXES OF MAGAZINES, NEWSPAPERS,AND BOOKS FILLED WITH MY OWN AMATEUR RESEARCH AND MUSINGS. PERHAPS THIS IS OLD STUFF TO YOU GUYS, BUT I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS THAT HAVE HAUNTED ME FOR YEARS. 1) IN FRED GOERNERS BOOK HE SAID HE INTERVIEWED ADMIRAL HAULSEY WHO SAID IN EFFECT THAT HE KNEW MORE THAN HE COULD TELL. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT HE MEANT OR LOOKED INTO IT? I HAVE BEEN ON HIS MUSEUM SITE BUT THERE AREN'T ANY ARCHIVES THAT I COULD FIND. 2) ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO I WAS IN THE YANKEE AIR MUSEUM AND CAME ACROSS A LARGE BINDER WITH WHAT SEEMED TO BE THE RADIO AND TIMELINE LOGS FOR THE ITASCA I WAS GOING TO GO BACK AND ASK FOR A COPY BUT HAVE NOT . IS IT AVAILABLE? I HAD ALL KINDS OF QUESTIONS WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT. THAT I THINK HAVE NEVER OFFICIALLY BEEN ADDRESSED. BUT MY MEMORY WON'T LET ME MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT. THESE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS BUT I ENJOY READING THE OTHER POSTS. SOMEDAY WE WILL KNOW THE ANSWERS. REGARDS, DAVE MEEK ************************************************************************ From Ric Welcome to the forum Dave. I'd like to request that you use conventional lower case and capital letters in any posting. In answer to your first question; It was Admiral Nimitz, not Halsey, that Goerner badgered for years until the old man finally said something that Goerner took to be confirmation of what he wanted to hear. There were two radio logs kept aboard Itasca. The original of the log kept by Chief Radioman Bellarts and Radioman Galten was given to the National Archives by Bellarts' family in 1974. The original of the second log kept by Radioman O'Hare has apparently been lost. Only a retyped ("smoothed") copy exists in the National Archives. I don't know what you saw at the Yankee Air Museum. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:38:00 EST From: Craig Subject: Titanic confusion Just a little confused with all this Titanic stuff. If you're going to censor the forum, and get angry at certain individuals (who I am not standing up for) for posting such "off topic" things as arguing about the Bones analysis, why would you encourage diligent forumites to spend their time researching something that you don't even believe happened? It's obvious that you just want to cast a shadow on the ocean expedition. We all know it's pretty far fetched, and most here believe Earhart probably met her fate on Niku, so why give in to the temptation of throwing sand in the face of the ocean searchers? Won't it be enough when you eventually find a "smoldering" piece of the Electra on Niku. Won't it be enough when the ocean search turns up empty? Won't that satisfy you? I just don't understand what good can come of being insecure about this. "Worst" Case Scenario - if you are the man you portray, you should be happy if they find the Electra, pretty much intact, on the bottom of the ocean somewhere. You could relax for a while - kick back, get the sand out of your shoes. You wouldn't have to read these e-mails anymore! Craig **************************************************************************** From Ric My goodness. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted to promote debate on the forum about whether or not a deep-sea search makes any sense. I agree with you. I get the impression that most of us here who are familiar with the known facts (or, perhaps more accurately, are familiar with how few facts are known) believe that such a search is ridiculous. My request for information about the Titanic search was prompted by two thoughts. 1. I am personally and genuinely curious as to how the actual Titanic search compares with the proposed Earhart search in terms of ocean area covered. 2. I suspect that some of the 1,000 or so people who visit the TIGHAR website each day might also be interested in seeing that comparison. I do not plan to put up something on the TIGHAR website that presents a big argument against a deep-water search. There is no need for that. An accurate graphic representation will allow people to draw their own conclusions. Your questions about why I don't just sit back and gloat over the prospect of millions of dollars being shoveled into the Pacific in a hopeless deep-water search gets to the very heart of why TIGHAR undertook the Earhart Project in the first place. What happened to Amelia Earhart is not, in itself, important. What is important is the intellectual discipline it takes to find the answer. The Earhart mystery is the vehicle by which we explore techniques and technologies that lead us, step by halting step, to the truth. It's the journey and the lessons we learn along the way that matter because they have applications to "real life" situations and decisions we all make every day. So, when flawed logic and unwarranted assumptions lead someone to contemplate spending millions of dollars on a deep-sea search it is an example of exactly the kind of senseless waste this project hopes to help prevent. Would I be disappointed if a deep-sea search turned up NR16020? You better believe it. I've spent nigh onto 14 years of my life carrying this torch to develop and demonstrate sound problem-solving methodologies and to have it all negated would be devastating - not because somebody else would get the credit for finding the plane. As I said before, the plane doesn't matter. What really happened to Earhart, one way or the other, doesn't matter. What matters is that the process that we're following lead to the answer - whatever that answer may be. We're looking on Nikumaroro because that's where the process tells us to look. If the process pointed us toward the deep ocean, we'd be there. Maybe you're right. Maybe it would look defensive to say anything at all about a deep water search, but with so may people visiting our website and so much press (and there is likely to be a lot more) about the various proposed deep-water searches, it seems like we should at least offer an illustration of what is being suggested and a simple explanation of why we're not participating. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:47:13 EST From: Craig Subject: Electra Crash Photo Somewhat regarding the Electra crash photo (the one by way of Carrington). In you opinion, what are the chances that photo was taken on Niku, and pieces of the Electra are still sitting somewhere on the island, covered by vegatation or whatever. Are we nill with this one, or is it just a highly-remote possibility. Also, regarding Carrington, when he was asked about the pic, he "declined." Does this mean he didn't have any more to offer, or does he have something against TIGHAR? Thanks, Craig **************************************************************************** From Ric I think the chances of the photo having been taken on Niku are remote. I think the chances of substantial pieces of the Electra still sitting in the bushes somewhere on Niku are extremely remote. So to answer your question: We're not at nil on this one. It's another one of those lovely negative hypothesis questions. As for Carrington: Yes, he seems to have something against TIGHAR but he also seems to have something against the rest of the world. Those who have approached him in a non-TIGHAR context report pretty much the same problems I had in trying to talk to the man. Wanna have a go at him? I have his phone number. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:51:33 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 Danny Brown's post suggests a possibility. How about putting out a note on the (undoubtely numerous) metal detectorist lists and websites, drawing attention to the artifact illustrations on the TIGHAR website and asking for advice? Might get us some information and generate some interest in the process. ************************************************************************** From Ric Not a bad idea, especially for the less technical artifacts like the cup handle and fasteners. Anybody on the forum plugged into the metal detector world? We have an excellent relationship with White's Electronics but that's not the same thing as the legion of treasure-hunters who stalk the beaches and forests. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:55:26 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: new to forum > From Ric > > I don't know what you saw at the Yankee Air Museum. If we know where two logs are and neither are in the Yankee Air Museum it might be worth finding out perhaps? Could be a run after angry chickens, or it could be the missing log.... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric It was almost certainly a photocopy of one of the other logs but it shouldn't be too hard to check out. I assume he means the Yankee Air Force Museum. They probably have a website. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:07:40 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Titanic Stuff > Now you can search towing the > sonar vehicle near the sea surface, perhaps at 10 knots, but then your > resolution wouldn't be able to find anything the size of the Electra on the > seafloor. You just got me wondering. Are they expecting to find the actual mostly intact airplane? Or are they looking for remains like engines and other metal parts? If that plane has been sitting in the water off Howland for all this time, what would be left today? - Bill *************************************************************************** From Ric All of the deep-water searchers expect a virtually intact airplane because; 1. It is known that it is possible to ditch a Model 10 and sustain very little structural damage. 2. Other aircraft have been found at great depths in relatively intact condition. The prospect of a recoverable and exhibitable airplane is, in fact, the reason that all of the proposed deep-water searches are commercial ventures. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:10:49 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: Outside magazine Tom King has sent the following letter to the editor of Outside magazine: <> Posted to the forum with Tom's knowledge and permission. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:14:03 EST From: Tom Byers Subject: Re: Titanic Stuff What is needed is a underwater version of the unmanned aerial drones used by our military. The commercial/military applications would offset the development costs. Tom Byers *************************************************************************** From Ric Deep-diving Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) have been around for years and are getting better and better. The problem is still speed vs resolution. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:19:46 EST From: David Subject: Marvel Comics? > Arise Chris of Petaluma. You shall henceforth be known as Chris TIGHAR 2511. this is out of line I know but judging from the way you write I'd venture to say that at one time you were a big Marvel Comics fan. Probably Thor and Spiderman, am I right?-------------David **************************************************************************** From Ric Not unless Sir Walter Scott wrote for Marvel Comics. There are some, however, who allege that I am, myself, a comic book character. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:27:32 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Titanic confusion > Ric said: > > The Earhart mystery is the vehicle by which we explore > techniques and technologies that lead us, step by halting step, to the truth. I thought that TIGHAR was The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, not The International Group for Exploring Techniques and Technologies to Discover Truth. It was my understanding that TIGHAR's methodology was the vehicle by which you hoped to discover Earhart1s lost Electra, not vice versa. At least that's what the TIGHAR web site implies. In any event, a comparison of the underwater search for the Titanic and a proposed underwater search for the Electra is relevant, I think, more for its differences than its similarities. First, the underwater terrain in the two areas are completely different. The area off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland where the Titanic was discovered is the underwater equivalent of New England terrain; that is, it is hilly, rocky, undulating, and, importantly, strewn with the wreckage of hundreds, if not thousands of sunken vessels and other detritus. All of these underwater features made it difficult to isolate the Titanic's wreckage. The area of the Pacific under consideration is flat, featureless terrain that was not in any regular shipping lanes or war areas, meaning that undersea wreckage from either sunken ships or airplanes is minimal. (This, by the way, is discussed in Long's book.) Also very important is the fact that underwater search technology has vastly improved in the fifteen years or so since Ballard discovered the remains of the Titanic. Companies such as Nauticos now routinely discover very small items in depths of three miles or more. It is also important to point out that Long , Nauticos and, I believe, Kammerer (who is working independently) have all indicated that the area they intend to search is less than 800 square miles -- still a daunting proposition, but only 40% of the 2,000 square miles you indicated. They may be wrong, of course, and they may not find the Electra, but their raising and spending of money in the endeavor is no different than the several expeditions that TIGHAR has undertaken. You think that you know where Earhart went down and you have spent a lot of other people's money to find her plane. So far you have been unsuccessful. These other two expeditions are relying on research and analysis that supports another theory, and they are trying to prove it. If they are correct, they will have accomplished TIGHAR's implied mission by proving a hypothesis contrary to yours; if not, TIGHAR has lost nothing. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric You will, I hope, forgive me if I disagree. I can't find anything on the TIGHAR website that states or implies that we are only interested in finding the Electra. The name of the organization was set and registered at the time of its founding in 1985 and our mission has evolved and grown since then, but we haven't changed our name any more than General Electric did when they started building jet engines. I will also take issue with your statement that their is no difference between the for-profit commercial attempts to find the airplane and TIGHAR's nonprofit investigation. Your characterization of TIGHAR's expeditions as having been funded with "other people's money" reveals a fundamental ignorance, or perhaps disapproval, of how the charitable giving system works in this country. The federal government recognizes that there are endeavors which are in the public interest but are not necessarily viable as commercial enterprises. To encourage such endeavors, the federal government exempts from corporate income tax orgainzations which meet specific monitored standards and allows individuals and corporations who contribute to those organizations to deduct the donations from their own taxes. Contributions to a recognized nonprofit organization - whether it be the American Red Cross, the United Way, Harvard University, your local volunteer fire department, or TIGHAR - are therefore business transactions in which the "purchaser" receives value (personal satisfaction and a tax deduction) for their money. A nonprofit organization does not use "other people's money" any more than Ford Motor Company operates on other people's money paid in exchange for automobiles. The support TIGHAR receives from individuals in countries other than the U.S., and who therefore receive no tax consideration, is a testament to the personal satisfaction value of the product TIGHAR offers. The difference - and it is a very real difference - between a commercial treasure hunt such as those contemplated by Nauticos and Kammerer, and the historical investigation by TIGHAR - a recognized "501 (c) (3)" public charity - is that their duty is to their investors, in Nauticos' case, or in Kammerer's case, only to himself. TIGHAR's duty is to the public. It is not a coincidence that your criticisms, even though you have chosen to join TIGHAR, are being aired on a publicly accessible forum. Try finding a website or forum where the treasure hunters share their research or invite peer review. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against commerical enterprise or making money. Far from it. And I'm certainly not opposed to Nauticos or Kammerer or anybody else trying to make a legitimate buck. But I do not hold with the politically correct view that all theories are created equal. I believe that our work on Niku is based on sound reasoning and realistic expectations. From everything I've seen, it seems to me that the deep-water searches are not. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:28:43 EST From: Dave Subject: Re: new to forum It is the Yankee Air Museum at the old Willow Run airport near Detroit. there was a room with aviation artifacts regarding women aviators and the logs were there to look at.I'm sure they were copies but don't know where they got them at the time no one I asked seemed to know. Thanks for info on Nimitz . I knew it was him. sometimes I get my brain too far ahead of what I'm writing and thinking. I too thought Goerner was just trying to get the admiral to say what Fred wanted to hear. But it does make one wonder. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:44:49 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Titanic Stuff From my understanding, TIGHAR believes Earhart landed her Electra just north of the Norwich City. I believe Ric said this is the only possible area on Niku suitable for a wheels down landing. If so, then a deep water search of such a small area should be fairly simply compared to searching around the entire atoll. Thanks, Lawrence *************************************************************************** From Ric There are many places on the reef flat and a very few on land that would be suitable for a wheels-down landing. The area north of the shipwreck, however, fits all of the anecdotal and photographic evidence and must be seen as the most likely landing site. Searching the deep water off that part of the reef is, as you say, fairly simple compared to searching around the entire atoll. The expensive part is getting the technology out there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:03:03 EST From: Craig Subject: Re: Titanic confusion > Ric wrote: >... > much press (and there is likely to be a lot more) about the various proposed > deep-water searches, it seems like we should at least offer an illustration > of what is being suggested and a simple explanation of why we're not > participating. Actually, that does make a lot of sense. The ocean search is going to get a lot of press. If you could establish yourself (TIGHAR) as the group behind the "other theory" about Earhart, you'd be doing yourself quite a favor. Think about it. You may want to give a thought to making a media statement, or holding a press conference. It would be a good opportunity to push TIGHAR a little further into the public consciousness, and to let people know that there already a highly respected theory regarding AE. You may even go so far as to say that you predict the ocean search will fail. The American public likes nothing more than a battle royale. At first you'll come off as the sceptic, but after an unsuccessful ocean search, you'll gain respect, and maybe financial momentum. This guy might actually be doing you a favor. When the ocean search turns up blank, all the newly generated interest in the ocean search may "jump ship" and turn to support TIGHAR. Memberships, sales, even privately support could all be a result. So, now I feel it's OK to throw sand. Craig *************************************************************************** From Ric You know Craig, if you keep agreeing with me they're going to start muttering about "a conspiracy of Scottish solidarity." You raise a couple of interesting points but the situation may be a little different than you suppose. When we launched the Earhart Project in 1988 there were two theories about what happened to Amelia - 1) she was captured by the Japanese, and 2) she went down at sea. The current article in Outside magazine is significant in that it formally acknowledges a sea change in public opinion that we have seen developing for a long time. According to the article, there are two hypotheses about what happened to Earhart. "Hypothesis 1" is that she landed and died on Nikumaroro. "Hypothesis 2" is that she went down at sea. The Japanese capture theory is dismissed with one sentence. You could say that the widespread acceptance of the Niku Hypothesis is primarily a function of the very high level of media exposure TIGHAR has received - and you would be right - but the other side of the coin is the fact that news organizations cover news, not theories. To get the media exposure year after year you have to do real work and produce genuine results. TIGHAR's position in what has become the Earhart Industry is such that we literally do not need to put out press releases or hold press conferences any more. We haven't done either in years. If somebody announces plans to search for Amelia the next thing that happens is my phone starts ringing with reporters asking for TIGHAR's reaction. If we have news to report on our investigation we only need to inform the TIGHAR membership via the newsletter and website and the press will call - if they think that the news is significant. What is new about the proposed ocean searches is that it looks like someone besides TIGHAR may actually go out and do something to try to find the answer to the riddle. If the ocean search or searches happen they will fail and that, as you say, may cause some people to view the Niku hypothesis more favorably. Of course it shouldn't, but it probably will. My main reason for wanting to put the proposed ocean searches in perspective with accurate graphic representations is to let people (including myself) see just what is being contemplated. We did the same thing for our own planned work on Nikumaroro. If the other guys won't show show the public a picture of what they want to do, we will. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:10:00 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Marvel Comics > ... There are some, > however, who allege that I am, myself, a comic book character. Or a figment of our imagination. Or a simulacrum of a human being designed by clever Japanese engineers and computer scientists to keep people from finding out what REALLY happened to AE. ;o) Marty #2359 ************************************************************************* From Ric I absorutery deny this arregation. (Apologies to our Japanese friends.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:12:58 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 Lost treasure magazine has a web site (losttreasure.com)that would present an opportunity to gather insights from enthusiasts. ED of PSL ************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps someone on the forum could run with this ball and ask metal detector enthusiasts, via the Lost Treasure website, to take a look at the artifacts on the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:22:10 EST From: Jeff Lange Subject: Re: Put a cap on it Although my membership is good until mid 2004, I can't pass up a good deal like this one. So, please extend my membership another 2 years( I want that cap to go with my "old" one) and put me down for another $ 50.00 so I can get a copy of your fantastic aerial voyage around and above Niku. You should have my credit card info on file, but if not, or it is out of date, let me know and I'll phone it in. Thank you for all that you, Pat and the rest of the TIGHAR membership due to provide interesting content on the forum and in the Tracks. Jeff Lange #0748C **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jeff. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:16:24 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Titanic confusion My impression of your interest in the deep water search technique and scale of the Titanic search was to relate it to the feasability of a deep water search near the Norwich City and the bottom area off the reef the Electra would have been swept off into. (No Electra on the Island). Obviously the deep water sonar search of some 2000 square miles somewhere northwest of Howland is of no real interest to you, nor should it. If the Electra landed on the reef re the Tighar hypothesis and was swept off by tide/surf, those huge engines must be down on the ocean floor say within a few miles?? That is where some ocean bottom search experts could be of value. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric We're working with experts in coral atoll morphology and reef dynamics to determine where and how best to look for debris that was possibly swept off the reef. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:37:55 EST From: Craig Subject: Re: Electra Crash Photo > From Ric > > I think the chances of the photo having been taken > on Niku are remote. > I think the chances of substantial pieces of the > Electra still sitting in the > bushes somewhere on Niku are extremely remote. > So to answer your question: We're not at nil on > this one. It's another one > of those lovely negative hypothesis questions. I'm just wrestling with myself over the two probabillities that this represents: - the probability of the Electra remaining undiscovered on Niku for 60 years, vs. the probability of one of the other unaccounted for Electras (8?) crashing on some other island, in the general south pacific area, in the same general time frame - 1934-1940. Untestable hypothesis: What if the picture was taken near the shore? I mean, by the looks of the picture, the Electra is deep in the jungle, but what if the photographer is actually standing on the beach, and the plane is only 10 feet from the water - maybe tossed up there by a storm. Although, yes, it doesn't look smashed up enough to have been washed to that position by tide action.... >...(Carrington) > Wanna have a go at him? I have his phone number. Naw, I'll pass on that one. Second hand information anyway... Thanks, Craig *************************************************************************** From Ric Expert opinions we solicited about the vegetation indicated that the photographer may well have been standing on the beach (whatever beach it might be) and the damage might not be inconsistent with an aircraft that was cast ashore by the surf after being largely ripped apart by the waves - although it's hard to imagine that the gear would not have collapsed at some point in the process. Fitting such an event into what we know about events at Niku is pretty tough. The airplane has got to be washed ashore, photographed, and washed back out to sea again without being seen by Lambrecht (July 9, 1937), Maude and Bevington (October 1937), the New Zealand survey party (Dec. 1, 1938 to Feb. 5, 1939), the USS Bushnell survey (Nov. 1939), Gallagher (September 1940 to June 1941), and so forth. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:56:39 EST From: Danny Brown Subject: 2-6-S-45 Today, I examined and photographed the theodolites on display at the Louisiana State Land Office. Although many had similarly designed knobs to 2-6-S-45 (in a general sense), but none had any patent information on the knob itself. In fact, only one knob had anything on it at all, and that was simply the number 75 on the back. That could be a year designation since it was an engineer's transit dated "1800s" on the display title card. All of the knobs I examined were entirely brass, except one on a 1947 geodetic level made by E. G. Ficher. That one had a bakelite knob with an aluminum center and shaft. Many of the knobs had "scalloped" fronts or backs, or both, but most were flat tops and backs. I examined the wooden box containers closely and can say for certain that they do not contain anything like artifacts 2-6-S-03A or 2-6-S-03B. My conclusion, based on what I saw, is that artifact 2-6-S-45 is not from a engineer's transit or an engineer's level. I also examined two engineer's 6" compasses (from the late 1800s and from 1910) and a surveyor's barometer from the late 1800s. None of them had any knobs, but they did have their original wooden boxes. The cases didn't contain anything similar to 2-6-S-03A or 2-6-S-03B. I noted with interest Tom King's suggestion about contacting metal detector clubs. That is a great idea! I'm only sorry that I didn't think of it first. I know there are hundreds of clubs around the country. I recommend contacting the Federation of Metal Detecting and Archeological Clubs (www.fmdac.com) for help in posting links to the artifacts. Many clubs are members of this organization. Numerous other links can also be pursued just by typing in "metal detectors" on a search engine. Anyone who metal detects also has a junk box where they keep interesting and unusual metal objects that they can't identify. A smart detectorist keeps them until they are identified. I know many people who have later identified valuable objects in their junk box. By the way, the Baton Rouge metal detecting club (the Pelican Relic and Recovery Association) is now in it's 20th year with approximately 90 members. This January, I begin my term as President again, my fourth reign in 20 years. I would like to let Tom know that we have an excellent working relationship with the State Archeologist Office. Our services have been used to help them document many historic sites over the years. Our members obey all laws with regard to archeological sites and private lands and we voluntarily document and map all of our relic finds and turn the information over to the archeologists, regardless of whether the hunt is at their direction or not. That is one of the main reasons our relationship has been so cordial and mutually satisfying. The archeologists have seen that the metal detector can be a useful tool in the hands of an "expert user." In return, our members have learned the value of documenting, mapping, and preserving items so that everyone can benefit from the knowledge gained and the history preserved. By the way, I am presently reading "Amelia Earhart's Shoes". Tell Tom that I, as a professional journalist, think it is well written and have recommended it highly to our club members. Let's hope that one day, a second edition will have an appendix detailing how the mystery was finally solved! LTM Danny Brown #2426 ************************************************************************** From Ric Danny, that's excellent research and great information. Thank you. Tom King has been able to arrange for the non-destructive testing lab at the United States Naval Academy to have a go at deciphering the information on the front of our wee knob. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:58:43 EST From: John Rayfield Jr. Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 Ric wrote: << Anybody on the forum plugged into the metal detector world? We have an excellent relationship with White's Electronics but that's not the same thing as the legion of treasure-hunters who stalk the beaches and forests. >> You might want to visit with the editors of Lost Treasure magazine (www.losttreasure.com). Another magazine is Western and Eastern Treasures (www.treasurenet.com). I think these magazines will sometimes print photos of 'finds', to see if others might be able to identify those 'finds'. The following are a few 'treasure hunting' websites that I've found, that have online forums for various topics: www.thetreasuredepot.com www.findmall.com www.treasurenet.com www.pulltab.net Hope this helps. John Rayfield, Jr. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:45:44 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: The Process "What happened to Amelia Earhart is not, in itself, important." "The plane doesn't matter." "What really happened to Earhart, one way or the other, doesn't matter." Excuse me, but what are we all doing here? LTM (who thinks what happened to her darling Millie IS important, thank you very much), Pat Gaston **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, according to Outside magazine we're "having a helluva good time not finding her." We'd like to think that, although we are admittedly having a helluva good time, we are getting closer and closer to a conclusive solution to the mystery. I'm sure that knowing what happened to Amelia is important to her family in the same way that all families want and need to know and understand what became of loved ones who have disappeared. But as far as I know, none of our researchers or team members - with the exception of AE's great nephew Jim Morrissey -- has an emotional attachment to Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan. That's not why we're doing this. Neither are we trying to solve the mystery out of any feeling that the fate of the flight is important to aviation history. It isn't. Had Earhart's World Flight been completed without incident it's hard to see how aviation would be any different today. The same can not be said, for example, of the vanished 1927 Nungesser/Coli transatlantic attempt. Earhart's Lockheed 10E would be a wonderful artifact to have and preserve, if only because it has been the focus of so much attention for so many years. But we really don't expect that there is much of anything left of it, so the best we expect is a collection of archaeological relics rather than a "plane." Not that there's anything wrong with archaeological relics, mind you. As a matter of fact, we're rather into archaeological relics. And finally, TIGHAR's search is not about honoring Earhart's accomplishments and role as an aviation pioneer. That has been done, if not overdone, by a legion of authors and promoters beginning with George Putnam. TIGHAR embarked upon the Earhart Project in 1988 because it looked like it was just possible that a really fascinating and very popular mystery that had stumped everyone for over half a century might be solvable if approached with scientific rigor. And that's what it's still about. The search has been, and continues to be, a great learning experience. What could be more worthwhile than having a helluva good time learning how to figure out what is true and what is not? LTM (who knows that AE's childhood nickname was "Meelie" not "Millie"), Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:57:58 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Deep water search >As I said before, the plane doesn't matter. What really happened to >Earhart, one way or the other, doesn't matter'... > >LTM, Ric My, my... I can just hear the CEO of GM saying...'It really doesn't matter how our new, 2002 models are performing or selling in the marketplace... it's actually the design & manufacturing 'process' that we've worked so hard to develop that _really_ matters' ... Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my last post, I wasn't suggesting any 'deep-water' search covering hundreds or thousands of square miles of open ocean, I was only suggesting a 'visual', thorough 'deep-water' search of the 'drop-off' waters surrounding the Gardner/Niku reef flat, with the latest, state-of-the-art submersible equipment... in the only location where the general concensus of TIGHAR opinion seems to conclude the Electra would have sunk, after either being smashed to bits on the reef flat or washed off the reef flat, by normal wave/surf/tidal action, during the first week after it first touched-down. In spite of the best efforts of very dilligent searches _on_ the island, no sign of the Electra's remains (significantly, not it's twin P & W engines) has been discovered... so would not the _next_ reasonable, logical (scientific?) step in the 'process' be to _thoroughly_ search the only other logical, reasonable place, where no visual search here-to-fore has taken place... the ocean bottom, immediately adjacent to the reef flat drop-off, with the best, most technologically advanced, deep-water diving equipment available ? Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric The treasure hunters are approaching it your way. They'll build a car (if they can) and then sell it. We're trying to see if we can all put our heads together and build a car. Yes, if the best experts we can find agree that there is reason to believe that large components of the aircraft, such as engines, might be in the deep water off the edge of the reef, we'll try to raise enough money to search that environment with the best technology available. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:59:47 EST From: Al Jeffries Subject: Re: Artifact thoughts Gentlemen: Another method analogous to the "carbon dioxide blasting" is supercritical carbon dioxide w modifier, i. e., supercritical fluids. It's not corrosive/abrasive and may remove the metal oxides and allow accurate number reading. The best place to start with supercritical fluids is Phasex Corp. Lawrence, MA 978-794-8686. The company principals are Val Krukonis and Paula Gallagher-Wetmore. good cleaning, Al Jeffries **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Al. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:33:04 EST From: Ric Subject: Test message. Disregard This is a test message. Disregard. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:21:55 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Marvel Comics Ric is real - trust me on this. No one in their wildest imagination could ever have made him up ....... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:49:30 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Marvel Comics > From Jon Watson > > Ric is real - trust me on this. No one in their wildest imagination > could ever have made him up ....... Not even Clive Cussler? Stan Lee would have put him in a funny costume and had him time-traveling to face the evil Toranaga, theft of airplanes in the dawn of transpacific air travel. Hmmm .... I feel a plot coming on ..... I'll quit. I promise. Mike *************************************************************************** From Ric I do my own funny costumes. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:56:51 EST From: Christopher Ferro Subject: Re: Titanic confusion "I thought that TIGHAR was The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, not The International Group for Exploring Techniques and Technologies to Discover Truth. It was my understanding that TIGHAR's methodology was the vehicle by which you hoped to discover Earhart's lost Electra, not vice versa." I agree with David, Ric. I joined TIGHAR through my donation of maps (which I still owe Pat the Illustrator files for) to aid in the group's search for what happened to Earhart and Noonan, NOT to discover "the Truth". The truth of what happened TO THEM perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be what you meant. The academic discipline is most important?? Ric, go back to University and get some Ph.D.s in something if you only want to exercise academic discipline. The whole point should be to find out what happened to these aircraft and their crews. If we have to exercise academic discipline to do that (and we DO), that's wonderful! It's the only proper way to arrive at answers and even more questions. But they are part of the TOOLS needed. You've turned it backwards and made the objects of the searches and recoveries the tools for your need for academic discipline? I guess they could augment each other, but if you're not interested in what happened to Earhart and Noonan, what's the point? Point of fact - from TIGHAR's home page: "The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (acronym TIGHAR, pronounced 'tiger') is the world's leading aviation archaeological foundation. A full-time professional staff guides an international membership of researchers and supporters in the non-profit organization's efforts to find, save, and preserve rare and historic aircraft. " I see where TIGHAR has evolved to include the aircrafts' crews in this (as in finding out what happened to them), but tools and techniques for discovering truth?? Please! [rant over] You guys are doing great work, nonetheless, but I fear that some sort of soul searching might be in order here. What IS TIGHAR doing? What IS its purpose? LTM, (who always has her priorities straight) Christopher Ferro ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Chris. Your maps (which can be seen on the TIGHAR website) are spectacular and I'm much more inclined to listen seriously to the questions and criticisms of those who make real contributions to the search than I am to the Chorus of Carpers. Soul searching about TIGHAR's mission is, in fact , what led us to our decision to use the Earhart disappearance as a vehicle for developing and demonstrating sound historical investigative techniques and technologies. A little history: When we founded TIGHAR in 1985 our first slogan was "Bring 'Em Back Alive". We thought we were ultimately going to help museums and collectors find and recover airplanes that would be "restored", i.e. brought back to life to fly again. But our first project - the one that pre-dated and launched the organization - was the search for the White Bird of Nungesser and Coli. It was (and is) a great mystery but there was never a realistic expectation that a "restorable" airplane would be found. This was an archaeological project and we sought archaeological help from the aviation historical community only to discover to our surprise that there was none to be had. Lots of people were hauling airplanes out of the woods and the water, and some people were talking about "aviation archaeology" but nobody in the aviation historical community - collectors, rebuilders, or museums - seemed to have the foggiest notion of what archaeology is all about. To find the help we needed we naturally turned to the traditional world of archaeology and historic preservation. We found a wealth of information, but we also found that the original premise of the organization - bringing old airplanes "back to life" - was wrongheaded and, in fact, completely antithetical to the basic principles of historic preservation. At that point we could have simply said, "Never mind.", folded our tent, and shut down the organization but we chose instead (and perhaps foolishly) to try to tell the aviation historical community what we had learned and help bring about some genuine aviation historic preservation. Ahhh, the naivete of idealism. We did a lot of good work in defining terminology and applying historic preservation ethics to aviation applications, but our attempts to "educate" merely pissed off the museums and collectors who did not want to hear that their star exhibits were phonies. We also learned that pissing people off is really bad for fund-raising. Then, in 1988, along came Amelia - or more accurately, Tom Willi and Tom Gannon who introduced us to a reasonable and testable Earhart hypothesis. Here at last was something we could do that: - Was popular enough to actually attract funding (unlike the chronically undefunded search for the White Bird). - Would give us an opportunity to do good research and good science in an aviation historical context. - If successful, might put us in a position of credibility and financial stability that would enable us to have a positive impact on aviation historic preservation. The Earhart Project has been a tremendous success in the first two categories and we have every hope and expectation that it will also succeed in the third. All of us has his or her own reasons for searching for Amelia. Those are mine. Yours are no less valid. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:57:33 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Relics Ric said: "As a matter of fact, we're rather into archaeological relics." You should be, Pat is married to one. :-) LTM, who also awaits her AARP membership card Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:58:03 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: 2-6-S-45 For Danny Brown -- Thanks for your kind words, and I'm delighted to learn that your metal detecting group works well with the State Archeologist. Unfortunately, as you doubtless know, there are lots and lots of states where this isn't the case, and there are plenty of archeologists who think of metal detecting groups as the devil's spawn. It's a shame, because as your group shows, there's lots of room for fruitful cooperation. TK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:07:15 EST From: Ric Subject: Where was the forum? As you no doubt noticed, the forum was missing from last Thursday until today. Contrary to popular rumor, I was not too drunk or disgusted to process your messages. The server at the company that distributes the forum emails had a technical problem that prevented anything from going out and, of course, I had no way to tell you that without sending a private email to every one of our 800 subscribers - which I was about to do when they finally got the thing fixed today. Sorry for the angst and withdrawal symptoms. We're up and running again. Happy Holidays. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:30:50 EST From: Penny Kanouse Subject: David Billings? My neighbor, a WWII vet with the WASPs has made contact with a representative of Mr David Billings. She hopes to be some part of Mr Billing's project to locate Amelia Earhart's plane. I would like to confirm independently on her behalf if this project has credibility and if Mr Billings is known and respected in the Amelia Earhart community. Thank you for your comments. ************************************************************************** From Ric The name doesn't ring a bell. Anyone else ever hear of David Billings? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:42:56 EST From: Lynn Lewis Subject: G. Michael Harris I didn't know where to cut in on all the talk, but what has been on the website concerning a search in the Marshall Island by a man named Harris? Anything? I know this is outside of your guidelines so I doubt if you would want it posted. Have attached a scan of a newspaper article about a man named Harris being fired by Nauticos because he didn't believe in their search, and Harris thinks the Earhart plane is buried under a bunker in the Marshall Islands with a broken wing. He claims the native Chamaros watched the Japanese hide the plane in WW II, and now he wants to dig it out. There's a big issue on who owns the airplane...if its found. So, I don't know. I don't know what to think. The download is attached. I don't think you allow downloads on your website. It's an interesting article, I can say that for sure. No one is supposed to know where he is looking....that sounds suspicious to me although the logical answer is he is trying to protect the investigative rights, etc. if he finds the Earhart plane. I don't know what to think....everyone on your website says Earhart didn't have enough fuel to make it to the Marshall Islands. My personal opinion on the Harris issue is "don't leave any stones unturned." If it's a possibility, I would chase after it...I think you should. But how can you chase after Harris? No one knows where he is digging. Frustrating to say the least. Lynn Lewis **************************************************************************** From Ric It IS off-topic but others may have the same question. It's not that we don't allow downloads on the forum. The forum distribution software does not support attachments. The island Harris is talking about is Taroa. The whole thing is so stupid that it's hardly worth talking about except to say that the "evidence" is just one more example of bad research and fanciful speculation - but these days the press will print anyone's story if they say they're going to go looking for Amelia. Harris and a few others went to Taroa and poked around but they didn't dare do any digging because it would be a violation of the excellent historic preservation laws of the Marshall Islands. It is highly unlikely that ever will do any digging for the same reason. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:03:05 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Titanic confusion My comparison of the Nauticos and Kammerer searches with that of TIGHAR offers not characterization of their respective forms of organizations nor of their profit motives. Rather, my comparison is of the stated purposes and methodologies employed. Irrespective of profit motives, all three efforts have, apparently, solicited financial contributions from other people. Regardless of the stated altruistic purposes of TIGHAR, it is, nonetheless, reliant on 3other people1s money.2 I believe that there is a significant difference between eleemosynary organizations, such as the United Way and the American Red Cross, and private not-for-profit organizations, such as TIGHAR, that are not organized for charitable purposes. With the former, the primary purpose is to promote charitable causes or support other public-interest activities (not-for-profit hospitals fall into this category). With the latter, the only difference between the form of organization and that of for-profit entities is that for-profit entities exist for the benefit of their owners. Non-charitable not-for-profit entities are not entitled to benefit shareholders, hence the IRS exemption from taxes. To characterize TIGHAR in the same category as the United Way is, I believe, misleading. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Fortunately, what you believe is not what the IRS believes and, contrary to your statement above, TIGHAR is not a private not-for-profit organization. There are such things - for example, the rich guy who has his own personal collection of airplanes or automobiles that he sets up as a not-for-profit museum - but that comes under a different section of the tax code. TIGHAR is organized and overseen by exactly the same section of the code - 501(c)(3) - as the other nonprofits I mentioned. The designation "Public Charity" is a separate and additional status that is granted to organizations that can prove (every year) that their support comes from a broad base of contributions from the general public rather than just a few big patrons. Your narrow definition of what constitutes a charitable cause and what is in the public interest is just something that serves your particular world-view. I wonder if you acknowledge that you live off other people's money. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:05:12 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Titanic confusion <> The area of the Pacific around Howland and Niku are described as abyssal hills: hills that are up to 350m in height, with lengths well in excess of 10km, and distance between hills on the order of 4-5 km. It is certainly not flat nor featureless. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:12:47 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Off topic....Glenn Miller Reuters News Service (via ABC News) reports that the Britain's Channel Four will air a program on New Years Eve in which Glenn Miller's plane fell victim to allied bombs. A short quote from the article which can be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/miller011217.html "In a recently uncovered amateur film interview, Fred Shaw, a navigator on one of the Lancasters, said he saw the bombs hit a small plane beneath him, the paper said. "I had never seen a bombing before so I crawled from my navigator seat and put my head in the observation blister. I saw a small high-wing monoplane, a Noorduyn Norseman, underneath," Shaw reportedly said in the interview recorded before his death several years ago. "'There's a kite down there,' I told the rear-gunner. 'There's a kite gone in.' He said 'Yes, I saw it.' Shaw did not make the connection with Miller until 1956 when he saw the film 'The Glenn Miller Story'. " LTM, Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric Off topic yes, but interesting. It seems like a rational hypothesis and it has been well received - but it is fundamentally untestable. The "recently uncovered amateur film interview" with a guy who "did not make the connection" until 1956 is a classic example of the kind of anecdotal "evidence" that is so difficult for historical investigators to deal with. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:14:45 EST From: Chris Ferro Subject: Re: Soul searching etc. > Soul searching about TIGHAR's mission is, in fact , what led us to our > decision to use the Earhart disappearance as a vehicle for developing and > demonstrating sound historical investigative techniques and > technologies... Thanks, Ric. Your explanation helps clear things up a in my mind and thoughtfully elucidates your earlier statements. CJSF :-) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:17:21 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Electra Crash Photo Don't forget, there's no hole in the firewall in the wreck photo, which there is in the electra firewall, where the exhaust stack passes through. ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric I really don't want to launch another whole round of Wreck Photo debates but from what I can see it looks like that whole section of the firewall where the exhaust stack passes through has been broken out. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:21:00 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Titanic confusion Chorus of Carpers-----Thats good--I like that. Jim Tierney *************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps we could get the Chorus of Carpers and the Celestial Choir to do a Christmas concert. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:23:13 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Where was the forum? <> Damn! There goes another alien kidnapping theory.... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:25:14 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Test message. Disregard Disregarded. Alan *********************************************************************** From Ric ALAN!!! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:30:07 EST From: Chris Subject: Free Lunch? I forgot to ask you this before I joined Tighar, but after we help you find out what happened to AE, are we gonna get a free dinner on you or something? Lunch? After all, where are we to find our motivation? Chris in Petaluma #2511 ( hope you're sobering up, hehe) ************************************************************************* From Ric I'd love to buy everybody dinner but the IRS won't let us "reward shareholders." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:31:32 EST From: Steve Subject: Re: Calling all Titanic fans A documentary aired here in the UK last night which threw up some interesting info... It featured the search for the WW 2 battleship Hood, lost in the North Atlantic. The search area the expedition set out to cover was 600 sq miles, scanning a seafloor at about 2 miles deep. The wreck was actually located fairly quickly but the following points really struck me 1) The definition of the sonar seemed hugely advanced from anything Ballard used. The ship was in many pieces, and the sonar seemed to have no problems spotting "small" pieces of wreckage - under 100ft long. The sea floor was very, very flat though which made anamolies much more obvious. What's it like off Howland? 2) They seemed to think 600 sq miles was a realistic search area for one expedition. Three and a bit expeditions, therefore, equals 2000 sq miles....? I've no expert knowledge at all so I may not have corrected interpreted everything, but it was food for thought... LTM for xmas... Steve ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:48:40 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Search options >From Ric, > >...We're trying to see if we can all put our heads together and build a >car' >Yes, if the best experts we can find agree that there is reason to >believe that large components of the aircraft, such as engines, might be >in the deep water off the edge of the reef, we'll try to raise enough >money to search that environment with the best technology available'... Wasn't the sole basis of the original hypothesis for searching Gardner/Nikumaroro Island, the assumption that it was the _only_ reasonable, logical, alternate landfall for AE/FN, within their range from the vicinity of Howland Island, given the _estimated_ amount of useable, reserve fuel remaining & the fact that it was on a relatively easy course to fly, on the SE leg of the LOP established by FN for Howland Island? Therefore, would it not also seem logical & reasonable that the _best_ way of testing & proving such an hypothesis, would be to actually _find_ the aircraft itself or sufficient remains of the aircraft to establish the _fact_ that the flight actually _did_ reach Gardner/Nikumaroro Island? Such a finding would seem to greatly enhance the probability of actually finding any artifacts (connected to the AE/FN flight) _on_ the island & emphasize the need for encouraging such continued archeaological efforts. Seems I recall a previous post that the twin P & W engines were both fastened securely to a single, common beam, running through the fuselage of the aircraft, so would it not also seem reasonable & logical to _assume_ that both engines would have remained in very close proximity to one another, even if the remainder of the plane were destroyed by the normal surf/wave-wash & tidal forces that swept it off the reef flat, into the depths below the edge of the reef flat? Certainly, in spite of dilligent scrutiny of the visable & accessable reef-flat & beach areas of Gardner/Nikumaroro Island, no sign of these two engines has been uncovered... so it seems (to me) most reasonable to conclude such engines are _not_ going to be found _on_ the island itself, no matter how much additional effort & excavation is devoted to finding them _on_ the island. Now... where else would these 'experts' believe the engines could be found ? Though not having any expertise in the study of coral 'morphology', we might be able to _assume_ the engines were simply _absorbed_ into any of the rifts in the edge of the coral structure of the reef-flat itself... or the engines simply tumbled all the way down to the ocean bed at the bottom of the reef-flat edge... in either case, the _only_ way to 'test' the hypothesis, it would seem, (to me anyway) is to utilize state-of-the-art submersible craft, for an up-close & personal, visual inspection of the edge of the reef-flat & the ocean bottom along the reef-flat. Agreed, an expensive proposition, yet when compared to the costs of the continuing archeaological efforts _on_ the island, which on previous expeditions have failed to produce any bonefide connection between artifacts uncovered & the AE/FN flight... other than establishing a presumably common time frame... maybe such a venture might be, in the long-run, a more cost effective project than trying to... 'all put our heads together & build a car (Electra?)'... Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Your perception that "the sole basis of the original hypothesis for searching Gardner/Nikumaroro Island, the assumption that it was the _only_ reasonable, logical, alternate landfall for AE/FN,..." is not correct. Gardner and McKean were both seen as possibilities. McKean was only eliminated after we had been to both places and seen that Gardner was, by far, the more likely island. I'd LOVE to put state-of-the-art technology in the deep water off that reef, but archaeology, like politics, is the art of the possible. It might be more cost effective to raise a million dollars to do one deep-diving expedition than to raise $500,000 twice to do two on-land and shallow diving expeditions but, unfortunately, that's not the way it works. It was all we could do (and we're still in the hole) to raise the money to do Niku IIII. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:58:47 EST From: Matt Mondro Subject: How to put the forum on hold Ric, could you send me a mail on how to stop my forum mail for the holidays or send a note to the forum, im probably not the only one who wants to do this and cant remember the command. thanks...... Matt Mondro ************************************************************************** From Ric Anyone who wants to put theoir receipt of the forum on hold at any time can do so by sending the following command: SET EARHARTFORUM NOMAIL (Do it just like that and don't put anything else in the message.) to the following address: LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM However, the command MUST be sent from the same address you used when you signed up for the forum (otherwise the server won't recognize you). When you want to start receiving postings again just send the command: SET EARHARTFORUM MAIL to that same address: LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM It works like a charm if you do it right. If you screw it up it won't work at all. That's computers for ya. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:08:24 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: David Billings? >From Ric The name doesn't ring a bell. Anyone else ever hear of David Billings? Here is some info about him: http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/09/07/loc_radel_yes_dear.html "David Billings, an Australian aircraft engineer with a theory, a map and a plan. But no money." (more on web page) Here is a long article about him: http://www.usatoday.com/life/2001-08-14-amelia-earhart.htm The Air Nuigini aircraft engineer, who works out of this capital city, has the closest thing to eyewitness and documentation evidence any Earhart theorist has produced. He has videotaped testimony of Australian World War II veterans who stumbled upon civilian aircraft wreckage in dense jungle on the island of New Britain in 1945. And he has the reconnaissance patrol map from that mission bearing a scribbled notation that matches the construction number -- C/N 1055 -- of Earhart's plane. (more on page) Suzanne **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, of course, of course .....THAT David Billings. This is the guy who wants to look for the engine seen in the jungle by Corporal Don Angwin in 1943 that has now miraculoulsy morphed into "civilian airplane wreckage". He can't raise any money because his theory doesn't make any sense. There is simply no way that the Earhart aircraft, which is known to have been in the vicinity of Howland 20 hours into a maximum 24 hour flight, could have possibly returned 2,000 miles to crash in the jungles of New Britian. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:15:27 EST From: Chris Ferro Subject: Re: Titanic confusion > The area of the Pacific around Howland and Niku are described as abyssal > hills: hills that are up to 350m in height, with lengths well in excess of > 10km, and distance between hills on the order of 4-5 km. It is certainly not > flat nor featureless. I deal with this sort of statement often, as a geographer (though it is usually about land features). A rise of 350m over the length of 10km (or 10,000m) is a rise of 0.035%. That's relatively flat. CJSF ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:24:01 EST From: Charlie Sivert Subject: Membership Renewal, plus other items I assume that you still have my credit card number on file, so dig it out and put a $100. charge against it. Use part of that amount to renew my membership for another year,(at the senior rate, of course) and put the remainder where it is most needed, maybe the "light" fund. I have not seen any more contributions to THAT fund since Marty's. Did I get that spelling correct? At 80 plus things get a little hazy in the thinking process! One other thing. I have seen a recent reference to Artifact 2-18, the Dado, on the forum. Have all possibilities been explored for identification and connection to the Electra? Could a comparison to existing parts on surviving planes be done, or has that idea been checked out? Charlie Sivert, 0286E **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Charlie. I hope I'm as hazy as you when I reach your age - if I'm that lucky. Existing Electras have dados but they're all different from each other and none that we've seen is exactly like Artifact 2-18. The trouble is, parts like this are interior furnishings and are not structural to the airframe, so there is almost infinite variation depending upon the particular end user. The dado is one of those pieces of evidence that, to those who support the Niku hypothesis, stands out as a really compelling indication that the Electra was there. Those who march to a different drummer find it easy to dismiss. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:33:22 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Free Lunch? aren't shareholders part of a company and if so wouldn't you be able to buy them a present as such which could translate into a meal which would also be tax deductable...or have i been watching too many American tv shows ? ************************************************************************** From Ric I was joking. Nonprofits do not have "shareholders" and are forbidden from "distributing profits." So, to be absurdly technical, TIGHAR could take all of the forum subscribers out to dinner as a gift in appreciation for your support, but we can not say, "If you send us donations and we find Amelia and get a lot of money because of it, we'll use that money to take you all out to dinner." Crazy, huh? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:48:34 EST From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Titanic confusion 350/10000 is 3.5%, not .035%, which is still relatively flat but I think that the terrain is more likely sort of flat valleys with steeply rising mounts. Dale Intolubbe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:03:54 EST From: Penny Kanouse Subject: David Billings followup Thanks to all who replied. It was the USA Today article that originally got my neighbor interested in Mr Billings's project. I wrote an email to Air Nuigini attn: David Billings and the response is copied below - comments welcome! Ric wrote: "He can't raise any money because his theory doesn't make any sense. There is simply no way that the Earhart aircraft, which is known to have been in the vicinity of Howland 20 hours into a maximum 24 hour flight, could have possibly returned 2,000 miles to crash in the jungles of New Britain." Can you please advise where I can find a write-up of this - where the plane was sighted (or heard from?) and how Mr Billings search could not prove fruitful. Thank you again for helping me give sound advice to my neighbor. She really cares about this and it would be great to find some element of hope for her. She is entirely certain Amelia Earhart would have had a fall back landing plan and been able to execute it. (I have no idea - I'm just repeating her words...) **************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, no one except this forum has even bothered to dimiss Billing's theory in writing. Any of the many books about Earhart describe the final flight. The one thing everyone seems to agree upon is that the aircraft was somewhere fairly close to Howland Island when it was last heard from at 08:43 a.m. (20 hours and 13 minutes into the flight). Earhart may have had a fall back landing plan but it could not have involved backtracking nearly the entire 2,500 mile flight. Some of the various theories about what happened to Earhart are rationally debatable. Mr. Billings' theory isn't one of them. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:06:24 EST From: Bill Moffett Subject: Re: Where was the forum? Yup, withdrawal symptoms were evident. Even inquired locally if some misfortune had befallen you two. Happily that drew a blank. Glad all's well in Tigharville. Best wishes for Happy Holidays to all. Bill Moffet #2156CE *************************************************************************** From Ric Guess I'll have to start wearing an ELT (Emergency Locater Transmitter). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:07:30 EST From: Chris Ferro Subject: Re: Titanic confusion Oops, my bad. I forgot to convert my decimal to percent. that's 3.5% - still very flat. CJSF ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:14:36 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Dados Are they common in the kinds of Military aircraft that flew in the Pacific? or are they more likely to be "trimmings" to pretty up a civil aircraft? *********************************************************************** From Ric That's one of the most interesting things about the artifact. Generally speaking, military planes don't have 'em. Big commercial airplanes don't usually have them either. Dados are most commonly found in "cabin class" twins such as - oh - a Lockheed Model 10 for example. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:21:37 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Titanic confusion Let me better explain. Abyssal hill morphology consists of innumerable parallel hills, spaced about 10 km apart. One side of the hill is usually quite steep, on the order of 30-45*; the other is more gentle, about 5-10*. The amount of sediment cover in that region of the world is on the order of a few meters, perhaps 10 meters at best. There are also several volcanic (now extinct) features that do not rise to the surface, of which Winslow Reef, Howland, Baker, and the Phoenix Islands are the few exceptions. Flying a sonar device with sufficient resolution and precision to detect 1 meter sized objects and to distinguish them from natural objects on the seafloor requires towing at 2-3 knots speed at 100-200m height off the seafloor. Without a good quality map in hand of the area being searched, one risks the danger of flying the sonar into one of those abyssal hills. Most oceanographers use sonars to map the seafloor, but with 10m resolution (at best), towing near the sea surface and at 10 knots or so. A lot of ground can be covered, but one simply cannot see the details of what might be there, if one is looking for a plane. The rule of thumb in sonar work (I'm a senior systems engineer for mine hunting sonars, BTW) is one requires 8 pixels across an object to be able to classify it as mine (plane, ship, man-made, or whatever) against the natural background of sonar clutter and natural objects on the seafloor. Detection is a different story: that requires 1-2 pixels to detect something, but then you have no idea what it might be. The geography around Howland, Gardner, Winslow Reef, and surrounding areas is not conducive to the detailed survey techniques available to us for searching for a relatively small object such as the plane. Ships are much better targets, as they are much larger and easier to detect and classify. Plus, ships are magnetic, so one can use a magnetometer to help classify the objects. Earhart's plane was mostly aluminum, and does not provide a good magnetic signal for underwater searching. *************************************************************************** From Ric > In 1991, Oceaneering International did precisely that while doing a sonar search for us in relatively very shallow (1,000 feet) water near Niku. They were flying the "fish" near the bottom, a hill suddenly loomed ahead, they reeled in as fast as they could but SMACKO! - scratch one sonar fish. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:26:21 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Titanic confusion Ric, I'd like to take exception to one of this guy's statements. Baker Island is 38 miles south of Howland Island. It was used as a staging and refueling base in WW2 from November of 1943 to the end of the war in 1945 when it was abandoned. B24's used Baker via Canton to stage bombing raids into the Marshall Islands. Baker was a regular route for refueling planes that were being ferried into the Pacific Theater of Operations up to the cessation of hostilities. There are parts of a B-24 that crashed on Baker Island on December 6 ,1943- I have the 7th AF mission report on it. I have many of the AF mission reports for flights in that area, anyone that says there was no military activity in the area during the war doesn't bother with that most basic of all tools- research! As a matter of fact, there were more aircraft lost operationally than were ever shot down in the Pacific- aircraft that took off and were never seen again. Who can say where they wound up? What about the 273 planes the Japanese had that looked like Amelia's? 30 Lockheed 14's purchased from January to March 1938, 119 Type LO clones (14's built under license by Japan), 121 Ki- 56's which were japanese designed Lockheed 18's, these planes were used right up to the surrender as transports and recon planes- where are they? My money is that Kammerer and Long are going to spend a lot of money to look at a LOT of planes in the ocean............ Woody ************************************************************************** From Ric Well, Kammerer will spend a lot of money. Elgen Long won't. Neither will Nauticos. On the contrary; Nauticos will get paid to search. Any of them will have to be phenomenally lucky just to find the WWII stuff. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:28:38 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: G. Michael Harris I've spent 3 months in the Marshalls and havent met a Chamorro yet, just Marshallese! I can tell you from first hand experience that whoever's land the plane is buried on, if it's there, is the owner. The Marshallese Govt and the HPO office have no intention of issuing an export permit for the plane or any artifacts relating to Earhart, if found. I think it's just good tourism business sense by the Govt. All of Mr. Harris's remarks can be attributed to ME from our visit to Taroa ( his first, my second and I made a third trip after he left), he's great plagarist. I have taped conversations with the natives that made those comments, and a fair amount of video footage to boot. Needless to say, I wont be traveling with his group again. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:40:46 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: G. Michael Harris Sheesh, who said there are Chamorros in the Marshalls? The Chamorro language is the language of the Marianas. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:42:13 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Titanic confusion I made a slight mistake when composing this message. The first sentence should read: Abyssal hill morphology consists of innumerable parallel hills, spaced about 3-5 km apart, each hill running anywhere from 10-20km lengthwide, typically. -------------------- Subject: Re: Titanic confusion Let me better explain. Abyssal hill morphology consists of innumerable parallel hills, spaced about 10 km apart. One side of the hill is usually quite steep, on the order of 30-45*; the other is more gentle, about 5-10*. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:43:33 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: David Billings followup Perhaps a more constructive way of dissuading your neighbor would be to present her with a well-reasoned and well-supported alternative to Mr. Billings theory. I invite you to visit the TIGHAR website at <> where you will find a wealth of written material outlining the group's work and thinking in trying to solve Earhart's disappearance -- the basic premise of which can fairly be summed up as "Amelia Earhart would have had a fall back landing plan and been able to execute it." In fact, TIGHAR's "fall back landing" spot, Gardner (now Nikumaroro) Island, is located on Earhart's last reported line-of-position and within her fuel range -- unlike New Britain, where Mr. Billings proposes to search. However, you are welcome to decide for yourself and print out anything that your neighbor might find of interest. If she is intrigued by what she reads there, I would respectfully suggest that joining TIGHAR is an affordable and rewarding way for her "to be some part [the] project to locate Amelia Earhart's plane." Come to think of it, a TIGHAR membership would make an excellent Christmas gift as well. LTM, Russ Matthews ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:44:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: David Billings followup Penny, skim through the TIGHAR web site and I think that will set your mind at ease. 99% of the theories you read about are so impossible or implausable as to not deserve an answer. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:48:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Titanic confusion It's comforting to know we have a knowledgeable expert in Randy. I am constantly amazed at the talent Ric has amassed on the forum. How can we go wrong. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure Randy is pleased to learn that I amassed him. :-) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:49:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: G. Michael Harris Sounds like you had a great adventure, Woody. Glad you're back though. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:01:15 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: David Billings? > Of course, of course, of course .....THAT David Billings. This is the guy > who wants to look for the engine seen in the jungle by Corporal Don Angwin in > 1943 that has now miraculoulsy morphed into "civilian airplane wreckage". Ric, what galls me is that there are people ready to pour money into nutty and IMPOSSIBLE theories like that that wouldn't give TIGHAR a dime. I shouldn't have called them theories. That's too dignified a word. Alan, being serious for a sec **************************************************************************** From Ric You might take some reassurance from the fact that Mr. Billings' big problem is that that there AREN'T people ready to pour money into his theory. Likewise, Woody's trip to look for the airplane buried in a Japanese bunker was not funded with popular support. Even Nauticos - surely the most mainstream of the treasurehunters - has, so far, not been successful in attracting enough investors to do anything but talk about an expedition. Mr. Kammerer's deep-water search looks like it will actually happen, but only because Mike is his own investor. He only needs to convince himself. Not to brag (much) but there is only one Earhart theory with a solid track record of widespread public support. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:02:57 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Search options Don, you bring up some good points but "assumptions" will do us in. There is a subtle difference between assumptive reasoning and logical reasoning. Logic has at least some support but doesn't necessarily exclude all else. Assumptions imply a conclusion that is not necessarily supportable. For example the fact that the engines have not been found on Niku ONLY means they haven't been found. It does not mean they aren't there nor does it mean they will never be found. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:06:08 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Free Lunch? Hey, if we find it, I'll buy YOU dinner! If Pat will let you out..... ...... and you have to wear shoes..... ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric I 'spect that Pat is way too smart to let me out with you guys. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:09:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Titanic confusion > > The area of the Pacific around Howland and Niku are described as abyssal > > hills: hills that are up to 350m in height, I'm trying to decide whether that should be abyssal or abysmal. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric It's actually Abyssinian. You wouldn't believe what's down there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:13:32 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: THE MISSING ARABS I tried to make myself useful and did some research for TIGHAR in the Public Records Office in London and help Kenton Spading identifying the bones on Gardner Island and to establish whether any of the missing Arab sailors on the S.S. Norwich City had the size to fit them. I sent the result of my search to Kenton but I think the forum might also be interested in my findings. All sailors on ships leaving England had to be registered as seamen and are well documented. The P.R.O. has their files on film. The files contain their names, date and place of birth, their nationality and the nationality of their father, a description and a picture of the man and information that can be of help to identify him on complexion, the color of their hair, the eyes and, which is important to TIGHAR, of height. We know the names of the Arab sailors missing in S.S. Norwich City. But the records at the P.R.O. in London show no trace of Redman Yousef, Saleb Ragee, Said Metana, Ayed Naif and Ahmad Hassan. There are plenty of Redman but none called Yousef, plenty of Saleb but none called Ragee, plenty of Said but none called Metanna, plenty of Ayed but no Naif and heaps of Ahmads but none called Hassan. I took a whole day to check them one by one to see whether there was any mention of S.S. Norwich City on their file. None had anything to do with the vessel. I was surprised to see how many Salebs, Saids and Ahmads there were. One had his name changed and I found he couldn't read nor write. This as written on his file. He signed it with x, and apparently learned to write his first name on the left and his last name on the right of it and had this signature recorded by the British consul. I studied their heights and it seems all these Arabs from Aden were between 5 ft. 2 and 5 ft. 7, with most around 5 ft. 3 or 5 ft. 5. One Ahmad Hassan was 5 ft. 6 but there was no mention of him being in S.S. Norwich City and the dates were wrong. He is definitely a namesake. I think the heights I found must have been typical for Arabs from Aden. But as I said, none were on the S.S. Norwich City. I also checked the heights of the some English sailors. T.E. Scott and and F. Summer were 5 ft. 9 1/4 and 5 ft. 3 espectively, according to the Central Register. I went to see the historians of the P.R.O. about the missing Arabs. They had no idea why they would not be recorded. The only explanation they could think of was that they were not registered seamen. Normally seamen sailing from England were registered. However, it could be that the five we are looking for were not registered as they did not sail from England and hence there is no information on them. If any records were ever kept on them they may have been on board the S.S. Norwich City, in which case I strongly believe they were lost with the vessel. The historian I talked to asked the P.R.O. computer if he could find any files on S.S. Norwich City but the machine only produced a file number, MT9/1967, which he thinks refers to an inquiry. I gathered that the Central Register (C.R.) cards only contain information on seamen. Mention was made on some of them of a G.R. This, the historian thought, may refer to the General Registry when British subjects are concerned. Since the missing Arab seamen were not British nationals it is my guess that they would not be recorded in the General Registry records since they were not registered seamen either. LTM Herman #2406 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:18:18 EST From: Andy Crewe Subject: Re: Electra Crash Photo The link below shows a photo of a Convair CV-580F, twin turbo-prop cargo plane that crashed just off the beach in Florida. http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/n582hg/photo.shtml The caption reads - 'The cargo aircraft was on a short flight from Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood to Opa Locka when the Captain reported engine trouble. The aircraft was successfully ditched into the Atlantic Ocean several hundred meters off Haulover Beach. Both crewmembers survived with minor injuries. The aircraft was not carrying any cargo at the time of the accident.' The aircraft was ditched 'several hundred meters' off the beach and yet the photos clearly show the aircraft sitting on the beach at the surf line, presumably washed there by the action of the surf. Would it not be highly likely that the Electra would have been washed ashore off the coral reef, by the action of the surf, rather than being washed further out to sea to sink somewhere off the edge of the reef flat? LTM, Andy Crewe **************************************************************************** From Ric Good question, and hard to answer. It's pretty clear that material on a reef can go either way and sometimes goes one way only to have a later storm pull it back out to see or puke it back up onshore. (Sorry for the metaphor, but that's what happens.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:51:10 EST From: Charlie Sivert Subject: Artifact 2-18, Dado, one more time One more comment about the Dado. Your report stated that "the NTSB noted small remnants of a bluish woven fabric around the rivet tail". If a Lockheed Model 10 still exists with original interior, it might be a possibility to get a sample from its interior and compare it to the sample which you have. Just a thought. Also, a big THANK YOU for your comments about my mental abilities. Charlie Sivert, 0269E **************************************************************************** From Ric Good thought Charlie. As far as I know, the only existing Lockheed 10 that has anything close to what might be called an original interior is c/n 1011, an early 10A that was drafted during WWII and served as a C-36 transport. It's now at the Pima Air Museum in Tucson, Arizona. The tan/biege interior looks to be really old and was in very poor condition when we saw it several years ago. The fragment of blue woven fabric we (not the NTSB) noticed on the "rivet tail" was, in fact, the top layer of a tiny surviving piece of insulation made up of 1/4 inch of kapok sandwiched between two layers of the blue fabric and reportedly marketed as "Skyfelt" or sometimes "Seapak." Lockheed specs show that the Model 10 cabin was insulated with 1/4 inch kapok. After the NTSB lab finished its metallurgical identification of the artifacts we collected in 1991, our next step was going to be to try to match up the Skyfelt fragment with samples from unrestored aircraft of the 1930s (if we could find any that had escaped "the hands of mistaken zeal") but the NTSB saved us the trouble by losing the fragment. They also lost another entire metal artifact - a suspected B-24 part with a partial part number still legible. Fortunately, we have excellent photos of both of the lost artifacts. If any forum members have access to a 1930s cabin-class aircraft that has been preserved rather than "restored" it would be interesting to do some insulation research. This is exactly the kind of problem we run into all the time in an air museum world that does not understand the most basic principles of museum science and historic preservation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:52:05 EST From: Mark Riddell Subject: Re: Electra Crash Photo The Convair 580F that landed in the water off of the Florida beach ran out of fuel hence the tanks were empty. A 580 has a " wet wing "; basically the wing is the fuel tank.I have several thousand hours in 580s but never ran one dry or tried to sail one ashore. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:54:20 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Electra Crash Photo Here's one for the float and swim brigade... www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm It would suggest that even if the Electra had to ditch near Niku's reef rather than land on it, there might be a good chance of the occupants getting ashore. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:56:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: David Billings? > Not to brag (much) but there is only one Earhart theory with a solid track > record of widespread public support. You cannot believe the great strength of character it took to stay off that line. But seriously that's why we are all here rather than in some nutty group. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric At least you didn't say, "...some other nutty group." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:05:31 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Contrarians Alan Caldwell said: "Ric, what galls me is that there are people ready to pour money into nutty and IMPOSSIBLE theories like that that wouldn't give TIGHAR a dime." Alan, I think most of us share that frustration. The people that embrace these types of efforts are basically contrarians, for lack of a better word. A little knowledge and a lot of ego are the main components of a contrarian's attitude. You can beat them raw with logic and evidence but they won't listen. They have a terminal case of the yabuts -- "yeah, but . . . ." To defend an idea, the contrarian often cites some truly remarkable actual event, and will accept it as a normal occurrence. A case in point would a contrarian not wearing any restraint device while riding in or driving a car. Why? Because they once heard of driver surviving a 100 mph crash even though he wasn't wearing a seat belt. Because it happened once, the contrarian believes it will happen always. These people get to travel life's rocky road constantly frustrated because their lives does not meet their versions of reality, or worse yet, what "should" be. A little contrarianism is a good thing, to wit, Galileo, Christopher Columbus (even with today's PC attitudes!), the Wright Brothers and a few thousand other geniuses who defied conventionality -- and were right. The difference between the great ones and the goof balls, in my opinion, is the ability to admit mistakes, consider alternative ideas, and go from there. LTM, who is very conventional Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric We could probably have a lot of fun with a really obnoxious thread about how everyone who disagrees with us needs professional help - but we're obnoxious enough already. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:33:02 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Crash photo Andy Crewe's link showing a photo of a Convair CV-580F that crashed just off the beach in Florida is remarkable. The photo is one of six of the crash and clearly shows that the aircraft had changed position from one photo to the next, attesting to both its buoyancy and wave/tidal action. What is remarkable is that the empennage was torn off the fuselage. Because the empennage and the remainder of the aircraft are so close together on the beach I would presume the damage happened concurrent with the plane washing ashore. With such a gapping wound its certain the aircraft would have sunk had the damage occurred in deeper water. Judging from the wave action visible in the photos and the slope of the beach, it appears that "several hundred meters" off the beach would have put the aircraft in water of sufficient depth to cover it entirely if it sank. Thus, it appears to have remained afloat long enough to be pushed ashore by wave/tidal action. A likely scenario: the aircraft ditches; minimal (?) damage; crew evacuates; wave action moves floating the airplane to shore; continued wave action rips the empennage off, which is the beginning of the slow process of destruction. Sound vaguely familiar, doesn't it. Thanks Andy! I'm an amateur; what conclusions would a real crash investigator come to, Ric? LTM, whose empennage is intact Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************* From Ric I wish I knew one. Here's what I see. Number 1 engine (port side) was feathered; Number 2 was turning at impact. The airplane remained intact until it reached shallow enough water to run aground and offer resistance to the waves. The sea promptly ripped off the tail because it presented a big flat surface to the oncoming surf. These are very interesting photos. The sea is really not that rough and the Convair is a much bigger and beefier airplane than a Lockheed 10, and yet the tail snapped like a twig. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:37:48 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Searching for the engines >Logic has at least some support but doesn't necessarily exclude all >else. Assumptions imply a conclusion that is not necessarily >supportable. > >For example the fact that the engines have not been found on Niku ONLY >means they haven't been found. It does not mean they aren't there nor >does it mean they will never be found'... > >Alan Sounds a bit like the conspiracy theorist's mantra... ' If you can't prove what I say _didn't_ happen, then _that_ must prove that it _did_ happen'... Indeed, in _fact_ the twin engines have _not_ been found in any of the areas searched so dilligently by TIGHAR expedition members... that certainly does not _prove_ the engines are _not_ to be found _on_ the island... however I wonder where else _on_ the island would Alan expect to find two such sizable objects, upon which time, stormy weather, tidal or surf wave-wash would have no appreciable, deteriorating or other deleterious effects, so as to render their configuration 'unrecognizable' as aircraft engines ? Since the beach & reef-flat areas have been inspected, where one would usually expect to find such sizable objects, _on_ the island... given the TIGHAR hypothesis that AE _did_ make a successful, wheels-down landing, somewhere on the reef-flat, with TIGHAR having further postulated that it was highly unlikely that AE would have been able to 'taxi' the aircraft _off_ the reef-flat, across the 'slanted' beach area, into the overgrown 'vegetated' areas of the island... where else _on_ the island could those engines possibly be 'found' ? Let us not forget, it is part of TIGHAR's hypothesis, that the Electra was either smashed to bits by 'normal' tidal & surf wave action (within a week of touch-down, before Lt. Lambrecht's flyby) or swept (while still in one piece) off the outer edge of the reef-flat, into the deep waters surrounding the island. My only suggestion was... why not search those 'deep' waters, at the bottom of the reef-flat edges, as the only other _logical_ location for the engines, which after several expeditons, have _not_ been found _on_ the island ?... Certainly such an hypothesis (engines on the ocean floor at or near the base of the outer edge of the reef-flat) is capable of being tested through the use of a state-of-the-art submersible vehicle, for a _visual_ examination of an area previously (visually) unexplored. Would such an effort prove _conclusive_ ? _Only_ if the engines are thus located, otherwise it's back to the other two reasonably, possible assumptions... 1- AE/FN & the Electra _never_ reached Gardner/Nikumaroro Island, or... 2- The engines _must_ be there, so we continue to search/excavate every single square inch of Niku Island until we find them !! Maybe, like the B.C. comic strip 'clams', these engines simply grew legs over the past 60+ years & when no one is looking, they run & hide all over the island... or (horrible thought) maybe the mother-of-all cocoanut crabs simply got extra hungy & devoured them for lunch !! Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric I've already said that we'd love to search the deep water off the reef. Make your check payable to TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:48:44 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: Re: Artifact 2-18, Dado, one more time What about that 10A at the New England Air Museum in ________ CT? I'm still looking for an excuse to visit that place. R/ . . . Fred Madio *************************************************************************** From Ric You're speaking of c/n 1052, closest surviving serial number to AE's 1055, now at the New England Air Museum on Bradley Int'l Airport in Windsor Locks, CT. 1052 was originally built for the Navy. It is now undergoing "restoration" at the museum. In other words it has been gutted of all that ugly worn-out stuff that was put in when it was built and it's being fixed up with new stuff so that it will not look old anymore. That's what we do with airplanes. It's not what we do with Egyptian chariots, but it's what we do with airplanes. We've crawled all over and through 1052. It's a good reference for the structures that can't be "restored". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:39:20 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Artifact 2-18, Dado, one more time What about the Lockheed 10A Electra in the London Science Museum ? It's still there. I saw it as recently as last Monday when I visited the Science Museum. And what about the Lockheed 10A Electra TC-CFF owned by Air Canada and still in flying condition ? LTM (who believes the real thing is better than the one thing we all talk about without ever having seen it) Herman **************************************************************************** From Ric I haven't personally seen either airplane but I know that both have been extensively "restored" and so are worthless as a source of information in this case. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:49:07 EST From: Chris Subject: Re: Crash Photo A couple of questions. Wouldn't the Electra be quite a bit stronger and rigid than a much newer plane such as the 580F since the Electra had an aluminum skin that was riveted together? Also, would the much smaller size of the Electra contribute to her survivability? (Small and sturdy). Just seems that compared to a B-29 ditching and the Electra, the Electra would survive longer because of its size. Also, are the cylinders on the Electra's radial engines cast iron or aluminum? Is there an instrument that detects magnetic objects on the sea floor that would work on such small objects as the radial engines? Chris in Petaluma, Ca. #2511 *************************************************************************** From Ric The Convair is built exactly like the Electra except with much thicker skins and bigger rivets. The Electra is not smaller and sturdier. It is smaller and more delicate. The cylinders on the R-1340 are, if I recall correctly, aluminum. A magnetometer is the device you're thinking of but a radial engine presents a rather poor magnetic target. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:56:52 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Artifact 2-18, Dado, one more time Ric There's another 10-A at the old Oakland Army Air Terminal ( now an air museum), when I was there last summer it was undergoing maintenance on the -L- landing gear and engine.I didn't want to climb around in it as it was on stands. I understand it's still being flown- it has a Naples Airlines paint job. Come to the AES meeting in May 2002(hahaha) and I'll drive you out to see it. We can stay on my sailboat at Pier 39-it'll be fun. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks anyway Woody. The airplane in the Western Aerospace Museum is c/n1026, a fairly early 10A. It is not currently airworthy. We've been all over it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:58:32 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Sailor height research Herman wrote: > I tried to make myself useful and did some research for TIGHAR in the Public > Records Office in London and help Kenton Spading identifying the bones > on Gardner Island and to establish whether any of the missing Arab sailors > on the S.S. Norwich City had the size to fit them. I sent the result of my > search to Kenton but I think the forum > might also be interested in my findings. Thank you to Herman for helping with this. Herman and I will be issuing a report on this to the Forum after we have had a chance to study the numbers. The idea is to compare the heights of the lost sailors to the estimates of the height of the skeleton Gallagher found. We are looking at both the British and Arab sailors (not just the Arabs). Research continues. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:04:03 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Washing ashore ..'The aircraft was ditched 'several hundred meters' off the beach and yet the photos clearly show the aircraft sitting on the beach at the surf line, presumably washed there by the action of the surf'... LTM Andy Crewe ******************************************* Is it also possible that the plane was 'ditched' at _high_ tide, in the relatively _shallow_ water adjacent to the beach, (note the somewhat 'mangled' condition of the props) while the photo was snapped at _low_ tide ? As I understand the topography of the Gardner/Nikumaroro reef-flat, the drop-off at the outer (ocean side) edge of the reef is rather steep & into extremely deep water, making it seem somewhat unlikely that any objects as heavy as the twin P & W engines would have been 'washed' ashore after having been 'swept' off the reef-flat into that deep 'abyss' . Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Surprising as it may seem to you, it is not at all uncommon for storms to move heavy objects from the shelf at the base of the reef back up onto the reef. There are blocks of coral on the reef weighing several tons that arrived that way. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:05:42 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Searching for the engines Don, I haven't been to Niku but from the pictures it is certainly not a flat barren place. Nature can do some awesome things with man made objects. for example in 1956 I trained at Avon Park gunnery range in Florida both in the air and on the ground. Runway, taxi ways, buildings, streets, sidewalks, etc. Ten years later I was there just passing by and the vegatation had almost totally swallowed up the base. The asphalt had been broken up and streets and sidewalks hardly were apparent. One picture of Niku showed Ric in front of what appeared to be what I call a jungle. After 64 years and Lord knows how many south Pacific storms there is no telling where wreckage might be. I spent many years in Southeast Asia, Guam, Wake, the Philippines Indonesia and Maylasia. I know what storms can do. At one time I was stationed at Clark Air Base in the P.I. Clark is still right where I left it but you'll never see it again. It's buried under thousands of tons of volcanic dust. I would agree the Electra is not sitting out on the reef or on the beach but we have always known that. It could be buried deep in the undergrowth or deep in the water and even then under tons of debris. OR it might not be there but to say it's not there because we haven't found it seems unproductive. I'm not hearing what you think should be done instead or next that is feasible. I probably read too quickly and missed that. The real important thing is to keep firing away so something foolish is not done or something wise is not over looked. I think there is no shortage of that from Forumites. Alan, in good nature ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:06:51 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Searching for the engines > For example the fact that the engines have not been found on Niku ONLY > means they haven't been found. It does not mean they aren't there nor > does it mean they will never be found'... > > Alan Something that has to be remembered when thinking about engines remaining in the crash area is the size and weight of the pieces of Norwich City wreck that have been tossed and dragged around out there. There are some very big pieces of ship in strange places. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Yup. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:12:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Artifact 2-18, Dado, one more time > 1052 was originally built for the Navy. It is now undergoing > "restoration" at the museum. In other words it has been gutted of all that > ugly worn-out stuff that was put in when it was built and it's being fixed > up with new stuff so that it will not look old anymore. > LTM, > Ric You didn't by any chance get first option on the stuff they ripped out? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Even the stuff they ripped out was stuff that somebody else had put in after the ripping out the stuff that somebody else had put in after ripping out.......... Any airplane that has remained in service for many years has undegone numerous updates and refits. To really find the original stuff you have to find an airplane that was taken out of service early on and either consciously (i.e. Spirit of St. Louis) or accidentally (i.e. Greenland P-38) preserved. I don't know of a Lockheed 10 that fits that description. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:19:52 EST From: Ric Subject: Genuine Forum Holiday This will be the last forum posting until Wednesday, January 2, 2002. Get away from the computer, spend some time with your families, and we'll see you all then. Pat and I wish you all a happy holiday and peaceful and prosperous New Year. LTM, Ric