Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:31:40 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Belgium Subject: Arab crew The names of the crew members who lost their lives in the Norwich City shipwreck are recorded in "Deaths at Sea 1929-1932" which is kept at the Public Record Office (PRO)in Kew, which is a suburb of London (UK). The names of the "Arabs" are definitely Arab names. I did further research in the records on Merchant Marine sailors kept at the PRO and found no C.R. cards were kept on the Arab crew members of the Norwich City. I did find quite a number of Arab crew members who sailed in British ships in the first half of the 20th century. Many came from Aden. I asked the staff of the PRO,who are all trained historians. The reply was that 1. their records were not complete ; 2. if the names I was looking for were not in the system there was the possibility that the Arab crew members did not sail from Britain. If they sailed from Britain they should have been registered seamen. 3. therefore the PRO historians think there is the possibility the Arabs were hired somewhere outside Britain, perhaps in Aden like so many others. This is of course different from the contends of a contemporary newspaper which published a list of lost Norwich City crew members, stating the lost Arabs all lived at an address in Wales. This problem has not yet been solved but the complete crew list is kept in the St. Johns Library in New Foundland (Canada) for reasons only the British can explain. When that list is found and studied it may reveal more information. In the meantime one should remember that then as now sailors were and are hired for single voyages. They could and can be hired anywhere to sail to anywhere, then find employ on an other ship that gets them to still another place. Today they'd be flown out to relieve a crew abroad or be flown home after a long spell at sea. In 1929 this was not yet the case. LTM (who spent quite some time in the PRO and can now find her way to the drawer where the files are kept eyes closed). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:32:50 EST From: Janet Powell Subject: NC Documents up. Jerry Hamilton wrote: >There is no specific mention of shoes >being sent to Captain Hamer's men on the island. However, Captain Swindell >was apparently generous with everything else. Could this be a source of the >shoe parts, or other artifacts? I'm also wondering what happened to all the >tins they used. Interesting things to speculate about. I'm not sure about the rest of the artifacts, but I wouldn't mind taking a stab at the question of the benedictine bottle...? (I'd make a bet that Captain Swindell would have sent some alcohol.... - but even more certain that the survivors would have made it their duty to empty it before they left!) LTM Janet Powell #2225 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:34:31 EST From: Janet Subject: Lincoln Ellsworth and Trongate >From Ric >The ship was a Norwegian tanker so I think that it's a pretty safe bet that >its namesake was the same guy who flew with Byrd on his polar flights. If >so it's another Twilight Zone connection for me. Ellsworth, my mother's >maiden name, is my middle name. I'm supposedly related to Lincoln >Ellsworth. Cue the music.> Tell us Ric..... - when they make the film of Tighar's quest, (and of course, success!), .... just how long will this film be....??? And I agree with you Dennis... - not sure how 'trivia' advances our knowledge of AE/FN mystery either, but from a family history perspective I've certainly found the assistance of those individuals, such as your good self, of great value and assistance. (And you're postings make me laugh too!) Janet Powell #2225 ************************************************************************** From Ric It will be the first film to include a lunch break. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:35:23 EST From: Tom King Subject: Blucher boots I did a quick search and found a guy who's done a history of boots. I've asked him. His history indicates that Blucher-style BOOTS came into use early in this century, and that boots generally became unpopular by the '30s. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:33:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: quicksand Ric, I really think you have to tell them about McKean.... *************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh McKean ... I can smell it now. 1989. We had gone ashore over the reef (no landing channel at McKean Island) riding the surf and slamming onto the beach like we were the 2nd Marine Division. We immediately came under heavy automatic droppings fire from the one million (count 'em) seabirds that are the island's only inhabitants. We divided our forces to recon the island and see if there was any indication of airplane wreckage. While the main group headed off for the far end, I set off alone (sheer genius) to investigate the "lagoon" which is really just huge a shin-deep pool with a bottom composed primarily of guano - Latin name: Bird Shit. Smithsonian ornithologists who had been there had assured me that the lagoon was only about 18 inches deep. True enough, but what they failed to mention and perhaps had been smart enough to avoid finding out for themselves, was that the bottom is made up of a crust of guano beneath which is a seemingly bottomless pit of the most disgusting ooze you can imagine. I was a good hundred yards out into the pool when the crust let go. I suddenly found myself up to my thighs in historic avian manure and every movement I made prompted further descent. At this point I said to myself, "Self, you have a problem." For lack of a better idea I got on the radio and called the rest of the team. "Hey guys, I'm sinking in the guano and I can't get out." "What do you expect us to do about it? We're on the other side of the island." "I guess I just wanted to let you know where to search for the body." "Okay, good luck." "Thanks." By now I'm up to my crotch. The phrase "What a way to go" does not begin to express my disappointment at the prospect of continued sinking. Time to get creative. Sitting or laying down would distribute my weight over a wider area but if my butt broke through I'd be just that much closer to the u nthinkable. I decided to compromise. I leaned way forward and supported some of my weight on my hands and gave a highly motivated heave on one leg. Sssssssmuck! Out it came. Now supporting my weight on two hands and one knee I hauled the other leg out and crawled to what seemed like a firmer spot. There I was able to stand up and make my way to the lagoon shore like a guy walking on eggshells. When I eventually caught up with the team they were ( I told myself) happy to see me but insisted that I keep my distance. They said I smelled bad. I recounted my adventure and then asked Russ Matthews, our video cameraman, to come with me. "Where we going?" "Back to the lagoon." "Are you CRAZY? You just said that you damned near died back there, and now you want to go BACK?" "Yeah, we need to document what that lagoon is like, but it's too dangerous to do alone." "Swell." Russ is a stout-hearted fellow and we succeeded in getting the documentation we needed and by very judicious selection of where we walked we only broke through a couple times and were able to help each other get unstuck. However, I can tell you that if there is airpane wreckage in the bottom of that lagoon, as far as I'm concerned, it can friggin' STAY there. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:36:25 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams For Chris Kennedy The Tridacna run (sic) about 10-17 cm. long and 6-9 cm. across -- the complete valves, that is. We found them in two "clambushes" -- fairly dense linear-oval clusters about 10 meters apart, one right on the crest of the ridge, the other a bit lower on the gentle slope to the SE. We estimated about 15 clams in each, represented by about 30 valves, but in Clambush #1, which we brought home, there were 29 identifiable individual valves representing at least 17 clams. Each clambush was/is about 70-90 cm. wide and 2.5 meters long (that's from memory, without digging out my notes). As for depth of artifacts, I don't think there's anything to be made of it. Except in the sidewall of the "skull hole," where bird and fish bones kept popping up at odd depths, virtually nothing was found more than 10 cm. deep, and in that depth range, in a "soil" matrix as loose as the coral rubble of the Seven Site, there's little point in tryint to sort out stratigraphic relationships. The only place where we were able to do this was in the vicinity of Clambush #1, where we could show that a now-decayed layer of asphalt siding from the nearby roll of the stuff had overlain a deposit of small clams (Anadara sp.) and charcoal, and that the asphalt siding role itself had been overlain by a layer of corrugated iron. One thing to keep in mind in discussing what Gallagher would and would not have seen is that we have no guarantee that the part of the site we recorded in detail was the part he was looking at -- at least when he made his telegraphic reports to the WPHC. We really don't know the full extent of the Seven Site, and what we have is one transect across it. Gallagher probably wasn't much to the northwest of us, because there the site is pretty open and seems to peter out into the bukas, but to the southeast, where it's heavily covered with Scaevola, we really don't know how far the site goes, and therefore (assuming Gallagher was viewing some part of the site) we can't say where he was relative to where we were. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:44:15 EST From: Darrell Houghton Subject: Clams and the mysterious "g" In the photograph of the island taken December 1, 1938, trails are observed, one of which "leads from the part of the Seven Site where the clam shells were found, through the buka forest, to a specific point on the shore of the lagoon, where there was once a clam bed." (The End Of The Trail, TIGHAR Research Bulletin) This photographic evidence narrows the time period in which the source of the clam shells could have been deposited, ie. pre-settlement. Is it possible there is some photographic evidence we can use to help identify when the mysterious "g" first appeared? I recall in the helicopter tour video the "g" was visible. Is this a job for PHOTEK? Darrell #2188 ************************************************************************* From Ric Possibly. The 1938 photo was taken at an oblique angle so we cant see the ground in that area. The earliest direct overhead shot we have was taken in April 1939 but the resolution is pretty crumby. I'll ask Jeff if he thinks there's enough there to work with. The next overhead shot we have was taken in 1985, so that's not much help. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:48:00 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Birds, Easy to cook? Ross D wrote: >Birds would be easy to catch, cook and eat as well as being familiar >(chicken). I agree the island's birds are easy to catch. I have reservations, however, based on my experience butchering chickens and pheasants, about them being easy to first prepare and then cook. I would not characterize the process of a castaway removing the feathers and gutting them, without any conventional tools, as "easy". Taking it to the next step, and considering what you would cook them either in (do not have a pot?) or on (do not have a pan?), and the whole process seems even more difficult. Getting a fire started in the wild is also not easy. After the bird was caught...or for that matter after the castaway caught the turtle, I submit that the next steps are not easy. Yes, you could eat these items raw, but even that is not easily done without tools/knives. Our castaway ate birds and turtles...but I betcha it was not easy. Being a castaway or a lost person, either on a remote island or in say the Alaskan wilderness, is not a romantic venture. Your life will very quickly ebb away without both an intake of calories (food) and water...and depending on where you are...shelter. The critical provisions of food and water are very difficult for an inexperienced person to procure in the wild. Over time, death for the typical person, thrust into this situation, would be almost certain. In my limited experience, clams are not that bad raw. I certainly would prefer them to trying to get the feathers off of a bird, gutting it..and then eating it raw. O-k you could cook bird parts on a stick...but that assumes you have fire starting tools. Has anyone on on the Forum ever killed (shot?) a bird in the wild, prepared it and ate it? (I have only done fish) If so, what tools did you use to prepare the bird? Would it be easy without those tools? Anyway...food for thought (pun intended) as we try to sort out the castway's food situation. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN *************************************************************************** From Ric The castaway had a fire. That much we know from Gallagher. Some of the bird bones we found were fire-blackened. Booby-on-a-stick? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:55:55 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Arab Christians > From Denise > Are we absolutely certain that these Norwich City surviving "Arabs" were > either Arabs or Muslims? DOH! I forgot to even think about that as a possibility. Now that Denise mentions it, I remember being lectured by some Arab CHRISTIANS that their presence in the Holy Land pre-dates the birth of Islam. The Jews were driven out in 70 AD by the Italians, leaving Philistia in the hands of the Philistines, now known as Palestine and Palestinians, respectively. So, yes, it is a mistake to assume without proof that the Arab firemen were Muslim. Some Arabs are Christians. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:57:21 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Turtle cooking >...the turtle was butchered > elsewhere, and perhaps partly consumed elsewhere (like the beach), with > only the shell being brought to the Seven Site. Assuming you were in our castaway's position, had a fire and managed to find a turtle, how would you propose butchering it and cooking it so that it will be edible? This isn't a trick question, just something I've done in the past without a knife, so I know how it can be done simply. I'm curious as to whether the technique is as obvious as it was to me at the time. I do have to admit that I got the technique after remembering a joke I'd heard. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:05:09 EST From: Ric Subject: Nauticos at sea The word (via Mike Kammerer) is that Nauticos sailed from Seattle yesterday for Howland via Hawaii. They expect to begin searching sometime around March 17th. That's all I know at this time. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:05:10 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Lincoln Ellsworth If you haven't already, you must look at a copy of _At_The_Controls_, by Eric Long and Mark Avino. I picked up a copy from the library today. It's a Smithsonian publication, with cockpit photos of many of the aircraft in their collection. Pictures of Lincoln Ellsworth's Northrop Gamma 2B, the Polar Star, start on page 47. The Gamma has been one of my favorite airplanes for as long as I can remember, and the pictures in this book are great. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:06:44 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: NC documents up Refresh my memory - didn't we find that the heel post-dates the Norwich City wreck? ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric Biltrite said the heel came from a mold that was in use in the "mid-1930s". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:16:33 EST From: Ric Subject: More NC documents up More Norwich City documents are now up at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:19:35 EST From: Mike Z. Subject: Null Hypo #3: Laura & Liz Okay, I was told once I have a vivid imagination. Try this one as a null hypothesis. If you're short of time, just skip to my next post. As teenagers from Massachusetts in the 1920's, Laura and her younger sister Liz became expert sailors, navigators, and surfboat handlers from their summers on Cape Cod and from taking several voyages with their father, a successful sea captain. Their father, alas, died unexpectedly in the summer of 1927 when a sea gull dropped a large clam on his head from high altitude. In the Spring of 1929, Laura married the rich and dashing Luke, an accomplished yachtsman in his own right. Following a romantic honeymoon yacht cruise to Bermuda and the Bahamas, Luke choked to death while enjoying an oyster dinner with Laura. A month after his death, Laura, distrustful of leveraged securities closed all her late husband's margin accounts thus saving most of the estate from the stock market crash that Fall. Liz meanwhile was having a protracted and torrid courtship with Lou. They ultimately broke up in 1933 because they couldn't agree on whether to call their entirely hypothetical first born son Leo or Larry. Two years later Laura married and Lou, and in 1936 they decided to take a cruise across the Pacific, with Liz accompanying them part of the way. Boarding her 41-foot sailing ketch Air Heart in Vancouver BC, Laura brought three bottles of her favorite Benedictine brandy, along with her old fashioned black lacquer sextant she inherited from her father who got it in Europe. Liz, not to be out done, brought her own brand new top-of-the-line brass sextant, which she could ill afford as she lived hand to mouth most of the time. The close quarters of a yacht can strain any relationship, and such was the case between Laura and Lou, and Liz and Laura, especially after a week of repeated cloudy skies and high winds, when no celestial body appeared for long. Lost and running low on fresh water, the adventure nonetheless re-ignited the passions between Lou and Liz, unbeknownst to Laura. Finally coming under clear skies early one morning, Liz draws a tentative line of position just as Laura spots an island off the port side. As Lou brings the Air Heart along the island's leeward reef, Laura and Liz note from the charts that the island may be Niku or up to two others depending on how far off course they've come. Donning her sturdy walking shoes with decidedly single tone Cats-Paw replacement heals, Laura, along with Liz, leave Lou aboard the Air Heart, taking the dinghy ashore with all their empty bottles and casks to search for water. In order to determine which island they're on, Laura also brings her sextant and one of her chronometers so she can get a noon shot of the sun without the hassle of the rocking boat. This she does high on the beach, laying her sextant in its box beside her in the shade between shots. When Liz returns to the dinghy from her futile search for water, Laura walks over to her and says, "It's definitely Gardner." Irritated that her sister couldn't find any water, Laura grabs a small empty cask and Benedictine bottle from the dinghy and heads off behind the scaveola determined to show her how it's done. She's gone a long time. Liz, on sudden evil impulse, pushes the dinghy back into the sea and rows back to the loitering Air Heart. Lou takes her on board, secures the dinghy, and, without a word, they sail away. Knowing their location and water less a problem now they've 33% less crew, they sail for Fiji. They concoct a story to tell the authorities: that Laura was swept overboard by a rogue wave while she was on deck trying to shoot a star. Thus, was born The Air Heart Conspiracy. Laura meanwhile, managed to survive the first few critical days, drinking rainwater wrung from her clothes. Caching her sextant and chronometer as best she can, but keeping the inverting eyepiece for making fires and the sextant box to carry pieces of glass she uses for tools, she makes camp down the coast underneath a ren tree. Using indigenous plant materials, she builds on the lagoon side a crude water catching device that funnels rainwater into her wooden cask. The brass chain having broken off the cask, she keeps the cork in the sextant box in case she ever has to move the cask with water in it. The Benedictine bottle becomes her canteen, rarely far from her side. Eventually she elects to explore the island more thoroughly, walking clockwise around the atoll and making it to south Aukaraime where she spends the night. Having eaten clams for dinner the night before, she ventures out on the reef in the morning foraging for something different when she slips into a crevasse, the jagged coral shredding the upper of her shoe. Back at her bivouac, she bandages several deep gashes in her instep and shin with some of her clothes, then limps back to her original camp, leaving her destroyed shoe behind. Back at her campsite, she has a man's shoe scavenged from the flotsam weeks before; it's marginally wearable. Her wounds soon become seriously infected, and she realizes that she as little time. She gathers some bits of white coral and begins to make a message that was to say "GO TO HELL, LIZ AND LOU," but only gets the "G" done before she's unable to walk to gather food, little alone coral. Weakening rapidly, she dies from blood poisoning back at her camp. In a startling coincidence on that very day, 27 nm NW of Laura's camp, Amelia Earhart's 10E runs out of fuel, having fought a strong southeast wind for the past 15 hours. The 10E cartwheels and breaks up on ditching killing Earhart and Noonan, the floating debris soon dispersed by the waves, although a few interesting bits eventually wash up on Niku. Several days after the crash, eagle-eyed Lieutenant Lambrecht spots Laura's water catcher, recognizing it as a sign of recent habitation, but no one is there to provide an answering wave to his repeated zooms. And Liz and Lou? They stayed in Fiji. In 1938, a rogue band of Japanese operatives, disguised as oyster fishermen, kidnap Liz, convinced she is Amelia Earhart and that the US Government faked her disappearance so she could be America's South Pacific superspy. She dies towards the end of WWII after the operatives move her around randomly throughout the Japanese Empire. While snorkling in 1940, Lou is swallowed by a clam of remarkable proportions. Burp. Did I leave anything out? --Mike Z. from Mass. **************************************************************************** From Ric We seem to have sparked an entire genre of novels. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:22:46 EST From: Mike Z. Subject: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... If we accept the interpretation of Gallagher and the analysis of Jantz and Burns that the castaway was a white female, and if the castaway is not Earhart, then she must be either: 1. The castaway that survived the shipwreck of a to-be-determined vessel, the wreck of which has been lost. 2. The castaway that was left on the island by a to-be-determined vessel. The Laura and Lisa story makes being left on Niku is deliberate criminal act, but I suppose I could dream up something accidental. Or it could be even intended by the castaway under a misguided notion of a tropical paradise. Of course, the point of a null hypothesis is to have something for which you can estimate its likelihood so you can decide to reject it or not. In this case I don't how to effectively test this hypothesis from examining the archaeological or historical record. But given that what we really want to do it determine if the castaway is AE (or FN), I wouldn't feel obligated to disprove every alternative hypothesis imaginable. Short of an Any Reasonable Idiot Artifact, someone is always going to be able to dream up some non-AE story that fits current data. A more profitable approach is to require that any alternative hypothesis be based on some evidence in the archaeological and historical record. For example, a worthy alternative hypothesis would be something like "It could have been castaways from the sloop Stingray which disappeared in the vicinity of Canton in 1933" (worthy, if that event was a matter of historical record). But I think chasing a vague unsupported hypothesis like, "It could have been someone abandoned on the island," will not really help us understand what happened on Niku. I believe the evaluation of the possibility of the castaway being from the Norwich City is an example of a good null hypothesis. Being linked to a specific historic event tends to guide the analysis of the data we are gathering, and, one way or another, leads to better understanding. As for Laura and Liz, I hope it was at least entertaining. --Mike Z. from Mass. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Mike. Well put. I agree entirely. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:25:02 EST From: Denise Subject: Tides and Such! In an earlier forum, which I've only just read, Ric says: "Yes, we collected quite a bit of tidal information but it has not yet been pulled together and analyzed." Look, have you managed to talk yet to June Knox-Mawer? I'm wondering if you aren't just "re-inventing the wheel" here. I think she did all this stuff back in the 50s when she first got to the Pacific ... and that her ditch and drift theory, coupled with the tidal information she put together from informed sources (don't you wish I'd bothered to find out "Coconut Lady's" real name?), also had Earhart, Noonan and the Electra end up at Nikumaroro. LTM (who could ditch the drift like no other!) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Unless she sat on the beach at Niku for several weeks and recorded the time and depth of the tidal cycles she's not going to be much help. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:27:11 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Catching Birds As a kid I was told that catching birds was very easy. All you had to do was sprinkle salt on their tail. I spent a lot of time outside with a salt shaker when I was five years old. I don't recall catching any birds. I guess the birds hadn't heard the story. I have often wondered if that was a common folk story in the 1930s or one just my parents though up. Dick Pingrey 908C *************************************************************************** From ric Common folktale. Any bird stupid enough to let you get that close will be easy to catch. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:32:57 EST From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Turning North Forum,Ric and Pat,hope all are well.I have read that two Army officers had over heard messages from Earhart saying she was turning north on the LOP and the radio messages got fainter and fainter the farther she went till they heard her say she was running out gas.Suppose to be DOCUMENTED ,an inter-office memo written by an Intelligence officer,Colonel H.H.C. Richards an Air Liaison Officer in Australia too the Assistant Chief for Intelligence at the War Department in Washington D.C.I was wondering if you ever followed up on this and what your thoughts are.I've heard you on the Forum say ,you have no idea if they went right or left on the LOP.Sencerly Terry Lee Simpson(#2396) Port Huron Mi.(LTM) **************************************************************************** From Ric Dead horse. There was such a memo but the allegation is entirely unsupported and is contradicted by more contemporaneous sources (i.e. the Itasca radio logs). The memo seems to be nothing more than a early version of the kind of urban legends that now get spread on the internet. An Army rumor? Ever been in the Army? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:44:02 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: Nit picking Dennis O. McGee #0149EC wrote: >OK, gang, this is the good old U S of A, so let's stick to American >English spellings if you're from the USA. [snip] >LTM, who labours to spell well The whole thing was a JOKE because look how Dennis ended with the UK "labours". Y'all fell for it! How about this idea? A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iears ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. Mark Twain (1835-1910) American writer ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:51:43 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Strontium 90 <> That is correct. Is this type of turtle the source of "tortoise shell", and does it have any commercial value? Maybe you have a poacher's site. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR# 2263 *********************************************************************** From Ric Dunno, but if so he's a pretty paltry poacher. One lousy turtle. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:53:11 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Rats This site says "carnivores" are haram: It also says that reptiles are Haram (forbidden), and turtles are reptiles. I wonder if you could argue that sea turtles have scales and live in water, so they are really "fish", at least for dietary purposes. I think green sea turtles eat algae, at least the ones I saw in Hawaii were eating it. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:55:28 EST From: Darrell Whitbeck Subject: Intersting scrapbook I was cruising eBay for AE related readings and stumbled across this: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1518267004 It is a sailor's leather-bound handmade scrapbook from the USS Idaho. What makes this interesting is that there is some info and a map detailing the search and ships used in the AE search. It's too expensive for me to bid on, but I thought it might be a good piece of history (and information) for someone with a bigger budget then me. I've cut and pasted the Earhart related part of the description from the auction listing below. There's also some sample pictures in the listing. LTM, Darrell Whitbeck (who wants to become an official TIGHAR member one day) The most interesting is a map: SEARCH FOR EARHART-NOONAN PLANE, JULY 2-16. Obviously taken from the ships charts, is shows the trip from San Francisco to Hawaii to the search area. Listed are the ships: Itasca, Swan, Colorado and the Destroyers Cushing, Lanson and Drayton. Islands are: Howland, Gardner, Canton, Hull, Birnie, Phoenix, Enderbury, Carondlete Reef and perhaps others. Comments include: 0900 -12 July refueling destroyers; catapulted 3 planes 1420-7 July; recovered planes 1700-7 July; Winslow Reef, discovered 1851, charted, not sighted; sighted shacks left by solar eclipse observers June, 1937; zoomed planes, coconut groves, 3 shacks no one there; HULL I. landed planes tropical vegetation, 300 natives, 1 white man and several other comments. An incredible document of contemporary events, while searching for the world's most famous woman pilot. This map maybe published in some book somewhere, but this is a copy right from one of the ships that searched for Amelia Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:56:54 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Blucher boots Cameron Kippen, the Australian (naturally) boot expert, has replied to my inquiry as follows. I had asked if he could tell me when Blucher-style oxford shoes were first manufactured for women. May take me some time to track it down but will have a go. The style was around in Victorian times and the probability is there would have been women's shoes available before 1920. A common custom was to celebrate the heroes of the age and hence Wellington and Blutcher styles were popular from the late 19th century. The former was certainly worn by both sexes. The desire of liberated females to experience outdoor activities would also lend credence to the need for robust footwear. This would include the Blutcher style. Early century liberty would peak in twenties with the flappers and I would surprised if the Blutcher styles were not available for women. I cannot say however with any exactness who made a blutcher style shoe or when it first appeared, but I will try to track this information for you. --- So, preliminarily, it looks like there could have been a Blucher oxford aboard one of the NC rescue ships, or aboard the NC herself, for that matter. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:57:44 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: The Gulf of Guano Ric said: "They said I smelled bad. I recounted my adventure and then asked Russ Matthews, our video cameraman, to come with me." Let's see, we got the Everly Brother, the Blues Brothers, the Christian Brothers, the McKenzie Brothers, and the Isley Brothers. Now we got the Guano Brothers. Oh, brother! LTM, who is brotherless Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:59:38 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: quicksand > However, I can tell you that if there is airpane wreckage in the bottom of > that lagoon, as far as I'm concerned, it can friggin' STAY there. Wow. All that having been said, if one wanted to search for wreckage in the guano, is there any way to do that other than to pump the ... stuff ... out? Just curious. Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know how you'd even do that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:00:21 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams Thanks. I agree with you that we shouldn't make conclusions that Gallagher saw something we saw (e.g. the turtle/bird bones) or missed seeing something we saw (the clams/oysters) at least until we know where he was relative to where we were. It's also unfortunate about the problems encountered at the Site with trying to date artifacts based on depth found. We'll need to keep this in mind in future discussions. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:01:32 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? I haven't killed and prepared a bird in the wild, but I grew up on a chicken ranch where every month or so we'd have major kill-a-thons of the hens who'd gone past their laying prime and were destined for the fricassee pot. The de-feathering was a serious enterprise, involving immersion in boiling water to loosen them (the feathers) up, and then a lot of tedious plucking. I think Kenton's right; the catching would be easy but the preparation would be something else again. Boobie on a stick is a possibility, but I'll bet that Boobies are tough old birds. I know, castaways can't be choosers. It may be worth noting that we really don't have very many bird bones in the Seven Site assemblage. There's the big concentration on the surface near the tank, first observed (by TIGHAR) in 1996 and collected in 2001, but in the excavated burn features bird bones were pretty sparce. I'm hoping to have a report soon on the identification of all the specimens. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:03:23 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? Don't forget, we have the pieces of glass that may have been used as cutting implements - if I was in that situation, I might not bother to pluck the little critter, I might just use my sharp glass shard to skin it. Once skinned, the entrails would be easily removed, and then I'd spit it and cook it over the fire. ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, all of those birds live on fish. I'll bet they taste NASTY. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:05:59 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: No Subject It would only be significant if the G is NOT present in the 1985 picture. Probably worth at least a look. ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric The shadows in the 1985 photos make it very hard to tell. Now, if the G was present in the 1939 photo that WOULD be interesting because the date (April 30, 1939) predates any known activity on that part of the island. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:07:08 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Turtle cooking >I do have to admit that I got the technique after remembering a joke I'd >heard. OK, Wombat, you've got me hooked. What's the technique? I'll confess that I haven't given the matter much thought at all. I've never tried to butcher a turtle, and now that you mention it don't have much idea how I'd go about it. Stave in its tummy, I suppose, and then hack off the meaty parts as best I could with my broken glass float. But what's the joke? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:10:40 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? Kenton's point is good Ric---extrapolating from what Tom said, I think it's fair to say that until we know where we were relative to Gallagher, we can't say that the bones/fire he found and that we found are the same. Wasn't the fire pit on Aukeraime dated, by the can label, to the 1970s? All fires are charred remnants aren't castaway fires and remnants. --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric How would you suggest that we decide whether or not we're at the castaway campsite found by Gallagher? What would satisfy you? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:17:42 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bauareke Passage I was looking at gridded 18X24 color pix of Niku many of us used to follow the Niku IIII expedition and noticed an anomaly down by Bauareke Passage. On either side of the passage there are many large open gray areas, which I assumed to be shale or a shale-like substance, mixed with the green vegetation. The open gray areas are most pronounced on the west side of the passage though they extend for several thousand feet eastward toward the Loran station.. What I found odd was that opposite the gray areas, extending for 300-400 yards out into the ocean, the sea water appears cloudy and brown. This "phenomena" seems most pronounced at Bauareke, though it occurs in lesser degrees elsewhere on the island including the area near the Loran station. I assumed the brown cloudy water was the result of something eroding from the island and washing out to the sea. But if you look at the pattern of the eroded material it doesn't fan out as one might expect it to. Rather the material goes in fairly straight lines, leaving several small pools of undisturbed and clear seawater. Any idea of what is going on around Bauareke Passage? LTM, who's past is cloudy and brown Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric The reef flat does look a bit different there. I suspect that what you're seeing are simply depressions in the reef flat where the water is deeper. The brown areas are only inches deep in water so you're seeing the reef surface. The bluish-green areas are where the water is deeper so you're seeing water. It would probably make more sense to you if you saw the video. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:22:30 EST From: L. Turner Subject: Fixin birds Getting a bird ready to cook is real simple just peel out the breast and throw away skin, feathers and stuff. Small birds such a doves are easy, just put thumb in neck at wish bone and rotate out the breast out leaving all other parts connected together. Put on stick and roast. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:35:33 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Twilight Zone Ric wrote: >The ship was a Norwegian tanker so I think that it's a pretty safe bet that >its namesake was the same guy who flew with Byrd on his polar flights. If >so it's another Twilight Zone connection for me. Ellsworth, my mother's >maiden name, is my middle name. I'm supposedly related to Lincoln Ellsworth. >Cue the music. It is time for a full disclosure on this issue. Perhaps even a link to a page on the website with the full list. So far I count three worm hole connections between Ric/TIGHAR and the Earhart saga. 1. Ric lives just off of Arundel Drive. Arundel planted cocos on Niku. 2. I seem to remember some sort of a Gallagher connection? 3. Ric's middle name is Ellsworth (his mother's maiden name). The Lincoln Ellsworth rescued the Norwich City sailors from Niku. I believe there may even be some Midnight Ghost connections? I demand the full story :). LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric It's worse than you imagine. 1. Yes, I live in a housing development called Arundel. 2. I am related to Joshua Coffin, master of the Nantucket whaler "Ganges", who named Gardner Island in 1825 after the ship's owner Congressman Gideon Gardner who was probably also Joshua's father-in-law (his wife was a Gardner) so I'm probably related to Gardner too. 3. I'm almost certainly related to Dr. Duncan "Jock" MacPherson. All MacPhersons descend from the 13th century Gaelic warlord Gilliechattan Mor Gillespick (or Gillespec or Ghilleaspuig) now Anglicized as Gillespie. MacPherson was from Oban, Scotland. My people originally came from just north of there. 4. I'm related on my mother's side to Lincoln Ellsworth, for whom the Norwegian tanker which helped in the Norwich City rescue was probably named. I know it sounds spooky but, in reality, many forum subscribers probably have as many connections to some of the many personalities associated with this mystery. I am not, as far as I know, related in any way to Amelia Earhart. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:34:54 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: No NC crew left behind > From Ric > > I hope that the Norwich city documents will satisfy everyone that Captain > Hamer fulfilled his responsibilities to the fullest and, in fact, put himself > at risk in trying to launch the port side lifeboat only to be swept > overboard. It's a wonder he survived. > > It's also clear that all hands were assembled and loaded into the starboard > boat. I don't see that a case can be made for anyone being left aboard the > ship. Nope. Ric, it is certainly not my intention to besmirch the name of Daniel Hamer. That would serve no purpose. I'm only interested in knowing if the missing crewmen (who are not mentioned at all by either the Master nor the Second Officer in the documents you present) survived the wreck and could therefore account for our castaway(s). It is NOT clear that all hands were assembled and loaded into the starboard boat. The starboard boat was away when the Captain (in his account), by this time was washed overboard "called out for someone to lower a rope over the side." Not all the survivors had gotten into the starboard boat. But that is not the part that bothers me. In Hamer's account of his actions immediately following the the grounding, he says nothing of ordering the fires under the boilers dampened or the water tight doors closed. I don't think he made those orders, because he didn't think the damage was severe enough to warrant it. He was concerned with the difficulty of abandoning the ship at night in a storm (rightfully so; he was forced to attempt it and lost three lives). So, he left at least one boiler fire going and the auxiliary plant running to provide electricity for lights through the night with the idea to abandon ship in the morning. This would also mean a watch would have to be maintained in the main spaces. I find it very telling that the Master says (after implying all hands were topside): "Shortly after 4a.m. smoke was seen issuing from the engine room and in less time than it takes to tell the engine room, stoke holds and number three hold burst into flames." Who was he telling in the engine room if all hands were topside? I also find the cavalier attitude of Second Officer Lott who claimed to have discovered the smoke, pretty unbelievable. This was not a cruise ship with passengers whom you would not want to unnecessarily alarm. If Lott is to be believed, he QUIETLY (from whom was keeping the secret?) told the engineers there was smoke coming from the main space. The engineers went to investigate, came back and said "yup, we're on fire" [I paraphrased there], so the captain decided to abandon ship. With no attempt to put the fires out? Well, maybe not, because the fire spread so fast, he admits he didn't have time to tell the poor bastards on watch who were down there. I think what the Master and the Second Officer DO NOT say, speaks volumes. Do we have any accounts of the Ordinary Seaman who survived? These documents have not convinced me no NC crewmen were left on board. I stand on my hypothesis that the missing NC crewmen never made it out of the engine room/fire room. LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric I beg to differ. A timeline of events may help clear this up. 23:05 ship strikes reef (Lott) 23:30? Lott has had time to find the Captain and inspect the holds and then "Orders were then given for EVERYBODY (my emphasis) to stay round the galley and not to go forward of the funnell." (Lott) 04:05? Fire breaks out. "Shortly after 4 a.m. smoke was seen issuing from the engine room and in less time than it takes to tell the engine room, stokeholds and number three hold burst into flames." (Hamer) "After a considerable time I noticed smoke coming from the fiddley. I looked down in No. 3 and I could just see flames down below." (Lott) These guys have been assembled around the galley for FOUR HOURS loading the lifeboats, sending distress calls on the wireless, while Hamer and the officers were "sounding around the ship to determine her exact position" (Hamer) and waiting for daylight before abandoning ship. 04:15? At Hamer's order the starboard (lees side) lifeboat is lowered down to the level of the gunwale. 04:30 Captain Hamer, Chief Officer Gibson, (and apparently Lott) go around to the port side to lower the port boat with the intention of towing it around to the starboard (lee) side, but as the boat was being lowered a huge wave hit, bent the davit, and washed the captain overboard. "I was swept out clear of the ship about 50 yards by the backwash from the seas. I called out for someone to lower a rope over the side. They heard me twice and then lost sight of me and gave me up for lost." (Hamer) 05:30 ? "She started exploding down below. Daylight was just about breaking then so the mate gave orders to take to the boats. Everybody got into the boat and when we had all settled down and were ready we let go the lines." (Lott) If daylight was "just about breaking" it couldn't have been much earlier that 05:30, and again, "EVERYBODY got into the boat." Hamer, who was already in the water but certainly received a report later, says, "When the lifeboat WITH ALL HANDS (my emphasis) was leaving the ship it... capsized throwing most of the crew into the sea, eleven of them losing their lives. Four were imprisoned under the boat, one of them was found drowned..." You say that Hamer "... admits he didn't have time to tell the poor bastards on watch who were down there." Where does he say that? By the time the fire is detected everybody has been assembled around the galley for four hours. You say: <> This is conjecture. Nobody says that. Clearly there was electricity for the sending of distress calls so there must have been a power source operating, but the ship was already judged to be a total wreck before the fire was d etected. You also say: <> There's a comma fault there that is leading you astray. Hamer is saying, " In less time than it takes to tell, the engine room, stoke holds and number three hold burst into flames." Given the four hours between the grounding and the detection of fire, during which preparations were made to abandon ship, and the hour or so between the time the captain went over the side and the lowering of the starboard boat, and the repeated statements that clearly imply that everyone was present on deck and later in the boat, I can see no way of supporting any contention that anyone was left aboard. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:36:17 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? > Has anyone on on the Forum ever killed (shot?) a bird in the wild, prepared > it and ate it? (I have only done fish) If so, what tools did you use to > prepare the bird? Would it be easy without those tools? Yeah, as part of a Boy Scout survival trip when I was 15 -- snared a pheasant using twine and a trap constructed of small, thin branches; killed it, gutted it & cleaned it with my Boy Scout knife, and roasted it on a carved wooden spit. Very tasty. I had several things going for me though: * the scoutmaster and his assistant had pre-identified a locale where pheasant (and other game) were plentiful; * pheasant are, apparently, fairly stupid; * there were several of us who, together, were able to conceive of a good snare (don't ask me to remember exactly how it worked -- I don't know if I could replicate it today); * my father was a butcher, and I had seen him clean fowl many, many times, so I was familiar with the process. Cleaning the feathers was a pain in the butt. We pulled out the big feathers by hand and then scraped the skin raw with the knife. Afterward, we seared the outside of the flesh over the fire to remove the little stubs (I had seen my dad do this over an open flame). We were the only group (of four) who trapped a pheasant. Most of the others caught fish or frogs; one group caught a wild rabbit. Overall, an interesting experience, but not one I would like to replicate. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:41:39 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? > ... Being a castaway or a lost person, either on a remote island or in say the > Alaskan wilderness, is not a romantic venture. Your life will very quickly > ebb away without both an intake of calories (food) and water...and > depending on where you are...shelter. ... I read a very sad book, _Into the Wild_, by Jon Krakauer, about a lad who died alone in the Alaskan wilderness because he failed to preserve the meat from a caribou he shot, because he didn't provide himself with a map (which would have shown him how to cross a swollen river), and (probably) because he ate some plants that are only non-poisonous part of the year. He exiled himself on purpose, but tried to save himself once he started suffering from food poisoning. Another man died in isolation in Alaska because, having failed to make arrangements to be picked up, and after losing some ammo and provisions through a break in the ice, he gave the wrong signal when a bush plane flew low over his dock. He waved, "I'm OK. You don't have to worry about me" instead of "Please land and save me." The proper signals were printed on the reverse of his hunting permit. An Army survival manual for Alaskan service, circa 1910 (if I remember correctly), warns against trying to survive on rabbit meat alone. Rabbits have too little fat to sustain humans over the long run. The castaway on Niku apparently lived long enough to kill birds, clams, and a turtle; but did not have the skills to survive until the PISS colonists could come to the rescue. Something caught up with that person: hunger, thirst, fatigue, despair, infection, exposure or some other catastrophe. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:42:59 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Arab crew > This is of course different from the contents of a contemporary newspaper > which published a list of lost Norwich City crew members, stating the lost > Arabs all lived at an address in Wales. I was brought up in South Wales, between the two main ports, Cardiff and Newport, and both have long-standing minority communities around the docks brought to the area by links to merchant shipping - Somalis in Cardiff in particular, also Yemenis, no doubt others. When I was a teenager I had a Saturday job helping deliver bread from a van, and I well remember a sailors' boarding house in Newport run by a formidable Mrs Nasser, who I believe was a Yemeni. When you stepped through the door you immediately slipped several thousand miles eastwards. This was around 1970-71 and the ports have declined since and the communities have blended more, and no doubt in the 30s they were much larger and held more closely to their own traditions. So no contradiction at all in sailors identifying themselves as Arabs shipping out of a Welsh port. LTM Phil Tanner 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:44:00 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? I have skinned ruffed grouse, instead of plucking them. They are fairly dry, even if roasted with the skin. They can be gutted with a fairly dull pocketknife, and I wouldn't be surprised if you could do this with your bare hands. The certainly can be skinned with your bare hands alone, as I have done it. It shouldn't be much tougher than cleaning fish. I haven't cooked any in the open, but I suppose you could roast them on a spit, or cook them on a stick like hot dogs. I suspect they would be fairly tough to chew. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who prefers pheasant.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:44:59 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Belgium Subject: Re: Turtle cooking Military pilots today follow a survival course. That includes learning techniques to live off the land after having ejected behind enemy lines, catch and kill animals including chicken, roast, cook or bake them, etc. Amelia Earhart never followed such a course and never had the training. Neither did Fred Noonan. How can one assume today, 64 year after 1937, that living in an other era they succeeded in catching birds, fish and other animals and survive on Gardner Island ? I know how difficult it is to catch a bird, no matter what Ric says. I have a feeling that if the two got marooned on Gardner Island they lacked even elementary knowledge of how to survive and were probably even unable to catch a bird. Even if the did they may not even have known how to cook it. They were complete dudes. If they had been members of the Boy Scout of Girl Scout movement they might have learned the tricks of how to use a map, find the North and try to get to some civilized part of the world, even to light a fire with two sticks of wood, but not how to catch animals, slaughter them and cook them. As far as one knows neither AE or FN ever were boy or girl scouts and if they ever had been, by 1937 would never acquired the skills to survive on Gardner by living off the land. Those who can today are called SAS (Special Air Service) troops. LTM (who believes it takes animal skills to survive) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:46:33 EST From: Mark Cameron Subject: Re: quicksand I grew up watching Mitchner's "Adventures in Paradise". All Pacific Islands are balmy and inhabited by beautiful naked women. Nothing ever mentioned about knee-deep guano. Was I mis-informed? ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm still looking for those islands. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:47:20 EST From: Angus Subject: Off Topic - Lady Mary Bailey A friend has just bought a flying helmet reputed to have belonged to Lady Mary Bailey, the early aviation pioneer (born1910 died 1960) and daughter of Lord Rosslare of county Monaghan. I wondered if anyone on the forum had knowledge of any futher useful sources of information or any photographs of her in her flying helmet. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:56:04 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... > Mike Z said (in part): > > "If we accept the interpretation of Gallagher and the analysis of Jantz and > Burns that the castaway was a white female, and if the castaway is not > Earhart, then she must be either: > > 1. The castaway that survived the shipwreck of a to-be-determined vessel, > the wreck of which has been lost. > > 2. The castaway that was left on the island by a to-be-determined vessel." The weakness in saying that "if the castaway is not Earhart, then SHE must be..." is that a careful reading of the Burns/Jantz analysis does not, in fact, conclude that the bones belonged to a white female. Rather, the report states: "The skull is more likely European than Polynesian, although it cannot be excluded from any population." Burns and Jantz are qualifying their conclusion, as they should in light of the fact that they do not have the actual bones to analyze. The report goes on to say, "Assuming the skull represents a person of European ancestry, the FORDISC analysis indicates that the individual represented was most likely female. Unfortunately the level of certainty is very low..." Note the premise of the assumption: they are stating that the person was "most likely female" ONLY if their previous assumption (i.e., that the skull is European rather than Polynesian) proves to be correct. They go on to say that "the level of certainty is very low" (and they quantify their level of probability). Because Burns and Jantz have specifically stated that the skull "cannot be excluded from any population" and they opine that it is female ONLY IF one ASSUMES European ancestry, one cannot eliminate the possibility that the bones belonged to some other party -- perhaps a Polynesian or one of the Norwich City crew members. The TIGHAR web site carefully states: "It is, of course, impossible to know whether the bones inspected by Dr. Hoodless in 1941 were in fact those of a white female, and if anything even less possible to be sure that they were those of Amelia Earhart. Only the rediscovery of the bones themselves, or the recovery of more bones from the same skeleton on the island, can bring certainty." By the way, I found the tale of Lou, Liz and Laura to be very entertaining, and I agree with your statement, "But I think chasing a vague unsupported hypothesis like, 'It could have been someone abandoned on the island,' will not really help us understand what happened on Niku." Very true indeed. However, it also does little to help advance what happened on Niku to draw conclusions from highly qualified reports such as the Burns/Jantz analysis. One of the apparent tenets of TIGHAR is to analyze the totality of all the gathered evidence (by "evidence" I include all clues/anecdotal reports, artifacts, etc.) and endeavor to see if they fit the hypothesis that Earhart made it to Gardner Island in 1937. When analyzing such evidence, it is important to examine REASONABLE alternative explanations for the presence of each item. Clearly, as you have so entertainingly pointed out, one can construct any fictional scenario to account for all the evidence; however, one need not to resort to fiction for alternative explanations for the evidence. There remains the possibility that the presence of the Norwich City crewmen on Gardner, the Coast Guard personnel, British administrators and the settlers could account for some (or all) of the evidence. The challenge of TIGHAR is to eliminate these other possibilities conclusively. David Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric I trust that we're not going to have go through this "but Burns and Jantz said..." thing again. Yes, like the good scientists that they are they qualified their statements with many cautions but at the end of the day, based upon the information available, the scales tipped in favor of a white Norse female. We accept that for what it is. An indication. Another itty-bitty clue that we may be on the right track. We're never going to prove that the castaway was Earhart by eliminating all the other people it could be. The Burns/Jantz conclusions about the bones tell us that further investigation on the island is warranted. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:58:16 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Noticing Clams Th' WOMBAT writes: << if there were clam shells there and they were visible I would have thought Gallagher would mention them.>> Keep in mind that the clams were not immediately in the area of the fish, bird, and turtle bones, but were about 10 meters away. Gallagher may not have realized at first glance that they were possibly related. I don't think we did. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:59:42 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Twilight Zone The truth has, at last, come to light! Ric, you are clearly engaged in a conspiracy to promote real estate development on Gardner Island for the profit of your family. Hence all the trips there (to demonstrate how easy the commute would be). Fess up. David Katz :-) **************************************************************************** From Ric I guess the jig is up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:57:45 EST From: Ric Subject: News from Ludolph I received a phone call this morning from a senior executive at the Ludolph company in Bremerhaven, Germany. Over a month ago I had written to the company asking if they had any information that might help us identify any of our artifacts but, as it turns out, only three people in upper management speak English so the email floated around for quite a while until it reached someone who could read it. It was worth the wait. Nothing conclusive yet, but there are several new pieces of information which seem to support the hypothesis that the sextant box found by Gallagher was for a Ludolph sextant. 1) The numbers on the box - 3500 (stencilled) and 1542. Most of the Ludolph company records were destroyed when the factory was bombed during the Second World War. Post-war production did not resume until 1952 but the first instrument serial number entered in the new record was 3562. It is not certain that the instrument was a sextant because only the date - November 3, 1952 - and the serial number are recorded. However, it stands to reason that if Ludolph produced an instrument in 1952 with the serial number 3562, then at some earlier date they produced an instrument serialed 3547 (the number written on the Pensacola box once owned by Fred Noonan) and 3500 (the number stencilled on the box found by Galllagher). Of course, the implication would be that only 15 sextants of that particular model had been produced between, at the latest, 1937 (when Noonan acquired 3547) and 1952. I asked if that sounded reasonable and was told. "Yes. Sextants were never produced by Ludolph in great numbers, being very high-end precision instruments; but when Hitler came to power the factory ceased sextant production entirely and turned to making compasses and other instruments for the Luftwaffe under a military serial number system." Very few pre-war records remain, but one book that has drawings of component parts of sextants (for example: inverting eyepieces) shows that they had their own serial numbers - four digits beginning with the numeral 1. 2. Artifact 2-6-S-45, "the knob" The theoretical reconstruction of the artifact shown on the home page of the TIGHAR website bears a strong resemblance to the "adjustment drum" on Ludolph sextants, including the raised figures on the face which designate various setting positions. On early sextants the drum was made of ivory and on post-war sextants they are plastic. What they were made of in the early 20th century is not known. 3. Artifacts 2-6-S-03a & 03b, "the fasteners" These bear a resemblance to fasteners used on some Ludolph sextant boxes. The company has mailed me several photos illustrating the above points. Also, 4. It is common for the serial number of Ludoph sextants to be written on the outside of the box. 5. All Ludolph sextants are painted in black enamel. The Ludolph company will continue to research our questions and help us any way they can, as time permits. Their website is at www.ludolph.de LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:26:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Tides and Such! For Denise Murphy No, we haven't been able to contact Knox-Mawer (who, for the uninitiated, wrote "The Shadow of Wings," a novel in which Earhart crashes near Niku, crawls ashore and survives a few days (losing a shoe) but becomes amnesiac, is picked up by a British colonial officer who keeps her as a sex slave...). As you know, she used to work for BBC but has retired. We tracked down the addresses of two women with likely names in Wales (where she'd long lived according to book jacket blurbs), and I wrote them both, but got no response. Efforts have also been made to reach her by phone, but to no avail. The reason we're so interested is not her possible observations on tides, but some cryptic remarks in the introduction to "The Shadow..." about being motivated to write the book not only by TIGHAR's discoveries in '89 and '91, but by some kind of information received from another source. We'd like to know the source, and the nature of the information. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:28:35 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? Remember nuoc mam? Did I spell that right? Anyway, nasty is probably better than starving... ltm, jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, I remember. No, I'm not sure know how to spell it. And I'm not at all sure that it's better than starving. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:29:19 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Strontium 90 Re. the type of turtle: we're not entirely sure yet, but DNA analysis is underway and we should have results soon. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:30:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: quicksand For Mike: We (not Ric; he didn't wanna talk about it) talked about how we'd "dig" the McKean "lagoon" if we really thought that Earhart was down there, and concluded that it could probably be done only with a very expensive cofferdam arrangement and lots of pumps, and since the island is an environmentally sensitive bird sanctuary, there's really no way. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:33:02 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Birds, easy to cook I think we are examing the "receipe" for cooked birds from the wrong perspective, the comfort of our homes and full bellies. Captain Bligh, of Bounty fame, sailed 1,000 miles plus to Timor after the mutiny. They had no fires. They ate raw fish & raw birds to survive. Military personel are trained to eat things raw to survive, things you or I would step on. If this castaway was hungry, he or she would eat, whatever and however. It would bash the clams with a rock, beat them against a tree or pry them open with anything at hand, then eat them raw. It would grab the birds, wring their necks, pluck out most of the feathers and eat them raw. If it had a fire, so much the better. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:34:18 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Belgium Subject: Re: Catching Birds For Dick, It wasn't a story your parents thought up. I live across the Atlantic and the same story is told over here. The lesson is that if you can get near enough to a bird to put salt on its tail you are be able to grab it. As we all know the problem with birds is they don't wait for the salt... I heard the story from my father who was born in 1903. He heard it from his father who was born in 1875... As far as I am aware of none of my family ever migrated back from the US to Belgium. So chances are the story was invented in Europe and came to the US with European settlers who continued to tell it to their children. LTM (who was never quick enough to catch a bird with salt) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:36:19 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Turtle cooking Herman: Just because a bunch of city raised boys in the modern era don't know how to skin a rabbit doesn't mean that those raised in other era's or even other parts of the world, don't know how to skin them. In AE's "era" there weren't nearly as many butcher shops as today, and many people, even living in small to midsize towns, raised their own chickens for both the eggs and the meat, and thus knew how to prepare the chicken (being politically correct, I used the term "prepare" rather than describing the process wherein one grabs the chicken by the head and deftly swings them around, breaking their neck, then removes the ... oh, but I am being un-pc again, sorry). But, truly, you didn't have to join the Scouts or take courses to learn such things, unless you were raised by those who didn't know how, or had the means by which they didn't have to do it any longer and didn't bother to pass the skill on to their unfortunate off-spring. LTM - who knows how to prepare a lot of things, Dave Bush >Military pilots today follow a survival course. That includes learning >techniques to live off the land after having ejected behind enemy lines, >catch and kill animals including chicken, roast, cook or bake them, etc. >Amelia Earhart never followed such a course and never had the training. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:43:59 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... > I trust that we're not going to have go through this "but Burns and Jantz > said..." thing again. Yes, like the good scientists that they are they > qualified their statements with many cautions but at the end of the day, > based upon the information available, the scales tipped in favor of a white > Norse female. We accept that for what it is. Actually, you have emphasized my point. My concern is that many postings on the forum seem to take it for granted that the bones were, in fact, those of a European female, when the level of certainty, in Burns's and Jantz's own words, was quite low. I do not interpret their statement to "tip the scales." Rather, it appears to me that the issue is still in doubt. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric If Burns and Jantz had decided that no meaningful opinion could be offered given the information available I feel confident that they would have said so. However, they DID offer an opinion, albeit with suitable cautions. Of course the issue is still in doubt, but the scales came down on the side of white norse female. You don't seem to be able to accept any piece of information as useful unless it is smoking gun conclusive. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:54:03 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Time to Howland Do we have any information as to how long (hours) the flight thought it would take to reach Howland from Lae? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************* From Ric The original estimate (prepared back in the States before the trip) was 17 hours and 1 minute. That appears to be simply the distance - 2,556 statute miles - divided by the airplane's economical cruising speed - 150 mph. At the time of departure, Earhart apparently expected the flight to take 18 hours (based upon a message sent from Lae to Itasca annoncing Earhart's takeoff). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:56:05 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Autopsies/Forensics I believe there were some doctors on the Forum who said earlier that they had performed both autopsies on "fleshed" remains and also forensics work on "unfleshed" bones. In other words, notwithstanding different techniques employed, they (one doctor) had performed both. Is this correct? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:56:54 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Reef.... The reef surrounding Nikumaroro Island and the two passages providing access to the interior lagoon, have been the subject of forum discussion on occasion. One can gain insight into the interaction between the reef, Tatiman and Bauareke Passages, the sea and the lagoon by viewing the Aerial Tour video. However, there are no low altitude, high quality, color aerial photographs of Niku's reef that I'm aware of. While "surfing" for information on Central and South Pacific reef's I discovered a splendid photograph of the reef at Palmyra Island at www.janeresture.com/palmyra/index.htm . There are eleven photographs on this particular web page. The subject photograph is number six from the top. The photograph accurately depicts "canyons" carved from the outer reef, the flow of waters over the reef into the lagoon, and the direction and extent of sand deposits inside the lagoon. Would Niku Expedition members care to comment on the similarities of the Palmyra reef depicted and the reef at Niku? LTM, Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:02:24 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Turtle cooking > From Herman De Wulf in Belgium (#2406) > ... I know how difficult it is > to catch a bird, no matter what Ric says. It is, in my view, not reasonable to doubt Ric's word about bird behavior on Niku. The truth of what he says, even though it is only testimony on the internet, is substantiated by others who have been on Niku and by the story of the dodo, a bird species from Mauritius that went extinct, in part, because they had no innate fear of humans and other predators: . There is also the evidence of the bird bones, seen by Gallagher and (presumably) found again by Niku IIII. Despite what you think about the difficulties of catching birds, the Niku castaway seems to have caught 'em, cooked 'em, and (one supposes) et 'em. I make different assumptions from you about Ric's assessment of bird behavior and about what AE and FN may have been capable of when they got sufficiently hungry. My assumptions, of course, are not evidence; but neither are yours. I am not willing to believe everything Ric says, but I am not willing to doubt everything, either. The alternative to trusting him and his methods (apart from walking on guano & quicksand) is to raise my own funds, train in archeology, and go to Niku myself. Perish the thought. LTM. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric There is actually a photo of me holding a baby booby. I, of course, put it back but his Mom followed me around and gave me hell for about ten minutes. (Lest I get a call from the Attorney General, the above reference is to a juvenile seabird.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:05:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams Andrew says: >Gallagher may not >have realized at first glance that they were possibly related. I don't think >we did. That's true. When I first saw them under the scaevola, I wasn't sure whether they were "cultural" shells -- i.e., deposited there by people, or natural, something that had uplifted with the island. It wasn't until we cleared them and looked at them with a degree of care that it became obvious that they hadn't gotten there naturally. It's also notable that they weren't noted in 1996, though the team must have hacked their way right past at least Clambush #1. *************************************************************************** From Ric Absolutely correct. We noticed all kinds of things in '96 - even something as tiny as a button - but never noticed the clams. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:07:11 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? > From Ric > As far as I know, all of those birds live on fish. I'll bet they taste NASTY. All the more reason to skin them. Most of the fishy taste would be in the fat under the skin. Dan Postellon#2263 *************************************************************************** From Ric Ya learn somethin' every day. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:09:24 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Turtle cooking > From Tom King > OK, Wombat, you've got me hooked. What's the technique? I'll confess that > I haven't given the matter much thought at all. I've never tried to > butcher a turtle, and now that you mention it don't have much idea how I'd > go about it. Stave in its tummy, I suppose, and then hack off the meaty > parts as best I could with my broken glass float. But what's the joke? Well actually, the joke was about a drunk, a tortoise and a pie.. I can't admit to actually doing this because the turtles, birds, lizards and frogs were probably protected species - so it never happened. However, had I been cut off by floods in a remote part of the Gulf Country in 1974 I would have been more worried about surviving than about protected species and it would probably have gone something like this.... The method involves building a fire and letting it burn down to coals, as you would to cook a bird or crab, then lay the turtle on its back in the coals. After a while you turn it over and cook the underneath. You keep doing this until you think it's done. I found out a few years later that you can tell he's cooked when the skin shrinks away from the shell at the openings, but at the time I just cooked until it smelled done. Opening the "pie" is interesting. With the turtle upside down you can bash away at the sections between its arm, leg, head and tail holes (with a rock). Lift off the base of the shell and you have turtle soup and meat that looks something like chicken. This technique (would have been) used on freshwater turtles (not tortoises) but the anatomy is similar to the seagoing ones and I imagine it would work on them. I'd have had to be stranded for two weeks and down to a tin of dehydrated onions and some dried macaroni with no idea how long I would have to wait to get out to resort to this. I would have also discovered you can cook birds in their feathers. You peel the skin and remains of the feathers off and pick the meat from the bones. The turtle, however would have tasted more like chicken than birds cooked in their feathers. Th' WOMBAT (I wonder if the NPWS is searching my old campsites...) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:10:55 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Turtle cooking I am still uneasy about Gallagher not including "shellfish" in the remains suggesting the castaway had been alive, however when I asked about the turtle remains I didn't specify a number of turtles. It appears there was only one. That would suggest the same site, especially if it was not a large turtle. I'm interested to see how the shell was opened. Whether the entire underside was smashed in or whether the edges were opened. Was the beast cooked in its shell or was it butchered and the meat prepared? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:11:57 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Noticing Clams > From Andrew McKenna > Keep in mind that the clams were not immediately in the area of the fish, > bird, and turtle bones, but were about 10 meters away. Gallagher may not > have realized at first glance that they were possibly related. I don't > think we did. Aha! I didn't know that. From the discussion and intense interest in the clams I thought the shells had been found near the fire. In fact from Ric's early posting I initially thought there were oyster bones as well.... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:12:42 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: No NC crew left behind O.K. You convinced me. Thanks for taking the time to explain it all to me, sorting it out more carefully than I did. I was obviously looking for holes in the story that really weren't there. You're, of course, right about the errant comma, the engine room was also on fire. They didn't need ship's power for the radio, by the way, the radio sets would have run on D.C. batteries. Sooo, everybody got off the ship and eight remain unaccounted for. I guess we're back to whether or not circa 1929 Arabs ate clams. Unless, our castaway was one of the missing engineering officers (who may also have known how to open oysters). LTM (who taught me to accept defeat when I'm wrong) Kerry Tiller #2350 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:27:18 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Ludicrous Clams I believe you asked for suggestions on how better to tie the area Gallagher is describing to the Seven Site area we searched, the various bones there, clams/oysters, etc. This was in response to my (and Tom's observation) that before we start making assumptions about what Gallagher saw and missed at "our" Seven Site we need to feel comfortable that he and we are describing the same site. One thing that comes to mind is our discussion on Na'ia, when you and Tom mentioned that there is a huge gap in our knowledge about the later years of the colony that is still in files waiting to be searched at Hanslope. Also, you both wanted to talk to the remaining survivors of the colony in the Solomons. Maybe its time to turn attention to this work. The meticulous work being done presently may be unnecessary if the answer to the mysteries of the Seven Site is sitting on a shelf or in someone's memory. I understand that TIGHAR's financial condition precludes visits to England and the Solomons, but at least as to England Kenton seems to have established a good working relationship with several individuals there. Perhaps a good compromise is to see if these people could help us. Tom may have connections in the Solomons who could help us out as well. Not the best, but better than nothing. The Solomons work is time sensitive---the knob, clams, oysters and bones are all dead and aren't going anywhere. That's not the case with the remaining survivors. Also, do we plan to clear more of the Seven Site area on the next expedition? If so, we need to come up with a plan to clear a much larger area of land. While I understand that we want to be as meticulous as possible, at this rate of land clearing per expedition cycle we are all going to run out of life before we get a truly significant area cleared. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me refresh your memory. What I said was, > How would you suggest that we decide whether or not we're at the castaway > campsite found by Gallagher? What would satisfy you? You didn't answer the question. I also don't know where you got the idea that the huge gap in our knowledge about the later years of the colony can be answered by the files at Hanslope. We don't know that. Van and I looked at dozens of files dating from those later years in Tarawa last year. Lots and lots of information, but no reference to the Seven Site except map delineations that identified the area as set aside for or by Gallagher. We're actively trying to establish contact with former residents, not all of whom are in the Solomons. Yes, we'll do more clearing at the Seven Site and I'm open to suggestions about methodologies that are more efficient and archaeologically sound. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:27:56 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Earhart House Hi everyone (and especially those living in or around LA), I have discovered a Hollywood map on the internet (Google) and have been trying to locate where the Putnam's used to live. I found Valley Spring Lane Road in North Hollywood without trouble. Is that where Valley Spring Lane should be ? Can anyone who knows the area tell me where exactly AE's house was situated (between which streets) ? Just curious. (I've been to Hollywood three times in my lifetime, next time (?) I'll make a point of seeing that house. LTM (who wants to know everything) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:29:34 EST From: Mike Z. Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... David Katz writes (edited): "The weakness in saying that 'if the castaway is not Earhart, then SHE must be...' is that a careful reading of the Burns/Jantz analysis does not, in fact, conclude that the bones belonged to a white female.... It ...does little to help advance what happened on Niku to draw conclusions from highly qualified reports such as the Burns/Jantz analysis.... When analyzing such evidence, it is important to examine REASONABLE alternative explanations for the presence of each item." I agree. The conclusion of Burns and Jantz is essentially, "our best guess is that it is a white female." Perhaps I should have used more careful wording, but I did not mean to suggest that we should take it as fact that the castaway is a white female. That is why I chose the phrase "If we accept... the analysis of Jantz and Burns." However, I believe that any reconstruction of the events on Niku, either featuring Earhart or someone else, should start with our best guess interpretation of all the evidence to date, and right now, our best guess is that it is a white female. Starting there, I think it is then perfectly legitimate and beneficial to say, "Okay, but what if this or that is wrong?" and see where it leads us. I certainly have done that in previous posts, and there certainly is a reasonable chance that the Burns and Jantz guess is wrong and that Gallagher misinterpreted the shoe pieces he found. Thus, the Arab crewman reconstruction is worth pursuing further. But any evaluation of the probability of a reconstruction being true must take into account such deviations from the best guess. With the Arab crewman reconstruction not being entirely consistent with the current best guess, it won't take a whole lot of new evidence against it (combined with a lack of new evidence for it) for me to reject it in that null hypothesis kind of way. --Mike Z. from Massachusetts ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:31:45 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: quicksand If NC was under all that stuff, I would suggest that since guano tends to be quite acidic, there would probably be nothing left. Does that sound correct? Regards David **************************************************************************** From Ric No, I don't think so. There were railroad tracks used to haul guano carts in the 1850s that were still there. Guano does not dissolve steel. It just smells like it could. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:34:05 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Just a Thought You have to be careful when trying to determine a persons religion based on their name. Many of you have probably heard of Tariq Aziz (Iraqi foreign minister) he has a muslim name, but is in fact Christian. There are many Christians around the middle east and for the sake of convenience, they often adopt muslim names. *************************************************************************** From Ric Rumor has it that there are even people who don't have any religion at all. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:44:25 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? One source of information on how castaways survive in that part of the world could be taken from William Bligh's journal which he kept after the infamous mutiny on the Bounty. This gentleman, who was in my opinion unjustly maligned by Fletcher Christians brother and later the 1930's movie, effectively kept his crew alive for several months with very little. Admittedly he had some provisions from the Bounty, but they supplemented their food by things they found along the way including, a large bird and, if memory serves me correctly a turtle. They did have tools though, including a cutlass. *************************************************************************** From Ric Probably our best model for how Europeans marooned on Niku react to the environment is in the excellent record of the Norwich City survivors. They weren't there long enough to get really desperate but even so, the place sure shook them up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:44:18 EST From: Ric Subject: New document up There's new document up on the TIGHAR website that I think you'll find interesting. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Harvey_Letter/Harvey1.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:53:09 EST From: Denise Subject: Ye Darke and Tragical Historie of Turtle Butchery! Tom King says: "I've never tried to butcher a turtle, and now that you mention it don't have much idea how I'd go about it." I have butchered a turtle and all I can say is DON'T DO IT! DON'T EVER DO IT!I killed one once simply because it swam in front of me while I was diving with a loaded speargun, completely forgetting that turtles mate for life, and without noticing that this particular turtle was swimming as one of a pair. It was a beautiful hit, from underneath, straight into the breastplate. I felt so proud until the second turtle swam into view and circled me desperately. The horror, the horror! I immediately pulled the spear out ... but ... And it gets worse: The Remaining One chased our boat back to shore, and then swam around and around us as we unloaded The Dead One from our dinghy. And then it lurked around the wharf for several weeks, getting progressively weaker until it eventually died. It was horrible, horrible, horrible and the feelings of guilt were almost unbearable. As for hacking up The Dead One, however, well, we did it with a knife through the breastplate. That was also yucky because the flesh continued to pulse for ages (the guilt, the guilt!) even after we'd diced it into little pieces and put it into a pressure cooker in a lolo (coconut milk with a touch of chili). When cooked the flesh was green and it oozed a rather unsavoury-looking green slimy oil. And I'm convinced it continued to pulse and twitch even on the plate - although that could just have been my conscience. Mmmm, yes, well ... recalling this entire episode, it is hardly surprising that the castaway site only shows the remains of one turtle. You'd have to be a completely soul-less bastard to go for a second one! LTM (who strongly believed "you kill it; you eat it!") Denise ************************************************************************** From Ric In 1989 our dive team, with Fijian accomplices, caught a turtle. The butchering process was dutifully videotaped by the dive team leader. I watched it once. Never again. The animal was literally butchered alive - laid on its back and the bottom shell cut away and lifted off exposing the insides. etc. etc. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:55:32 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bauareke Passage Ric said: "It would probably make more sense to you if you saw the video." Hey, hey, hey! I know a pitchman when I hear one. :-) I'll try to send the money off this week. (Is this the tape of you doing a voice-over of "High Flight" or singing the U. S. Air Force anthem?) LTM, who is easily inspired Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh, you want THAT one. It's a lot more expensive. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:57:17 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: No feathers? The discussion on the bird bones left me to wondering why there are no feathers also at the site. If I remember my high school biology correctly, aren't feathers, hair, (finger/toe) nails made of the same basic material? I've seen lots of long-dead animals in the woods and there were often tuffs of hairs or feathers around the site. Similarly with humans -- many of those mummies from ancient Egypt still have hair and finger nails. My point is hair, nails, feathers are very slow to decompose. If I found bird bones I would not be a bit surprised to also find feathers -- but we don't. Just curious. LTM, who's adores feather boas Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric According to one account (Herb Moffit) there were feathers present at the site in 1944. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:59:24 EST From: Gary Fajack Subject: Off Topic - High and Mighty I remember a number of people expressing interest in the video High and the Mighty. I was able to find the video at the following website: http://members.tripod.com/classic-movies/ This is not a studio release of the video. The company copies the movies from various sources and sells only the "video tape and recording service" not the movie. The quality of the movie was good, but not first rate. I also picked up the old classic "Hell Divers"($12). The quality of this film was good, better than High and the Mighty ($15). Gary Fajack ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:19:33 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Earhart search map I was interested to see the search map on E-bay. Is this map already in the public domain? I was also interested to note that it seems to include a (search?) area between the equator and 2S and from 176W - 178W approx. The Lambrecht map does not cover this area. Can you shed any light on this? I was also interested to note that it appears to show a distance from Gardner to the equator, although not for any other island. Was the significance of 281 perhaps appreciated even then? Regards Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric I don't know if it's in the public domain but the area you mention was coverd by Itasca just before she headed for the Gilberts. The noted distance between the equator and Gardner is interesting. There is no mention in the literature of a possible connection with the "281" message. I wonder if the distance noted is merely the point farthest south that the Colorado reached. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:31:15 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: News from Ludolph Ric said, > On early sextants the drum was made of ivory and on > post-war sextants they are plastic. What they were made of in the early > 20th century is not known. Do we consider the pensacola sextant "an early sextant" or will it give an indication of what the drum was made in the early 20th century as it is dated 1919 (from memory)? ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't see anything on the Pensacola Ludolph that looks at all like our knob. We'll have to wait and see what the photos that the company is sending show. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:36:19 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: News from Ludolph Since the records were destroyed in the war, how did they know what number to re-commence production at? Or did that old wizened craftsman Willy Baumwolle remember that the last one he made fifteen years before was 3561? I doubt Willy's memory was that good. Perhaps he just guessed as he knew they were well into the 3000 series. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric The company says, "We obviously have no idea why this number was chosen but we assume 3562 was arrived at from another record book which no longer exists." 1952 was forty years ago and they're just now getting around to trying to reconstruct the company's history. It's certainly possible - even likely - that more records were around then than are available now. They're still going through old boxes. More records could still turn up. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:38:04 EST From: Carol Linn Dow Subject: Re: News from Ludolph I don't know if I'm reading your Email correctly. How can Ludolph stay in business producing such a small number of sextants? They must have been producing something else besides sextants unless it was a "garage" or a basement hobby shop operation (which it could have been). Jahol? Carol Dow *************************************************************************** From Ric Ludolph made, and makes, a wide range of precision instruments. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:38:50 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: News from Ludolph This is interesting stuff... I too am waiting for a reply from the company who made their parachutes and expect to hear from the spokeswoman in a week or two as she is on vacation (ENG: HOLIDAY !) at the moment. I also hope to have good news... Maybe 2002 is the year RIC ! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:40:57 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: food preparation Dave Bush said: "In AE's "era" there weren't nearly as many butcher shops as today, and many people, even living in small to midsize towns." I would have to disagree with that statement. I was raised in a small town in Iowa in the 50s and 60s and my father was a butcher. Butcher shops were quite common and numerous because the "city" folk had no other way to get meat; zoning and health regulations (and common sense) prevented most people from raising livestock within the city limits. Also, the bigger the city the more butcher shops there were. In fact when my parents later moved to Minneapolis in 1962 my dad was a "circuit butcher," traveling from shop to shop -- not super markets, but butcher shops -- to meet peak demands. He always worked at least 40 hours a week. Granted most of the farm folk did slaughter their own livestock; but if you lived in town you always used the local butcher shop. And as for removing bird feathers, here's how dad did it one Thanksgiving eve in our basement. He suspended the bird up-side-down by its legs from an overhead rafter for about 10 minutes, long enough to let most of the blood flow to the head, neck, and upper torso. Then he put a bucket under the bird's head. (Now it gets ugly -- you may not want to continue reading!) He grabbed the turkey by the head, forced open its mouth and quickly forced a slender knife blade through the top of its mouth into the brain, causing a massive hemorrhage. He held the head over the bucket and let it bird bleed itself out in about five minutes. With the bird still hanging up he stripped off the feathers from the butt and working toward the head. Surprisingly the feathers came out rather easily and there were only a few pinfeathers left to burn off. Once the feathers were off he did the other normal stuff -- decapitation, gutting etc. It was quite education, really. LTM, who eats only white meat Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:42:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Turtle cooking For Th' Wombat With the greatest of respect for your sensitivity toward protected species, even when in extremis, your of course hypothetical but carefully thought through scenario is very interesting, because if done on the beach (best place to do it, one would think, with a large turtle), one would wind up after feasting with the leg and head and neck bones, of no particular use, and the carapace, perhaps with a few pieces of stove-in tummy plate -- potentially useful as a water catcher, and light enough to be hauled back to camp. And those are precisely the bones we have at the Seven Site. But what about the JOKE? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:12:38 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... > Of course the issue is still in doubt, but the scales came down on the side of > white norse female. You don't seem to be able to accept any piece of > information as useful unless it is smoking gun conclusive. Was that "Norse" or "Nordic" ? Isn't there a difference? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Norse. My understanding is that the FORDISC program compares measurements to databases of known bones from a wide selection of populations. Of course, it is dependent upon the databases available and it doesn't have databases for every region around the world because you have to have access to a whole bunch of good skeletons from a particular region whose ethnicity, gender and age are known. That's pretty hard to come by. My recollection is that there are good data from a collection in Sweden (I think) which is the basis for the "Norse" category. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:14:53 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Turtle cooking For Th' Wombat Re. how many turtles -- the thing is, we don't really know how many fire-n'-bones features there are along the whole ridge. We were clearing a path between the "Seven" and the tank, to open up enough area to drag stuff out to the former as we cleared around the latter, when we came upon the first of the features. We subsequently found a total of five, scattered along about 30 meters of the ridge-crest and slope. There could be -- probably are -- more. We're particularly ignorant of how far they extend to the southeast -- i.e., we haven't a clue. So, it may be that one or more of the features we found is the one Gallagher saw; that may be reasonably likely, since ours are on a direct line between the (we think) Gallagher-related tank and the beach. If so, then we're probably (see below) talking one turtle, probably observed by both Gallagher and ourselves. But Gallagher could have been 20 meters southeast of us, looking at a whole different feature with a whole different turtle. At this point we can't be sure. The turtle bones we have are all from the carapace and tummy; many more of the former than of the latter. They're all very porous, so they don't preserve evidence of butchery marks; we really can't tell how the critter was opened. As for not seeing the shells, it may be meaningful that the shells are due south of the turtle bones (which were all distributed around two of our five fire features). If Gallagher came to "our" turtle site from the beach, across the Seven, he would have been entirely north of the clams. He says in his wireless message that he and his colleagues did a thorough search of the area, but we don't know how thorough it was or how big the area was. His major clearing, as presumably represented in the 1941 airphoto, almost certainly occurred after he was directed to make a REALLY thorough search. The only documentation we have of his findings during this search is the letter that accompanied the bones, sextant box, etc., which doesn't say anything about clams but also doesn't say anything about the corks on chains, the man's shoe, or two human bones more than he'd reported previously. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:18:40 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams For Th' Wombat Re: kinds of shells. No oysters, but just to clarify, there are: Two deposits of Tridacna sp., probably T. Squamosa, each made up of 15-20 individuals. and One deposit of small bivalves, almost certainly Anadara sp., at least a hundred or so individuals in a quite dense pack mixed with charcoal. and lying between the northernmost "clambush" and the southernmost fire feature with turtle bones. ************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder what the small shells being mixed with charcoal tells us about the way they were probably eaten. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:20:08 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous Clams Well, let me occupy the (high?) middle ground between Ric and Chris and say that the gap in our knowledge of what happened at the Seven Site in the late '40s and '50s CAN fairly be described as "huge," and I wish I could think of more that we could feasibly (that is, within current nonexistent budget) do to fill it, but doing so is not a simple matter of activating contacts in England and the Solomons. I know one, count'em one person who does research in the Solomons (luckily she's also a shellfish expert; we hope to get together this week for a pleasant lunch with a bunch of dirty molluscs), but thus far she's had no bright ideas about how to get together with the folks in Nikumaroro Village. Kenton and Van are exploring possibilities for contacting them, and their relatives elsewhere. As for Hanslope, there might be something there, but we can't just ask somebody on-site to go poke around; I think we'd really need to have somebody invest the same kind of time that Ric and Kenton did last time around. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:20:49 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: quicksand Re: Guano does not dissolve steel. It just smells like it could. But I wonder what it would do to aluminum. Not that it much matters; I don't think anybody's going to go looking in the McKean "lagoon." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:23:17 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: New document up I'm not trying to be argumentative but after reading the Catalina pilots letter about the really bad weather, wouldn't it make sense for AE to land in the lagoon which would be partially sheltered from the wind and surf rather than a landing on the reef? Just curious. LTM (who still realizes I'm a newbie) *************************************************************************** From Ric The bad weather encountered by the PBY was many hundreds of miles and on the other side of the equator from Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:27:53 EST From: Gail Subject: Slightly off topic- Tonight, I have to be Amelia Eahart for 2 hours After over 2 months of research , I have finally reached presentation day. This is a part of a project called " Images of Greatness" , we had to choose a person and eventually be the person for a couple hours. I probably should add that I'm in the eighth grade. The night has 3 different parts. First , everyone recites a poem that they wrote of that is a first person view of their accomplishments. Then there's a press confrence where various audience members get to ask questions. I assigned one of my friends the job of asking " What happened to you anyway?" That way I'll feel more comfortable answering the question. After that , everyone goes to their displays and answer questions and greet people. Well wish me luck. bye, -Gail *************************************************************************** From Ric Good Luck Gail! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:29:29 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Autopsies/Forensics Chris kennedy asked: <> It is not correct for me. I worked with Mayan skeletal remains as an undergraduate anthropology student, and was required by state law to attend 6 autopsies in order to get my MD degree. There is a "paleopathology" professional group, which includes many anthropologists and a few MD pathologists. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:31:16 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Salting the Birds, etc. I was quite certain that putting salt on the birds tail to catch it was an old story but don't recall ever having hear it outside my own family. It would be interesting to know when and where it started. All of my ancestrail lines came to the U.S. prior to the American Revolution so if it is European it probably dates back into the 1600s or earlier. I recall, at age five, going outside with a salt shaker to try and catch birds. I never caught any but perhaps that was the start of an interest in both birds and flying. When I was a lot younger (teen years)I did a lot of bird watching, especially looking for red-headed, double breasted, bed threshers. Salt didn't work on them either. As a teenager I spent a lot of time in the woods and have stalked and caught wild grouse in the Pacific Northwest forests. I cooked them without any tools other then a knife roasting them over a very low fire. (We have some fairly dumb grouse in the Pacific Northwest and a season for hunting them). Depending on your state of hunger you would eat a bird raw but I suspect with ample birds and fish being available our Gardner surviver would opt to cook a bird, especially one that dines mainly on fish. Except for the need for fresh water and avoiding infections the key to survival on Gardner would probably be common sense, good judgement and controling one's emotions. The last one, controling ones emotions, would be the most difficult had you watch your partner die and determined that no one was looking for you any longer. It had to be a tough way to die and I hope TIGHAR can bring this part of the Amelia Earhart story to the public assuming we can show that is what happened. She deserves to have that part of her story told and the story, at long last, closed. Dick Pingrey 908C, in Selah, WA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:33:36 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: News from Ludolph I looked at the Luden website. Those are CNC (computerized numerically controlled) machines. In the old days everything was done by hand (very slow) and not as accurate. However, the Germans could make parts no one could equal in WW II and part of the reason was their accuracy in machining. They were the world's best. For instance the ME-109 had a fuel injection engine the British were hard pressed to match in the early part of the war. The early Spitfires had carburetor engines which put them at a distinct disadvantage in certain sudden or violent manuvers....the engine would stall. The British were forever engaged in playing catch-up (including superchargers), but the Spitfire with it's elliptical shaped wing could out turn a 109 hands down....no contest. The Spitfire was easier to handle (I never flew one) but the magazine articles described it as being slightly faster than the 109 and easier to land (about the same as a V-tail Bonanza) with good control at low speeds. When the Focke-Wulf came in it was another race with the Spitfire until the P-51s arrived.... then it was all overweigh. Nothing could match the P-51. One of the things that worked in WW II was they took huge "bomber" engines and put them in fighter planes. The result was astounding (Focke Wulf)....and the Corsair, for another one, with its gull wing. You talk about an airplane that made "noise" ...that Corsair....ye gads how those guys didn't go stone deaf is beyond me. Well, airplanes, Luden was evidently an old time machine shop which means they made a little of this and a little of that. That would be my guess. When I lived in Dallas, I sold three machine shops (Business Broker) so as soon as I saw the pictures on the website of Luden, right away the bells started ringing. Carol #2524 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. I always thought they only made cough drops. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:36:09 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: FORDISC Assumptions Ric wrote in response to David K.: >I trust that we're not going to have go through this "but Burns and Jantz >said..." thing again. Yes, like the good scientists that they are they >qualified their statements with many cautions but at the end of the day, >based upon the information available, the scales tipped in favor of a white >Norse female. We accept that for what it is. An indication. Another >itty-bitty clue that we may be on the right track. Well put. It indeed is an itty-bitty clue....or an indication if you will and an interesting clue to be sure. Some other information, however, is needed if one really wanted to know just how itty-bitty (or large) the clue is. Given that TIGHAR's are prone to applying careful science to their analyses, I would like to discuss an issue that may not be clear to all Forumites. When considering the output from a computer software program (like FORDISC), the user as well as the consumer, has to have a clear understanding of the underlying assumptions that the software is making. In the case of a statiscally-based program like FORDISC, that involves (among other things) grasping the intimate details of the database that the programer has put into the software. For example, the FORDISC 2.0 database has approximately 1,400 skull measurements at its disposal for use in its analyses. In other words, the statistical population from which the computer program bases its analysis contains 1,400 samples (i.e. 1,400 dead people). I suspect that the Georgia creamatory scandal may provide a bunch more samples that can be input...but I digress. Specifically, FORDISC 2.0 uses the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank (which houses the specs on the 1,400 skulls) which was developed by Dr. Jantz at the Univ. of Tennessee at Knoxville. Dr. Jantz developed the database/data bank to provide an altenative to the demographic and biological statistical biases that are contained in the long-standing Terry and Hamman-Todd skeletal collection which consists largely of elderly individuals born during the mid to late 19th century. In any case...cutting to the chase....it would be interesting, and indeed enlightening, to know the statisical makeup of the 1,400 skulls in FORDISC. How many are Europeans? How many are Africans? How many are Arabs, etc.? If, for example, the data bank contains 800 Europeans and only 100 Africans what does that say about the ability of the program to make suggestions related to Africans? This is only an example. For all I know, FORDISC has a very nice distribution of skulls from people of all backgrounds, ethnic groups etc and that 1,400 is enough samples for bones people to draw conclusions regarding skeletons found on Pacific islands. I am not a bones expert so I cannot pretend to know that and Jantz et. al. are certainly careful in their report to not overstate the results given the programs limitations (which all programs/tools have). I am simply pointing out some of the considerations a scholar (e.g. TIGHARs) needs to consider when analyzing the output from computer programs, or for that matter any determination made from a set of data. That includes the Pearson formula for stature that Hoodless used. What statisical population is that formuala based on? Does the Pearson formuala work well for all the earth's ethnic groups? What biases are contained in the Pearson Formula? I am suggesting that we need to investigate all of this. However, it is wise to pay attention to, and carefully consider, these types of database details. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:37:58 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Ludicrous Clams >Yes, we'll do more clearing at the Seven Site and I'm open to suggestions >about methodologies that are more efficient and archaeologically sound. Clone Jim Morrissey. ************************************************************************* From Ric Excellent suggestion. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:41:39 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Autopsies/Forensics Chris, I hope you're not referring to the post I made about having had experience with both - I'm not a doctor, I'm a cop. Had plenty of dead bodies over the last 25 years, and more autopsies than I can remember. One pile of bones. Pathologists always did the autopsies - the bones were identified by our (then) coroner, who was a forensic odentologist. We suspected we knew who the victim was, and we had recovered the lower jaw, which was compared with dental records we obtained from welfare, resulting in positive ID. Nowhere near enough left to ascertain a cause of death, except that we knew the poor guy was a hopeless alcoholic, and he was found in a culvert that ran from a drainage canal. We surmise that he fell in and drowned. ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:42:37 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Earhart House Herman's post about Hollywood sparked something that I read not too long ago, and intended to pass along at the time, but forgot, or got side tracked, or something. Anyway, what I read (and I can't remember where it was, now), indicated that Fred Noonan and Eugene Pallett became acquainted because both were in residence at the Roosevelt Hotel during the same time frame, prior to one or both of the RTW flights. I don't know how much, if any truth there is to this, but it was interesting, and might well account for their being acquainted. It might even be possible to confirm, if the records are still around. ltm, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:43:39 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: quicksand I don't know if it relates to this or not, but when we raise obliterated serial numbers from guns (or other articles) made of aluminum (ie, lightweight "alloy" framed weapons) we use nitric acid. When we do the same for steel framed weapons, we use hydrochloric acid. Now, I'm not a chemist, but if I recall correctly, guano (bat guano, that is) was harvested from Mamoth Cave and used in the manufacture of gunpowder during the civil war, as a source of nitrate. If that's the case, it seems reasonable to me that the guano in the lagoon (presuming that birds and bats are sufficiently similar) could have an adverse effect on aluminum, but might have minimal effect on steel. ltm, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:45:27 EST From: Shirley Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? I have been following the "saga" of bird preparation and eating and have to say this: Having worked with many types of seabirds as wildlife rehabilitator, I can assure you there isn't much meat on any of them, no matter their size and what there is is very dark, for the most part, and I doubt would be "tasty". There is also very little fat under the skin or anywhere else for that matter. I realize that a person in desperation, would eat what they could, but it would take a considerable amount of work to get a meal from from a seabird. Shirley 2299 ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks. I wasn't looking forward to that experiment. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:49:34 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Autopsies/Forensics Chris K wrote: >I believe there were some doctors on the Forum who said earlier that >they had performed both autopsies on "fleshed" remains and also >forensics work on "unfleshed" bones. In other words, notwithstanding >different techniques employed, they (one doctor) had performed both. Is >this correct? This thread started following a post I made in which I simply tried to provide some historical information about the venerable Dr. Isaac in regards to his work in Forensic autopsies. In that post I quoted material from the 1939 WPHC Annual Medical and Health Report. That same report states: "The Pathologist [Dr. Isaac] gave a course of lectures in Forensic Medicine, and Mr. Pery-Johnston lectured in Bacteriology." Other reports, of course, state that Dr. MacPherson also lectured in Forensics. Both Isaac and MacPherson, as well as Hoodless, were players in the Gallagher bones story. LTM Kenton Spading, St. Paul, MN ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:04:10 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: food preparation Dennis: I don't mean to nitpick here, but AE was raised in the 1920's, not the 1950's. There is a BIG difference in what was done in the 20's vs the 50's. But even right now, here in the heart of metropolitan Houston, I can show you people who still raise chickens in their backyard for the eggs and meat. LTM, ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:05:16 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Slightly off topic- Tonight, have to be Amelia Eahart for 2 hours > From Gail > ... Well wish me luck. You bet. Break a leg. And let us know how things went. :o) Love to Mother. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:51:18 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: New document up/Purpose? Was the purpose of this curious posting ("which provides new information about the orders under which the flight was operating") to somehow bolster TIGHAR's overall contention that the U.S. Navy didn't really do much of a search because those orders were to "not to hesitiate to return if any adverse conditions were encountered..."? If that's the case, I think it back-fired. From the letter it seems that, notwithstanding the interpretation one chooses to put on the orders, the flight in fact went far beyond the call of duty to try and get through under appalling conditions to the search area. This issue of the thoroughness of the Navy's search, or lack thereof, reminds me that TIGHAR has also often claimed that the lack of the finding of floating wreckage or an oil slick is good evidence against crashed and sank---of course, the flipside is that if TIGHAR is right that the Navy did a deficient search and was looking in the wrong area, maybe they missed any floating wreckage/slick. Sort of like Gallagher missed the clams and oysters. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric When a new primary source of information comes to light we try to make it publicly available in unedited form. If you find this letter's inclusion "curious" I can only assume that you are not aware that no official report by Sid Harvey or anyone else aboard the aborted PBY flight has ever come to light. Until this letter we did not know any more than is contained in the messages sent to the Itasca and the reports written by Harvey's superiors. Letters like this often provide valuable insight into the attitudes and opinions that never make into the official record. They make the people human. As you point out, this letter makes it clear that the Navy was really not interested in losing one of its newest and most expensive flying boats, not to mention its crew, in searching for Amelia Earhart. It's equally clear, as you also point out, that the aircraft commander went beyond his instructions and took considerable risks to try to get through, even though - as he says himself - it is highly unlikely that anything would have been accomplished except the loss of yet another airplane. The letter also fails to support the anecdotal contention of Page Smith who was, at the time, a young Naval Aviation ensign who did much of the flying on that trip. Page, now in his 80s, tells of how the radio operator aboard the PBY heard "dashes" that were thought to be from the lost Electra. If it really happened it seems odd that Harvey didn't mention it. The story of the Navy's search for Earhart is both complex and fascinating and can not be generalized as either heroic or deficient. The one generalization that can be made is that it failed. By the way, there were no oysters at the Seven Site. (You were THERE, for crying out loud.) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:53:03 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Autopsies/Forensics For Dan Postellon: Thanks, I appreciate the reply and further explanation. For Jon Watson: Thanks. I did not know you were a policeman. In regard to Kenton Spading's new information on Isaac, what I was trying to determine was whether there was some sort of institutional "Chinese Wall", so-to-speak, precluding persons skilled in autopsy from also doing forensics-style analysis. I suppose the ultimate answer is that it depends upon the situation and competency of the person involved. Again, I appreciate everyone's time in helping me on this. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:54:09 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: News From Ludolph The firm of Cassens & Plath of Germany is still very much in the business of manufacturing sextants (marine only). They make some instruments that carry a guaranteed accuracy of better than 9 seconds of arc-less than a mile! Darn right they make some fine precision products and still do--Jawohl! Not cheap though. They start at about $1500 and go up to around $4000. Der quality do not come cheap, Ja? Doug Brutlag #2335 (whose kraut roots come through at mention of der vaterland) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:04:17 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Since we are all "bringing out our dead" on FORDISC, in addition to Kenton's excellent observations about FORDISC, generally, and issues concerning its constituent population data base, something else Forumites will want to know are the practical implications of the fact that it uses cranial measurements to determine both ancestry and sex. Cranial measurements are not of equal reliability for these two determinations---simply put they are best used to determine ancestry, not sex (pelvic bones are best). The TIGHAR report does not discuss this, yet mentions that a slight measurement error would change the already "very low" certainty that these bones are of a female to those of a male. What's curious about this statement is why the need to discuss measurement variations which change the result when Hoodless' measurements don't also include variations? One can picture someone saying something like "the measurements are what they are---why mention hypothetical variations at all, as all you will do is make the Kennedy's of the world ask questions". Well, yes, and I have two questions: First, why did the authors of the report feel the need to include this seemingly unnecessary qualifier; and second: Since the same sets of measurements are used to determine ancestry and sex, if a small difference in measurement changes the sex determination from female to male, what if anything does it to to the determination that the skull is "Norse"?. Finally, let me add that the standard TIGHAR throw-down response to all these questions has been "Duh, Chris, that's why we need to see the bones--to be sure." That would be an acceptable reply assuming that the FORDISC system were fully explained, it's strength and limitations disclosed, and the qualifiers noted by the authors on the sex determination were also run and disclosed with respect to the ancestry determination. Then, you would have had a complete analysis lacking only physical observation of the bones. That is not the case, here. These questions have nothing to do with physical observation of the bones but with the application of FORDISC, and that is why the questions persist. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Enough! Out with it Kennedy. If you're charging that Kar Burns and Dick Jantz purposely tried to mislead people by withholding information - say so in plain English and I'll give you choice of weapons at dawn. Otherwise, shut up! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:45:41 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: quicksand Guano, I believe, consists mainly of Phosphates and nitogen in the form of ammonia. Ammonia will attack aluminium superficially but soon forms a barrier from the corrosion products which prevent further corrosion. Phosphates are actually used in automotive cooling systems to protect aluminium against corrosion. If the Electra landed or was washed in pieces into the lagoon, its probably still there, although none too sweet. This reminds me of something I read in the paper about a stolen porsche which was found in a pig-farmer's slurry lagoon when he emptied it. The police said that even after three days of washing it down with a fire hose, they couldn't get within 50 yards of it to try to check the Chassis number. You don't want to find it Tom. Believe me! Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:45:22 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Thank you, Ric. Having been the editor of the Burns et al piece, I'll cheerfully take the responsibility for all errors and omissions, and admit that, yup, the whole thing's a lie. You got us, Chris. FORDISC really said it was a chimpanzee. I'm sure that had Drs. Burns and Jantz wanted to provide an encylcopedic explanation of FORDISC, they could have done so. Somehow or other, that didn't seem necessary at the time. *************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Actually, I have been wondering the opposite and that Drs. Burns and Jantz were trying to tell us something. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric You don't know Dick Jantz but you've been on two expeditions to Nikumaroro with Kar Burns. How could you possibly think that she was secretly "trying to tell us something" in the report that she would not state plainly to all of us? Back in 1998, before she had ever been to Niku or become particulary engaged in the project, I first asked Kar if she would take a look at the Hoodless bone measurements that had just then come to light. She was very busy but she said, "Sure, sure. Send then down. I'll get to them when I can." By the time she actually got around to analyzing the measurements a couple of months later she had forgotten the story about where they came from. It was just something she had promised me that she would do. When she called me up she said (I'm paraphrasing), " I finally did those bone measurements you sent to me. Of course there are lots of caveats because the information isn't complete and we don't have the bones themselves, but based on what you sent me it looks like a white female of Northern European descent." She was very surprised at my enthusiastic reaction and said something like, "Why? What's the big deal?" When I told her (again) where the measurements had come from she said. "Oh my goodness. I see." It was then that I asked her where she would recommend that we go for a second opinion and she said that the best person would be the guy who developed the FORDISC program, Dr. Richard Jantz. Dick had never heard of TIGHAR and was not especially interested in Amelia Earhart, but he was fascinated by the problem and agreed to look at the measurements. His results agreed with Kar's and eventually we all decided that Tom King would act as lead writer and editor for a paper to be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Association of Anthropologists. It was too late to get the paper entered in the regular proceedings but the Association offered to host a press conference where the paper was presented and discussed before a panel of distinguished anthropologists. It was well received. I only go through this whole story to help explain my annoyance at your incessant amateur natterings and my decision to impose the dreaded Substantive Posting Rule upon your future submissions. LTM, Ric ************************************************************************** From David Katz I will assume that your comment to Chris Kennedy was made in jest (after all, dueling has been outlawed in this country for about two centuries). I do not believe that Mr. Kennedy is calling into question the motives or veracity of Drs. Burns and Jantz; my sense is that he is asking legitimate questions about the validity of the FORDISC methodology. This is wholly appropriate for any scientific inquiry such as TIGHAR's. When an individual or a methodology is held out to be expert, it is only reasonable to examine the qualifications of the expertise. In this case, Mr. Kennedy is questioning the FORDISC methodology. Aaron Burr (David Katz) P.S.: I remember reading once that when the late president of Yale, Kingman Brewster, was traveling in Germany in the 1930's, he was challenged to a duel by a Prussian nobleman for defending a Jewish man against the Prussian's insults. As the choice of weapons fell to Dr. Brewster, he chose cream pies at twenty paces. The Prussian nobleman (who wasn't very noble after all), didn't show up for the duel. *************************************************************************** From Ric And the same goes for you. Cream pies at 20 paces sounds about right. (Somehow you don't come across as a swords and pistols guy.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:50:44 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions > From Ric > Enough ... Otherwise ... ! Before the thread gets buried in TIGHAR's Dead Horse Cemetary, I'd like to explain why I pay no attention to CK's anxieties about FORDISC. The issue is a red herring, perhaps even a whole school of red herrings. Scientific research is based on an indefinite number of assumptions. No one can do anything if they doubt everything all at once, because then they could never trust any of their observations or measurements, let alone the observations or measurements of other scientists. We have to begin by believing in the senses, in measurement (plus or minus a certain amount), and in the testimony of other observers. One person doubting everything--and trying to prove everything in rigid logic--would never make any new contributions to science. To make progress, one has to pick up where others have left off, and that means trusting their previous work until one has GOOD REASONS to doubt some PART of it. It is impossible to prove anything to anybody against their will. All they have to is to cast an assumption into question at each stage of the argument, and the argument can never end. All that can be done is at a certain point, sooner or later, to agree to disagree. For me, the FORDISC analysis is worthwhile to this extent: it does not suggest that the bones found with European shoes and paraphenalia were not European. My unprovable assumption is that with a database a thousand times larger and with measurements ten times more accurate, we will never get beyond that minimalistic conclusion (or its reverse, that to a certain degree of assurance, plus or minus some percent, the bones are probably not those of a European). To put it another way, no FORDISC analysis can ever prove or disprove that the bones are or are not those of AE or FN. Strange things happen. I have a sister with Down Syndrome. I bet that her bones would not look much like those of the rest of the family. Pictures of AE and FN make them look reasably European, but without having their skulls to play with for certain, we can't say how close they would fit the FORDISC stereotypes of European males and females. The FORDISC analysis, therefore, is not now and never can be the artifact that ought to persuade any reasonable person to cease to doubt the TIGHAR hypothesis. If the "any reasonable idiot artifact" (ARIA) is found, then the FORDISC results may help to determine which person died at the Seven site. In the absence of the ARIA, people are justified in taking or leaving the FORDISC results as they see fit. I don't think TIGHAR has done anybody any injustice by saying, "The best analysis we could find of the bone report suggests that the bones may have come from a Nordic female." Maybe they are Amelia's, maybe they're Fred's, maybe they're from some other poor soul who died alone under the Ren tree. It is not logically impossible that another person died on the island before or after AE and FN and quite apart from the NC sinking. If someone could find the bones, then, perhaps, some DNA analysis might identify them more conclusively. Even there, it is still a matter of plus or minus, degrees of probability and improbability, but it is far more persuasive evidence than the FORDISC approach. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:01:56 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: New document up/Purpose? > From Ric > When a new primary source of information comes to light we try to make it > publicly available in unedited form. Just out of curiosity: how did the information "come to light"? Who found it? Where has it been all these years? Not doubting the letter one bit, just interested in a fuller story. LTM. Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Some months ago I got a phone call from Paula Headley who told me that she is the niece of then-Lieutenant Warren "Sid" Harvey who commanded the PBY that was sent to search for Amelia Earhart but was forced to turn back. She said that she had recently come into possession of old family photos and papers and she wondered if I was aware that her uncle had been involved in the Earhart search. I told her that I was indeed familiar with his role in the drama and I asked her to keep an eye out for any letters, documents, or photos she might come across related to that event. She called back late last week and said that she had found a letter, which she read to me over the phone. I asked her if we could have a copy that we could post on our website and she agreed. She also had some photos of old airplanes that she asked if I could identify. I said that I'd be happy to try. She subsequently sent scans of the letter and the photos. The airplanes were standard late-1920s Navy types which I was able to identify for her. Unfortunately there was no photo of PBY-1 6-P-3, the plane used in the abortive flight to Howland. Time and time again, we find that the publicity surrounding TIGHAR's investigation gives people who have information someplace to contact. Often the information is not particularly valuable ("My father used to say that when he was on Saipan during the war....") but every once in a while we strike paydirt. That is exactly how the Chater letter came to light. One of the things I love about this job is that every time the phone rings or the mail arrives or I open my email, it can be some new gem of information. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:21:30 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... > You don't seem to be able to accept any piece of > information as useful unless it is smoking gun conclusive. Not so, Ric. I find it very useful. I just don't believe that it "tips the scales" as you suggest. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric My reference to "tipping the scales" does not refer to the reaching of a conclusive identification. Burns and Jantz were asked for their opinion. They looked at and "weighed" the available information and the scales tipped in such a way that they offered the opinion that they did. You are certainly free to say that, based upon your understanding of forensic osteology and the FORDISC program, you do not think that their opinion was warranted. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:25:49 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Noticing Clams Can we not make a good guess from the numbers of turtle, bird bones clams etc as to the likely duration that a castaway could have survived on this fare, bearing in mind he/she would have been eating less than optimum merely because of the difficulty in preparation and likely the unappetising nature of most of it? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, if we were sure that we have all the meal remains at the site (which we almost certainly do not) and if we were sure which, if any, remains date from later activity at the site, and if we were sure whether or not there was a second castaway at the site for some period of time. That said, it will still be very interesting and informative to learn all we can about the faunal material that we do have. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:30:06 EST From: Denise Subject: Salty Bird Stories Herman De Wulf in Belgium (#2406) says: "So chances are the story was invented in Europe and came to the US with European settlers who continued to tell it to their children." I heard this story from my Australian mother (who had a father from England and a mother from Holland by way of several generations in South Africa.) but I have no idea where this story came from. I also remember seeing an advertisement for a brand of salt (maybe it was in an Australian magazine) that showed a child carrying a salt-shaker running after a bird obviously with the intention of sprinking salt on it's tail. I forget what the caption was, but it clearly indicated that this story was common knowledge. And look, about how hard it is to catch a bird? Everyone who's seen "The Gods Must Be Crazy: Part II" is well aware that the way to tell where you are in the Kalahari Desert is to try to frighten the animals. If they're willing to be frightened, you're in range of civilisation ... but if they show no fear of you - just stare at you like you're a totally demented animal they haven't seen before - then you're wwaaayyy out of range of a populated area. Obviously the level of bird-fearlessness obeys the same principles. LTM (whose Australian upbringing even taught her how to hypnotise birds) Denise *************************************************************************** From David Katz This scenario is also a staple of Warner Brothers cartoons from the '30s, '40's & '50's. Elmer Fudd as the hunter; Puddy Tat going after Tweety Bird, and, of course, Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric And so endeth this thread. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:33:29 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: butcher shops Dave Bush: said: "Dennis: I don't mean to nitpick here, but AE was raised in the 1920's, not the 1950's. There is a BIG difference in what was done in the 20's vs the50's." And my point is/was that since time immemorial small towns have had one or more butcher shops because the town folk didn't want/need to keep livestock in their homes. The major source of meat for townnies is/was the local butcher shops. Dave Bush also said: "But even right now, here in the heart of metropolitan Houston, I can show you people who still raise chickens in their backyard for the eggs and meat." And it also the headquarters for Enron, but I won't go there. :-) LTM, who prefers cooked meat, like Enron Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric In a desperate attempt to drag this thread back on topic, I think that is is reasonable to say that Amelia Earhart was probably somewhat familar with farm and "outdoor" life from her childhood and from "cowboy" vacations in the 1930s. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:54:32 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions > From Ric > > And the same goes for you. Cream pies at 20 paces sounds about right. > (Somehow you don't come across as a swords and pistols guy.) Shall we say Weehauken at dawn? I'm really not very adept with an epee (I didn't make the college fencing team, though I tried), but I'm a fair shot and, If I keep my glasses clean, twenty paces doesn't sound too far away. If you insist on the cream pies, however, that's fine with me; it's so much more civilized. Shall we name our seconds? David *************************************************************************** From Ric As the challengee, choice of weapons is yours. I'd name NRA Life Member Skeet Gifford as my second. In the interest of full disclosure, I fired "Expert" with the .45 at the Infantry School about thirty years ago but I've never owned a handgun. I do, however, keep my hand in with a pellet pistol. Three dozen TIGHAR expeditions over the past 17 years have given me considerable experience with edged weapons. If you wanted to go the full trial-by-combat route I can also arrange for horses, lances and axes. Cream pies, however, would probably avoid involvement with the court system. I have a hunch that this could be one heck of a fund-raiser. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:31:32 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: FORDISC, The Details >What biases are contained in the Pearson Formula [and other databases]? >I am suggesting that we need to investigate all of this. However, it >is wise to pay attention to, and carefully consider, these types of database >details. What I meant to say was: "I am NOT suggesting that we need to investigate all of this [i.e. databases]." I left out the word "not" in my original message. The bones report authors (Jantz etc.) clearly understand the underlying database and as such used that institutional knowledge in qualifying their results. I was only trying to point out to Forum members some of things the bones report authors considered, and things TIGHARs need to know about when analyzing the results of a computer progrma or forumala that uses or is derived from underlying data. You need to understand something about the data in order to draw conclusions from the output. I am afraid that my original message was not very clear. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:38:43 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Every time the subject of the bones comes up again, I keep wondering about how they managed to stay out in the open for so long. The experiment on the last expedition with the leg of lamb (I think it was a leg of lamb: please correct me if I am wrong) keeps me wondering. That bone disappeared pretty quickly, courtesy of the crabs, apparently. Also, some of those who have been to Niku have commented that the crabs will have a go at you, even while you are still alive, if you sit or lie still for too long. So is there an explanation as to why the skeleton bones were not taken by the crabs, too? Does anyone know what the crabs actually do with the bones? Do they just remove the flesh and leave the bone, or do they destroy the bone too? It just seems curious that the skeletal remains could have survived out in the open for so long, all together in one place, before being discovered, when those crabs seem to like dragging bones off into the bush. **************************************************************************** From Ric There are 206 bones in an adult human skeleton. Gallagher found 13. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:40:14 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Marty Moleski's explanation is, indeed the most reasonable approach to the FORDISC analysis that I have thus far read on the forum. My sense is that Chris Kennedy's problem with the whole thing is that repeated discussions on the forum appear to give much more weight to FORDISC than what Marty says here; that is, people seem to conclude that the bones were in fact those of a European female of Norse descent, rather than they were POSSIBLY those of a European female of Norse descent. It is worthwhile to point out the difference so that followers of TIGHAR's research do not get the wrong idea. This is not nit-picking. It is merely an attempt to maintain the integrity of the research. Everything that TIGHAR has discovered leads to the reasonable possibility that Earhart may have been on Gardner, therefore that possibility cannot yet be dismissed. On the other hand, there are other possible explanations for the artifacts that also cannot yet be dismissed. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:40:55 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Marty, DNA evidence would be out of sight. The only trouble is you would need a lock of hair or something that was AE to prove the other side of the evidence. Is there anything like that around? I don't "think" there is, is there? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:45:18 EST From: J Bassett Subject: Keep up the good work iam new at this ive been reading a lot of things in reference to AE and i love history and i do a lot of research about it and i like reading about what all you have found.i have saved some of the e-mail you have put out. i have more question than there is answers. and di have some ideas about this but i've kept them to my self becouse i didnt want to sound silly.and my spelling not the greast. i was born in the 40s. just want to thank you for all that your doing. keep up the good work. ************************************************************************** From Ric Don't be shy. You can't possibly sound as silly as the rest of us. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:47:06 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams Re. duration of camping from quantity of food items -- As Ric says, we can't be sure because we know we don't have all the food debris, but what I am hoping we can do is come to some conclusions shortly about a couple of things: 1. Does each of the features we excavated look like a one-time event, or something used over a period of time? 2. About how much nutriment is represented by each of the features? If, say, it looks like each feature represents a single event, and each might provide about enough nourishment for one person for, say, two days, then the duration of occupation should be twice as many days as there are features. That's VERY crude, and we're not going to be sure of anything, but it could give us something to go on. But we won't really be able to address the duration of occupation question without looking at the whole complex of features, whose number and distribution we don't yet know. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:11:01 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions > In the interest of full disclosure, I fired "Expert" with the .45 at the > Infantry School about thirty years ago. Uh-oh. Say, Ric, those cream pies are sounding pretty good to me. Of course, the only serious risk would be an elevated cholesterol count. David ************************************************************************ From Ric Good point. At our age you can't be too careful. ************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Ric said: As the challengee, choice of weapons is yours. . . . If you wanted to go the full trial-by-combat route I can also arrange for horses, lances and axes. . . . I have a hunch that this could be one heck of a fund-raiser." Make it a joust and hold it here in Maryland instead of where ever-the-hell Weehauken is (New Jersey?) and let's call in Don King to do the promotion. The state sport of Maryland is jousting -- seriously, look it up -- so everything would be legal. We hold jousting tournaments here a couple of times a year and we could slip the Gillespie-Katz match onto one of the lesser cards. Bring your own horses, lances, armor, shields, and page boys. Wenches are optional. We could have a good old-fashioned joust with royalty (our Lieutenant Governor is from the Kennedy Clan of Massachusetts) with David Duke, Allan King, Rue Paul (the Queen) and The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (Ken Spading, can you pass along the invitation, I think the guy is from Minnesota.) Go with it guys; this is good stuff! LTM, who avoids edged weapons, except for an occasional sharp tongue Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Dennis, Dennis, have you ever SEEN what Maryland calls "jousting"? No armor, no lances, no shields, no blood - just a bunch of guys with spears trying to hit little hanging rings. (see http://www.geocities.com/marylandjousting/) Back in the 13th century we called this "riding at the ring". Good practice but not "jousting". There are some medeival-style jousting shows associated with various Renaissance Fairs and theme parks, but it's all choreographed entertainment. There is a movement to revive competitive jousting as an "extreme sport" but it tends to get a bit - well - extreme. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:27:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Noticing Clams I think it may also be possible to put some more definite bounds on the duration (always admitting the necessary assumptions). For instance it should be possible to say something such as; "Assuming we have discovered most of the food associated remains at this site, and that little was found and consumed elsewhere, and that there was only one castaway, that he/she would certainly have survived on this amount for weeks, but not for over a year" An analysis producing a result of this sort would at least rule out (always assuming that the castaway was AE/FN) that they were both already dead when the air search reached Gardner or make much less likely that, for instance, AE could have survived into a new incarnation as Nei Manganibuka. Of course there are certain sources of food (such as coconuts) which may have left no residues, which may make any meaningful analysis on this basis impossible. Are fallen coconuts fit for eating readily come by on Gardner? How likely is it that a very hungry european could climb a coconut tree regularly and successfully? Would fluid loss associated with eating green coconuts likely lead to dehydration and death where water was a scarce commodity? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:09:47 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Fundraising opportunities > Cream pies, however, would probably avoid involvement with the court > system. > > I have a hunch that this could be one heck of a fund-raiser. I concur. I would cheerfully contribute $500 for a shot at the Head TIGHAR with a cream pie. I would make an additional contribution if I would be allowed to determine the throwing distance. Perhaps this could be the training exercise on the next C/E.......(i.e. what makes this unique, is it a reconstruction...) LTM, (who knows a golden opportunity) MStill #2332 Cleveland, TN *************************************************************************** From Ric Not exactly what I had in mind. The amount of the contribution would have to be inversely proportional to the throwing distnace. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:20:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Coconuts Angus Those are certainly the kinds of assumptions and possibilities we can kick around as we get more of the data from the Seven Site analyzied. Of course, the more the assumptions, the wider the range of possibilities. As for coconuts, there weren't a whole lot on the island prior to the PISS colonization -- only those remaining from the Arundel plantings in the 1890s, and none of these were near the Seven Site. Seems unlikely that coconuts were a very substantial source of food or fluid, especially for people who weren't real experienced coco tree climbers. **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the Coconut Cwestion is an interesting one. Gallagher writes in his note to the file of July 3, 1941 that: "There was no evidence of any attempt to dig a well and the wretched man presumably died of thirst. Less than two miles away there is a small grove of coconut trees which would have been sufficient to keep him alive if he had only found it. He was separated from those trees, however, by an inpenetrable [sic] belt of bush." In October 1937 Maude and Bevington found 111 coconut trees "in bearing" in five seperate groves, all at the west end of the island. However, between their visit and Gallagher's discovery of the bones at the Seven Site there was the great drought of 1938 during which all of the vegetation on the island withered and nearly died. Whoever the castaway was, he/she/they did not end up on the part of the island where there were coconut trees. Gallagher's "impenetrable belt of bush" is easily avoided by simply walking along the shore. It seems most likely that the castaway(s) did not locate near the coconut trees because the trees were of no use - and that suggests that the establishment of the Seven Site occurred during the drought, i.e. 1938. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:29:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Stuart -- We did two basic lamb experiments -- one highly controlled by Kar Burns using a leg of lamb, one less formal by me using lamb chop dinner leavings. With the leg, the large bones were still in place (though stripped of meat) when we left, but the smaller ones had disappeared. In the dinner-leavings experiment everything vanished. We were never able to track down just where all the dinner bones went, but they moved pretty fast (several meters per hour) and were very rapidly reduced in size by chewing on the margins. Almost all the 13 bones reported by Gallagher were large ones. I think it's likely that the smaller ones (ribs, sternum, etc.) and the larger ones that were relatively thin and porous (inominate) got consumed completely, while others may have just been dragged away, but dragged away considerable distances. This raises the question of why the fish, bird, and turtle bones didn't disappear. I did another experiment in which I buried lamb bones in a very crabby area -- one under about half an inch of sand, another an inch down, another two inches. None of them were disturbed at all. I think that if I were a castaway and didn't want my campsite overrun by crabs, I'd make it a point to bury my dinner wastes, but not necessarily very deep. Over time, they'd probably be exposed for questing TIGHARs to find. However, we also have documentation of a fish left on the ground in 99 whose bones were still there to be observed, fully articulated, several months later. There are things about the dietary habits of Birgus latro that we don't begin to understand. ************************************************************************** From Ric From Kar's field notes for Sept. 10, 2001: "decomp. exp. : The lamb bones are all gone. Not a trace is left on site." The experiment was put in place on Aug. 29. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:44:08 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Telegram Typos and Implications A few weeks ago, I mentioned what seemed to be a typographical error in the first of Kelly Johnson's March 11, 1937 telegrams to AE. Further study of the telegram indicates that there are probably two additional typos. The typos occur in KJ's account of the results of a fuel consumption test run at 5000 feet. Results are given for five power settings, and can be summarized as follows (RPM/MP/Cambridge setting): A-1900/29/0.71=51.5 gph B-1800/28/0.71=52.4 gph C-1550/24/0.70=38.6 gph D-1800/26/0.71=43 gph E-1700/22/0.70=36 gph Setting "A" contains the typo I pointed out last month. According to the P&W power control chart (reproduced as page 11 of Lockheed Report 465), 1900 rpm with 29 inches MP gives about 400 hp per engine. Fuel consumption at an sfc of 0.45 lbs/hr would be 60 gph; at an sfc of 0.48 lbs/hr it would be 64 gph. We may therefore safely assume that "51.5" should read "61.5 gph" (an sfc of 0.46+). Settings "B" and "D" seem to be OK. The 52.4 gph consumption given for setting "B" is consistent with the 360 hp per engine produced by such a setting, and the 43 gph figure for "D" closely matches the 300 hp that setting should give, though both are slightly below an sfc of 0.45. Setting C is a bit of a puzzle. It's pretty clear that there is a typo - the question is where? The telegram calls for an RPM of 1550. The P&W chart for the engine does not contain power curves below 1600 RPM, but one can estimate from the chart that this setting would produce about 210 hp per engine, which would give a fuel consumption of 31.5 gph at an sfc of 0.45 lb/hr. Perhaps this means the telegram should read "31.6 gph" rather than "38.6 gph". It is also possible (though, I believe, quite unlikely) that the telegram is accurate, and that operation at 1550 (below the normal operating range of the engines as given by P&W) was inefficient, and resulted in unusually high fuel consumption at this setting (sfc of 0.55+ ). But there is a third possibility (which I think is most probably correct). Suppose the "1550 RPM" to be a typo for "1750 RPM" - at 1750 RPM and 24 inches, the engines should produce a bit over 250 hp each at 5000 feet, according to the P&W chart. At an sfc of 0.45 a 250 hp setting (500 total hp) would consume 37.5 gph. A fuel consumption of "38.6 gph" is thus consistent with a power of slightly over 250 hp per engine and an sfc of 0.45 or slightly higher. I prefer this explanation because changing the "1550" to "1750" also integrates the setting more naturally into the power sequence (note the gradual reduction of both RPM and MP, in step with the reduction of the Cambridge setting): A-1900/29/0.71=61.5 gph B-1800/28/0.71=52.4 gph D-1800/26/0.71=43 gph C-1750/24/0.70=38.6 gph That leaves us with setting E. According to the P&W engine chart, at 5000 feet and standard conditions, a power setting of 1700 RPM and 22 inches should produce between 175 and 180 hp per engine. At 175 hp per engine (350 hp total) an sfc of 0.45 will give a fuel consumption of 26.25 gph - not THIRTY-six, but TWENTY-six gph! So we correct this typo and add: E-1700/22/0.70=26 gph to complete the chart. (The remaining cruise settings given in this and the other March 11, 1937 telegrams - some of which we have discussed before - all are quite consistent with the P&W power control chart - with fuel consumptions slightly under what we might expect with normal leaning techniques - not a surprise given the leaning below the normal range of Cambridge settings. This consistency makes me more certain of my ground in pointing out these 3 oddball entries.) Well, so what? I think the information is interesting in itself, but do we learn anything else from this? Perhaps we do. I think the telegram indicates that AE had a table of power settings QUITE APART FROM KJ'S TELEGRAMS. This assertion perhaps seems a non-sequitur at this point, so let's go back to the first KJ telegram and explain why I believe that.. Why would KJ make a fuel consumption test at 5000 feet, and report the results to AE, when the cruise settings he recommends are at 4000, 6000, 8000 and 10,000 feet? I think the explanation that makes sense is that a table had been prepared for AE giving power settings at various altitudes with estimated fuel consumption, and that the flight was made to spot check the fuel consumption predicted by the table against the actual consumption of the plane. KJ checked the settings given for 5000 feet, and listed the fuel consumption at some of those settings to show that actual consumption was at or below the estimated figures, and stated that he had checked the "other values" (airspeed ?)as well (and, by implication, that the "other values" were also in close agreement with the estimates AE already had). KJ then felt comfortable enought to list his choice of power settings for other altitudes with the observation "Gallons per hour should run little under figures given". The phrase "gph should run ... under" implies that the consumption at 4, 6, 8 and 10 thousand feet was NOT checked on the flight (ie, that those settings were not the "other values"), because there would be no reason to say "should run" if KJ had checked them - he would have simply stated what fuel consumption the settings gave at those altitudes. Let me make clear that when I speak of a "Table" here I am NOT referring to the "Level Cruising Performance" Chart on page 10 of Lockheed Report 465, which presents a great deal of information in graphic form. That chart is a masterpiece, and a thing of beauty. It is endlessly entertaining for the armchair flight engineer. It is not something, however, that the average pilot would care to refer to in flight - most of us want a table that simplifies things. When I say "Table" I also do NOT mean "Plan", in the sense we have used that term. (The plan was in the telegram.) I mean a simple table giving power settings in tabular form for various altitudes, with expected fuel consumption figures (and perhaps speeds and other information). There's a well-known photo of AE with KJ (with vest, chain and key) in front of the Electra looking at a binder that contains perhaps two dozen sheets of paper. (This picture appears in numerous publications, for example, LOCKHEED HORIZONS, May 1988, page 10.) I think that KJ (perhaps with input from Mantz) had in effect prepared a simplified POH for AE. In view of KJ's knowledge that the plane would be operated far above normal gross, I find it easy to believe that the folder also contained data relating to the estimated effect of weight on takeoff and other performance, which would not have been in the issue 10E manual. I realize that we don't have a copy of this "customized streamlined flight manual", but I decline to believe that KJ sent AE off with nothing other than the telegrams. The telegrams, in this scenario, were supplements, confirmations, and specific recommendations for the Honolulu flight, not the whole ball of wax. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Oscar, this is an outstanding piece of work. Can anybody shoot holes in Oscar's reasoning here? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:47:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Jousting > From Ric > Dennis, Dennis, have you ever SEEN what Maryland calls "jousting"? No > armor, no lances, no shields, no blood - just a bunch of guys with spears > trying to hit little hanging rings. (see > http://www.geocities.com/marylandjousting/) Back in the 13th century we > called this "riding at the ring". Good practice but not "jousting". Then we have jousting Tighar style. Katz and Gillespie at either end of the field, chargers ready and excited, the kerchief drops and they thunder down the lanes. At 20 paces our gallant duo let fly with their cream pies.... I guess there's a certain amount of skill involved! Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric You ever try to get cream pie out of the hinges of your helmet visor? A real pain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:49:15 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Noticing Clams > From Angus Murray > Would fluid loss associated with eating green > coconuts likely lead to dehydration and death where water was a scarce > commodity? The body adapts fairly readily to some changes of diet. Suddenly changing from water to coconut milk will result in "the trots" for a while, but I've never noticed any long term ill effects from that and it was apparently common practice for ocean going canoes to stock up on coconuts instead of carrying water. From personal experience, while the fallen (brown) nuts have drinkable milk in them and tasty edible flesh, the green nuts have much nicer almost fizzy milk, but the flesh is the consistency of rubber. As for nuts that have fallen on the ground, I often check the coconuts early in the morning (around daylight) and many of them have already been opened by crabs. I can't imagine what it would be like though trying to survive on coconut flesh for a long period without any other dietary supplement. Maybe an experiment for the next Niku trip? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Wombat. You're a real pal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:57:13 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noticing Clams > From Ric > Yes, if we were sure that we have all the meal remains at the site ... A message the other day seemed to suggest that there was not just one fire pit, but as many as five fire sites with the possibility that more might be found along a ridge. Is that how things looked? If so, any theory about why the move from one fire place to another? Are all the fires of the same type, so that one can say with some assurance that they were made by the castaway? Or could the seven site have attracted many campers over the years? Could the workers clearing the area during Gallagher's search be responsible for some of the fires and meal remains now on the site? Did Gallagher's workers have to work as hard to clear the site as you do now? Or is the scaevola worse because of their clearing away some other less nasty flora? Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric Good questions, and we don't have many answers. None of the Coasties we've talked to say that they ever picniced at the site, and when they did have cook-outs they ate hot dogs from the mess hall. Lunches by Gallagher's workers? They almost certainly ate something while they were there but we have no idea at this point whether that involved fires. Later colonist activity at the site? We really have no idea. Prior to Gallagher's clearing operations the inland portion of the site was much more open than it is today. We can see that in the 1938 and 1939 aerial photos. However, the June 1941 aerial photo shows that Gallagher's Gang did a great deal of clearing out nearer the beach where the scaevola was thick even then. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:58:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Carol, Some DNA analysis can now be done on bones. Some bones are better than others. I believe teeth would be ideal, especially if not too old and some root material could be retrieved. Cf. the study of the Romanov's bones in Russia: All DNA analysis is probabilistic. It depends on the argument that the odds are against the matches between two samples happening by accident; the more reasonable conclusion, it is argued, is that the matches derive from family relationships and not from chance. But it is a very strong argument in our current culture--the best new tool for identifying human remains. If only somebody could find some bones to use it on. :o( ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:59:27 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: butcher shops >From Dave Bush in Houston, Texas: And it also was the headquarters for Enron, but I won't go there. :-) There is no livestock in the Enron building that I know of and the company does not own any butcher shops that I am aware of. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:07:40 EST From: David Kelly Subject: DNA questions My understanding is that you can match to a close relative also. *************************************************************************** From Ric Mitochondrial DNA is passed in the female line. Yours is the same as your mothers and her mother's, etc. AE's mtDNA was the same as her mother's, her sister's (both now dead) and her great niece (living). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:09:13 EST From: Denise Subject: Cooking clams In my last posting I said: "The very earliest e-mails about clam-eating (they're coming in right now from Fiji friends) have talked about a particular type of clam that is always eaten by being cooked in a lovo (earth oven)." I even mentioned that I didn't think it augured well for the origins of your clams-in- charcoal. Well, I take back that prediction. Just went in mail and checked. "Kai" is the clam always cooked in an earth oven. I haven't yet been sent the Latin name for "Kai" but I have a very distinct memory of them and guess what?? "Kai" is a fresh water clam. Not a sea clam ... but a river clam. And Niku doesn't have rivers. And if it doesn't have rivers, it won't have Kai, so your charcoal-clams, naturally, wouldn't be Kai. This is starting to look good again. Unless there is another type of clam cooked in a lovo - one that I don't know about - your charcoal-clams probably aren't the result of a impromptu islander clam-bake afterall. LTM (who always preferred sea-water clams) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:23:03 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Nauticos friends? Ric, You say Nauticos is going to start underwater searching on March 17th. It will be interesting! Have you discussed your theory with the likes of Nauticos (Jourdan?) If so, does he think it's as plausible as his own theory? Do you two get along? Are there other underwater research organizations that support your theory. Are there reputable organizations that think your off your rocker? Just curious Chris #2511 *************************************************************************** From Ric By definition, there are no reputable organizations involved in Earhart research. Dave Jourdan and I get along in the way that gentlemen competitors do. He has never asked for my opinion about Elgen Long's theory nor has he asked me why I think the airplane ended up at Nikumaroro. Our website is as accessible to him as it is to you. His wife did once ask me why I thought the airplane could have gotten to Nikumaroro and as I explained our reasoing to her it became very apparent that she, at least, had never heard any of it before. In short, as far as I can tell, Nauticos has sought no real peer review of the theory they are spending millions of dollars to test. They have had engineers double-check Elgen's arithmetic and, of course, if you accept his assumptions the numbers all work -but even those studies have not been made public. It's not my job to tell Nauticos or anyone else how to spend their money. The information we develop is free to anyone with a keyboard. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:25:30 EST From: Denise Subject: The Mysteries of Coconuts Angus asks: "Are fallen coconuts fit for eating readily come by on Gardner?" Angus, even if they are, you have to know how to open them. It requires: 1) cutting down a very strong hard-wood stake 2) burying most of that stake into the ground so it remains upright for what is a very vigorous procedure 3) slamming the entire coconut very hard onto it (I know it looks easy but you actually have to be very strong to do it successfully.) 4) wrenching it backwards to pull off a strip of husk 5) repeating the action about five times until the husk is finally off. The actual coconut is actually very easy to get into, but again you have to know how. I know of no one who's been able to figure it out without been shown. There are three "eyes" at the top. One of these eyes gives way immediately it's poked. The other two are impossible to get into without a high-power drill. The easiest way to get to the juice is poking the "easy eye" with the tube from a piece of grass, then using that grass tube as a straw. To get to the "meat", the proper way is to hit it lightly with a sharp object maybe three times in the middle all the while turning it in your hand. About third hit, it miraculously falls apart into two perfect halves. You then scrape out the white flesh and either eat it as is, or shave it into strips and squeeze it (again you have to be very strong) and the result is the milk which is wonderful in cooking and a fibrous substance you feed to your dog or pig. The easiest way to get to the "meat", however, is to smash the bejeezus out of it with a rock. Angus then asks: "How likely is it that a very hungry european could climb a coconut tree regularly and successfully?" Angus, climbing a coconut tree, unless it is tilted well over onto its side, is not something any person can do without a lot of practise and extremely well developed thigh muscles. It requires gripping the sides of the trunk with your thighs and knees and hauling yourself upwards. It's also something that has to be seen before it can be taught - it doesn't naturally suggest itself as a tree-climbing method. Angus finally asks: "Would fluid loss associated with eating green coconuts likely lead to dehydration and death where water was a scarce commodity?" Angus, I don't understand the question. Are you talking about sweating? Or a you suggesting that the juice of green coconuts dehydrates you? If the former, true! If the latter, huh? Never heard of such a thing. All I know about green coconuts is that they aren't worth the supreme effort of opening them. They are so much harder than the ripe ones, I doubt anyone would procede for long in the attempt. Even if they did, since they have practically no juice, and the meat is really only a piece of slime attached to the inside of the nut, I doubt they'd do it more than once. So Angus, I hope that's what you needed to know. My own thoughts on the matter are that unless A.E. had a visit to the Pacific or Pacific Islander in her childhood, I doubt she'd have been able to master the mysteries of this wonderful commodity. LTM (who wishes she'd climbed more coconut trees recently. Her thighs aren't what they used to be) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:26:37 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Please be careful when you are referring to David K. I first thought you were referring to me. ************************************************************************** From Ric We'll exercise extreme caution. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:27:17 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? One way some cultures cook birds is to leave the feathers on and wrap them in clay before cooking them in hot coals. When they break open the clay, the feathers come off with it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:34:46 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: New document up/Purpose? You are in a fortunate position in that whether or not the marooned on Niku... theory is right, wrong or indifferent, you have collected a formable amount of information on this topic. This would have to make you the worlds leading authority on AE and FN's disappearance. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks, but I expect that there are many who would dispute that appellation. Nonetheless, you're right that we have collected an amazing amount of information, and it just keeps on coming. Still, when I was a little boy and grownups would ask, "What do you want to be when you grow up Ricky?" I have no recollection of saying, "Golly, I'd like to the world's leading authority on the disappearance of AE and FN." Then again, I haven't grown up yet. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:23:38 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Castaway site? <> At the risk of being pedantic - all the signs point to this being where they were found (and I accept the evidence), but do we know it for absolute certain? LTM Phil Tanner 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric "What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." Francis Bacon, 1624 Same old problem. At what point does a stack of circumstantial evidence get high enough and heavy enough to take the place of a smoking gun - or is that not possible? At this point we have a site which: - Shows evidence of human habitation (trails) in 1938. - Fits Gallagher's general descriptions of the bone discovery location. - Is known to be the scene of clearing operations prior to June 1941. - Appears on later island maps as land set aside for or by Gallagher. - Contains features described by Gallagher (dead birds, turtle, fire). - Has a hole which appears to be an exhumation of a previously buried object (the skull?) - Contains what appear to be beachcombed objects that are useful as tools. I suppose a smoking gun in this case would be something that can be directly linked to something that Gallagher found - for example, something from a sextant box. I strongly suspect that we may have such a link in artifacts -03a and -03b but we're not sure yet. In any event, the stack is already pretty high. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:24:55 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > Oscar, this is an outstanding piece of work. Can anybody shoot holes in > Oscar's reasoning here? Oscar Boswell's report is very dramatic, and his reasoning appears to be appropriate. What are the potential implications for this with respect to AE's potential flight range? David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let Oscar address that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:25:55 EST From: Van T Hunn Subject: Food for Thought During both Niku 1997 & Niku 2001, we saw a few turtles(10" to about 14" in diameter) in the lagoon--usually on a coral head or around the lagoon edge in shallow water. On one occasion last year, Andrew, Walt and I were walking along the lagoon shore when we saw a turtle very near the shoreline busy feeding on seaweed or something. Walt waded out to within a coulpe of feet of the turtle before it fled to deeper water. I believe a person(castaway) with a driftwood club could have bashed it. This small size would easier to manage than the larger, egg-laying turtles. (comments?-Andrew, Walt). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:31:41 EST From: Mark Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Wow. Question: Would these typos have had an effect on AE & FN's decision making during the flight? We can calcluate now that she clearly had more than enough fuel for the trip and possibly the run to Niku or farther, but if they were basing their settings and their in-flight calculations on instructions with typos in them, what effect if any would that have had on their decisions as the fuel began running low... Just wondering... Mark in Horse Country :-) *************************************************************************** Frim Ric I think you need to read the rest of Oscar's posting. The implication is that the typos in the telegrams were, in fact, fairly inconsequential because Earhart probably had much more complete information developed by Johnson than we, or anybody else, has ever seen. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:33:17 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams There's certainly the possibility that some or all of the fire features are from EARLIER than the colonial period or Earhart, products of canoe voyagers from other islands stopping by to fish or hunt birds or turtles. Although there's little to no evidence of prehistoric occupation on Niku (that we've found), there are probable prehistoric ruins on Orona and Manra, as reported by Bishop Museum studies in the '20s and '30s, so there were folks living not too far away. The coral rubble "soil" of the Seven Site doesn't preserve charcoal very well, but we managed to scrape together one sample big enough for radiocarbon age determination, and it's currently being analyzed in New Zealand. A "recent" date won't assure us that NONE of the burn features are prehistoric, but it will indicate that at least SOME of them aren't. And they are all similar enough to suggest a single origin. There's also historic material in some of them, but we can't always be certain that this association isn't fortuitous. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:34:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? For David Kelly -- Unfortunately for anyone wanting to try clay-wrapped bird on Niku, clay is in real short supply. Coral rubble, very grainy coral sand, and bird poop. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:38:53 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: DNA questions > From Ric > > Mitochondrial DNA is passed in the female line. Yours is the same as your > mothers and her mother's, etc. AE's mtDNA was the same as her mother's, her > sister's (both now dead) and her niece (living). Would it not then be prudent to try to convince the great niece to allow her DNA to be sampled, just in case the bones ever do turn up? It would be very frustrating to eventually find the bones, and then also find that there are no longer any close relatives of AE, whose DNA could be used for comparison. **************************************************************************** From Ric You don't think we've tried? Unfortunately, she is of the opinion that the airplane crashed and sank at sea. She would probably provide a DNA sample (no big deal; just a cheek swab would suffice) IF we came up with DNA to match it against, but she has declined to do anything at this time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:39:58 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Cooking Clams For Denise Whoops, need to clarify. The big clams (Tridacna sp.) aren't in charcoal; they're in clusters not far from the fire features, (in one case, adjacent to one) but not IN them. There's a concentration of small clams (probably Anadara sp.) -- the little guys sometimes called butter clams, I believe -- that does have charcoal associated, but it doesn't look at all to me like the remains of an earth oven, some of which I've excavated in Chuuk. More like a simple surface fire, whose charcoal has gotten distributed loosely through the rubble "soil." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:41:59 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Thanks Tom. So it would seem that the crabs just cannot manage to move the larger bones (or don't want to), which explains why the 13 large bones from the castaway were found in one place, whereas the smaller bones have either been destroyed, buried under more than an inch of sand, or dispersed to places not yet explored. But why is there a discrepancy between what you say about the large lamb bone, and what Ric quotes from the field notes? Was the bone still around when the team left, or was it not? If not, then is there any correlation between the size of that bone, and the sizes of the bones from the castaway that were NOT found? Could it be that the lamb bone was still smaller than the smallest size of human bone that was found? Sorry to be harping on about this point, but I'm still curious as to why the bone(s) form the experiment disappeared (or not) within a few days, while some bones from the skeleton remained around out in the open for a long time. Is there any other creature on Niku that might eat/move bones, apart from the crabs? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:45:14 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: The Ariadne experiment Finding where crabs take bones might be quite instructive. How about repeating the experiment either 1) with day-glo coloured plastic strings say no more than 4 foot long (to avoid undue drag or entanglement with vegetation) attached to the bones or 2) with monofilament fishing line wound into balls with the free ends pulled from the centre and attached to the bones. With either method the crabs might cut the line but with a number of bones there is a good chance that either one could spot enough of the coloured line leading to (say) a burrow or merely follow the fishing line from its pegged original location direct to the remains of at least one bone. A miniature radio receiver and accoustic beeper hidden in the marrow cavity might also be a possibility which could be activated remotely when the search was about to begin but I imagine surf and bird noise might make it difficult to hear. Sources of high frequency noise are also always difficult to locate. Regards Angus **************************************************************************** From Ric Or we could just follow them. On Niku the lower-tech the better. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:48:39 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Noticing Clams When they cleared an area, what did they do with the debris? Did they burn it? If so, perhaps the fire sites were left from these activities. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 **************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. We don't know if they burned the brush piles but the charcoal we're finding is in small localized deposits (right Tom?) and it's back in the trees. Burning a brush pile there would probably start a forest fire. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:52:36 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Coconuts Denise, Thanks for a very interesting and informative answer. The way they could have tried to climb a coconut tree is by making two loops (from salvaged electrical or control cabling or whatever) to encircle the climber and the tree. One is a figure of eight attached round your waist, the other a single loop.Lean back on the fig 8 whilst flipping the other upwards, vice versa holding the upper loop on the shoulders, and gradually and sinuously walk up the tree. You need some inclination on the tree or ideally to make some "spurs" or spiked footwear to get a better grip. I think I'm right in saying that many coconut trees are a good deal off vertical. I've watched tree fellers do this very easily on vertical trees with a single loop but they do have purpose made spurs and so don't need to lean out from the tree (as one does when abseiling) in order to get a grip. I take your point though that the likelihood of AE trying this sort of thing seems a bit remote. However she was something of a tomboy, so perhaps one can't rule it out. If I was hungry enough I'd definitely try it. If you slip, you only drop a few feet due to the fig 8 loop jamming at an angle. You could of course still end up badly bruised or with a broken nose or fingers. My remark about fluid loss was, as th'Wombat realised, associated with the diarrhoea that eating green coconuts brings on in those unused to eating them. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric Or if she had a big ladder she wouldn't need to climb the tree at all. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:14:15 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Flight Range Implications of Telegrams > What are the potential implications for this with respect to > AE's potential flight range? I really don't think this changes anything with regard to our evaluation of the flight range. The only significant typo in that regard is the "36 gph" entry for what should be a "26 gph" 175 hp/engine setting. This would be a very upsetting mistake if I thought that the telegram was the only information AE had about performance at that setting. But I assume her table said "26.25 gph" or "26.5 gph" or "less than 27 gph" and that the typo would have been apparent to her. When I wrote the "Longer Range Flight Plan" I called for the end of the flight to be at a 26 gph setting, and the Longer Range Flight Plan factors the use of such a setting into the calculation of range. The telegram (assuming the correction is correct) merely confirms my hunch that KJ would have given AE some information about lower power settings, including one around 26 gph. Whether she used the setting is another question. Oscar Boswell *************************************************************************** From Ric Based upon your conclusion that AE probably had more/better fuel economy planning information than is contained in the Johnson telegrams, would you consider TIGHAR's previous estimates of her probable fuel situation when last heard from on the Lae/Howland flight (which use a straight application of the figures in the telegram) to be: a) too optimistic (i.e. she had less than about 4 hours of fuel left) b) about right c) too pessimistic (i.e. she had more than about 4 hours of fuel left)? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:28:34 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Coconuts > From Ric > Or if she had a big ladder she wouldn't need to climb the tree at all. Now thats a thought..... bore a vertical line of holes in the tree with a red-hot bar salvaged from the NC wreck, insert branches as you go and......Voila! (Did you spot any coconut trees with branches down the trunk, on just one side?) I take it that you think that my suggestion was too high tech for a castaway to make. I really don't think this is true. Rope may even have survived from the NC campsite. It is highly likely that control cable was salvageable from the Electra as evidenced by the fishing line leader. Native tree climbers use only a loop and their bare feet and whilst they are expert, even they had to start somewhere. If you're hungry enough you'll try anything. I remember reading about a vessel which was dismasted and swept hither and thither in the atlantic for weeks on end in, I think, the 19th C. The passengers and crew were reduced to cannibalism and as people died they were consumed by the survivors. One young lady had to make do with the raw brains of one of the deceased. She said it was the most delicious thing she had ever tasted. Hunger puts a new perspective on things, including what you might attempt to allay it. Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric Resisting the temptation to reference my first marriage......I'll agree that there is no telling what a desperate person might be willing to try. I think the main point to be made about the coconut trees, however, is that the castaway(s) clearly did not choose to hang out anywhere near them which, as I offered earlier, seems to argue for the establishment of the camp at the southeast end of the island happened during the drought of 1938 - or perhaps prior to the maturation of the Arundel cocos sometime around the turn of the century? But that seems unlikely given the legilibilty of the numbers on the sextant box - so we're back to a castaway who is alive after the drought has gotten really bad and whose trails are still discernible from the air in December 1938. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:39:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Ariadne experiment I had great plans for a "follow-the-crabs" experiment after we found in the earlier ones that the devils were so active, but unfortunately my plans were entirely dependent on Nai'a's serving lamb for dinner, and it didn't happen. Next time.... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:38:45 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Seven Site bones Ric said: "...and that suggests that the establishment of the Seven Site occurred during the drought, i.e. 1938." Ric's statement implies that the castaway who resided at the Seven Site was alive and functioning at least one year after Earhart and Noonan disappeared. Ric's statement also implies that if the castaway was in fact Earhart, she was alive and on Niku during October, 1937 when Maude and Bevington surveyed the island for PISS. (Don't cha just love that acronym?) :-) I'm well aware that exposure to the elements dictate the rate of decomposition and that the environment on Niku is ripe for rapid decay, but the longer the castaway survived the greater the possibility that additional evidence of their ordeal awaits discovery. Based upon the limited description Gallagher and Hoodless gave of the bones in their various reports, what would be an educated guess as to the date of death? How long before discovery and recovery of them bones did the castaway die? LTM, (who has heard the sound of "clicking" all too often) Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric The short answer is, we don't know. The main reason we don't know is because we don't know what the bones looked like. The only information we have about their appearance is what Hoodless tells us, but all of the damage he describes sounds like the gnawing of crabs and maybe rats. Based upon what we've learned about the island environment, an intact human body could end up looking like what Hoodless describes in what? - two or three months max? The skull wasn't found until - best guess - April 1940. In theory, the castaway could have been alive AFTER the first colonists arrived in 1939. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:39:56 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams For what it's worth, I had sites cleared by local folks in Chuuk, and what they'd do is pile the slash in a cleared area and touch it off. Such a fire could produce a localized deposit of charcoal and ash, but there's no reason I can think of that it would have fish, bird and turtle bones in it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:40:38 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions The discrepancy between my distinct recollection and what Ric read in the notes puzzles me, too, and we'll just have to resolve it. That is, Kar will; she was entirely in charge of the experiment that included big bones, and what I said about it was based on nothing but memory. Pretty distinct memory, but we all know about memory.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:42:01 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Charcoal deposits Tom King said: "For what it's worth, I had sites cleared by local folks in Chuuk, and what they'd do is pile the slash in a cleared area and touch it off. Such a fire could produce a localized deposit of charcoal and ash, but there's no reason I can think of that it would have fish, bird and turtle bones in it." Do we have any idea of the diameter of the "charcoal pit/deposit" on Niku? Having chopped and cleared many a field, a good afternoon's work would easily create a pile at least 8-10 feet wide and about 4-5 feet high, and would leave a very nice pile of ash and charcoal. As for the charcoal on Niku, I suspect the smaller the charcoal pit is the less likely it would be from a slash-and-burn clearing operation. LTM, who is now more environmentally friendly Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Tom can elaborate, but there is no "charcoal pit/deposit" on Niku that I am aware of. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:48:41 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Flight Range Implications of Telegrams > From Ric > > Based upon your conclusion that AE probably had more/better fuel economy > planning information than is contained in the Johnson telegrams, would you > consider TIGHAR's previous estimates of her probable fuel situation when last > heard from on the Lae/Howland flight (which use a straight application of the > figures in the telegram) to be: > a) too optimistic (i.e. she had less than about 4 hours of fuel left) > b) about right > c) too pessimistic (i.e. she had more than about 4 hours of fuel left)? I don't know.There's nothing "wrong" with the KJ "plan" on the Howland flight. If AE followed that plan carefully (and if nothing went wrong) she should have had (say) 150 GALLONS of fuel left after 20 hours (say 226 gallons after 18 hours). How long and far can you fly a 10E on 150 (or 226) gallons ? It depends on how you spend the fuel. As we have all noted, 150 gallons will give you about 4 hours at 38 gph, or 5 hours at 31 gph, or 6 hours at 26 gph. If you go to a lower cruise setting 18 hours into the flight, 226 gallons will keep you going for about 7 1/2 hours at 31 gph and almost 9 hours at 26 gph, rather than 6 hours at 38 gph. The lower settings are more efficient, because the speed reduction is substantially less than the fuel consumption reduction. (Speeds at 10,000 feet at these settings should be around 173/165/158 at normal gross weight - I don't have my tables with me, but that's close - 173 mph on 38 gph = about 4.5 miles per gallon; 158 on 26 = more than 6 miles per gallon.) People keep reminding me that "it's not how much money you make, it's how much you save that counts." Just so. If I had been out of sight of my destination in the middle of the Pacific at the ETA, I would immediately have reduced to a speed that would give me greater range than the 38 gph setting. Had KJ given AE advice to that effect ? I would like to think so. Did she take it ? Who knows. It's hard to do: "I knew I could slow down to best range speed when necessary and make a great deal of distance on my remaining fuel. THE PROBLEM WAS DECIDING WHEN TO DO IT. ... [T]welve hours out of Alaska and a couple short of Japan, longitude uncertain - I never did reduce speed. ..." Peter Garrison, LONG DISTANCE FLYING, page 145. What did the Navy say about the plane ? Wasn't it that it had fuel for 24 hours and the ability to stay aloft "possibly for 30 hours"? I think that's correct. I have been saying over and over that properly flown there was adequate fuel to reach Gardner, or the Gilberts, or the Marshalls. I am in an extravagant mood today, so I'll go a step farther. With the right pilot, 1150 gallons of fuel, and the normal prevailing winds I believe the 10E could have been flown non-stop from Honolulu to Lae. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric My goodness. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:50:42 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Noticing clams How in the world would prehistoric canoe people find Niku/Gardner? They would not have maps, and could only have happened on it by chance. How many pre-historic people would it take, sailing across the wide blue trackless ocean, to accidentally run into one very small, very remote island? Yeah, only one - but what are the odds of the first and only hitting the island dead on? Seems extremely unlikely that someone would end up there at all, unless there were a LOT of people out there sailing around expecting to find an island. LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm Dr. King will be pleased to adress your concerns. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:12:00 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Seven Site bones Re Time of Death Didn't Kilts story suggest that it was around Dec 1938 based on his sources guess when the skull/bones were found? I can't find that reference. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric You'll find the Floyd Kilts story at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/KiltsStory.html The reference he makes to the time of discovery is: "It seems that in the latter part of 1938 there were 23 island people, all men, and an Irish magistrate planting coconut trees on Gardner for the government of New Zealand." This is a typical anecdotal jumble of fact and misinformation. The first 10 man work party arrived at Gardner on December 20, 1938. On April 28, 1939 their familes arrived bring the total island population to 23 - but not "all men." There was no "Irish magistrate" but a British colonial officer whose nickname was "Irish" and who did not take up residence on the island until September 1940. And, of course, the coconut trees were being planted for His Britannic Majesty, not the government of New Zealand. Our placement in time of the skull discovery as April 1940 is based upon Gallagher's statement in a telegram to Vaskess on October 17, 1940 that: "Skull discovered by working party six months ago --- report reached me early September. Working party buried skull but made no further search." This is reinforced by his later comment in his letter of December 27, 1940 that: "...skull has been buried in damp ground for nearly a year," See http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:14:01 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Oscar's analysis seems to resonate with Earhart's chart to Honolulu stating that she got about 23 gal/hour while waiting for dawn to break near Hawaii. If Oscar's analysis is correct, then Earhart potentially had a lot more fuel left when near Howland than we possibly could have imagined.... *************************************************************************** From Ric Yup. Nauticos' search area just a got a whole lot bigger. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:18:10 EST From: Michael Hyman Subject: Fiji graveyards Has TIGHAR checked any graveyards on Fiji for the grave of "Unknown, found on Gardner Island". I don't see anything about graveyards in the archive. Thanks for the ride Michael Hyman ,TIGHAR# I forgot *************************************************************************** From Ric Fiji is a big place with an awful lot of graveyards. There's certainly a chance that the bones were buried but there are probably better ways of investigating that possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:24:54 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coconuts > and that suggests > that the establishment of the Seven Site occurred during the drought, i.e. > 1938. Which also implies that if the castaway was Earhart/Noonan, they were on the island at the time of the Bevington/Maude visit and missed them, and that they survived at least a year, in which case there would probably have been some attempt at building a habitable shelter (near the remains of which might be found artifacts, journal etc. - if one only knew where to look). Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, lots of time to do the Robinson Crusoe bit. But if they built a "habitable shelter" why did they, or at least one of them, leave it and take up (final) residence at the Seven Site? Or are the remains of corrugated iron and asphalt roofing material we're finding at the site the remains of a habitable shelter constructed of stuff salvaged from the Arundel buildings on Nutiran - but if that's the case, why didn't Gallagher see it? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:26:16 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Coconuts For Denise, It really depends how green. Immature coconuts are not edible or drinkable, but you have never tasted coconut milk until you've had a mature green "drinking nut". I posted a long time ago on the difficulty of someone unfamiliar with the Pacific opening nuts as a pointer to the likelihood that our castaway was NOT a native. On the other hand, if he/she was a native he/she would have had no trouble opening nuts without conventional tools, even though the Island method of opening green nuts these days is a few swipes with a machete. A polynesian castaway would probably have been familiar with the habit crabs have of emptying the nuts very early. I had not allowed for the possibility of drought killing the trees, which of course could cause even a native to die of thirst. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:27:23 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Ariadne experiment > From Tom King > I had great plans for a "follow-the-crabs" experiment after we found in the > earlier ones that the devils were so active, but unfortunately my plans > were entirely dependent on Nai'a's serving lamb for dinner, and it didn't > happen. Next time.... Of course you could obtain a cadaver and do the experiment properly.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:28:41 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Camp characteristics << From Tom King Re. duration of camping from quantity of food items >> Tom - Can we assume that it is pretty clear that the 7 site was not an organized camp kitchen for a large number of people, or a small number of people over time? Any organized operation would have had specific spots for specific activities, butchering, cooking, trash disposal. The 7 site shows none of that, and instead looks like a series of small and distinct meals consumed at vairous spots, correct? Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:33:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Benedictine Connection From a Google search.... Benedictine College Description: A Catholic, Benedictine, residential liberal arts college in Atchison, Kansas sponsored by the monks... www.benedictine.edu/ I know this is a weird coincidence, but doesn't Atchison Kansas have an Earhart connection? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric It's only her birthplace and where she spent much of her childhood. Every day after school little Meelie would stop by the college and knock back a few with the monks. For the rest of her life she never went anywhere without her bottle of Benedictine. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:52:39 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Some Questions I have just been reading some of the research bulletins from Tighar and have to ask, the carpenters daughter, Emily, when did she get her western name? From the bulletin, it appeared she had an indigenous name when she left the island for nurse training. I just found it interesting that her name, Emily was very similar to Emilia? After going through the bulletins, there are two closely connected ones which I think should be written. These are an analysis of the fuel consumption and also the navigation. Both of these have been thrashed about infinitum, but I thought a bulletin compiling what we know, don't know, surmise etc would be in order. One final question, there were 149 Model 10's built, the A, B, C, E and the XC35 - what happened to the D? Regards David Kelly (who has a very suspicious mind) *************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall Segalo Samuelu got her Western name "Emily" from an English engineer who worked with her father on Funafuti before the family mover to Nikumaroro. She later married a man named Sikuli and thus is now Emily Sikuli. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need for the two bulletins. I've been working on a navigation (LOP) bulletin for some time. It's almost ready as we speak and should be up within a week. (I didn't mean to rhyme that line but, just the same, it turned out fine. The thought just fell into my lap, we could do this forum as Earhart Rap!) I've also been meaning to tackle the fuel bulletin but the airplane keeps getting more and more range the more we look into the question. It's obvious that anything we say about fuel will need to have very broad parameters. The D series Electra was going to be a military version, but it was never completed. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:59:15 EST From: Troy Subject: Ric's.... voice? got the video today--great job. It's nice to see that place. How come you can't just search the whole island?? (just joking!!) Ok, not to complain or anything but Ric, your pictures and video on the website and tape and just didn't match your voice. After these past couple of years listening to you (via email, voice in my head) and seeing your pictures (bearded guy x years older than I) I had this rough, gruff, Gen. Patton type of image of your voice. Is that for real you narrating??? Anyway, you sounded so calm, collected, and, well, --how do I say it with out sounding offensive (too late!)--nice! Anyway, I still think it is the voice of some 25 year old you pulled off the street and not your voice.... LTM (& 73's to Mike and the other HAM guys) Troy in Pleasanton, CA N4MJO & TIGHAR #two-thousand something *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, you've found me out. I was afraid that if people knew that I'm only 25 my credibilty would be shot. I'm just a paper TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:01:19 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Jousting Ross Devitt wrote: >Katz and Gillespie at either end of the field, chargers ready and excited, >the kerchief drops and they thunder down the lanes. At 20 paces our gallant >duo let fly with their cream pies.... Before Ric ends this thread, and I'm sure he's getting close, I'd like to suggest that you use (for obvious reasons) COCONUT CREAM pies as your flavor of projectile! *************************************************************************** From Ric My horse votes for carrot cake. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:16:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits Ric's right; we're not talking clear, distinct "pits" here. But we are talking phenomena that have some measurable extent. What they are -- at least, what the three that we examined in detail are -- are concentrations of very fine-grained charcoal mixed with burned and unburned fishbone, some burned bird and turtle bone, and some burned coral (the coral rubble on which the fire was built). Boundaries are indistinct, and none of the features had a depth significantly exceeding 10 cm. (about 4"). I THINK there's some consistency to their diameters, which I'd put at somewhere between one and 2 meters (3-7 feet), but again, the boundaries are VERY indistinct. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:17:42 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications >> If Oscar's analysis is correct, then Earhart potentially had a lot more fuel left when near Howland than we possibly could have imagined>> I sense a whole lot of "would haves" coming on here, but one big snag for the Gardner hypothesis. If they had much more fuel than we have assumed as they advanced southeast down the line of position, this increases the chances of them realizing they have overshot Howland and turning back northwestwards. LTM Phil Tanner 2276 ************************************************************************** From Ric Very true, but as we've always said, "would haves" are just guesses. Far more useful are "could haves" from among which we can look for evidence that something actually did happen. It now appears that the airplane, at least in theory, could have reached all sorts of islands but there is still no evidence that it did reach any island - except one. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:17:50 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Who is Oscar Boswell? Ever since Oscar Boswell popped up on the EarhartForum a few weeks ago I've been amazed at detail he presents in the on-going his fuel/distance debate. Who is he and what is his background -- I want to send him a fan letter. LTM, who's betrothed to Truth Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Well Oscar, that's the price of celebrity. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:17:56 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing clams For Dave Bush: Hop on Amazon.com and order yourself a copy of "The Last Navigator," by Stephen D. Thomas (Ballantine, 1987), and all will be revealed. Polynesian and Micronesian navigators had and still have incredible ways of finding their way across the open ocean; if they didn't, the islands wouldn't have been settled. Navigation lore is embedded in chants that help the user remember things like the rising and setting points of stars and planets, oceanic currents, the relative saltiness of the water, even animal behavior (I recall one chant-segment that could be crudely translated as "Go to where you see whales spouting and hang a left"). Some of us once spent an evening on a beach on Saipan with two old navigators from different islands in the Carolines and a whole bunch of beer; they exchanged chants and as close as we could reckon it, they had systems for finding their way at least as far east as the Marquesas. Thomas gives an example of a turtle-catching trip that he made by canoe with a group of Satawales to an uninhabited island not unlike Niku, though it was nowhere near as far from everything else as Niku is. LTM (who knows there are lots of ways to navigate through life) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:20:06 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Benedictine Connection > For the rest of her life she never went anywhere without her > bottle of Benedictine. Damn, I'm glad we got that one explained. Was there a convent nearby wherein the nuns made shoes for Cat's Paw? ******************************************************************* From Ric Yes, but that's a very sad story. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:32:23 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Vox Gillespie Troy said: "Ok, not to complain or anything but Ric, your pictures and video on the website and tape and just didn't match your voice. After these past couple of years listening to you (via email, voice in my head) and seeing your pictures (bearded guy x years older than I) I had this rough, gruff, Gen. Patton type of image of your voice." Troy, you forgot Ric's former profession -- aviation insurance investigator. The voice you heard is the result of years of practice learning to speak in calm, modulated, non-threatening tones when you tell a customer the company is paying only $125,000 for his recently totaled Bonanza A36 on which he stills owes $250,000. LTM, who seeks a more Churchillian timbre Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ******************************************************************** From Ric "To tell someone to go to hell and make them look forward to the trip." Comes in handy when recruiting expedition teams. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:15:12 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Charcoal deposits Tom King said; "Boundaries are indistinct, and none of the features had a depth significantly exceeding 10 cm. (about 4"). I THINK there's some consistency to their diameters, which I'd put at somewhere between one and 2 meters (3-7 feet), but again, the boundaries are VERY indistinct." The fact they are roughly the same size and same depth would indicate that they also all served the same purpose for a similar amount of time, whether as cooking fire, brush burning site etc., wouldn't it? As such, it doesn't sound like the work of a castaway to me: what would be the advantage of several widely (?) scattered cooking fires. A signal fire, maybe? Just guessing. LTM, who prefers rouge to charcoal Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric A fire site is probably meal site (as suggested by the presence of burned bones) and you don't have to spend much time at the Seven Site to learn that food scraps are a crab magnet. Crab Control is going to be a major priority for any castaway who has to live and sleep there. Moving your dining area around would be a real good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:15:59 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Camp characteristics For Andrew MeKenna -- I agree with your characterization of the Seven Site -- a lot more like a series of short-duration camps than a single organized camp with multiple activity areas. But one could argue that we've got a couple of clam processing locations, a single turtle cookery, several fish fires -- I think the fish bones will give us a better idea of what we're dealing with. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:18:10 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Who is Oscar Boswell? Dennis O. McGee #0149EC asks: > Who is he and what is his background -- I want to send him a fan > letter. How embarassing! As I think I told everyone 2 years ago, I am a lawyer who used to fly a bit, and I have been looking into this flight since reading an article published on its 20th anniversary. Through the courtesy of a number of the members of this Forum (especially the late Birch Matthews) I have had access to materials on the 10E that are not widely available. A lot of nonsense has been written about the 10E's performance (some of it by me), and there are many conflicts in the sources of information we have. I keep trying to make sense of it, and I appreciate the opportunity the Forum gives me to give structure to my thoughts. As Birch told me once, "I put this stuff out in the hope that people will see the errors and help me correct them." Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:25:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Ariadne experiment Ross -- we really looked for a cadaver, but no one would volunteer. ************************************************************************ From Ric There was actually a HUGE kerfluffle during the expedition preparations about how to conduct the decomposition experiment. Our original plan was to use a pig (the most commonly used substitute for humans in such experiments) and there was actually a cage constructed and put aboard Nai'a for the purpose of transporting a live porker to Niku, but Kar's attempts to procure a suitable pig in Pago Pago were frustrated in a series of events which, in retrospect, were hilarious (but I should let Kar tell the story when she can) and the best we could do, in the end, was a leg o' lamb. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:26:43 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fiji graveyards For Michael Hyman While in Fiji in '99 Kris Tague did some very initial checking into cemetery records which are extensive. As are the cemeteries, as Ric says. Suva is a community of 90,000. We also took a quick look at the log maintained by the Medical School's Anatomy Dept. of their cadavers and what happens to them; saw no reference to bones from Niku and were assured by the keeper of the records that no such existed. There were higher priorities at the time than tracking this any further, but it would be a worthwhile subject for further research. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:32:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > If Oscar's analysis is correct, then Earhart potentially had a lot more > fuel I see nothing wrong with Oscar's analysis and in fact he has done a great job in looking at all the fuel possibilities. If I had any problem with some of the suggested "could haves" being bandied about it would be this. I know of no reason to believe AE and FN did anything other than fly to where they fully expected Howland to be, I see no reason they would have suspected Howland wouldn't be where they thought it was or that they might not be able to find it. Therefore I see no reason for them to have arrived with significantly more or less fuel most think they would have had -- somewhere between 139 and 150 gallons after searching around a bit. I would have to assume they might have throttled back somewhat for at least the latter part of their local search as they began to realize it might be more difficult to find Howland than they thought. Where ever they went from there they had to balance distance, fuel, speed, winds, climb and altitude. I might point out that since they didn't know where they were they may well not have had an adequate handle on the winds. Suggesting they could go a certain direction and a certain distance when they didn't know their starting point or ground speed or what the winds enroute could possibly be seems a bit ambitious. To me the situation would dictate picking the choice that had the best chance of success. It is inconceivable to me that Noonan would have been or believed he was many hundreds of miles away from destination and the known facts show that he thought he "must be right on you." Not seeing the island tells him he is not but it doesn't suggest he was or thought he was hundreds of miles off in any direction. Given that I think he would have selected the course of action that offered the best percentage. Would that have been heading to the Marshalls twice the distance away? Would that have been heading back to the widely scattered Gilberts with the only celestial body behind him and unavailable? OR would that have been heading SE toward a group of islands close by with a real capability of navigating a course? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric It is apparently impossible to communicate that the decision to proceed southeastward on the LOP was not a decision to seek an alternate destination but was the ONLY reasonable way to search for Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:35:25 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Noticing clams Tom: That is all well and good, but it still doesn't say HOW they could have known there was an existing island at X location in the middle of a totally uncharted and tremendously large ocean. So, to Ric, I say, you mean you don't believe in ESP, 'cause I don't see any other way that they could have found the island unless they trained dolphins to point the way (of course, dolphins are also called "pilot" fish). LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric Whether it seems incredible to you or not, there is abundant evidence that prehistoric Pacific peoples DID find and, at least for a time, inhabit various islands of the Phoenix Group. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:49:02 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Seven Site bones > The reference he makes to the time of discovery is: > "It seems that in the latter part of 1938 there were 23 island people, all > men, and an Irish magistrate planting coconut trees on Gardner for the > government of New Zealand." > This is a typical anecdotal jumble of fact and misinformation. The first 10 > man work party arrived at Gardner on December 20, 1938. On April 28, 1939 > their familes arrived bring the total island population to 23 - but not "all > men." There was no "Irish magistrate" but a British colonial officer whose > nickname was "Irish" and who did not take up residence on the island until > September 1940. And, of course, the coconut trees were being planted for His > Britannic Majesty, not the government of New Zealand. The interesting thing about this part of the story is that the misinformation seems to be a problem, perhaps, of translation rather than merely being altogether false from the outset. "A native tried to tell me about it. But I couldn't understand all of it so I got an interpreter." All the items mentioned seem to be relevant. One can imagine the difficulty that Kilts would have had in realising that "Irish" was a nickname rather than describing an Irishman and that it was a party of men that were planting coconuts rather than all the islanders being men. If Gallagher's function had been described, one might well interpret that as a magistrate. This makes me wonder the significance of "for the government of New Zealand". Could this have meant "planting coconuts for the government, at Nutiran". Where else would mention of New Zealand, which is what of course "Nutiran" means, have originated? Nutiran wasn't planted till much later. A corrected translation might read as follows: "It seems that sometime after 1938, there were 23 island people. All the men, were working for "Irish" (who was responsible for matters of law) planting coconut trees on Gardner for the Government. They were at Nutiran" They were about through and a native was walking along one end of the island.(Ties in with Nutiran/ Emily Sikuli) There in the brush about five feet (not 100 ft) from the shoreline he saw a skeleton. What attracted him to it was the shoes. Women's shoes, American kind. No native wears shoes. Couldn't if they wanted to---feet too spread out and flat. The shoes were size nine narrow. Beside the body was a cognac bottle with fresh water in it for drinking. A native, who pretended to some medical skills, said the skeleton was that of a woman. And there were no native women on the island when this person must have died. Far away down the beach ( the seven site?) he found a man's skull, but nothing else." This is in fact a story about two sets of bones, one set perhaps found at Nutiran (close to the beach, in the area suggested by Emily Sukuli and of the hypothetical landing site) and one perhaps much further away (at the seven site?). Nutiran bones could of course have been NC bones. With the discovery of bones at the seven site, it would have been natural to tie the two together and confuse the stories. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric The misconception that the settlement on Gardner was under the auspices of New Zealand rather than Great Britian was common among the Coasties. I don't think you can read anything into that. The reference to a "magistrate" is interesting. It's a word that had a very specific meaning and if that term was used by "the native", he was referring to the Native Magistrate, Teng Koata. He may have also referred to "Irish" (who was Officer In Charge) and Kilts may have missed the point that the native was talking about two different people. Juggling folklore and speculating about what the real story was is fun but, in the end, it's still speculation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:51:32 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Niku turtles Van Hunn wrote: >This small size [turtle in the lagoon] would easier to >manage than the larger, egg-laying turtles. (comments?-Andrew, Walt). I also saw turtles in the lagoon during Niku3 in 1997. They were about 18 inches in diameter. The examples I saw were sitting on top of coral heads. I cannot comment on trying to catch one as we did not try to approach them. LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************************* From Ric My impression is that the Seven Site turtle was quite a bit bigger than that. Tom? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:54:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits > I THINK > there's some consistency to their diameters, which I'd put at somewhere > between one and 2 meters (3-7 feet), but again, the boundaries are VERY > indistinct. Sounds a lot like the fires from clearing operations rather than cooking... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric So how do you explain the presence of bird and fish bones, some (but not all) of them burned, in the fire features? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:10:07 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coconuts > From Ric > > Yes, lots of time to do the Robinson Crusoe bit. But if they built a > "habitable shelter" why did they, or at least one of them, leave it and > take up (final) residence at the Seven Site? Or are the remains of > corrugated iron and asphalt roofing material we're finding at the site the > remains of a habitable shelter constructed of stuff salvaged from the > Arundel buildings on Nutiran - but if that's the case, why didn't Gallagher > see it? The post was inspired by the N.C. survivor's documents. Notice the sequence - 1) Salvage whatever washed ashore or could be carried. 2) Set up a temporary camp. 3) Build a habitable shelter. 4) Explore the island for food and water using the camp as a base. Remembering all this was accomplished in a storm and over the first two days, I can't see earhart/Noonan doing any differently. I still feel from the descriptions of the 7 site that it was a "day camp" and that the main shelter would have been somewhere more secluded. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it's a logical progression of activity for any castaway but if the Seven Site is a castaway campsite at all it is clearly more than a "day camp" (based upon the amount of food consumed there). I dont see the logic in saying that the "main shelter" was somewhere more "secluded". You have to go some to find a place on Niku more secluded than the Seven Site. If Earhart and Noonan wanted a habitable shelter there were the abandoned Arundel buildings on Nutiran and, now that you mention it, it does seem reasonable that they may have taken advantage of those structures until other factors prompted them to seek greener pastures elsewhere on the island. If that's what happened, it's not hard to see why no one later thought that signs of previous habitation around those structures was worth noting. I think we really have to consider the possibility that some of the "construction" materials found at the Seven Site were brought there by the castaway(s) from the Arundel buildings. The fact that Gallagher apparently didn't see them is a problem but it may not be a disqualifier. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:11:11 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Benedictine Connection > From Ric > It's only her birthplace and where she spent much of her childhood. Every > day after school little Meelie would stop by the college and knock back a > few with the monks. For the rest of her life she never went anywhere > without her bottle of Benedictine. I should NEVER have brought it up!!! Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:23:08 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Catching turtles << This small size would easier to manage than the larger, egg-laying turtles. (comments?-Andrew, Walt).>> I think we both had the feeling that if we had really tried, either one of us could have grabbed that turtle and hauled him out of the water. A club would have made it that much easier. Andrew ************************************************************************** From Ric The land team felt much the same way about the divers. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:31:49 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Fuel Oscar: I have not been able to find (on the website) what TIGHAR has assumed regarding power settings, flight altitude, etc, of the leg toward Niku. Ric at one point seemed to confirm the assumption that such a flight would have taken place at low altitude - obviously you have to be in search mode all the way, looking for an island which could pop up at almost any time. An assumption of a higher, possibly more efficient altitude would imply that there was excellent visibility, and it brings the issue of sun-moon fixes back into the picture, which in turn diminish the argument for following the LOP south. So, sticking to the low flight assumption, would this and possibly richer mixture settings (for power and safety) have any significant impact on the fuel problem? Thanks, TOM MM ************************************************************************** From Ric The presence of a scattered (5/10ths) cumulus deck with bases at 2,650 feet at noon in the vicinity of Howland is documented. The weather to the southeast is not known but the conditions described at Howland are also typical at Niku. In the absence of information to the contrary, I think we have to assume that the weather around Howland was very much like the weather between Howland and Niku - and that would keep the flight down low and pretty much preclude any further celestial observations. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:36:10 EST From: Michel Subject: Multiple fire sites. Err, just a quick thought on the multiple fire/meal site issue - any ideas on how a castaway would figure on starting a new fire in a new location every day? Is there some easy way to do this, carrying embers from the earlier one or whatever? In that position I'd hate to run out of matches (if I'd had any to begin with). For that matter, any speculation on how the 'original' fire could have been started? Michel ************************************************************************** From Ric Keeping at least a small fire going at all times would seem like a pretty good idea. There has been some speculation that a lens from the sextant accessory thought to be an "inverting eyepiece" that was found and subsequently "thrown away by the finder" could have been used to start a fire. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:37:21 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Noticing clams > From Dave Bush in Houston, Texas: > Tom: That is all well and good, but it still doesn't say HOW they could > have known there was an existing island at X location in the middle of a > totally uncharted and tremendously large ocean. Like the Noah's Ark story with the dove, or Viking sailors with their ravens. You follow the birds, who have to land somewhere. They can also fly to a high altitude, and thus see much further than you could, even from the top of a mast. The Pacific was populated with great traditional navigators, with an extensive lore of handed-down knowledge. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:43:41 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits > So how do you explain the presence of bird and fish bones, some (but not > all) of them burned, in the fire features? What about burning remains of a meal to cut down on crab traffic? LTM, MStill, #2332CE **************************************************************************** From Ric So why don;t all the bones look burned? You're clearing brush out near the beach and dragging it back under the trees and making very small piles and then burning them individually and throwing your lunch garbage on the fire so as not to attract crabs. I kind of like our hypothesis better. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:48:06 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits > From Ross Devitt > Sounds a lot like the fires from clearing operations rather than cooking... > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > So how do you explain the presence of bird and fish bones, some (but not all) > of them burned, in the fire features? While the clearing operations were in progress, they ate? LTM (who always leaves time for a good lunch) Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric They probably did, but the small size of the charcoal deposits and their location relative to other vegetation just doesn't make any sense as being the remains of burned brush piles. We cut, hauled and stacked a lot of brush when clearing the little bit of the site that we did. It takes no time at all to have a brush pile many times larger in diameter than the charcoal deposits we found. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:51:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Seven Site bones Ric said, > Juggling folklore and speculating about what the real story was is fun but, > in the end, it's still speculation. Absolutely. However speculation can generate new, unthought-of lines of enquiry and of course one learns more about the whole story from the constructive criticism applied by all & sundry to that speculation. Schliemann "juggled folklore" to find Troy and Thompson "juggled folklore" at Chichen-Itza to find the Sacred Well and its amazing treasure. Speculate and accumulate! Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't mean to imply that juggling folklore is a worthless pastime. We do a whole lot of it. But I think that it's important to realize that the best you can come up with is a hypothesis to test, not a conclusion about what "must have" happened. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:00:50 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart US Navy sources disclose that Gardner Island was visited about a month before Earhart's disappearance by a Burns-Philp Ltd copra administrator. Two official US Navy reports show that Capt John William Jones , Royal Navy Reserve, visited Gardner Island sometime in the Spring of 1937 on a routine copra inspection with a crew aboard his boat MAKOA. Capt Jones, the Deputy Commissioner for the Phoenix group assigned to the Burns-Philp Ltd of Apia, recalled seeing the Norwich City and numerous bones strewn on the beach. Capt Jones arrived at Hull Island on 21 May 1937 from Apria, Samoa, on the MAKAO. Unfortunately the MAKAO sunk on 21 June 37 and the crew rescued by the RMS NIAGRA, and returned to Hull Is. As shown below the window of opportunity to have visited Gardner was thus 21 May -21 June 37 aboard the MAKAO. The Earhart Search Cruise report excerpt provided by Kenton Spading includes a section written by a Dept of Interior representative who was aboard the ITASCA, when visiting Hull Is in Nov 1937. According to this report: "Mr Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City on Gardner Island. She struck in 1919, and the MAKOA saw her recently and stated there was much good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men lost in the wreck=E2=80=A6were buried ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach. The survivors were taken off the island." [emphasis mine] Apparently he is not referring to any aspect of the Earhart disappearance. As Kenton Spading points out it is not absolutely clear if Capt Jones was aboard the MAKAO when she visited Gardner, but it is unlikely he would entrust the ship to a native crew. The date the NC wrecked was wrong and his story about the nine dead buried is not correct. Recall that Capt Jones was formerly at Apia where the surviors from the Norwich City were taken in Dec 1929 by the rescue boat and he is probably blending in part of the anecdotal story from the surviors and his own personal observations to the Dept of Interior representative. The following report is from Donahue's book citing a CONFIDENTIAL CRUISE REPORT 601-64 made by the Captain of the USS TANEY when the ship visited Hull Island in November 1937. The excerpts appear, p. 87, describing a meeting with Capt Jones ( a photo aboard the Taney is included) in which Capt Jones described his job with the Burns-Phip Ltd doing Copra production along with 39 Tokelau natives. Capt Jones had a radio transmitter and receiver and a small sailing vessel in which he could visit the other islands. Capt Jones in this excerpt makes no mention of visiting Gardner and seeing the skeletons near the Norwich City in May-June of 1937, although he was familiar with the Earhart search in the Phoenix Islands based on his conversations with Lt John Lambrecht on 9 July 37. NOTE: I don't have the full Navy reports and it may be possible that there is only one report, the one from the USS TANEY . I doubt that the Itasca and the USS TANEY both visited Hull in Nov 37. Apparently Jones didn't tell Lt Lambrecht about his visit to Gardner even though Lt Lambrecht made it clear he was searching all of the Phoenix Islands. Maybe Jones didn't think it was relevant. Funny that with Jones' highpowered receiver and transmitter, he said he know "nothing" about the missing aviatrix. In any case it seems clear that Capt Jones (presumably)and the crew of the MAKAO in fact visited Gardner Island about a month before Earhart's alleged landing, and several months before Maude,et al arrived in Oct 1937. In view his detailed description of the machinery, winches, and salvageable material inside the Norwich City, as well as seeing the "bones of nine" lying on the beach, the crew more than likely disembarked from the MAKAO to inspect the wreck. This visit might be useful in accounting for the observations of " signs of recent habitation" by Lambrecht on his fly over in July 1937 and Maudes and Beavingtons similar observations, e.g., signs of "bivouack". If the crew did get off and remained for a half a day or a couple of days they may have made fires nearby, erected sun shelters, buried some partial skeletons (?), cooked,whatever,and perhaps may have walked the island for copra potential planting and harvesting. Unless Tighar has the more complete reports of Capt Jones activities at Gardner in May-June 37, this may be a fertile ground of research. Presumably all of the crews activities would be around Nutiran towards the south corner. Another possiblity is that Capt Jones visited Gardner Is AFTER Earhart went down sometime in late summer of 1937 using his motorized sailboat that he used for inter-island travel. At that time he sees the Norwich City, bones,etc., and that is why he is refering to "recently". But his first story was he was aboard the MAKAO and it he could not have used that after the ship went down on 21 June 37. He may have mixed up the boats, who knows? LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, this is pretty interesting stuff and bears some close examination. Maybe Kenton brought it to my attention before and I failed to take notice of it. If so, I apologize. I could have saved you a lot of embarrassment. First let's look at the sources you cite. You say: <> I am not aware of a document entitled "Earhart Search Cruise report". I have copies of numerous and, I believe, all of the U. S. government reports about the Earhart search but there are only two "cruise reports". One is a U.S. Treasury Department report dated 24 July 1937 and titled "Cruise Report 4 June to 24 July 1937 - embracing Earhart flight and Equatorial Island cruise." It is signed by the commanding officer of the Itasca and does not contain anything by a Dept. of Interior representative. It also, obviously, does not contain any reference to events in November 1937. I also have the complete "Report of Tenth Cruise to American Equatorial Islands of Jarvis- Howland - Baker" submitted by Richard B. Black, Field Representative, Division of Territories and Island Possessions, Dept. of Interior. It runs from June 18 to August 1, 1937 and a copy was submitted to William T. Miller of the Bureau of Air Commerce on September 10, 1937 - so it does not describe events in November either. Itasca never went anywhere near Hull Island during the cruise that included the search for Earhart. Your other source, an excerpt from Confidential Cruise Report 601-64 by the captain of the USCG cutter Taney and quoted from Jim Donohue's book "The British Connection", is almost as confusing. Donohue says that the report is dated 11 November 1937 but then he quotes passages from the report that describe events on 13 November. He shows a photo of the Taney with a caption that says the visit to Hull was made during a cruise in "September and October 1937". Another photo on the same page (87) shows Jones visiting aboard the Taney in "October, 1937". Something is screwed up. Here's what I suspect is going on. Itasca was never at Hull. Taney probably visited Hull on October 13, 1937 and Donohue just transcribed the date wrong. I think that the Dept. of Interior quote about Jones visiting Gardner is from the DoI report on the Taney's cruise, certainly not an "Earhart Search Cruise report". Okay, so where are we? Taney calls at Hull in (probably) October of 1937 and Jones tells the DoI rep the story about somedody (perhaps himself) on the Makoa seeing the wreck and the bones on Gardner. As you say, this had to have taken place sometime between Jones' arrival at Hull on 21 May and the loss of the Makoa which you put on 21 June but which, as we'll see, is probably happened much earlier. Let's clear up a few things about Jonesy. Donohue makes a big deal of him being an officer in the Royal Naval Reserve but the fact is that in 1937 he was on Hull as a civilian overseer working for Burns Philp (South Seas) Company of Australia, Ltd who had secured a lease to Sydney, Hull and Gardner from the British government in 1926. They planted coconuts on Sydney and Hull, but not Gardner. By 1937 the trees were ready to be harvested for copra and Jones was sent as supervisor of a small work force of 39 Tokelaus. As jobs in the Pacific go, this is not what you'd call a prestigious position. Apparently Jones came equipped with a radio of sorts, but he soon ran into trouble. As related by Eric Bevington in his book "The Things We Do For England - If Only England Knew" (page 25), Jones was having some trouble getting the Tokelaus to work. Knowing that there would be an eclipse of the sun on Tuesday, June 8, 1937, he warned the laborers on Saturday that unless they turned out for work on Monday he would cause the sun to be blacked out if they did not obey him. According to Bevington, "This threat was met with the derison it apparently deserved." The Sabbath was observed as usual, but on Monday the workers again refused to turn out and Jones repeated his threat. The next morning, to their horror, the prophecy began to come true. The terrified workers rushed to find Jones and found him talking on the radio about the eclipse. So this was how he had done it! In a panic they smashed the radio to pieces. Jones did not get back on the air until 30 August 1937 when HMS Leith called "to install a W/T station." (Report of Proceedings - Island Cruise - Second Part - HMS Leith, dated 18 September 1937). The Leith's captain reports, " I landed the wireless stores and a party to assemble the set. Provisions and stores which we had brought for the Island were also landed and I embarked about two tones of salvaged cases from the wreck of the Burns Philp schooner Makoa." The presence of the wreck of the Makoa at Hull is further supported by Bevington's diary entry of October 24th, "There is a wreck on the reef just by the anchorage; it went up last May yet only the backbone is now left..". This would seem to suggest that the June 21st date for the wreck of Makoa is in error. Bevington spent two days with Jones at Hull and his diary is a primary contemporaneous source. Your reference to rescue of the crew by RMS Niagra also seems odd. Makoa clearly came to grief right there on the reef at Hull and apparently very early in Jones' stay. The visit to Gardner seems to have happened at least a month before Earhart's disappearance. Having gotten all that straightened out as best we can , let's look at this very interesting report. "Mr Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City on Gardner Island. She struck in 1919, and the MAKOA saw her recently and stated there was much good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men lost in the wreck -- were buried ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach. The survivors were taken off the island." As you have pointed out, the details about the date and circumstances of the wreck are incorrect except that the survivors were, indeed, taken off the island. It is not possible to know from this second, or possibly third-hand report, whether anyone from Makao actually went aboard the wreck or went ashore. All of the information could have been gathered from the deck of the ship with a pair of binoculars and going ashore over the reef is always a hazardous venture. There was nothing of interest to Burns Philp on Gardner. That decision had been made years before, but it's natural that such a large wreck would be a curiosity. Speculation about a shore party from the Makao being responsible for the "signs of recent habitation" seen by Lambrecht five or six weeks later presupposes that someone went ashore and did something that left signs that could be seen from the air and endured that long despite rain, wind and tide. Possible? Yes. A known source of signs of recent habitation? No. We've never heard any report of wild pigs on Gardner and it's hard to imagine where they would have come from, but apparently there were a whole bunch of human bones scattered about on the beach. That directly supports Emily's contention that: "Not far from where the ship was. ... It was around that area were the bones were found. Could be bones from the ship or the airplane. During the westerlies, heavy swells took the rest of the bones away. There were not many that we found. Maybe 10 different people whose bones were found along that area. There were some with leather bottles and a pipe." (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Interviews.html) Emily's account is, of course, entirely anecdotal but now appears to be corroborated by hard documentation. She implies that she herself saw the bones ("There were not many that we found.") which puts them still there when she first arrives on Gardner in January 1940. But even if her "we" means simply "we colonists", it means they were there when the first work party arrived. The really interesting thing here is that there were apparently bones on the beach in May (?) 1937 and sometime after the the first colonists arrived on 20 December 1938, and yet neither Lambrecht's aerial searchers (who flew over that beach on July 9, 1937) or Maude and Bevington (who were on that beach in October 1937) or the New Zealand Survey Party (who were living on that beach from December 1, 1938 to February 5, 1939) mention anything about bones. It's a pretty dramatic illustration of the danger in drawing conclusions based upon what someone "would have" seen and mentioned. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:01:37 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits Please forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't charcoal deposit chunks or pieces slowly erode with the weather into smaller pieces or disappear altogether? When you handle it it rubs or crumbles in your hands. Chris #2511 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:03:47 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Where is the Knife? > From Ric (in the Seven Site thread) > I don't mean to imply that juggling folklore is a worthless pastime. We > do a whole lot of it. But I think that it's importnat to realize that > the best you can come up with is a hypothesis to test, not a conclusion > about what "must have" happened. I am going to juggle some assumptions. I'm not a very good juggler. I've never gotten beyond three items, and I don't handle them very well for very long. :o( Let me preface my remarks by saying that I like TIGHAR and the Niku hypothesis. I worry from time to time about Ric's mental health (clams in grass skirts and the explanation of how Melie came to have a Benedictine bottle next to her bones), but not about his archeological methods nor about his integrity as a researcher. Hypothesis: AE & FN landed on the reef. Evidence: Post-loss signals & some DF hints pointing toward Niku. Argument: There must have been time to take what they wanted from the airplane. ASSUMPTION: There should have been at least one knife on board the airplane. Evidence: When I look inside my head and imagine myself packing for possible airplane-related emergencies, I always pack a knife, and not a small one, neither. You just never know what you're going to have to cut to get out of an accident. My imagination is fed by many stories of early aviators cutting parachute lines while tangled up and falling, Lindbergh's two-chute jump, and the like. Counter-evidence: No knife mentioned by Gallagher. "Cutting tools" found at Seven site. No knife found by TIGHAR. Logical possibilities: No knives on the plane. One knife on the plane. Several knives on the plane. Lost in the landing. Left behind by accident. Left in a cache that has been lost or found by someone and looted. Lost or broken in early days on the island. Hauled off by crabs. Lost in the water while cutting clams off rocks. Not as useful as I imagine it/them to be. Not found yet among the multiple campsites used by the castaway up on the high ground. Not found yet among earlier campsites closer to the landing site. THE BOTTOM LINE: SO WHAT? So I think Ric should go back and look for more stuff. :o) And let's quick call it Niku V before Ric gets carried away with I-I-I-I-It. Heavens, I love armchair archeology! Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric We'll call it "NIKU V - The Search For The Knife". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:05:26 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits > From Ric > So how do you explain the presence of bird and fish bones, some (but not > all) of them burned, in the fire features? Suicidal Wildlife? Fish & birds trying to escape the crabs? ********************************************************************** From Ric Moving right along..... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:06:37 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Alan Caldwell: you missed the point of the fuel consumption problem entirely. If Oscar is right, then AE had access to a much more efficient fuel consumption profile than the small tidbits of info from Kelly Johnson at our disposal. What Oscar indicates is that KJ sent some addendum material to Earhart, (which we use now for our fuel consumption profiles), but there were typographical errors in it. These errors indicate a signficant decrease in fuel consumption. Assuming AE used what KJ gave her, including what we don't have access to, then she would have a lot more fuel to search for Howland, go to the Gilberts, or to go to Niku (take your pick). The point is: we may have been underestimating the amount of fuel AE had when arriving at Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:10:22 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Fuel > From Tom MM > So, sticking to the low flight assumption, would this and possibly richer > mixture settings (for power and safety) have any significant impact on the > fuel problem? The short answer is that running richer at 2000 feet at 175, 200 or 250 hp per engine would INCREASE fuel consumption by about 2 gph (from 26, 30 or 38 gph, respectively, to say 28, 32 or 40 gph), while DECREASING True Airspeed by perhaps 10 to 12 mph from the 10,000 foot performance (to - say - 148 or 154 or 160). ************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR's original estimate based solely on Johnson's numbers was 38 gph at 130 knots. Later we dropped that to 42 gph and about 110 knots, but it looks like we were being way too pessimistic. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:11:28 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: For Boswell and Caldwell in particular For: Actually for Everyone Let me express an opinion from strictly a pilot's viewpoint (Pilot 500 hrs. flying time mostly Beech V-tail Bonanza). If I was sitting in the left seat of Earhart's plane at the time of the disappearance, the prospects of looking for another remote and isolated island similar to Howland with the sun in my face, glare off the surface of the ocean, scattered CU or whatever there was making shadows that looked like islands but weren't, the prospect of finding a second island such as Gardner (Niku) would have scared me half to death. I would have X'd that project so fast it would have put a NYC taxi cab driver to shame. Earhart just flew over the Gilbert Islands, they knew they were there, and it was a chain or an archipelago making it easier to locate dry land. Further to the North was the Marshall Islands. If they ran into foul weather, what would be wrong with trying for the Marshalls....nothing. The United States wasn't at war (yet). I think Oscar Boswell probably has it right on the fuel consumption especially at higher altitudes. And, yes, the Marshall and the Gilbert Islands were in range. It wouldn't have been any problem for Earhart to dip down to sea level and pick up wind direction and speed estimates. When I was flying there was a procedure that was enumerated in FAA survival manuals for over water flight. In the owner's manual for a Beech Bonanza, there are specific instruction for ditching at sea, which includes, incidentally, detailed instructions on setting down in the water between swells in the sea irrespective of wind direction or speed. The instructions to pilots were to look for a "trough" in the water where the surface would be fairly smooth. I know I keep harping about Earhart being down to 1,000 ft. in her last transmissions, but from a pilot's viewpoint that would have been a nearly ideal altitude to pick up wind direction and speed..i. e.the direction the waves were moving, white caps, swells, whatever evidence that would give off clues. Noonan being the navigator that he was must have been aware of that procedure. There is nothing new about it. Also, I want to comment that the prevailing trade winds in that area were out of the Northwest (towards the Gilberts), and there is another prevailing wind system that would have taken Earhart directly into Mili Atoll....if it happened. Is there anyone who can verify that? Yes, if she turned back it could have created a tailwind, increasing at higher altitudes. Earhart complained in her transmissions of headwinds all the way into Howland Island. If they turned back those headwinds would have translated into tailwinds. Noonan was not the pilot in command of the airplane. It was Earhart. If I had a navigator telling me to try and find another peanut sized island which would have completely exhausted the fuel supply (a guess) and put my airplane in nearly the same situation (or worse) as at Howland (if it wasn't found) would have been a cause for alarm to say the least. So you can make all the up and down the LOP calculations you're in the mood for....in the meantime, I believe the LOP calculations are almost meaningless. So what it if they point to Gardner Island? Is Gardner going to turn out to be another Howland? Would it turn out to be another pea-sized island that would be too hard to see? So it had a blue lagoon? Would you risk you're airplane and your life and your career on an island the size of Gardner they may be just as hard to find as Howland? Pilots and navigators don't think the same way. If I was Amelia Earhart sitting there in her shoes racing through my mind would be...if Noonan couldn't find Howland why would he be any better at finding Gardner? Also consider the factor there would be no radio contacts available at Gardner....none. It compounds the pilot-thinking problem. Also, there is another problem....deteriorating weather conditions. How did anyone, at the time, know what the weather conditions would be at Gardner Island? The truth of the matter is they didn't, and it would add a double risk factor to the equation that Earhart had to face in making the final decisions. The standard procedure in case of emergencies is called the 180 degree turn. Earhart and Noonan did exactly that in the middle of a tropical monsoon in Burma...back they went the other direction. And back in the other direction is exactly what I would have done at Howland Island. I know you can argue that there may have been a plan GP and AE had in mind to select the Phoenix Islands in case of emergency which sent the Battleship Colorado in search of the Electra off to the south, but as I look at the maps, and after reading Boswell's testimony, the Gilbert Islands and the Marshall Islands would have been well in range....AND A MUCH SAFER BET THAN AN ISOLATED SITUATION LIKE GARDNER. They just flew over the Gilberts....Earhart and Noonan must have know exactly where they were. Flying at 1,000 ft. for a normally aspirated (non-turbocharged) engine is prohibitive for max. range and economy. The best cruising altitude for those engines would have been about 8,000 ft. and throttle back on those engines....and how. The end conclusion of all this....widen the Earhart search....include the Marshall Islands. Include everything. And so, that's my thoughts on the situation. Carol #2524 **************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you for your thoughts. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:14:14 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing clams Dave, you've got to remember that folks have been sailing around the Pacific for (depending on the area) anywhere between 3,000 and 7,000 years. There's lots of time for islands to be found, and then fit into the navigation lore for people to revisit later. The very reason that Gardner Island got renamed Nikumaroro is that in the traditions of the I Kiribati there was an island of that name, which nobody in living memory had visited, that lay upwind of Samoa and from which the ancestress Nei Manganibuka came. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:15:36 EST From: Denise Subject: Coconut Terminology Note for Angus: Coconut MILK comes from squeezing out the flesh. Coconut water or JUICE comes from the coconut straight. LTM (who loved lolo) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric I didn't know that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:17:26 EST From: Denise Subject: Re: Speculating on Coconut Trees Angus: You say "You need some inclination on the tree". But any significant inclination allows rats to climb and the resulting nutlessness would surely make climbing such a tree pointless. I suspect you may next suggest there being accessible nuts on the ground. I'll anticipate you and say that is probably out of the question as well. Coconut crabs and rats gnaw through fallen coconuts and eat out the contents. But although I still think they couldn't have got the coconuts, I'm beginning to rethink my former postion and am now not so sure they wouldn't have known what to do with them. Back in the 30s (yeah, yeah, and even today) demonstrations of Islanders coconut-tree climbing and coconut preparations were standard fare for tourists ... which means it's possible A.E. and F.N., with their visits at least to Hawaii (and didn't F.N. plot air routes through the Pacific region?) would have witnessed the whole procedure and thus had an idea of how to go about things. Here's a thought: instead of using that cable you suggest they took off the plane (and wouldn't that still be around? Somewhere in the village perhaps? Tying something together perhaps?) to climb the tree, how about if they just flailed it around in the air until it hit a nut ripe enough to fall. LTM (who is actually starting to see this scenerio as a possibility) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:19:14 EST From: Denise Subject: This too is beginning to make sense. Ric says: "I think the main point to be made about the coconut trees, however, is that the castaway(s) clearly did not choose to hang out anywhere near them ...". Ric, after talking to my dad, who was very briefly "not a castaway" (Ridiculous suggestion!!! The boat was just holed, OK! And if he "wasn't with two such damned useless pillocks" they'd have been off the island within hours instead of days!) the main problem your average caucasian discovers after several days of "not being a castaway" is that your skin is so badly burned - so raw and sore - you can't stand the slightest feeling of sunlight on it, even through clothes. After two days, you go for the densest shade possible for the hours between 10am and 2 pm, then, after three days, you're hiding out from 8.30am to 4.30pm. Four days and your tolerance for any at all, even the shafts coming through trees, is gone. You only move around at dawn and dusk (sure, that's when the sandflies are at their worst, but you can't have everything!) while spending all the daylight hours sheltering in the frond-covered bivouac you've built yourself in the shade of whatever trees are around, being crawled over by creepy-crawlies and buzzed by flies, feeling hot and sticky and getting crosser by the second. (Don't you just love the Pacific!) So here's my suggestion: The castaway spent as much time as possible whereever there was the most shade. Coconut trees didn't come into it. LTM (who has no idea how long it takes for a sun-tolerance to build up.) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:19:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku turtles I'm sure, from the size of the carapace plates, that the Seven Site turtle(s) was or were larger than 18 inches, but I'll ask our turtle guy when he gets back to me about the results of the DNA analysis. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:22:31 EST From: Lee Boyle Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? The natives on Atafu Island, while I was stationed with the Coast Guard during WW11, would ring a chickens neck and after it died cook it in a pit fire fueled by coconut husks. The chicken would be wrapped in wet coconut leaves before cooking. When the chicken was cooked, the feathers were easily pulled from the body of the chicken. The chicken was then eaten. No, the inters were not eaten. It tasted good to us. No one became sick that I knew of. Could this be a way to cook a bird? ************************************************************************** From Ric As Tom King has said, the "earth oven" method you describe is common to many Pacific islander groups. No evidence so far of that method being used at the Seven Site. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:29:50 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Seven Site bones Just for the record, the "Native" who would have ID the bones as female in Angus' formulation, assuming it was Native Medical Practitioner Tutu, didn't just "pretend" to medical expertise; he had it. The NMPs were apparently quite well trained, and Tutu seems to have been among the best at the time, to judge from the way various people wrote about him. Whether he was trained to sex a skeleton, of course, is another matter. The "Irish" thing has always bothered me, in a way more since we learned that Gallagher's nickname was Irish than before. Why would one of the colonists call him by such a familiar nickname, when he was known to them as "Kela" or "Karaka?" "Irish" seems to have been something he used with his buds. Was Kilts' informant someone who could "pretend" to greater familiarity with Gallagher than most people? If so, who? *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point Tom. Bauro Tikana, who was his clerk and interpreter, referred to him as "Mr. Gallagher." It's, frankly, hard to imagine any Pacific islander referring to him as "Irish." The only possible exception I can think of is Jack Petro. Jack was on the island in April 1940 when we think the skull was first discovered. I wonder if there is any chance that Jack was there after the war when Kilts was there - but Kilts certainly would not have needed to get an interpreter if Jack was the informant. Very puzzling. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:34:45 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Shellfish I caught the end of a programme in the Australian series "Bush Tucker Man" last week. Don't know if it's shown in the States - a survival expert with the Australian military tours the country pointing out how you can live off the land if only you know how to look. I love it. This one was about two Germans who were shipwrecked on the Western Australian coast, possibly during World War Two. They tried to trek out but failed and were rescued after some six weeks by Aboriginal people, after they had literally lain down to die. This was despite plants which could have nourished them being found within a couple of hundred yards of their cave, assuming the mix of vegetation was unchanged in the interval. They had, however, eaten shellfish. Les Hiddins, the Bush Tucker Man, boiled these and they fell open and as far as I understood it this was what the Germans had done. In other words, if you have a fire and a container you don't necessarily need to bash shellfish open to eat them. Might this suggest that the shell debris at the site was left by someone other than whoever built the fire? Or failing that, the castaway was in such straitened circumstances that s/he didn't even have a tin can? LTM Phil Tanner *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point, but where are you going to get a tin can unless you brought it with you? - Or found it at the Norwich City cache? Unless any that were there were rusted away? In the absence of a metal container, heating water is a bit of a problem. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:36:53 EST From: Van T Hunn Subject: Food for Thought I don't recall anyone mentioning, as a food source, the hundreds of juvenile sharks(4" to 20" long) that cruise in the shallow water along the lagoon edge. These, too, would be easy to club. In fact, once while metal detecting in the shallow lagoon water, I used the detector head to trap one, then put it on shore for a moment before returning it to lagoon(it wasn't happy to be on shore). Anyway, these would be a good food source either cooked or raw. Van *************************************************************************** From Ric But wouldn't leave any bones - would they? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:39:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Multiple fire sites. It seems to me that multiple fire sites may have arisen from the need to minimise the effort of firewood collection in an exhausting environment. Why always drag the firewood back to the same site with firewood becoming less and less available near that site? Much simpler to start a new fire in a location where fuel is available close at hand. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric Except that these sites are just a few meters away from each other and, at least these days, firewood from deadfall is plentiful. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:40:44 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Where is the Knife? > We'll call it "NIKU V - The Search For The Knife". Not "Niku V - Blade Rummager"? ************************************************************************* From Ric Oh no....I've done it again. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:36:08 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart I have repeatedly brought up this incident to you and the forum, but it seems to always have been ignored. The report is likely from the 11th or 12th Equatorial Cruise Report to the DoI. Jones did in fact visit Gardner just prior to AE's disappearance, according to the available information. In the chronology of visitors to Gardner, this visitation is always missing. ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. I guess I was just being dense. We certainly should have looked at it closely before. *************************************************************************** From Ron Bright Re: "The Jones report" Your encyclopedic knowledge is showing!! You must have files on every creature that set foot on Niku. Anyway Jones' report is a puzzle. He or the crew it appears did see a lot of bones, whether ashore or thru binoculars, in the Norwich City wreck area. That does support Emily's story, the large number etc., but is contradicted by Maude, et al who I think even tied up to the NC for three days. Since Jones was at Apia in 1929 when the surviors arrived back he may well have added or embellished an innocous visit by the MAKAO in May 37 near the NC into a present tense observation that included the "bones on the beach" He was , said Donahue, really an intelligence agent for the US and the British. The significance of those bones in May 1937 at or near the Norwich City or posssibly not far away on the north reef, if true, may be worth a expanded Bulletin Report. It is hard to figure out. Jones didn't mention that there were three crew buried nearby, but with currents running into the lagoon, some of those exposed bones and skulls could have been swept into the southeast corner of the lagoon. LTM, Ron B. **************************************************************************** From Ric And floated (bones don't float) three miles and get washed way up into the bushes 100 feet above ordinary spring tides along with the shoe parts, sextant box and fire, dead birds and turtle? Jones' report (or rather the report of what he allegedly said) is NOT contradicted by Maude, Bevington or the New Zealand Survey Party - none of which include any statement like "although lives must have been lost in the shipwreck, no bones or ther signs of casualties were seen." That is exactly my point. This "would have" business, along with the acceptance of uncorroborated anecdote as fact, are the biggest pitfalls to historical investigation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:38:32 EST From: Mike Van Holsbeck Subject: Re: Multiple fire sites. Are the fires set up in a circle by chance? Or any pattern like that. I would make 4 to 6 "main" fires and then scatter burning embers between the fire pits to keep the demon crabs out for a while. nothing like a few hours rest while the embers make a barrier. Just a thought. ************************************************************************ From Ric That would make sense, but - no, I don't think a pattern like that is evident, yet anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:42:18 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Shellfish > From Ric > Good point, but where are you going to get a tin can unless you brought it > with you? - Or found it at the Norwich City cache? Unless any that were > there were rusted away? In the absence of a metal container, heating water > is a bit of a problem. Not if you have a turtle shell and an inverting eyepiece. Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Can you boil water in turtle shell and not burn up the shell? I don't know. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:43:08 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Where is the Knife? Aviation archeology on the cutting edge.... ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:08:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > The point is: we may have been underestimating the amount of fuel AE > had when arriving at Howland. No, I recognized Oscar's point but wasn't sold. It is certainly possible but if true and AE had fuel to do all that including easily getting back to the Gilberts or as Oscar suggested, north to the Marshalls, why would she say she was low on fuel? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric I think there's real value in determining what the airplane was theoretically capable of and reasoning out that Earhart probably had much better fuel management information avialable to her than just the Johnson telegrams, but I think we also have to acknowledge that Earhart was cleary flight planning the airplane at 150 mph and that she did say "but gas is running low" (whatever that means) at 19 hours and 12 minuets into the flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:10:19 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: what ever I can tell you how i got coconuts down off my tree at home, I took one of the nuts which had previously fallen by its own desire (a psyciatric term) and hurlled it up into the bunch still remaing in the tree,, Usually I cud knock down an additional 6 more nuts. The ripe ones are easy to knock down. Now that the fuel report has become official, (even tho twice removed from reality by the separation of 60 years) im wondering does anyone have the truth about hard reality. Hard reality is when you are Amelia Earhart and its your trip,, and your the one who was tweaking the throttle,, prop ,, and mixture. Reality will shoot theory in the head every time If anyone has ever been in that position to actually tweek throttle prop and mixture with the use of a digital fuel flow meter,,then you know what I know,, There is a limit of absolute ratios where by nothing you can do will change the outcome,, regardless of what theory is used,,the fuel flow will not decrease and the airspeed will not increase but the cylinder head temps will definatly increase. Air Temperature,, density altitude, aircraft trim, dont seem to be included in the fuel report. Aircraft trim is a really bigge if youve ever had one "on the step" then you know that feel. Aircraft trim is constantly changing and is never the same moment to moment. Maybe you can predict the exact minute of zero fuel or maybe you cant. Was the level of sophistication availabe to Amelia in july of 1937 just as keen and precise as our arm chair commandos in the year 2002?? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:12:54 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Shellfish <> You can steam them like in a New England clam bake. Build a big fire, burn down to embers throw on seaweed, then clams, then more seaweed. Cover with soil (or a tarp) and steam for a few hours. The clams are done and opened! Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(who enjoyed clambakes) ************************************************************************ From Ric No seaweed at Niku, but that general method may account for the small clam shells mixed in with charcoal. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:14:33 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Physical work! Many recent posts have had our castaway(s) doing an awful lot of physical work such as moving around the island, "clubbing" sharks, catching fish, trapping birds, capturing turtles, climbing coconut tress, bashing coconuts, spinning wires around to get at coconuts and a bunch of other stuff I'm sure I've overlooked. Ric, you've been there, you've frequently mention how exhausting the heat and humidity are and how it simply drains the energy from those who are not in shape to endure such hardships. Now, if I take you at your word (and I do) I try to mix that exhaustion you describe with the added hardships of little to no food and water, and I don't see any one doing a whole heck of a lot of anything except laying on their back in the shade panting like hard-run dog. If after a couple of days in that climate I haven't secured some easy pickin's for food and water (the Norwich City stash?) I just don't see where I'm going to get the energy to do any of the clubbing, running, swinging, fishing etc. mentioned above. Yeah, I know I got to get up and eat or at least try to find some food and water, but buddy, stick a fork in me because I'm done. My point: I think our posters have our heroes do way too much work without considering the environmental, physical, and psychological stresses they are enduring. LTM, who prefers her comforts Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:15:16 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits I've handled 300 year old charcoal. Think of it this way: New charcoal is big black lumps on white coral. Eroded charcoal is very small, very black lumps on white coral. Where is it going to go? Charcoal will survive anything short of burning. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:16:11 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Where is the Knife? > We'll call it "NIKU V - The Search For The Knife". How about: "NIKU V - The Edge of Knife". (Sorry, couldn't resist) Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:17:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits For Chris Yes, charcoal gradually deteriorates, but depending on conditions it can last a really long time -- thousands and thousands of years in some cases. This is one reason it's a favored item for radiocarbon age determination. Unfortunately, Niku is on the whole not a very good environment for charcoal preservation, though there are some firepits in the village where lots has been preserved. At the Seven Site, charcoal does pretty much what you think it would do, which is why we have very little of it even though we can see from the burned coral and bones that there have been fires. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:28:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Seven Site bones > Kilts certainly would not have needed to > get an interpreter if Jack was the informant. But maybe Jack was the interpreter. Kilts is, after all, reporting what the interpreter said the informant said. ********************************************************************* From Ric So.....Jack is on Niku in '46 and there is also a colonist present who was on the island in '40 when the bones were found (as was Jack). The colonist is trying to tell Floyd Kilts about the incident but his English isn't very good so Floyd gets Jack to interpret and it's Jack who changes the colonist reference to Gallagher (Karaka or Kela) to "Irish". The point is, we know that Jack was on the island at the time we think the bones were found. This hypothesis is getting pretty complicated if we're saying that Jack couldn't just tell the story himself because - what? - he didn't know about it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:17:30 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Ric says: "I think we have to acknowledge that Earhart was clearly flight planning the airplane at 150 mph and that she did say 'but gas is running low' (whatever that means) at 19 hours and 12 minuets [sic] into the flight." I thought when this question came up earlier you thought it probably meant she was into what would've been a prudent 20%-25% fuel reserve (hopefully closer to 25%--the math gets ugly the closer to 20% you get)? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric 20% was the "standard" reserve for long flights (according to USAAC Lt. Dan Cooper aboard Itasca). Itasca also thought that she had 24 and possibly as much as 30 hours of fuel aboard. We don't know where they got that number, but they got it from somewhere and it pretty well matches our latest estimates. If she's figuring conservatively that she has 24 hours of fuel, then a 20% reserve is 4.8 hours. At 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight when she says "but gas is running low" she has just crossed that threshold. Coincidence perhaps, and perhaps not. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:18:23 EST From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > From Ric >" 19 hours and 12 minuets into the flight." Was Noonan as good as Astaire. I admire the fact that Ric makes very few errors in what must be a frantic effort to answer most if not all of the mail. Dale ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:05:38 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Yeah, it's interesting. But, she reports this at 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight, not one hour later. So, if she means that she was actually IN her 20% reserve at 19 hours and 12 minutes when she says gas running low, then 20% means she had about 3.8 hours of fuel left. What's that, about 23 hours total? --Chris ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think we can pin her down. All we can say is that, at 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight she is sufficiently concerned about fuel to say that "gas is running low." If she is on her last dregs and expects the engines to quit at any moment, then her gas is running low. If she has just started to burn into her 20% reserve, or is about to begin burning into her reserve, then her gas is also running low. If, on the other hand, she still has nearly half her endurance remaining it is more difficult to understand her comment that gas is running low. It's sort of an odd thing to say anyway. I mean, what's Itasca supposed to do about it? "Okay guys. Very funny. Now go ahead and answer. My gas is running low." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:07:21 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coconut Terminology > From Denise > Note for Angus: Coconut MILK comes from squeezing out the flesh. Coconut > water or JUICE comes from the coconut straight. > Denise > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > I didn't know that. Denise is right, but a heck of a lot of people refer to the water (its correct name) as coconut milk. My experience is that it takes about 5 or 6 mature green or mature fallen nuts to produce a litre of water. Coconut oil (used to be the major ingredient in margarine) is made by heating the squeezed milk. It is also possible to get about a litre of sugary juice per day from a coconut tree, and continue this production for months at a time. There is no way a castaway could have done it though. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:09:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Speculating on Coconut Trees > From Denise > Angus: I suspect you may next suggest there being accessible nuts on the ground. > I'll anticipate you and say that is probably out of the question as well. > Coconut crabs and rats gnaw through fallen coconuts and eat out the > contents. It is more likely that the rats gnaw their way into the coconuts. I always thought that the cocos on the beach with the ends chewed out had been got at by crabs. I've recently (very recently) discovered that it's rats getting them, in many cases while they are still on the tree. The angle of the trunk seems to make no difference at all to their ability to climb! Big Ass Latro apparently prefers to eat rats to coconuts. Also, regardless of the rats, the castaway would have been able to find drinkable coconuts on the ground if the trees were bearing. The Norwich City survivors certainly did. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:09:59 EST From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Shellfish For boiling clams (or anything else), many Native Americans used rocks heated in a fire, then placed them in a container with the fluid/objects to be heated. This would work with clay pots, an animal skin placed in a hole in the ground, or, say, a turtle shell. I don't know if this is was a common practice in the Pacific. Dr. King will enlighten us. LTM (who doesn't like cooking with hot rocks anymore) Tim Smith 1142 CE Alexandria, VA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:13:09 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: This too is beginning to make sense. As an average caucasian who has over quite a few years, spent weeks at a time on coral rubble beaches with minimal shelter on tropical islands where there is limited or no water I can tell you that this is rubbish. Coconut trees are like huge umbrellas when it comes to shade. You may have to move around a bit, but the shade from any tree from five up to around twenty years old is great. I/we had absolutely no problems moving about exploring and fishing in temperatures well over 100deg F. although morning and late afternoon was indeed more comfortable. During the hot part of the day you tend to prop under a bush (or a coconut tree AWAY from the trunk) and doze. I've read Tighar's accounts and those of the N.C. survivors and I agree that coral rubble is hard on the feet, but by walking barefoot on the stuff for a short period regularly your feet toughen surprisingly. The rubble is relatively smooth and rounded anyway, so it's mostly just discomfort underfoot (things pressing into the soles). Considering the alternative was always confinement in the ovenlike interior of a twenty foot yacht, the islands were always preferential. I subjected visitors from Wales to an uninhabited tropical island a few years ago - and they're coming back for more, so it can't be just me that likes the heat, coral and solitude. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:19:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shellfish > From Ric > Can you boil water in turtle shell and not burn up the shell? I don't > know. You can boil the whole turtle in the shell and not burn up the shell. You can boil water in a paper cup over a naked flame. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric So far, we're seeing no evidence that anything was cooked by boiling at the Seven Site. It could have happened, but we just don't see anything that suggests it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:20:50 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Seven Site bones Perhaps the story teller couldn't remember the name but remembered it sounded Irish? But then I suppose Gallagher sounds more Scottish.. Th' WOMBAT ****************************************************************** From Ric Only to an Aussie. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:21:34 EST From: Larry Turner Subject: Shellfish You can boil water in campfire coals by putting water in a Styrofoam cup and setting the cup on the coals or even in flames. Cup will only melt at water line until all water is boiled to steam. Try it! I have won many a campfire bet. Never tried a turtle shell though. Don't know if it will transfer heat as fast as Styrofoam does in order to protect it from burning. Larry Turner ( you can also use a Paper cup ) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:23:52 EST From: jd bell Subject: Looking for Gardner (Niku) You have the patience of Job. Let me try this for Carol and others (should there be any of this particular mind-set) Nobody in the cockpit of the 10E on that fateful day decided to go look for Gardner (Niku). The decision was made by left seat, right seat or collectively to fly along the LOP looking for Howland. Gardner was not an intended destination until they got there (if they did). As a concept, it really isn't that hard. ************************************************************************* From Ric I need it because I also have his luck. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:28:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Ric and Oscar mainly, in my quick reply regarding fuel reserve I realize I was a little too brief. The flu has me down and I haven't had much incentive to post or think even. When I said I wasn't sold what I meant was I wasn't sold that AE flew the Electra as Oscar pointed out so ably that she could have. AS to Oscar's computations I buy every number. I'm a technical person with an engineering background and I eat stuff like that up. I try to run the same computations and for the same reasons. I want to know what the airplane was capable of and what it may have done. I agree whole heartedly that the plane may have been capable of ending up with a far, far greater fuel reserve than the 139 to 150 gallons some of us have sort of settled on. My problem is that I don't think that AE flew the Electra any where near that efficiently. I think that if Oscar had been there to explain how to do it all that would have gone over her head. But that's not my reasoning. I've flown over both oceans countless times and we planned our missions carefully so fuel would not be a problem but never in the most efficient manner. Our altitudes were dictated by other concerns -- weather, ATC and other formation aircraft. We flew a constant true airspeed so our navigator could navigate. There WAS a flight curve for best fuel usage but it was never used. There was no reason. We always had enough fuel for destination plus an alternate. AE couldn't fly by particular power settings. Noonan couldn't navigate under those conditions. Mine couldn't either. Noonan, just like my navigator, needed a constant true airspeed. Without it his DRing, his celestial shots his wind and ground speed computations were meaningless. That is not to say they couldn't have flown different true airspeeds on different parts of the long leg. That means they could have approximated the KJ fuel schedule to some degree but again altitude selection would have been dictated by weather and winds more than an efficient fuel curve. Finally, just guessing of course, I don't think they would have seen a need to fly the absolute most efficient manner possible. I have to agree (reluctantly) with Ric that I don't think there was a planned alternate. I think they saw no reason they couldn't fly to Howland and land. Maybe ditching close to Baker was as far as they planned if even that. But let's say they really DID have an alternate plan. If they thought they would arrive with enough gas to get to their alternate then having more was not that important. Not so important as to fly a very technical flight curve. As to where the alternate was if there was one is anyone's guess but Noonan did not have the capability to navigate to the Gilberts. No celestial. The sun was behind him. No radios. How was he supposed to do that? Only SE could he navigate. Now if someone can tell me how he could navigate west I'll be happy to revise my opinion. Basically, I think they just flew an approximation of KJ suggestions and flew a true airspeed all the way. Changing airspeeds would have been a very serious problem. Even climbs and descents needed to maintain a constant airspeed. Not necessarily the same as cruise but it could not be a varying airspeed. I can tell you from experience that even when they were searching for Howland at the last AE had to fly constant speeds and constant bank turns or Noonan couldn't follow it. We flew half rate standard turns and my nav knew how big of a circle that was at what ever altitude and airspeed we were at and plotted them by time of turn. Noonan would have even been concerned with the rate of rolling into and out of turns. Even at 1,000 feet and searching for Howland he had to maintain his position. Well, that's far more than I had intended to say. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:30:14 EST From: Chris Subject: Earhart flight recreation Didn't someone in the last year or so make a recreated ATW flight in a Lockheed 10? Did anyone keep tabs on her fuel consumption especially from Lae to Howland just to get a ballpark figure on consumption for comparison to our fuel calculations? Seems there would be endless observations to take advantage of. I'm not even sure that's taken place yet. Chris #2511 ************************************************************************** From Ric No. None since the Flight of the Finch in 1997. None likely anytime soon. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:31:07 EST From: Denise Subject: A Rose is a Rose is a Rose About the exchange: "Coconut MILK comes from squeezing out the flesh. Coconut water or JUICE comes from the coconut straight." and "I didn't know that." ... trust me on this! The milk is called milk because it looks exactly like milk. The water or juice is the stuff that looks exactly like water or juice. It used to annoy us all greatly that everyone in the non-coconut parts of the world always seemed to get it wrong. It's really simple: milk is milk; water is water. LTM (who can be annoyingly pedantic at times) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:42:21 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Native boat travel Ric wrote: >> We'll call it "NIKU V - The Search For The Knife". Oh, I thought for sure we were going to call it "NIKU V - The Return of Ric" or, perhaps more romantically, even if less accurately, "NIKU V - The Return to Paradise". Very interesting reading of late, particularly this bit about Jones being on or near the island prior to Earhart. Of course, that does allow that the "signs of recent habitation" seen during the aerial search were from another source, which has always been an open question anyway -- after all, who can document the travels of every native boat in the region during the preceeding year? Thomas Van Hare *************************************************************************** From Ric Ric has returned so many times that he feels like a yo-yo. The British banned inter-island canoe travel in 1930 but there were almost certainly violations of that stricture. Even so, Niku was so far away from any of the settled groups that visits by canoe were unlikely. For one thing, islanders did not venture out over great expanses of open ocean in the dinky little canoes they used in lagoons. Eric Bevington has a photo he took on Tabiteuea in 1938 of "The last of the great Baurua - ocean voyaging canoes." The sucker is HUGE - easily fifty feet long. By 1938 it was a relic of a by-gone era. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:45:13 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Context Carol Dow wrote: >> ...the prospect of finding a second island such as Gardner (Niku) >> would have scared me half to death. I would have X'd that project >> so fast it would have put a NYC taxi cab driver to shame.... And thus is illustrated the primary difference between modern pilots and the great trailblazers of the early days of aviation. Today, pilots are taught discipline, great aversion to risk, careful calculations, use of alternates, a whole pile of emergency procedures, and strict "go-no go" rules. Then, well , things were quite different -- you took a risk every time you took off. So no, it is absolutely wrong to say that Earhart would have also "X'd that project". For our part, we sometimes do not recognize that early aviators like Amelia Earhart had to develop their own rules, often "on the fly" (pun intended and true). Their equipment was far from perfect, their planes were generally more than a bit unreliable, their radios and avionics were always suspect, their charts were often inaccurate, and their weather reports were almost always flawed (even worse than they are today!). We tend to ignore this and place a "I would have done this differently..." sort of thinking into our analysis of historic aviation events -- at the extremes of historic misunderstanding would be a most blatant example would be, "I would never have tried to fly from Lae to Howland without a GPS, what was Earhart thinking?" The bottom line is that we don't say, "would have", "should have", or "could have" in any of our statements about what happened. Secondarily, Earhart and the others like her were used to risk, not averse to taking chances, and, for progress, they were willing to risk their life. They prepared as best they could for the mission, but also knew that they were essentially on their own once aloft. They were, as such, tough, hardened, and naturally assertive. These same characteristics are also those of a survivor -- so let's keep that in mind as we consider how Earhart and Noonan might have fared on Gardner/Niku. Thomas Van Hare PS: Tangentially and as a good quick lesson for all of the other pilots out there, one old friend and former flight instructor once told me, "Unlike everyday life, where the saying is 'Better safe than sorry', in aviation, keep it in mind that the reality is more like 'Better safe than dead.'" This is good advice today, but it is also yet another statement that probably "would have" been shrugged off by the likes of Earhart -- though who knows what she really might have thought? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:56:46 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Telegram Typos and Implication Going through this again I see how you're calculating the 24 hours total. Looks like we're back to square one given the report from the actual flight. Other thoughts? --CNK ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. Not square one. TIGHAR's original premise was that the available evidence argues for the aircraft having more than enough fuel to reach Nikumaroro but not enough to permit the airplane to backtrack to Howland once they got there. Oscar Boswell has shown us that Earhart did not have to perform extraordinarily to reach the vicinity of Howland with the reserves we think she had, and yet her owned expressed concerns about gas running low seem to indicate that she, indeed, had not performed extraordinarily. Net result: The Crashed & Sank Hypothesis is weaker. The Niku Hypothesis is stronger. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:03:02 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Fuel and Driesenstock A big thanks to Oscar for his work on the fuel issue. I'm still digesting the implications, but to me it seems to substantially relax a key constraint in defining what might be viewed as reasonable courses of action for AE/FN (upon not finding Howland immediately). I'm still a little preplexed by the incredible risk that they took at Lae in order to carry that fuel load, and the "gas running low" statement. The latter seems to makes sense if they had designated a threshold at which they would cease to search for Howland and execute a back up plan, and in light of Oscar's work it appears that could include more distant possibilities than was considered reasonable up to now. If that is true, it is incredible that they did not clearly identify and possibly prioritize those alternatives even to those directly supporting the flight (Lae and Itasca). Anyway, on to a semi-on topic issue. I've added a copy of Dreisonstok's tables, 1936 edition to my small set of "historic" sight reduction tables. I've worked several reductions with it, and I must say that I really like it. The only drawback that immediately springs to mind is that it does not cover latitudes higher than 65 degrees. There is a "flow" and smoothness to the solution that I have not seen in other compact, multi-opening tables. My first impression is that this would be quite an asset under stress. Interestingly, it also contains height of eye corrections to 4,000 feet, so back then it must have not been entirely unheard of to use a marine sextant at low to moderate altitudes in aircraft. Does anyone happen to know what became of Lieut. Commander J. Y. Dreisonstok, USN? TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not competent to comment on Dreisenstock, but I'll suggest that Earhart's decision to carry a dangerously heavy fuel load on the Lae/Howland flight is yet another indicator that she was not flying the airplane - in fact, knew that she was not proficient enough to fly the airplane - to its maximum performance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:05:57 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > The point is: we may have been underestimating the amount of fuel AE > had when arriving at Howland. Randy, as I tried to make clear in another post I didn't miss Oscars point at all. I thoroughly agree with all of Oscar's data. And I totally agree it was technically possible for AE to have more fuel reserve than we originally thought. Where I differ is that I don't think she did have more fuel left in reality and for the reasons I expressed in my other post. Claude made the same point that sometimes theory is a far cry from reality. I don't dispute the possibility and I am well aware there was additional info from KJ but possibility and probability are two different cats. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:38:16 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Makoa Visits Gardner Ron Bright recently posted some informatino on the Forum that I had shared with him in regards to testimony that someone recorded in 1937 from Jones on Hull Is. There seems to be some confusion about whether Jones's statement was given to someone from the CG cutter Itasca or the USS Taney. Both you and Ron speculate that it might have been someone from the USS Taney when she visited Hull in November 1937. You went on to say: >It [24 July 1937 Cruise Report] is signed by the commanding officer of the Itasca >and does not contain anything by a Dept. of Interior representative. It also, obviously, >does not contain any reference to events in November 1937.......Itasca never went a>nywhere near Hull Island during the cruise that included the search for Earhart." However in an email to me dated 7 April 2001 you wrote: >You never know what you're going to find among the stuff we already have. >As Pat was slogging through Randy's voluminous contributions to the 8th >Edition, editing and adding photos and maps, etc. she came across the >description of a visit Itasca paid to Hull Island in November of 1937. The >following passage is from the Cruise Report written by the Dept. of Interior >representative aboard Itasca: >Mr. Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City on Gardner Island. She >struck in 1919, and the Makoa saw her recently and stated there was much >good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men >lost in the wreck, drowned or killed by sharks (he said) were buried ashore, >but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach. The >survivors were taken off the island." Your statement of April 2001 to me seems pretty clear regarding the source of the information. Did a subsequent review of the document in question, prior to replying to Ron's posting, reveal something else? We have a lot of conflicting statements here. I agree with Ric and Ron that this is interesting stuff and that we need to sort it out. At the present, time color me confused. LTM Kenton Spading **************************************************************************** From Ric Mystery solved. Here's what happened. Last April, as my (forgotten by me) email to you stated, Pat was proof-reading and editing one of Randy Jacobson's chapters in the Eight Edition (Chapter III: The central Pacific. Section 2: The American Equatorial and Phoenix Islands) when she came across the following sentence - "In November, 1937, the Itasca visited Hull, and the official Equatorial Island Cruise Report written by the Department of Interior representatives had this to say: ...Arrived at Hull about 8:30 AM [November 13, 1937]...." He then quotes from the report, including the passage about Jones description of the Norwich City wreck and bones seen at Gardner. Randy footnotes the quote and cites the source as "NARA, RG 126" (National Archives, Record Group 126). I don't have a copy of whatever document that is, and it is not our practice to verify every citation, so I just took his word for it. I can't explain why I didn't take more note of it at the time, just as I can not explain why none of the couple hundred TIGHAR members who have purchased the Eighth Edition have not said, "Hey! What about this?". It wasn't until you passed the quote to Ron Bright who then threw it up to the forum along with the reference to Donohue's book that I took enough notice to really look at it, match it up with other documents, and sort out what was really going on. It is now apparent that Randy's statement that it was Itasca that visited Hull was in error - and we still don't know for sure what month the visit occurred. Plenty of embarrassment to go around here, and there are probably some important lessons about noticing information that is right under our noses. Your only error was in believing what I told you. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:49:40 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > Jones did in fact visit Gardner just prior to AE's disappearance, according > to the available information. Randy, I'm confused. I read your posting and then Ric's response and somehow I missed that it was a fact that Jones visited Gardner. From what I read I understood he MAY have visited Gardner but there were so many errors I think I got lost. Where am I missing Jones actually landing on Gardner? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric We're ALL confused, but it does seem to be the case that Jones' ship "Makoa" did at least stop by Gardner and that visit probably occurred in May 1937. It is not at all clear that Jones himself was aboard Makoa at the time, but it doesn't much matter. The important thing is that we have what appears to be contemporaneous documentation that corroborates Emily's assertion that the Nutiran beach in front of the shipwreck was littered with bones and, amazingly, this situation seems to have existed in May 1937 and after December 1938 and presumably the intervening time period during which Bevington and Maude, and the New Zealnd Survey party were on that same beach and never mentioned the bones. I wish somebody would explain this away in a convincing manner. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:52:01 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Fuel Reserves The two of you (Ric and Chris Kennedy) are talking apples and oranges to a degree. To Ric, a 20 % reserve means "20 % of total endurance as a reserve"; to Chris, it seems to mean "20% of what has already been used" - which is, of course, equal to 16 2/3% of the total. KJ told AE that his recommended fuel loads for the Westbound flight were calculated to give her 25% more range than the still air distance of the flight (except for Hawaii, when he said 40% excess). If the flight is 1000 miles, and you have 1250 miles fuel, the reserve is 20% of the total range of 1250, or 25% in excess of the flight distance of 1000. Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:55:42 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications For the benefit of those who are not well educated in navigation, is there a recommended book that could give a novice like me a working understanding of LOP, sun shots, etc. I work in a technical industry, so the complexities of navigation don't scare me. I would just like to have a better understanding of what you guys are talking about. I enjoy the postings from everyone but would enjoy it even more if I were better informed. LTM (who never gets lost) Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************* From Ric A very cool, exquisitely illustrated, stand-alone FAQ for the TIGHAR website on this very subject is presently being proofed for dumb mistakes and should be up with a few days. I'll give everyone a heads up when that happens. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:57:28 EST From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Re: Shellfish The technique of putting hot rocks from the fire into the food to be heated (as in a container of water, if you had a container or water) doesn't work well on coral atolls as fire breaks down the hunks of coral. One of the charming tales I heard during my days in Micronesia in the '60s was how the Hawaiians employed on Kwajalein (a coral atoll) would bribe ship and air crews to bring them rocks from Ponape (a volcanic island) so they could prepare proper luau pigs. The hunks of coral would disintegrate if heated in a fire for hours before being stuffed into the pig's belly. Wrapping the coral with tinfoil wasn't quite the answer, either (especially not on Niku in 1937, I suspect). LTM (who loves a good recipe for pork) Marjorie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:48:11 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart It appears that the Jones visit should be added to the potential list of sources for Gallagher's bones discovery, Lambrecht's signs of recent habitation, and, perhaps, other artifacts found on Gardner. David Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Lambrecht's signs of recent habitation perhaps, but I'd love to hear your description of how the Makoa's visit (we can't call it Jones' visit) could possibly account for the bones Gallagher found or any of the artifacts we have found that we suspect may be attributable to the earhart disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:56:17 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves Thanks, Mr. Boswell. This information is very interesting. Could you explain it a bit more? What I am trying to do is to better understand the basic process you would go through to calculate a "reserve"--call it "Reserves 101". What are the goals, and what would be the considerations that someone like Kelly Johnson would take into account. It appears from what you are saying that one thing Kelly Johnson would take/took into account was computing the reserve based on "still air" conditions (am I correct that these conditions would be ones where there is no head or tail wind?). Thanks, --CNK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:44:06 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > but I'd love to hear your > description of how the Makoa's visit (we can't call it Jones' visit) could > possibly account for the bones Gallagher found or any of the artifacts we > have found that we suspect may be attributable to the earhart disappearance. Like many on the forum, I occasionally type before my thoughts are well formed (sorry). What I meant to say was that the visit by Makoa (possibly by Jones as well), occurring in May of 1937 saw bones. Some of these bones may have been re-buried and subsequently found by Gallagher, or they may be part of several sets of bones, some of which were found by Gallagher. In any event, the presence of bones on the island predates Earhart's flight. Ergo, the potential source of the bones found by Gallagher must include those seen by Makoa (and/or Jones) prior to AE's disappearance. Additionally, these visitors may have left behind any number of artifacts that would be contemporaneous with the Earhart flight. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric You just did it again. Are you seriously suggesting that somebody took some of the bones that were scattered about on the Nutiran beach and carted them clear to the other end of the island (you haven't seen the video, have you?) and cleverly arranged them with an old sextant box, some shoe parts, a fire, animal bones, etc. so as to give impression of a castaway? Or that somebody aboard the Makao happened to have an assortment of airplane parts which could easily be mistaken for Electra components and that they brought them ashore and left them there? You're an intelligent, well-educated man (as you're so fond of reminding us). It will save us all a lot of time if you temper your urge to debunk with a little more forethought. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:49:53 EST From: Mark Subject: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 I was digging around the patent office and thought I might see what I could find out about the "knob" ... Unfortunately not much yet, although I have sent out some queries to various places which I will report on if anything more than virtual shrugged shoulders comes back. The only thing I have uncovered so far (which doesn't really help much): First, ASSUME it's a US patent. If the OL in the legible part is really a D1, then that may indicate the patent is a "design patent", and the first digit being a 1 would limit the issue date ranges a little... lessee: #digits date range 6 1936-1965 5 1877-1890 4 1858-1864 3 1846-1848 1-2 1843-1844 Now, that would seem to indicate that if the item landed on Niku in the 1930's, it's either a really new design patent or a really old design patent. Since design patents are issued for ornamental design of things, it would seem more likely that it was a really new item. Speculation #2: The "OL" is "01". In this case, if it is a US patent, that limits the date range to patents issued 1870-1878, 1853-1858, or 1836-1841. Unfortunately, I have been unable to figure out how to keyword-search patents issued before 1971. Still working on that. The OL or UL designation doesn't seem to mean much otherwise, if it's a US patent. If the letters really are "OL" or "UL", I suspect that it is a non-US patent, as all of the US patent number I have seen (at least on modern items) have no alphabetic prefix that matches these characters, and are usually listed simply as a 7-digit number with commas in it. I'll be looking forward (as I'm sure we all will) to further information from the sextant people. I note that British patent numbers issued 1916-1978 all have a "GB" prefix. Perhaps the OL/UL is a country code... but which one?? Can we tell *how many* indistinguishable numbers follow the OL/UL ?? Having written all of this, I realize there is precious little above that is new or even useful info, but perhaps there's one tiny piece of the puzzle in there somewhere. - Mark in Horse Country... *************************************************************************** From Ric No, no, no - this is really interesting stuff and may be a big help in directing our research. Thank you. As further information about the figures on the knob become available I'll post it on the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:50:49 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shellfish Re: So far, we're seeing no evidence that anything was cooked by boiling at the Seven Site. It could have happened, but we just don't see anything that suggests it. Yeah, but I've been thinking about this, and am not at all sure what we WOULD see. Short of a pot or something. If they were using a turtle shell, that's what we'd see, and obviously we do, albeit broken up and rather scattered. And in response to Brother Tim's request for enlightenment on clamboils in Oceania, I really don't know. I'm trying to get information on all this kind of thing, and will be making a presentation on the project to archeologists in Hawaii early next month, who should be able to enlighten me considerably. I hope. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:56:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart Re: I wish somebody would explain this away in a convincing manner. Me too. So we have Makoa reporting skeletons on the beach (more than should be accounted for by the Norwich City) in 1937 pre-Earhart. Then we have Maude, Bevington, and the Kiwis NOT reporting them in late 1937 and 1938. Then we have Emily reporting them in 1940. How could they come and go? Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around? Naah. Might be that the sand had come and gone, but Emily talked about the skeletons being more or less articulated, and that shouldn't be if they'd been exposed and buried and exposed again. My guess: Emily didn't see these skeletons at all. Recall that she told Barb, Kris and me about them but (unless it's not on the video) she didn't tell you. It really seemed to me, watching the video, that maybe she'd thought about it and become unsure what she'd seen. What if somebody who was aboard Makoa was later on Niku and told the kids scary stories? It's not all that unusual for people to adopt stories they've heard as things they've experienced themselves. As for the number of bodies -- I don't know that we can put much stock in the numbers given, particularly if Jones wasn't aboard Makoa making sturdy British observations. Three skeletons rooted out by crabs (presumably not pigs) and scattered around a bit could easily get translated into a whole bunch, and nine or ten is a good surrogage for a whole bunch. It's kind of like the stories archeologists always hear about ten foot skeletons being found; I'm sure I've heard those stories at least a half-dozen times, and never found one yet myself. But all this is sheerest speculation, and I have no idea how to verify it, though it would be nice to chat with Emily again. *************************************************************************** From Ric I know there was some overlap between Jones' operation on Hull and the PISS settlement there, and there were certainly people from Hull who came to Niku. Your idea about Emily's story being nothing more than an old tale she heard might be the best explanation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:57:52 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fuel and Driesenstock > From Tom MM > ... If that is true, > it is incredible that they did not clearly identify and possibly > prioritize those alternatives even to those directly supporting the > flight (Lae and Itasca). If I understand TIGHAR's argument correctly, we probably do not have a complete transcript of all radio transmissions from AE and FN. At some points, the Itasca may have been transmitting when it should have been listening (because of the 1/2 hour error between GMT and ship time); and nothing was heard at all from the dynamic duo after AE said they were going to change to their "daytime" frequency (hurt more by the lost antenna? not tuned in correctly? ???). Since there is no evidence that AE and FN ever received a transmission (except for the CW letter "A" on 7500), they may have kept on transmitting for several hours, saying all kinds of things that no one heard. They died because of a failure to communicate. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:59:36 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart When AE and FN arrived at Gardner, they carefully buried the bones out of sight and/or placed them far out on the reef, away from prying eyes and pincing crabs.... ******************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Randy. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:01:48 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Makoa Visits Gardner My humble apologies. I did go back to the original Equatorial cruise report to the Dept. of Interior, and it was the Roger B. Taney that visited Hull Island, and not the Itasca. LTM, who loves eating crow. ************************************************************************* From Ric We all occasionally cook that bird, but what month was it that the Taney was there? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:43:07 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Rats on Niku Th' Wombat wrote: > Also, regardless of the rats, the castaway would have been able to find > drinkable coconuts on the ground if the trees were bearing. The Norwich City > survivors certainly did. Unless the Norwich City was the _source_ of the rats on the island.... ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric No. In fact the Norwich City survivors wrote about the rats on the island and the rumor that they were poisonous. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:50:36 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart For Tighar and Kenton Spading An in-depth review of the various times and dates in Donahue's book, THE EARHART DISAPPEARANCE-THE BRITISH CONNECTION and conflicting dates yields a better idea of the date of the alleged Jones visit to Gardner. Donahue writes that the MAKAO arrived with Jones on 21 May 37 at Hull but within three days the MAKAO flounders on a coral reef there and by 24 May 37 it sinks. Therefore Jones and crew did not visit Gardner between 21 May and 21 June 37 as I originally interpreted Donahues timeline. The HMS Viagra picked up the crew of the MAKAO on 21 June and sailed to Apia. Jones and crew remained at Hull. So when could the MAKAO have been at Gardner? Enroute from Apia to Hull, is a possibility, putting the ship there in mid May 1937. The term Jones used was "recently visited" when describing the event in Nov 37; that is ambigous but could include a 5-6 month old visit. In Donahue's book, citing the Taney Cruise Report of Nov 37, Jones does not mention visiting Gardner. It was in Kenton Spadings reference in the Earhart Cruise Report, that Jones recalled visiting Gardner, "recently" and seeing the bones on the beach and the winches and machinery available for salvage. AS pointed out it is unclear whether Jones was present or how long the crew was there. The logs of the MAKAO are at Apia says Donahue. A review of the logs will probably pinpoint a date that the ship visited/observed the Norwich City. I am not completely convinced the MAKAO did get to Gardner, but it is possible. Jones is not, however, entirely trustworthy,and perhaps a grain of salt should be taken with the alleged MAKAO visit. He says , according to Donahue, that his crew was busy harvesting copra from Gardner Is in July 37 which I think Tighar has sufficient records to disprove. His crew harvesting the copra on Gardner also installed the secret radio beacon for Amelia to home in on, take a left and land at Hull. "The British Connection" theory doesn't seem to stack up against the known evidence. But then again how do we disprove that Jonesy's crew wasn't planting coconut trees ect in May -Sept 37. As far as I know Maude didn't report any such activities. The voyage of the MAKAO, a 100 ft vessel, is certainly worth pursuing. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Coconut trees take about 10 years to start producing harvestable nuts. By May of 1937 the Burns Philp operation in the Phoenix Group was already a failure and the colonization of the islands by the WPHC was already under active consideration. The planting coconuts by a Burns Philp representative anywhere in the Phoenix Group would make no sense at all. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:54:28 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Fuel and Driesenstock Ric wrote; <<..yet another indicator that she was not flying the airplane - in fact, knew that she was not proficient enough to fly the airplane - to it's maximum performance.>> Are you suggesting that FN was flying? ************************************************************************** From Ric No. You're misreading the sentence. Try this. ...yet another indicator that she was not flying the airplane to its maximum performance. In fact, she knew that she was not proficient enough to fly the airplane to its maximum performance. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:56:51 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves Chris, the required fuel reserve is not a function of some engineer computing it. It is a requirement of the federal rules. There are many different situations with different reserve requirements. You need to simply know what the rules were in 1937. For example one rule might be to have enough fuel to fly to destination thence to a required alternate and still have :45 minutes flying time left. You would not get into any detailed and technical analysis to figure that. This would presuppose the flyers knew it was not VFR at destination and had picked a suitable alternate. They would then figure their flying time to destination, the amount of fuel that would take, figure time and fuel to their alternate and add :45 minutes worth of fuel. They would do that based on their own knowledge of what their fuel consumption would be. They would be just as close as if they asked KJ to do it for them. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not at all sure that there were statutory fuel reserves that would apply to Earhart's flight in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:58:05 EST From: TOM MM Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications re celestial nav Not too long ago, I'd have recommended a book for starters, but take a quick look at Omar Reis' web site or search the internet for others. You can get a brief explanation and/or try a shareware package that should be quite helpful. If you decide to purchase a book, you can use this or the US Naval Observatory astronomical applications site to check your work. Reis: http://www.tecepe.com.br/nav/default.htm USNO Data: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/ (select data services) (also find interesting things at the NIMA site, specifically the marine nav calculator, etc) http://164.214.12.145/index/index.html TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:01:56 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > I wish somebody would explain this away in a convincing manner. That's too tall an order with this group. But if the facts of the wreck and bones were well known they might have seen no reason to report it again. Walking along the beach you would not report having seen sand. Each time you guys land at Niku you don't report seeing the wreck. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric What I find most difficult to believe is that fellow Brits would not only not mention the bones but not bury them either. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:03:22 EST From: Denise Subject: SKIN FLICKS! Note to Ross Devitt: OK! I am aware, like you are, that caucasian skin is perfectly capable of building up a sun tolerance - it's called a sun tan - but things are different when you can't wash the salt off your skin. When castaway and with limited fresh water, a sun tan or even a natural deep melanin doesn't make a bit of difference; salt left on skin is going to cause you problems. This is well known; part of the accumulated knowledge of people who have spent millenium living in the region. Throughout the Pacific, all islanders are really big into washing the salt off before sunset. They feel that your skin can't insulate itself properly and thus reacts badly to temperature and sun unless sweat or sea-salt is rinsed off with fresh water at least every twelve hours. Clean skin, especially if liberally coated with coconut oil, copes with whatever comes along; salty skin means trouble. LTM (who always had a suntan) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:04:07 EST From: Subject: ReGary LaPook: Fuel and Driesenstock Latter editions of "Dreisenstock" have an added table "I-A" to cover latitudes between 65 and 90 degrees. An even easier set of tables to use are contained in Weems' "Line Of Position Book." The calculation of Hc is very similar to HO208 but the Zn is found by use of a graph which is fast and easy. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:22:37 EST From: Mark Cameron Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Here's where I'm at on fuel consumption and navigation (and possibly a few other forum subscribers as well) -- Amelia's best approximation of her fuel consumption was based on the numbers she had from Lockheed and Johnson's recommendations, not from what she saw on her gauges (in other words, she would put more trust in the numbers), she probably had no accurate measure of how much fuel she had left after 20 or so hours in the air. Any decisions she made had to be based on what she believed she had left. Her navigator says that his best estimate puts Howland in the vicinity but they can't find the island. What to do? Per the numbers they have possibly 4 hours left, maybe more, maybe less. Did they shoot too far north? South? Which way to turn? I agree that they went north for a while, found nothing, and turned back. Looking for Howland. After 2-3 hours they had to know they missed their intended target. The radio assistance they counted on was no help; "We're on our own" must have crossed someone's mind by that time. They have flown too far south to double back again, there are islands out here somewhere if only we are lucky enough to spot one... LTM (who believes in luck, what else is there) Mark Cameron ************************************************************************** From Ric Try this: Earhart had good fuel ecomomy procedures laid out for her by Kelly Johnson. This was not test pilot stuff intended to wring every possible minute out of every gallon of gas, but good, easy-to-follow guidelines that would allow her to expect at least 24 hours of endurance from a full load of gas, thus providing a comfortable reserve for her longest leg of the world flight - Lae/Howland trip. The flight appeared to be going well until it became apparent that they weren't going to get any navigational asistance via radio and that they had arrived at the advanced LOP at some spot that was not where Howland Island was. At that point they could afford to look northwestward along the line for a short time but very soon had to turn southeastward, knowing that some island - they couldn't be sure which one - was bound to appear. By the time an island that was obviously not Howland DID appear it was too late to backtrack. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:25:24 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Shellfish I wonder if you can get a "Tucker Map" (a topographical map with details of eatable vegetation etc. printed on the reverse) of Nik...? **************************************************************** From Ric Coming soon from TIGHAR.... We'll also include the location of all the fast food franchises. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:26:58 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Coconuts Another interesting thing about coconut palms is that they grow fronds at the rate of about one in just under a month. That means you can get a fair idea of the age of the tree by counting the scars on the trunk and dividing by twelve. Now, on the next Niku trip, who could be volunteered to count the trunks of all the cocos left within 2 miles of the 7 site? Unfortunately the method is approximate, but you could get an estimate of how old certain trees are. I can just imagine the antics of the coco counter. A coconut palm that was 10 years old in 1937 would have about 900 rings (scars) around its trunk by now. 835, 836, think about something else.. Oops, start again from the bottom.... Of course this is totally useless information, just another snippet for the Coco "Nuts".. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:43:46 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart First of all, Ric, I am not endeavoring to debunk anything. I am merely pointing out something that has not yet been raised in the discussion. That is, there was another landing party on Gardner Island shortly before the Earhart flight took place. They saw bones. Clearly, the presence of this other landing party is a potential source of artifacts. What I am suggesting is that "the old sextant box, some shoe parts, a fire, animal bones, etc." could potentially derive from the same source that as the bones seen by the landing party, or possibly, that other artifacts (buttons, shell casings, etc.) may have been left behind by such a landing party. Clearly, a group of people other than those previously listed in the chronology landed on Gardner prior to the Earhart flight. This landing party has a place in considering the potential source of artifacts. I am not suggesting, as you assert (that I am), that the landing party deliberately arranged things "so as to give impression of a castaway." Why would you interpret my comments that way? As to your other comment, "that somebody aboard the Makao happened to have an assortment of airplane parts which could easily be mistaken for Electra components and that they brought them ashore and left them there..." I made no such suggestion, and I do not believe that any reasonable person would conclude that I had. You, too, claim to be "an intelligent, well-educated man" (as you, also, are so fond of reminding us). It will save us all a lot of time if you temper your urge to put words in the mouths of other people that they neither said nor intended to say. It certainly does not advance the solution to the Earhart mystery. Thank you, David Katz ******************************************************************* From Ric <> I'm quoting your exact words so that I can't be accused of putting words in your mouth. I submit that it is not at all clear that anyone went ashore. As I have pointed out before, there is nothing that was supposedly seen by someone aboard the schooner that could not have been seen from the deck with a pair of binoculars. Going ashore at Gardner over that part of the reef is hazardous and neither Jones nor the Burns Philp company had any known reason to do it. The fact that there is no mention of burying (or reburying) the bones could be seen as an indication that they did NOT go ashore. As for origins of artifacts: Good Lord, there are more possible origins of artifacts on Niku than you can shake a stick at. Some artifacts that have been found in some places are harder to explain than others. The visit of the Makoa has no logical connection with any of the interesting artifacts we have found. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:44:55 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Makoa Visits Gardner October/November 1937 was the time frame was when the Taney visited Samoa and then the Phoenix Islands. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:49:51 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: Alternates J.D. Bell wrote: "Nobody in the cockpit of the 10E on that fateful day decided to go look for Gardner (Niku). The decision was made by left seat, right seat or collectively to fly along the LOP looking for Howland. Gardner was not an intended destination until they got there (if they did)." [BTW, J.D., I'm fascinated by the concept of "lurker pro tem." You mean you're sitting in for the >real< lurker?] But since we're back into the realm of speculation, allow me to put on my speculators. I cannot buy the concept that Our Heroes were, essentially, still looking for Howland when they stumbled upon Gardner. That's because I can't picture FN believing he was north of Howland by 200-300 miles, which is how long they had to keep flying on the LOP to reach Gardner. >At some point,< I believe, there had to be a conscious decision to head for an alternate. My guess is that they were short of Howland when they turned on the 157/337 line, meaning that the LOP led them nowhere in either direction. This would not have required much of a miscalculation on FN's part -- maybe as little as 15 miles, given the difficulty of spotting tiny Howland (sunrise glare, cloud shadows, etc.) So you run up the line for 50 miles, back down the line for 100 miles -- uh, oh. Now you've been at it for an hour and still no joy. Plus, since your DF isn't working, you don't even know in which direction Howland lies. Maybe this is what happened between 1912 and 2013 GMT. Seems to me that's the point at which you have to make a decision, guided by how much range you think you can squeeze out of the old girl (the Electra, not AE). Perhaps they headed for Gardner; perhaps they headed for someplace else Oscar's calculations certainly indicate that Gardner was not the only feasible landfall. I don't want to belabor this Gilberts business, but as to the alleged impossibility of navigating thereto -- Alan, I don't have to be a navigator to look at a map. Whether you're 200 miles north or 200 miles south of Howland, if you point the nose of the airplane due west (and if you have enough gas) you are eventually going to arrive over the Gilberts. Who knows? Maybe they thought they could pick up a radio signal along the way. But the point here is not to argue Niku v. Gilberts v. Canton v. Marshalls or anywhere else. I just believe that, if AE and FN ended up anywhere except the bottom of the ocean, it was indeed an "intended destination" and not mere serendipity. LTM Pat Gaston Kansas City ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:13:18 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: The Jones Report James Donahue and Randy Jacobsen are citing as a reference a cruise report from a ship, dated 13 Nov 37, describing the SAME event but clearly writtten by two different writers. It may be the Itasca, but more likely the USS TANEY. (Doesn't really matter) Donahue cites as "Item 15", in a Confidential Cruise Report of the USS Taney , using quotes, the description of a 13 Nov 37 interview of Capt William Jones at Hull Is. Jones's general information about Hull, his duties, the 13 Tokelu native workers, and his radio capabilities are written up probably by the Capt of the USS TANEY. [ Donahue,p. 86-87] This interview in Item 15 does not contain a second paragraph relating to the Norwich City. Randy Jacobsen cites as his source the NARA RG 126 [ SEE 8TH EDITION, Earhart Project Book, Chapt.3,Section 2,page 3] using the "Equatorial Island Cruise Report" writtten by a "Dept of Interior" representative., reportedly aboard the "USS ITASCA". The interview report of Jones contains substantially the same information as the Donahue report, obviously the same interview content, but written by a different writer. Compare side by side to see the slightg differences in prose and slight difference in content. Definately two different guys reporting the same interview. However in the Equatorial report there is an added paragraph, not included in Donahues, in which the writer describes how Jones discussed the wreck of the Norwich City seen "recently" by the MAKAO. Jones says that the bodies of nine men lost in the wreck and buried were dug up by "pigs" and that the "skeletons now lie on the beach". Jones does not include a date nor whether he was aboard. Why Donahue didn't include this paragraph may have been that the writer of his source of the Jones interview didn't think the Norwich City wreck was relevant or germaine to the ship's report. So that solves ome mystery: one interview of Jones recorded by two different representatives with two different reports. No big deal. But the important issue here is when did the MAKAO visit Gardner Island. What does Jones mean by "recently". I would guess the Norwich City visit was within six months of the Nov 37 interview, and possiblY when the MAKAO left Apia, Samoa, on 14 May 37 and arriving Hull on 21 May 37, the ship could have passed by Gardner only a hundred or so miles away. My guess is that the log of the MAKAO is still at Apia (based on Donahue) and would contain a more detailed description of the events and observations at Gardner in 1937 as well as the precise date of arrival and departure and what the crew did there. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Let's not further inflate this already inflated affair by referring to a Jones Report. There is no Jones Report. Randy has corrected himself. It was the Taney that visited Hull. There is no question about that. The Cruise Report that Donohue references is clearly a Coast Guard document while the Cruise Report that Randy quotes is just as clearly a Dept. of Interior report. No mystery there. Jones' ship was wrecked in May 1937. There seems to be little doubt about that; so the stop at Gardner could not have happened after that time. I can't see that pinning down the exact date would tell us much. If the logs exist they might tell us more about what was seen and whether anyone went ashore. Maybe there's an archive in Western Samoa. that shouldn't be too hard to find out. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:20:39 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Makoa Visits Gardner Indeed the Makoa/Itasca/Taney quandary points out the importance of examining the information that we already have. It also points to the value of this Forum and peer review. In addition, it also makes you wonder what else is out there in places other than Niku. I look forward to Randy and you resolving the "who quoted Jones when?" question. However, I need to clarify something. You wrote: >I can't explain why I didn't take more note of it [Randy's reference] >at the time, just as I cannot explain why none of the couple hundred >TIGHAR members who have purchased the Eighth Edition have not said, >"Hey! What about this?" >It wasn't until you passed the quote to Ron Bright who then threw it up to >the forum along with the reference to Donohue's book that I took enough >notice ......Your only error was in believing what I told you. A casual reader of the Forum might conclude from all of this that Ric had passed some information to me, that in turn ended up in the 8th Edition, but that was not posted to the Forum. In keeping with the Forum's creed of sharing information I would like to point out that that was not the case here. Shortly after emailing me the alleged quote from Jones, Ric posted the whole story to the Forum. Interested readers can see: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Highlights121_140/highlights133.html#11 I believe Mr. Bright deserves some thanks for being the first to catch the fact that something did not smell right? LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric Mr. Bright deserves credit for illustrating the frailty of human memory - mine. I had completely forgotten that we had gone through all of this nearly a year ago. I had not picked up the error about which ship visited Hull, so at least we now have that straight. Other than that, we've just re-plowed old ground. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:23:28 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart Ric stated: >Your idea about Emily's story being nothing more than an old tale she >heard might be the best explanation. I don't know if I would explain away all of Emily's story. It would be more likely that she saw something, heard other things (from reliable/less reliable sources) and combined them all. She probably does not know which are first hand accounts now and which were anecdotal. *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no way to determine what parts of an anecdote are true by looking only at the anecdote. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:26:11 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 OL is not DL for Deutchland? I don't know how Germany labled their patents. It is just athought. ************************************************************************* From Ric But it's an interesting thought. A Ludolph instrument, if patented, would logically have a German patent number. It should be possible to check on what German patents are held by Ludolph -assuming that German patent records survived the war. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:38:30 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves From > From Chris Kennedy > Could you explain it a bit more? What I am trying to do is to better understand > the basic process you would go through to calculate a "reserve"--call it "Reserves > 101". What are the goals, and what would be the considerations that someone like > Kelly Johnson would take into account. The goal of any fuel reserve is to postpone the death of the airplane's occupants. That is accomplished by providing enough fuel to go to the destination and land with some provision for unforseen contingencies. If the ability to land at the destination is in doubt (IFR conditions) an alternate is provided, and there is fuel to reach the alternate and land (again with some provision for unforseen contingencies). The VFR rules require sufficient fuel to make the flight plus fly 45 minutes "at normal cruise power". (The manufacturers always fudge in doing their range tables by calculating the 45 minute reserve at the lowest "normal cruise power", which complies with the letter of the regulation, if not the spirit. The pilot is likely to be flying at a higher power, burning more fuel, and thus will not have 45 minutes left if he follows the manufacturer's table and forgets to reduce to a lower power setting.) The IFR rules require sufficient fuel to miss the approach at the destination, go to an alternate, and land there with VFR reserves. When you begin to make long overwater flights (especially to isolated islands) these minimums shrink to insignificance. You can think of the reserve at least 3 different ways: A-as a distance that can be flown (always in "still air" - you need to correct for the wind); B-as a time for which one can continue to fly; and C-as a quantity of fuel. All of these are of course interrelated, but I believe that it is fair to say Kelly Johnson TENDED to think in terms of distance ("sufficient for 40% excess range" to Hawaii), and that AE (as a pilot) tended to think in terms of time (landed in Hawaii with "more than 4 hours fuel remaining, a satisfactory reserve"). I believe that the ideal way to think of the reserve is as a quantity of fuel, which is convertible either to time or distance at different rates, depending on what the pilot does to manage it. Let's assume AE set off for Howland with an estimated flight time of 18 hours and fuel (and a plan) for 24 hours. At the 18 hour ETA she therefore had "6 hours" fuel remaining at 38 gph (say 228 gallons). Was that an "adequate" reserve ? If you estimate an 18 hour flight; add an hour for unexpected headwinds or diversions around weather; add another hour to search for Howland, certainly you should be there in no more than 20 hours, and so you will land with 4 hours fuel remaining (be conservative and say "a good 3 hours"). That's plenty, isn't it? Sounds good. But what can you do with that reserve ? Where will it take you? Do you have a realistic "alternate" and can you get near it with enough fuel in the tank to search for it, or cover other contingencies? For the reserve to be of any benefit, you have to have a plan to use it. How long will you search for Howland? Will you then fly this direction or that direction, and will you continue at 38 gph when you start burning the reserve, or will you reduce to 26 gph to gain a 50% increase in endurance in exchange for a 10% reduction in speed ? May I refer you back to my posting of February 7, "Longer Range Flight Plan"? The hypothetical Cessna 210 flight plan addresses these and similar issues which arise in managing any reserve. How much reserve is enough? It's a personal matter. My own answer was that I wanted to be able to miss an approach, go to the alternate, and land with two hours fuel remaining in the tanks after I shut the engine down. Many people would find that somewhat too cautious (or even amusing). That's OK with me. But in the trenchant phrase of Peter Garrison ( a 4 hour reserve man on his ocean flights), I wanted "not only to avoid running out of fuel, but also to avoid even having to think about it." Although KJ was the correct person to calculate what reserve would be left after a flight of "X" miles under "such and such" conditions with "Y gallons" of fuel, he was NOT the person t determine what reserve was "appropriate" on a flight. That's the pilot's job, in conjunction with the navigator. (AE knew that, and twice second-guessed KJ with regard to fuel quantity on the Westbound flight.) AE's reserve (at 38 gph) was adequate so long as she did not strike out for an alternate. If she did leave the vicinity after 2013 - in whatever direction - she really needed more than "a good 3 hours" of fuel. That's not to say that it was impossible to make Gardner at 38 gph, but if AE did it she was very lucky indeed. She was also not flying the airplane as efficiently as it could and should have been flown under the circumstances. I hope this addresses at least some of the issues in which you are interested. Sorry for the delay in responding. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Again, we come back to this point about "striking out for an alternate" versus "following the only reasonable course of action that might lead her to Howland or some other island". We don't have any specific information about when she began her run to the southeast (assuming that she did) or where she was when she did it. We can say with some assurance that it was some time after 19:12 and that she was not within visual range of Howland. Sounds like 4 hours of reserve on long overwater flights is a fairly common figure and the fact that AE herself considered it to be a satisfactory reserve for a flight of similar duration is interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:56:25 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart << From Tom King Re: I wish somebody would explain this away in a convincing manner. Me too. So we have Makoa reporting skeletons on the beach (more than should be accounted for by the Norwich City) in 1937 pre-Earhart. Then we have Maude, Bevington, and the Kiwis NOT reporting them in late 1937 and 1938. Then we have Emily reporting them in 1940. How could they come and go? Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around? Naah. >> Andrew McKenna takes a stab at it: How about the boys from the Makoa re-burying Dem Bones, which remain out of sight during late 1937 and 1938, only to be re-exumed by wave action by 1940. An alternate explanation is that they collected up all Dem bones and buried them at sea. No bones visible in 37-38. Wave action later exumes other graves exposing bones in 1940. Seems odd to me that the Makoa crew would just leave them there out on the beach for the pigs to play with. The traditional thing to do would be bury them, either in the sand or at sea. Maybe this is the origin of the story of bones travelling in the ocean going canoe (Jonesey's motor sailer?) and being tossed into the sea in the gunny sack to avoid bad luck. Yeah, Yeah, that's it. Do we know anything about big strorms in 1938 -1940 that might have uncovered graves? What did Jones' other boat look like? Was the Makoa deck log saved from sinking? LTM ( who's bones, they are a shakin') Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric Bevington's diary makes it clear that when he saw Jones in October 1937, Jones was not able to go anywhere. Whatever small boat he had was apparently not something you'd use for an open ocean journey of over a hundred miles. There were westerly big weather events involving high surf at Gardner in January 1939 (according to the New Zealand survey party) and in November/December 1940 (according to Gallagher). I can see drowned sailors washing ashore and becoming skeletons on the beach. It's a bit harder to imagine them still being there eight years later. I can see the three casualties who had been buried in the beach being uncovered by a storm some years later, and I can also see the scatttered bones of three men being taken for the remains of nine men if see them only at a distance and you think that nine men were buried there. I have a hard time seeing bones that were dumped in the sea washing back up on the beach. Maybe that happens, but I've never heard of such an incident. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:02:46 EST From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > From Ron Bright > The HMS Viagra picked up the > crew of the MAKAO on 21 June and sailed to Apia. Jones and crew remained at > Hull. So who sailed to Apia? Was there really a ship called the HMS Viagra? I think this is the first time sex has shown up on these virtual pages since I've been following the forum. - Marjorie Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric I think it was supposedly the RMS NIAGARA. Ron just made a Freudian slip (which he will, no doubt, claim was intentional). <> We're getting better. Just yesterday Denise posted a message she called SKIN FLICKS! which, although G-rated, most subscribers probably deleted as porn spam. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:04:49 EST From: Dick Reynolds Subject: Patent (?) number on 2-6-S-45 Has it been checked whether the "UL" might refer to Underwriters Laboratories and the number might be some sort of UL approval number rather than a patent number? Dick Reynolds *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, that's a possibility but until we get the number it's hard to check. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:06:13 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications What type of fuel gauges did AE have on the Electra? Like we have in our cars with a flotation device as an indicator or did anyone in that day use weight as a more accurate indicator? Just curious. LTM (who never runs out of gas) Mike Haddock #2438 **************************************************************************** From Ric Float type, as far as I know. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:11:09 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > From Ron Bright, > ... The HMS Viagra picked > up the crew of the MAKAO on 21 June and sailed to Apia. ... This has to be a typo. There does seem to have been an HMS Niagara. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric The 1937 Berne List has one ship named Niagara and she's of British registry but is not shown as a warship. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:22:43 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Makoa visit? Ric said: "I submit that it is not at all clear that anyone went ashore. As I have pointed out before, there is nothing that was supposedly seen by someone aboard the schooner that could not have been seen from the deck with a pair of binoculars. Going ashore at Gardner over that part of the reef is hazardous and neither Jones nor the Burns Philp company had any known reason to do it." 1. Testimony from the survivors and rescuers of the Norwich City crew documents the difficulty of getting small craft into and out of the rescue area. You've been there five times, how would your experiences there compare with the rescue documentation? 2. The Norwich City is located at WB9 on our official TIGHAR Niku IIII maps. Do we have an approximate location of the second site the crews used for the rescue? 3. Assume when the Macoa visited Niku she stays 250 feet away from the NC wreck, which is on the reef's edge about 600 feet from the beach (using TIGHAR's Niku IIII map as a reference). Would it be possible to see and identify human bones on the beach 850 feet away even using good binoculars? LTM, who looks askance at this issue Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Good questions Dennis. 1. Getting ashore over the reef at Niku depends entirely upon the sea state. The NC rescue was carried out during extreme westerly conditions. Unless you've been there during one of those events, it's impossible to imagine how hairy that would be. 2. No, we don't know exactly where that happened but it was clearly someplace down around the corner on the lee shore in the general vicinity of Bauareke Passage (WV26). 3. Given calm conditions, she could get in a lot closer than 250 feet. She could even tie off to the stern of Norwich City (Maude and Bevington did, and so have we). Putting a party aboard NC would be a lot easier and safer than putting a party ashore. From the deck of NC the beach is only about 600 feet away, and you'd be up high. Might not even need binoculars to see bones on the beach. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:27:25 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: numbers on the knob Regarding the possible "OL" or "UL" marking on the knob-like artifact, might a U and an L followed by some numbers indicate that the thing which this artifact is a piece of was listed by Underwriters Labratories, as in U L listed ##### markings seen on almost every kind of electronic or powered device I can think of? I don't know if Underwriters Labs was around back then, and if so, how they marked things, but if they were, there may be some record of what that number was assigned to. (if you can make out the number) Hmm... If only somebody at TIGHAR was familiar with aircraft related insurance investigations. LTM, Dave Porter, TIGHAR # MMCCLXXXVIII **************************************************************************** From Ric Why don't people send donkeys to college? Surprising as it may seem, identifying UL numbers does not often come up in aircraft accident investigations. Good question about when UL numbers first appeared. We don't know when "back then" was. If it did turn out to be a UL number and if UL numbers didn't start appearing until, say, 1950, we'd know that the knob is no older than that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:34:04 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: From Gerry Gallagher Hello all on the Earhart Forum. Haven't been in communication for some time. "Karaka Jr." here ... Gerry Gallagher, 2nd cousin of Gallagher of Nikumaroro. I have been busy with business commitments lately and have now had a chance to re-visit the Earhart forum and hope to renew old acquaintances and make some new ones. I sent Ric some family photos of "Irish" as he was affectionately know in the Colonial Services and "Karaka" to the natives of Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro). I am sure he will share those with anyone interested. So, to all the I have met before on this forum and all that are new since my last contribution ... Hello ... Gerry Gallagher in Scotland. **************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome back Gerry! Yes folks, we have several new photos courtesy of Karaka Jr., including a marvelous one one of Irish seated in his hew home on Gardner Island, complete with kanawa wood furniture. We'll put a Gallagher Gallery up on the website as soon as possible. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:39:16 EST From: Andy in Dallas Subject: Re: Rats on Niku It's becoming off topic, but Gardner was noted as having many rats as early as 1859. You can read that and see the entire central pacific group on this historical map that is available for download. www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/polynesien_1859.jpg Any thoughts on the initial source of rats on these isolated islands? Could they have been unwitting passengers on those 50 foot Polynesian canoes? LTM, Andy *************************************************************************** From Ric Yup. Almost certainly. The notation for Gardner on that German map reads: "Beautiful trees, many birds, rats" Still true. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:41:43 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Alternates > but as to the alleged > impossibility of navigating thereto -- Alan, I don't have to be a navigator > to look at a map. Whether you're 200 miles north or 200 miles south of > Howland, if you point the nose of the airplane due west (and if you have > enough gas) you are eventually going to arrive over the Gilberts. Do you mean just the same as pointing the nose East you will eventually arrive over Howland? And explain to me what you will find looking at a map. Looking out the window all you will see is blue stuff from one horizon to another. How are you going to compare any part of that blue stuff to what you see on a map. The Gilbert islands are widely spaced. You have as much chance of arriving over one of the islands as arriving over more blue stuff by simply striking out blindly heading west. Not knowing where the Electra was north or south you could just as easily miss the Gilberts altogether. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:43:22 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Rats on Niku I always thought rats were introduced to deserted atolls by visits from large cargo ships. If the NC did not bring the rodents to Niku, does this suggest a visit from another cargo ship prior to the demise of the NC? And if so, what ship? *************************************************************************** From Ric The S.S. Prehistoric Polynesian Canoe. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:48:38 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > What I find most difficult to believe is that fellow Brits would not only > not mention the bones but not bury them either. The answer to that is that you may be correct in your suggestion that they didn't actually go ashore. I guess I'm confused. I was thinking those folks were not Brits but middle Easterners. Am I mixed up? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric The guys who did or didn't go ashore were either Brits/New Zealanders/Aussies or Tokelau Islanders. The guys whose bones they saw may have been either Brits or Arabs but unless the shore party was equipped with FORDISC it would be pretty hard to tell the difference. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:54:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves > I'm not at all sure that there were statutory fuel reserves that would apply > to Earhart's flight in 1937. I'm not either as I hope I implied but there might well have been some common sense rule generally accepted. The point I was trying to make is that whatever reserve was decided on was not a product of a great technical process. Perhaps if there had been work done on the fuel problem as expertly as Oscar has done a number of "run out of gas folks" might have lived to tell the tale. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:56:49 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Us non-navigators continue to be baffled. So the LOP is fixed, passing through A to B, with B being Niku, A is Howland. Okay, but if you haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure. If you KNOW the line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A. I must have been dozing off when this was explained. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric Somebody else wanna try? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:00:47 EST From: Mike in Lakewood CA Subject: Re: Alternates OK I am not gonna lurk on this one. Leaving from a known position, flying for 19 to 20 hrs. You get to the spot you think you should find a dot in the water to land on but it is not there. Now from this unknown point you are going to try to find some other point? I don't think so. Undoubtedly they searched for a while. Then tried the radio. How long would you hang around the area where Howland is not? You know "It's got to be here somewhere". With limited fuel and no radio contact, what would you do? I think once on the LOP given, At some point (hypothetically)saw an island, and I bet the first thought was Howland. That is what they were searching for. I can't imagine from not knowing where you are, to make a turn and hit dead on to an alternate. If you are lost you are lost. So, IMHO, IF they made it to Gardner they were still looking for Howland or Baker when they came upon Gardner. Went and had a look and said "$#!T!" Who knows if Freds map listed Gardner or simply labeled The Pheonix Group. Now at this point, ( I bet still without a clue for sure which island this was) a few things are possible: 1. They know which island they are now at and know where to find Howland but not enough fuel to chance it. So they land. 2. They THINK they know which island they are now at and THINK they know where to find Howland but not enough fuel to chance it. So they land. 3. They do not know which island it is and have no way of finding Howland from this unknown point and are still low on fuel so they choose landing there as opposed to "in the drink". I have speculated WAY TOO much already but my point is, IF they made it to Gardner, it was not because they were looking for Gardner, they got there because they were looking for Howland. I ask only, "If you don't know where you are, what is you reference to to begin the trip?" Anyways no matter if they came to the 157/337 to far north or south the choice is simple. Head north, you may hit Howland/Baker or open ocean Head south, you may hit Howland/Baker or you might hit an alternate (not by choice alternate) You couldnt talk me into heading north that day. I would have used every last drop heading south. OK there you go Flame away at my ignorance if you want. Mike in Lakewood CA. *************************************************************************** From Ric No flames from me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:07:01 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Beach Bones Concerning the allegation of bones on the beach in 1937, and the issue of Bevington's seeing or not seeing them as he walked around the coast: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html Perhaps it is reasonably certain that the natives didn't see any bones. Let me make an argument like that of "the strange behavior of the dog in the night". They were very excited about living there: "The universal decision was that this island was paradise and ideal for habitation. ... The natives came on board with special woods they can't get on their own islands, crabs, birds, and endless curios. As we sailed away they all talked endlessly; it was paradise to them, and the experience of their lives. They don't want to see any more islands as they are sure there can be none so good." Otherwise, consider Emily's testimony: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Interviews.html "Fishermen found the bones. They were frightened and they brought the story of them to the Onotoa man. ... TK: What did Koata do? ES: He sent people to bring the bones. People were frightened. Only people working for the government received the bones. My father had to look at the bones." If the cultural reaction to bones was "people were frightened", the islanders might not have considered the place to be such a paradise or been so anxious to move in if they saw bones on the beach. LTM (who has no fears of bones or anything else) John Pratt 2373 *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting take on the matter. No doubt about it, bones on the beach would not be seen as a positive attribute of the island. As for Maude not mentioning things; you'll find not a hint in his reports that when he and Gallagher arrived at this untouched paradise with the first Gilbertese work party, a New Zealand survey party was already there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:08:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > From Ron Bright > The HMS Viagra picked up the crew of the MAKAO.... We're kidding right? Viagra? Must have been a bigger party on the way home than a trip on the Nai'a ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:10:25 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves > From Alan > Chris, the required fuel reserve is not a function of some engineer > computing it. It is a requirement of the federal rules. There are many > different situations with different reserve requirements. You need to > simply know what the rules were in 1937. We do know of at least one case where Earhart's plan appears to have included about 40% reserve. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall, the Oakland/Honoluluy flight ended up with a whopping 40 % reserve, but that was not the plan. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:38:44 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: SKIN FLICKS! > From Denise > When castaway and with limited fresh water, a sun tan or even a natural deep > melanin doesn't make a bit of difference; salt left on skin is going to > cause you problems. ... > Clean skin, especially if > liberally coated with coconut oil, copes with whatever comes along; salty > skin means trouble. This really is getting to be a little ridiculous. Many of the things I write here are from experience - not speculation. I have frequently spent weeks alone on islands in the tropics in temperatures over 95deg F. I used to only have drinking water and thought nothing of using salt water for all my abutions, including cleaning my teeth. I also had to hike over these same islands and walk along the coral rubble beaches, and because I usually swam ashore I walked barefoot much of the time. For the last two months I have been walking on the beach in 100deg F (37-38deg C) temperatures daily. This was the reason for my post on wearing alternative clothing some time ago. I found out early that, while bare skin might chafe a bit, it is nothing compared to the chafing you get from underclothes, swim trunks or even baggy shorts. Before I bought my larger boats I cruised the tropics in a sixteen foot surfcat (like a Hobie, but bigger stronger and heavier). I lived for two to three weeks at a time with only what clothing food and water I could carry. I am quite comfortable with a castaway existence. What the natives do has absolutely no bearing on how a castaway would live, the last thing they would be doing is wasting whatever water they could find on washing, except maybe to dampen a rag and rub it over themselves. Yes, salt on the skin can be a nuisance, but you live with it. A dip in the sea at dusk and first thing in the morning solves a lot of the comfort problems, especially if you can wipe the salt water off with a rag. If not, you just put up with it. BTW. I also grew coconuts as a part of my work. Whilst not an expert on them I am more familiar with the things than I need to be. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:39:30 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart In reply to David Katz I would like to say that the possibility of another party going anshore on Gardner Island shortly before the arrival of AE + FN is something which can be debated at lenght but I find it hard to believe they would leave a piece of plexiglass from an aircraft behind. Nor do I think there was a female crew member among them who lost the cats paw shoesole. LTM (who has her own opinion on matters) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:40:16 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart I certainly don't think we can or should discard Emily's story. I just think we need to recognize, as Ric puts it, the "frailty of human memory." I think David's right; there are probably pieces of her story that are based on actual observations and parts that aren't, but that she now thinks were actual observations. Not an uncommon phenomenon. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:42:12 EST From: Mark Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 Current German patents appear to be country-coded DE ... which still doesn't mean that the top two pointy-out-things on the 'E' are weathered away, making it look like a 'L' (sorry about the "technical jargon" there). One of my lines of inquiry is to the German Patent office and to their Ministry of Education and Technology. No response yet, but since I don't speak German I expect this to be a slow, painful process unless I find a kind bilingual soul over there. In my initial inquiry I had not considered the "OL -> DE" morphing possibility... I'll add that to my inquiries... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:52:06 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: "Plowing up old ground" I think that indeed Kenton raised a point that we often forget. It is never too late to review past references and take a look with '"fresh eyes" as we have done in several instances. However I don't agree that in the end the evaluation of the Jone/Taney/Itasca interviews was only "plowing up old ground". The crucial point was if the MAKAO in fact visited Gardner Is prior to June 1937, reporting the sighting of numerous bones, the MAKAO log would be invaluable in determining whether the crew went across the reef onto the beach, their examination of the Norwich City, how long were they on the island, what they did there, and any other observations which may be quite apart from Jone's recollection to the Taney interviewers. They could have been offshore or they could have camped at Gardner for three or four days. Noone knows. If Kenton Spading had not sent his reference about the Jones interview during an off forum correspondence that contained the second paragraph we wouldn't have pursued this. I had also forgotten the 8th Edition report by Randy Jacobsen. What surprises me is that in view of the critical nature that prior visits to Gardner,particularily in 1937, might have in explaining various artifacts, skeletons, etc., that no effort was made to obtain the MAKAO LOG. Perhaps someone in the Tighar forum has some quick connections at Apia, but in the meantime I did post a request for information to the Samoa Government. I shall report their answers as soon as I get them. LTM, Ron Bright, Bremerton, WA **************************************************************************** From Ric In any investigation there are always innumerable threads that can be followed and, given limited time and resources, judgements must be made about which are worth the effort. In my view, the chance that anything done during the visit described second-hand in the DoI Cruise Report had any bearing on what Gallagher or TIGHAR have found on the island is so remote as to be not worth spending time on. That's why I didn't take much notice of it before. Others may have a different view and are certainly free to follow their own hunches. However, if you're going to chase the logs you would do well to get the ship's name right. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:53:15 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart To Marjorie and Marty, What sharp eyes you have. Actually I did made a typo with HMS" VIAGRA," then rather than change it I thought those British sailors would like sailing in the HMS VIAGRA better than the HMS NIAGRA. I first checked with Bob Dole. But I understand that Montana sheep prefer Niagra, makes them "fall" asleep. (Just joking). The NIAGRA picked up some of the shipwrecked crew of the MAKAO from Hull on 21 Jun 37 and they returned to Apia, as I understand it. Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:55:03 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bones on the beach? Ric said: "Putting a party aboard NC would be a lot easier and safer than putting a party ashore. From the deck of NC the beach is only about 600 feet away, and you'd be up high. Might not even need binoculars to see bones on the beach." Six hundred feet, that's 200 yards -- the length of two (American) football fields -- I'm visualizing this. Standing on the NC would put you 20 feet perhaps above sea level. Hmmm. I'm not convinced that at that altitude (height?) and that distance one could identify bones as being human. I suspect you may be able to see something, but to identify it as bones, much less human bones, seems a stretch. Perhaps if the skull or jaw bone -- or even a pelvis -- was visible, but other than that, I don't think so. But then again, I don't know what the "average" captain in the South Pacific c.1930 carried for binoculars. Regardless, I can't imagine they were that powerful or optically correct, given the economics of the times and the nature of the Makoa's livelihood. Do we have any optics experts on the forum that could run a few numbers to convince the skeptical? LTM, who wants to see this through Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:07:16 EST From: Mark Subject: Ludolph Patents A quick check of the European patent website reveals only 22 patents for Ludolph. Most of them date back to the 1920's. There are a few of particular possible interest. Unfortunately since I can't read a word of German (unless the word happens to be the same as the corresponding English word), I can't read the patents. Here they are, perhaps someone more linguistically inclined than I can look them up and read them to see if they are pertinent: My description comes from looking at the drawings and guessing what the patent is about, along with possibly understanding a word in the title (like "compassen") Patent # Description -------------------------- DE333225 Sextant box and/or mounting method DE354894 Adjustment mechanism (has a knob) DE371711 2-d adjustment (with knobs) DE414580 DE424386 These two appear to be different patents on the same object - looks like some kind of eyepiece or focusing mechanism. The other patents are variously for compasses or other parts of the sextant that don't involve knobs. I'm going on the assumption that the patent # on the knob relates to the knob itself or to the mechanism it was directly attached to, and that other patents on the device unrelated to the knob would have been printed elsewhere on the device (not on the knob). All of these patents are dated between 1920-1926. The patents themselves can be looked up at: http://gb.espacenet.com/ You should be able to simply type in the patent number and hit go. Keep clicking on the patent number and eventually you'll get a PDF scan of the patent document. Incidentally, to get the full list of Ludolph patents, just type "Ludolph" in the "company" field. It seems odd that there are only 22 (not all are German - some are British and French), and only two postwar, but maybe they started filing in the US or something. Help?? - Mark in Horse Country ************************************************************************* From Ric Verrry interesting. This will take some research. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:09:55 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Call on me! Call on me! Cam Warren said: "Us non-navigators continue to be baffled. So the LOP is fixed, passing through A to B, with B being Niku, A is Howland. Okay, but if you haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure. If you KNOW the line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A. I must have been dozing off when this was explained." Ric said: "Somebody else wanna try?" Well, being as I'm the only one of the Forum who has never posted ANYTHING about the LOP, :-) here's my shot. Cam, first extend both ends of the line about six inches. OK? Now, here we go. Cam said: "Okay, but if you haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure." Not totally true. If you are on the line northwest of A (Howland) flying 137 will get you to Howland. If you are southeast of A (Howland) on 137 you will eventually hit Niku, kind of. If you are southeast of B (Niku) on 137 you will see God before you see Antarctica. Cam said: "If you KNOW the line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A." Not exactly. If you are southeast of B (Niku) and fly 337 you should in theory hit B (Niku). If you are northwest of B (Niku) and fly 337 you might make it to A (Howland). If you are northwest of A (Howland) and fly 337 you'll want God as your co-pilot. That's my best shot. How'd I do? (Just don't let the French judge do the scoring, she's much too fragile!) LTM, who navigates only between the TV (A) and the 'fridge (B) Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:10:34 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: From Gerry Gallagher Fantastic! Welcome back, Gerry. I'm sure Ric will shortly share pictures of the rededication of Karaka Sr.'s plaque -- a notable event. Glad you're back aboard. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:11:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Rats on Niku Lawrence, as Ric implies, the Polynesian, Micronesian, and Melanesian voyagers who settled the Pacific in many cases had VERY large canoes, and there's no question that rats could find places to stow away.bbb ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:27:24 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves > From Ric > > Again, we come back to this point about "striking out for an alternate" > versus "following the only reasonable course of action that might lead her to > Howland or some other island". We don't have any specific information about > when she began her run to the southeast (assuming that she did) or where she > was when she did it. We can say with some assurance that it was some time > after 19:12 and that she was not within visual range of Howland. > > Sounds like 4 hours of reserve on long overwater flights is a fairly common > figure and the fact that AE herself considered it to be a satisfactory > reserve for a flight of similar duration is interesting. Ric - on or off forum, as you wish - the similarity of reserve is "interesting" but there is no real similarity between searching for Hawaii (without any possibility of going anywhere else) and following a course of action that involves making a new flight of up to 400 nm at the end of which (assuming that you can determine when you have reached the vicinity of Gardner) you may still have to search for another (slightly larger) island. Flying "along the line" is exactly the same as setting out for Gardner (with the hope, of course, that you will stumble across Howland or Baker on the way). I don't really want to start a navigation discussion, because (1) there are some things that I don't quite understand yet, and (2) I don't have the time to get into another major discussion right now. And perhaps your forthcoming update will clear up the questions for me. But just a couple of points: (1) if you believe the error in your interception of the LOP may be 15 nm + or -, you must search a 60 nm swath for Howland (not a 30) - think about it; since you don't know where you are in the 30 mile zone (you may be at 0 or at 30) to cover the possible 15 mile error you must look from -15 to +45, which equals 60 miles; (2) even assuming perfect navigation in the direction of Gardner, that 60 mile ambiguity remains; (3) you need to add a calculation for DR error on the flight South (10% = 30 nm or more ?); (4) since the course to Gardner is 159 true rather than 157 there is another 10 nm or so of variation. Perhaps some of these things cancel out; perhaps they don't. "Advancing the LOP" and "flying along the line" are both shorthand terms for DEAD RECKONING from where you think you are to where you hope to be - I think many members don't understand that. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric What you're essentially saying is that flying along an advanced LOP to find an island won't work reliably because there are so many variables. Why then does Weems, in Aerial Navigation, say: "Finding a Destination - During the daylight hours it is often impossible to get more than one LP (line of position), viz., that given by the sun. If pilotage cannot be used (as when flying over water) or radio bearings are not available, the single position line may be utilized for finding a destination. The air navigator, having found a position line as he appraoches his destination, continues flying on his course until the position line carried forward by DR passes through the the destination. he then turns right or left and follows the LP. If after a reasonable time, the destination is not sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his track." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:37:14 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Alternates > The Gilbert islands are widely spaced. You have as much chance of arriving > over one of the islands as arriving over more blue stuff by simply striking > out blindly heading west. Not knowing where the Electra was north or south > you could just as easily miss the Gilberts altogether. Just as a matter of curiosity, does any one have an ONC chart of the Gilberts? I ordered one from Sporty's and was told that the chart (it's ONC M-16) has been discontinued (probably part of the coverup). I would be interested in seeing the chart to determine just how wide that spacing is. Although there are 13 (is it ?) atolls, they include 43 or 44 islands large enough to be shown on the tiny map in LOCKHEED HORIZONS May 1988. And I thought there were actually something like 1000 assorted bits and pieces of land, sand and coral in the group. *************************************************************************** From Ric I can tell you this much. A year ago Van Hunn and I had the opportunity to be there and do that. We flew as passengers in an Air Nauru (make that THE Air Nauru) 737 from Fiji to Tarawa. The route took us up right up along and just to the west of the Southern Gilberts chain of islands at about 30,000 feet on a very typical Central Pacific morning (scattered CU at about 2,000 feet, occassional larger buildups). We had a much better view of the world around us than anyone slogging along down low, but we saw very few islands and they were widely spaced. Mostly what we saw was water. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:41:21 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves > How much reserve is enough? It's a personal matter. My own answer was that I > wanted to be able to miss an approach, go to the alternate, and land with two > hours fuel remaining in the tanks after I shut the engine down. Many people would > find that somewhat too cautious (or even amusing). Oscar, I also planned for the largest reserve (timewise) practical. And we're both still alive. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric We probably won't hear from pilots who aren't. My personal rule for filing IFR in light singles is - I go out with full tanks or I don't go. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:59:06 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves/Plan "B" Thanks very much, Mr. Boswell, this is actually very helpful. You seem to be making some pretty practical observations, especially if we're talking 1937. First, that determination of an acceptable reserve can be a pretty complex decision that a pilot makes both on objective realities and subjective factors, too, that are important to that pilot. So, in other words, the sum total of all this is what a particular pilot determines is an acceptable reserve for a flight to a major, inhabited island chain such as the Hawaiian Islands, that same pilot might not consider to be an acceptable reserve for a flight to Howland, even though they are of equal distance. Is this a fair statement? Second, what you say about use and mangement of the "acceptable reserve" leads me to think further that implicit in the idea of an acceptable reserve is the idea that the pilot has a "Plan B", for want of a better word, that the reserve will be able to accomplish. Otherwise, a reserve of "x" is sort of meaningless. If this is a fair statement, wouldn't this be best decided before leaving on the flight? If so, since a "Plan B" involves navigation, did anywhere in your work on the Lae-Howland flight you encounter anything that indicated that Noonan may have been using an offset navigation to the north as part of such a back-up plan to locate Howland? I believe Noonan has been quoted as saying that he was intending to get the flight within a certain range of Howland, and then rely on RDF to take the plane on in . If RDF failed (a distinct possibility in those days), offset navigation could at least be used to solve the the north/south problem. The technique was known at the time, I believe, which means use of the technique could be a part of the flight plan decided upon before leaving Lae if RDF failed---thus providing a way of determining what was an acceptable reserve under the circumstances (presumably the flight would not leave without what it thought was an acceptable reserve). We have been told that the ability to run the LOP southeast to Gardner or other islands could only be determined once the flight was approaching Howland--not the best time to dtermine whether your reserves were adequate. We have always thought of "Plan B" as another destination entirely, whereas it may have been a different way of reaching our primary destination, Howland. Any thoughts? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric << We have been told that the ability to run the LOP southeast to Gardner or other islands could only be determined once the flight was approaching Howland--not the best time to dtermine whether your reserves were adequate. >> Who told you that? The happy coincidence of the sunrise LOP, when advanced through Howland, also falling through Baker and Gardner and even Atafu was knowable as soon as it was known what day the flight would be made. Want a Plan B? Here's your Plan B. If radio navigation fails and Howland does not appear when the advanced LOP is reached, fly northwest along the LOP for a short distance to make sure that Howland is not just out of sight in that direction. If it's not there, turn around and fly southeastward along the LOP until you see land. Maybe it will be Howland and maybe it won't, but unless you have hit the line many hundreds of miles off course, this procedure should bring you to land. How much of a reserve do you need to execute that plan? Four hours will let you cover about 500 nautical miles of the LOP. If you're further off than that you've got bigger problems than any reserve will make up for. If somebody has a better Plan B, I haven't heard it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:07:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Cam Warren > > Us non-navigators continue to be baffled. So the LOP is fixed, passing > through A to B, with B being Niku, A is Howland. Okay, but if you > haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down > 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure. If you KNOW the > line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A. I must > have been dozing off when this was explained. Sure, I'll give it a try. CAM!!! Wake up! Ready? All in fun, Cam. First we need to get the numbers right. It is 337/157. Those are degrees 180 degrees apart which means it is a straight line. If you will look at a compass rose -- a 360 degree circle and mark a point at 157 degrees and again at 337 degrees and draw a line through those two points you will have the famous LOP we talk about. Yes, Cam I know you know that part. That was for anyone else who might not fully understand this stuff. As The Electra was flying inbound toward Howland and heading in a general Easterly direction, Noonan sighted the sun peeping up over the horizon and noted the exact time on his watch (chronograph). He also noted that from his position the sun was at a 67 degree bearing. So he drew a line on his map angled at 67 degrees. He could have drawn it anywhere but most likely he drew it close to where he thought the plane was. It didn't matter. Then he drew a line at right angles to the line. A line at a right angle to the 67 degree line will be a line going from 337 degrees to 157 degrees. It aims in both directions of course and it doesn't make any difference whether you draw it right to left or left to right. It's still the same line. THIS line must be placed in a particular place crossing the 67 degree line. That particular place is found by the use of Noonans celestial tables and using the precise time the sun came up over the horizon. Noonan now has a line crossing his flight path at roughly a right angle. (we don't know what course the Electra was on.) If you need an explanation of that I will give it later. The Electra was ON THAT line somewhere at the time Noonan computed the sighting. Now let's assume Noonan knows what his ground speed is based on previous positions. Let's assume the ground speed is 120k. Two miles a minute. Now he moves up ahead on his map and puts his ruler on Howland and slants that ruler so he can draw a parallel line -- parallel to the 337/157 line he drew first to cross the 67 degree line. Then he measures the distance between the two parallel lines. Let's assume he finds the two parallel lines are 60 NM apart. Since he knows he is flying at 120k he then knows it will take 30 minutes to fly from the first parallel line to the second one. Let's also assume he crossed the first parallel line at 18:42Z. That means he will cross the second one that he drew through Howland at 19:12Z. Who would have guessed. At 19:12Z he should be over Howland if his course was right on and if not Howland must be off to the left on a track of 337 degrees or off to the right at 157 degrees. You see those parallel lines only told him he was on those lines but not where (north or south) on those lines. Since there are no islands close to the Northwest he turns in that direction first because if he doesn't soon spot Howland he is going to assume Howland was really to the right not the left. He flies to the NW a little way, doesn't see Howland and has AE turn 180 degrees to the SE on a track of 157 degrees. You can see he is staying on that second parallel line he drew. Now let's assume he was correct that Howland was NOT to the NW and he is now heading back down that 157 degree line to the SE. What do all of us know must lay in front of him? First - Howland. Second - Baker. AND if he misses those two what still lays ahead? RIGHT! The PHOENIX ISLAND GROUP. The only islands close by. BUT WAIT! You say the Gilbert's are close by also. True but not in a direction that could possibly allow them to find Howland. Keep in mind Howland was where they were going. AH! But Cam says "WAIT!" again. What now Cam? Oh! I see. You are saying if they missed Howland and Baker couldn't they also miss Niku? The answer is of course they could. But there is a difference. Heading east to Howland all the sun sightings could give Noonan was those "speed" lines at right angles to his course. They told him where he was west to east but not north and south. So it was easy to miss Howland flying to the East. BUT flying SE on 157 degrees the same sun is now telling him what course he is on. Those SE parallel lines are now what he is flying on. He still doesn't know WHERE he is north/south but he doesn't care. He is flying on a line that actually goes somewhere. Does he stay doggedly on that same line we have been calling the 157/337 LOP? Maybe. If it just happens to go directly through one of the Phoenix Islands he stays on it. If it doesn't he just draws another one parallel (Still 157/337) that DOES go through the island. Piece of cake. If there is anyone who still doesn't understand this call me. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:10:09 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Cam Warren > Us non-navigators continue to be baffled. I'm a non-navigator, but I've read the book, Longitude, about the development of naval chronometers, which made precise navigation feasible a couple of centuries ago. Imagine, if you will, that there is a "dawn line" that travels around the globe continuously. Someone standing on the earth or walking on the water on the dawn line would see the whole disc of the sun just touching the horizon. If the people making that observation have an accurate watch and a navigator's almanac, they can tell exactly how far east of Greenwich, England, they are. If the sun always rose over the equator, their position would lie on a line of longitude that ran perpendicular to the equator. During the times when the sun is rising and setting north of the equator, the line which describes their location east of Greenwich is perpendicular to the line of sight on the sun at dawn and skewed away from being perpendicular to the equator--it will run from north east to south west. The further north the sun rises, the more the "line of position" gets twisted away from perpendicular to the equator. Because the degree to which the LOP gets twisted away from being perpendicular to the equator is just a function of time of year, Fred could have looked it up any time he wanted to, even before taking off from Lae. When he did his sun-shot at dawn and checked his watch, he would know (plus or minus some percentage) how far east he was of Greenwich and therefore Niku. The single observation would not tell him how far north or south he was on the line, but every fifteen or twenty minute as he charted a new position on his maps he could draw a parallel to his original line based on his calculation of speed over the water and wind drift. When the "advanced LOP" touched Howland, he would know that it was time to see the island dead ahead or search for it by flying north and south along the line. > So the LOP is fixed, passing > through A to B, with B being Niku, A is Howland. Not exactly. The LOP is fixed by the position of the sun's appearance relative to the horizon and the equator. Oh, and by the observer's altitude. An observer at 10,000 feet will observe the sun on the horizon before an observer at sea level, so the difference would have to be taken into account. On a different day of the year, say a month earlier or a month later, the LOP given by the sun shot would be different from the 157/337 line for the morning of the fatal flight. > Okay, but if you > haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down > 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure. This is what the whole offset argument was about last year or the year before. FN and other navigators sometimes would deliberately aim north or south of their goal so that, all things considered, when they advanced their observed line of position by means of a calculation of their groundspeed and drift, they would have a high probability of turning in the right direction. If I remember correctly, there is no evidence that FN did or did not use an "offset" on the fatal flight. He and AE planned from the very beginning to get their final course corrections from radio direction-finding. Since something went terribly wrong with the radios, we really don't know what kind of search patterns AE and FN may have flown or what kind of realizations may have hit them if they followed the LOP down to Niku. Until Ric stops fooling around and digs up the log which Amelia buried in a waterproof box made of unobtainium in the center of the Norwich City campsite, you'll just have to take my word for what they did: they flew on 337 for as long as they dared (based on an onboard gas calculation), didn't spot Howland, and then flew on 157 until Niku appeared. And everybody knows what happened after that. :o) > If you KNOW the > line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A. Only if you know that you are south of A on the line. But you might be north of A, in which case you should fly 157 to reach either A or B. The best evidence that FN did not have an offset is the "flying north and south on 157/337" message. Granted, this may be garbled, but it is a plausible rendering. If FN had used an offset, he would only have had AE turn one way on the line. There are three groups of possibilities if no offset was used: A. They were north of Howland on the LOP when they radioed, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Then they would fly futher north and miss seeing Howland on their return trip en route to Niku. This takes the most gas. B. There were abeam of Howland and missed seeing it TWICE, once when they turned north and again on their return trip. If so, what a bummer! C. They were south of Howland and never got within range of seeing it, even after pressing northward as far as they dared. I think FN would have to be pretty far off for them not to have had at least one shot at seeing Howland. > I must > have been dozing off when this was explained. I looked up some web sites a few months ago to help me visualize how it works. The sad thing is that the Itasca NEVER got a bearing on their transmissions. AE didn't put out the kind of signal they needed--apparently, a long, continuous carrier wave. When she whistled, she couldn't (or didn't) give them a long enough signal to home in on. The search might have been successful if the Itasca had known which way to search--north or south on the LOP. I believe the last words heard on the Itasca were something like, "I'm going to change frequencies and re-transmit." While the signals were strong, it might have been helpful if the Coasties could have said to her, "Please key your mike and hold it for two minutes." That might have made all the difference in figuring out where they were and where they ended up. Marty #2874 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:16:00 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Philosophy of fuel resrves Re: what is a reasonable reserve for an over water flight. The Federal Aviation Regulations spell out the requirements for today's airline operations carrying paying passengers to islands for which an alternate airport is not geographically available. The requirement for non turbine aircraft is a 3 hour reserve and for jets, a 2 hour reserve. 14 CFR Sec. 121.621 Alternate airport for destination: Flag operations. (a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over the top unless he lists at least one alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release, unless - (2) The flight is over a route approved without an available alternate airport for a particular destination airport and the airplane has enough fuel to meet the requirements of Sec. 121.641(b) or Sec. 121.645(c). Sec. 121.641 Fuel supply: nonturbine and turbopropeller powered airplanes: Flag operations. (a) No person may dispatch or takeoff a nonturbine or turbopropeller powered airplane unless, considering the wind and other weather conditions expected, it has enough fuel - (b) No person may dispatch a nonturbine or turbopropeller powered airplane to an airport for which an alternate is not specified under Sec. 121.621(a)(2), unless it has enough fuel, considering wind and forecast weather conditions, to fly to that airport and thereafter to fly for three hours at normal cruising fuel consumption. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric That's all fine, but those regs only tell us something about what is considered reasonalble today. Even if those regs had existed in 1937, there was no requirement that they be followed on a flight over the Central Pacific. The question has to be answered in context. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:23:19 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart Try this.....The bones were seen by telescope, binoculars etc. from the ship. They were not bones at all, but something else...lots of cuttle fish? Or perhaps the remains of some sea animal...do whales wash ashore in that part of the world? Anyway, from a distance, all they could make out were the white objects taken as bones. Regards David *************************************************************************** From Ric Whales do wash ashore at Niku, but I suspect that it's a pretty rare event. Bevington saw whale bones down at the southeast end in 1937 and we saw a whale vertebra on the beach down there in (I think it was) 1989. Could be the same whale. I've never seen bones other than maybe some bird bones on the Nutiran beach. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:28:27 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Rats on Niku Thanks Tom for the information, but how would you get one of these Hawaiian voyaging canoes (80 foot monsters) over the reef at Niku? Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:30:30 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: charts For Oscar Boswell: The DMA publishes GNC charts 7 & 20 which will cover half the pacific including the Gilberts & Marshalls. I'd be glad to make a copy for you for but Xerox machines do a poor job in picking up blue shades which outline numerous unnamed Atolls & rocks. The charts can be ordered from Sporty's I believe or go direct to the DMA (Defense Mapping Agency) which has a website I'm sure. They cost a few bucks a piece. They are generally good charts and suitable for DR navigation showing very good details. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:55:38 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: From Gerry Gallagher To Tom King, Thank you Tom, nice to hear from you again. Great to be back in the loop again with the forum! Gerry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:22:13 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Rats on Niku Lawrence: re: how would you get one of these Hawaiian voyaging canoes (80 foot monsters) over the reef at Niku? On a calm day, I'd think you could ease in over the reef edge and walk the canoe ashore, or into the lagoon, but I have no practical experience in the matter. John Clauss, any thoughts? You're not necessarily talking 80-foot Hawaiian voyaging canoes. The long-range sailing canoes used in the central Carolines run about 25 to 40 feet, and have a pretty shallow draft. But you're right; Niku would not be a real easy place to land. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:23:36 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: From Gerry Gallagher Just a quick note of THANKS to TIGHAR ! I have just received the photos of the re-dedication of the plaque on Gerald's tomb on Nuku. I must say that I was touched by the photos and all the trouble that TIGHAR went to pay respect to Gerald and his memory. One thing that will always live on is that Gerald, "Irish", "Karaka" or whatever you choose to call him, left an very distinguished mark on history albeit from a remote Island in the South Pacific which is his eternal rest place. I know for a fact from family recollections and letters that Gerald loved his job, his environment and the people that he worked with. He also loved Gardner Island, as he called it (now Nikumaroro). AGAIN THANK YOU TIGHAR. It is my intention to visit Niku as soon as possible to pay respect to Gerald as a family member. I now know that I shall be visiting a memorial that has been graced by the efforts and thoughtfulness of the TIGHAR expedition team that visited the site recently. When I look at pictures of Gerald sitting in the house he built on Niku, I can see the happiness and pride that he was feeling at the time.His life was indeed a short 29 years but it is so rewarding, as a family member to see that his name, memory, work, and yes ... his mystery still lives on today! Thanks again TIGHAR EXPEDITION MEMBERS Chris Kennedy, Skeet Gifford, John Clauss, Van Hunn, Kar Burns, Walt Holm, Andrew McKenna, Gary Quigg, Bill Carter, Tom King and Ric Gillespie. Also, thanks to all on the TIGHAR EARHART FORUM for keeping the life and times of Gerald Bernard Gallagher alive into the 21st Century. With great gratitude ... Gerry Gallagher "Karaka Jr." ************************************************************************* From Ric You are most welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:34:26 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves For: Oscar Boswell Oscar I have been reading your postings with a great deal of interest. Regarding the fuel reserves, did you run across anything about "usable" fuel reserves from KJ? The Bonanza I used to fly had rubber bladder fuel cells and some of the fuel would trap and wouldn't pump out and was considered unusable. The drain valves on the tanks were on the side of the bladder. I stuck my hand in one of those things once upon a time. 100 octane makes excellent cleaning fluid by the way. I'll be talking with Ann Pelegreno here shortly and thought I would bring the subject up with her. I would be looking for the location of those valves. If they were under the tank, you could pump the thing dry. Otherwise, I don't think it would empty out. Does anyone know about this? Also, have another question for the forum, what about the characteristics of 80/87 aviation fuel? I never used the stuff. I just assumed its not the same thing as car gas. Anyone on the forum want to flash me a reply? Would like to know especially if it flashes off similar to 100 octane....any pilots around? I know 80/87 leaves a red die marker. Ric...you're a pilot. How fast will 80/87 flash off if its leaking and where were the intake valves on the fuel tanks on an Electra? If the intake valves were on the sides of the tanks, I don't believe Earhart could have run the tanks completely dry. Then again, KJ may have allowed for that possibility in his calculations. I don't know. So, here's a problem for the college of higher learning. Carol #2524 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure what you mean by "flash off". 80/87 octane was still the norm for most light singles and twins when I started flying (1965). It's just avgas. As I understand it, 100 octane will support higher compression and deliver more horsepower at high manifold pressures. There is no reference to usable fuel as opposed to total fuel on board in any of the NR16020 literature I've seen. Earhart's fuel system had a stripper valve and a separate stripper pump. Given the appropriate music and an appreciative audience, I would imagine that she could get down to almost nothing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:41:57 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Bones on the beach? For Dennis, I'm not an optics expert, but I have had some experience using binoculars. The standard US Navy binocular (since before WW2) is the 7X50 where the "7X" is the optical magnification, and the "50" is the diameter of the objective lens in millimeters. Dividing the second number by the first gives a relative measure of the amount of light gathered. But the optical magnification is the number relevant to your question, and tells you how much closer an object will appear compared to viewing with the unaided eye. A quick web check of binoculars available during the 1930s shows U.S. and foreign manufacturers were making binoculars mostly in magnifications of 6X, 7X, and 8X, with 7X predominating. An object 600 feet away would appear to be at 100 feet, or 87.5 feet, or 75 feet when viewed respectively through binoculars with magnifications of 6X, 7X, or 8X. To use a baseball analogy, the apparent distance for 7X is very close to the distance from home plate to first base or third base, and the apparent distances for 6X and 8X are fairly close - - you might say they're in the ballpark. Sorry, couldn't resist. LTM, who gets baseball fever about this time every year. Bob Brandenburg #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric So you're standing on a 20 foot tall platform errected over home plate and looking down at first base. Can you recognize the objects there as the bones of the guy who got left on base last season? Okay kids, here's another chance for you to conduct an experiment that will be hard to explain if the cops stop by. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:43:41 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 How odd to have a patent number on a simple knob - I have a couple Leica cameras from this time period. They are marked "DRP" for "Duetches Reich Partie" (forgive any spelling errors!). I don't know what the patent numbers show, but I will look when I get home tonight. LTM, Jon 2266 ************************************************************************ From Ric We don't know for sure that it's a patent number. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:44:25 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Philosophy of fuel resrves Of course those regulations did not exist in 1937 and they only apply to Part 121 operations anyway so I did not mean to imply that they were directly applicable to the flight. My only point is to bring in what the FAA thinks is a perfectly safe fuel requirement based on current information to give food for thaught. Of course today the pilot and dispatcher have much more acurate weather and winds information to make their decisions. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:46:06 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LOP >......when the sun is rising and setting north of the >equator, the line which describes their location .....is perpendicular to >the line of sight on the sun >at dawn and skewed away from being perpendicular to the >equator--it will run from north east to south west. Should this last line read "north west to south east"? Mark *********************************************************************** From Ric Yup. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:47:59 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves Sorry Oscar, but a possible 15 mile error is a possible15 mile error. Which means Noonan (in theory) was always within 15 miles of the LOP. Therefore he didn't have to search more than 15 miles to East or West of his position. Remember, you are not searching a 30 mile zone of uncertainty round Howland added to a 15 mile error in your own position. You know where Howland (and therefore the LOP through Howland) is. (Ignoring mapping errors) You are searching a zone of uncertainty round your own position. If he was (unknown to him) at zero, with Howland at 15, he only had to search from -15 to 15 because he would have then found Howland. If he was actually at 15, searching 0 to 30 would find Howland. If he was at 30, searching from 15 to 45 would find Howland. The 30 mile search zone was round his position, not round a zone of uncertainty in the position of Howland. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:00:45 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Drought on Gardner Some time ago there was mention of a severe drought on Gardner and reference to a castaway perhaps having motive to move to the 7 site because of that. Do you know the approximate dates that the drought was supposed to have lasted? And when it was recorded? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric We, of course, do not have rainfall information for Gardner specifically until well after 1937. We do have rainfall figures for Canton in Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec of 1937 and for Canton and Hull for all of 1938. Even in Sept. of '37 the rainfall at Canton was less than the normal monthly total ( .85 inches versus 1.24) and it only got worse. A year later, in Sept. 1938, Hull got no measurable rain at all. When Maude and Bevington visited Gardner in October 1937 the island seemed lush and inviting. When Maude and Gallagher returned with the first work party in December 1938 they were shocked at how dried up and desolate the place looked. By April of '39 the rains had returned and the island was green again. That pretty much gives us a rough span for the drought. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:13:26 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Great explanation but I would like to add a little detail. The navigator when making a "single LOP landfall procedure" approach to an island uses the island's position as his assumed position for the purpose of making his calculations. He calculates the azimuth to the sun and its altitude as though he were at the destination. The normal procedure was to make these calculations for 20 minute intervals and plot the computed altitudes and azimuths on graph paper and draw a line between the computed points. This was a lot easier than calculating for each minute point since each calculation takes about 3 minutes using HO 208 which are the tables used by Noonan. This allows the navigator to determine the computed altitude of the sun at any time on the graph without having to do the calculations on the spot. He does the calculations for the estimated time of arrival and for maybe an hour earlier and several hours later to allow for delays. Noonan probably extended the graph to the "tanks dry" time. Navigators can do these calculations anytime after the departure time is set since he can then estimate the ETA and he does these calculations while still on the ground and it wouldn't surprise me if Noonan did such pre computations the day before the flight while in Lae. (Is there any information available on Noonan's activities on that day?) Then, while in flight when getting near his destination, he measures the altitude of the sun with his sextant and compares the measured altitude with the pre computed altitudes off the graph for the destination. The difference is the distance that the airplane is from the the LOP that runs through the destination. Every one degree of difference equals sixty nautical miles and every one minute difference of altitude equals one nautical mile. (This is no coincidence but is a result of how the nautical mile was defined on purpose.) He is now on an LOP at that instant that runs parallel to the LOP through the destination and the difference shows the distance between those two LOPs measured perpendicular to the LOPs which happens to be the azimuth to the sun. He then turns the airplane to fly directly towards the sun and continues to measure its altitude until it is equal to the altitude that would be measured at the same time at the destination as determined from his graph. The airplane is then turned 90 degrees and it is now on the LOP that runs through the destination. The sun now moves out to the wing tip as this turn is made. He then continues to measure its altitude. Since the LOP runs perpendicular to the azimuth of the sun it means that the LOP now runs parallel to the new course. (This is called a "course line" LOP.) The navigator continues to measure the sun's altitude and if it continues to equal the pre computed altitudes for the destination (for the time of day) then the plane is staying on the LOP (on course) that should take him to the destination. If he starts measuring higher altitudes he knows he getting off course in the direction of the sun and can change the heading to correct for it. If the altitudes start getting less then the plane is wondering off course away from the sun and corrections can be made. Another detail that has not been discussed relates to the time of the observation of the sun. The discussion seems to assume that Noonan only observed the sun at sun rise, calculated his LOP, advanced it, and dead reckoned to the LOP and started to look for Howland. As was discussed several weeks ago, a navigator prefers to use altitudes above 10 degrees (fewer possibilities for errors that we don't need to discuss here) so he would not rely on just a sun rise measurement which is equal to a zero degree altitude. Since he has a sextant he can measure its altitude at any height. Sun rise at Howland was 1745 Z at almost the exact time that Earhart reported "200 miles out." Assuming that the plane was still west of Howland the sun would not have risen at their location yet. At 1815 Z the time of the "100 mile out" report the sun was 5 degrees 55 minutes high at Howland. At 1912 Z the time of the "must be on you" report the sun was 18 degrees 59 minutes high. Etc.We can expect that Noonan continued to measure the sun during this period. Based on the 157/337 LOP report we can determine the time that Noonan used for his calculation. The LOP is perpendicular to the azimuth of the sun so we know he did his calculation for the time when the sun's azimuth was 67 degrees. This was its azimuth at sunrise at 1745 Z. However the sun moves. Its azimuth remained 67 degrees until 1855 Z (more than an hour) at which point it changed to 66 degrees. So we can be sure that he did his measurement and calculation for some time during the one hour period and not just at the time of sunrise. It is interesting that Earhart reported being on the "157/337" LOP at 2014 Z by which time the azimuth of the sun would have been 63 degrees and the LOP would have been 153/333. What does this mean? Maybe Noonan didn't change its designation for Earhart since it was only a few degrees but we can be sure Noonan knew the difference. This brings me to another point that I have not seen any discussion of on the web site or on the forum. The assumption that they blithely just followed the 157 LOP to Gardner. This however is impossible. Since the sun keeps moving the direction of any LOP derived from it keeps changing its azimuth. This means that even if you could follow the LOP it would no longer take you anywhere near Gardner. By the time of the "we must be on you" report at 1912 Z the LOP would have been 156/336. At the "circling" report time of 1928 Z the LOP was 155/335. At the report of the "157/337" LOP at 2014 Z the LOP was actually 153/333. At the same times the azimuths and any LOPs derived from them would have been even more different at Gardner as it is located south, and more importantly for the calculation, east of Howland. Depending on your assumptions of when NR16020 left the vicinity of Howland and your assumptions about its ground speed you can determine that it would have arrived at Gardner no earlier than 2130 Z and possibly as late 2330 Z. The earlier time is based on assuming it departed Howland at 1912 Z (the time of the "on you" report) and maintained a 150 knot ground speed (which seems high). The latter time assumes departure at 2014 Z ("157/337" report) and a 100 knot GS (probably a little low). By 2130 Z the LOP as measured at Howland would have changed to 144/324 or 13 degrees different from the 157/337 and 15 degrees different from the actual 159 true course to Gardner. Since it is 350 NM to Gardner this would make you miss the island by more that 95 NM. There is an even greater difference as measured at Gardner where the LOP would have been by that time 138/318 or 21 degrees different that the true course to Gardner which would result in a miss of more than 120 NM. The same calculations for 2330Z shows LOPs of 280/100 at Howland and 276/096 at Gardner or about 63 degrees! with a miss distance of 310 NM! Does this mean that they couldn't find Gardner, no. But it takes a lot more than just following the 157 LOP. Noonan would have had to plan on going to Gardner, known its position and then done the "land fall procedure" all over again for this new destination. Would this make any sense since he would have to do this work all over again while in flight with no greater probability of success in finding Gardner than they had had up to that time in finding Howland and a whole lot less fuel available to search for Gardner after using the fuel to fly an additional 350 NM? Wouldn't it make more sense to use all of the fuel remaining in searching for Howland since they knew they were fairly close to it? If necessary he could do the landfall procedure again at Howland using his precomputaions which is a lot easier and less prone to error than doing them all over again in flight while enroute to Gardner. Now don't believe that just aiming for the Phoenix islands guarantees that you will find some island for sure. Those islands are spread out as much as the Gilberts and Ric tells us in a post today that he has flown over the Gilberts and there is so much water between them that you couldn't be sure of finding one of those islands. The Phoenix islands consist of McKean island which is 50 NM to the left of the course to Gardner, Hull is 140 NM, Sydney is 180 NM, Birnie is 190 NM, Canton is 200, Enderbery is 230 and Phoenix island is 250 NM. There are no islands to the right of the course. Most are at greater distances from Howland than Gardner and there is a lot of water in between. It is not a sure thing like turning till the compass says "E for Europe" like Lindberg did. Sorry, the emperor has no clothes. (Flame on) Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, somebody has no clothes. You really don't understand the method described by Weems and what we're suggesting Noonan did. You also haven't taken into account that from sometime before 19:12Z (probably well before) they're down below a scattered cloud deck that does not allow further sun shots. That's why the LOP given at 20:13 is the sunrise LOP. Perhaps members of the Celestial Choir will take the time to enlighten you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:16:56 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Alternates For Oscar Boswell - I've got a copy of ONC-M16, and the Gilberts (now part of Kiribati) look like a good target to me, especially if you came in on Latitude 1° South. Island (atoll) separations vary of course, and you could be unlucky enough to just miss one. You might try "Bluewater Books & Charts" in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1-800-942-2583. They've always had anything I asked for. DMA, ONC, JNC, British Admiralty (some of the best!) etc. (They're usually about 3x4' im size) Bluewater advertises as "America's Top Supplier of Nautical Books and Charts". They have dandy navigator's tools as well. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Why didn't I think of that? Just set up the GPS and come into the Gilberts along the 1 degree South latitude line. Piece of cake. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:17:44 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Alternates Oscar, I have ONC L-16 that has the northern Gilberts and southern Marshalls in it. Would that be of any use to you? That's right folks- I'm still lurking out there somewhere! Woody ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:18:54 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) P.S. I realized after I sent my last post that there is still a point of possible confusion to clear up. In the United States we are used to having the sun rise approximately east and then have the direction or azimuth of the sun change in a clockwise manner passing through south-east then to straight south at noon. Then through south-west and then setting approximately due west. On Howland in July the sun passes north of the island as it travels across the sky. So the sun rises approximately east (067) but then the azimuth changes counter clockwise passing through north-east and to straight NORTH at noon. Then it continues through north-west and sets approximately west (293). Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:06:09 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner ? > What you're essentially saying is that flying along an advanced LOP to find > an island won't work reliably because there are so many variables. Why then > does Weems ... say: > > If pilotage cannot be used > (as when flying over water) or radio bearings are not available, the single > position line may be utilized for finding a destination. > The air navigator ... continues flying on his course until the position line carried > forward by DR passes through the the destination. he then turns right or > left and follows the LP. If after a reasonable time, the destination is not > sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his > track." I don't quarrel with your characterization of what I am saying, and I don't think Commander Weems would disagree with it. Weems says what he says simply because it is the truth - if you don't have celestial, and you don't have radio bearings, and you don't have pilotage (following landmarks) all you have is dead reckoning ( DR) - exactly the point ! We should recognize that "advancing the LOP" and "running down the line" are merely fancy terms for DR from an ASSUMED position. There is nothing wrong with DR so long as you recognize its limitations. But what I said is also simply the truth - DR over 300 or 400 miles to an island has severe limitations - especially if you don't know exactly where you are when you start (if you know where you are, you know the course to Howland and DR there). Could it work ? Sure. Would it work "reliably" ? Not if you extend it as far as Gardner. It's time for a thought experiment. Assume that a solid overcast covers the State of Texas. The tops are flat and uniform at 5000 feet. (This overcast represents the ocean.) The pilot knows somehow that there are three (and only three) holes relevant to his flight - a hole 2 miles in diameter over Dallas, a hole 1 mile in diameter 38 miles South of Dallas, and a hole 5 miles in diameter over Beaumont.(The holes represent Howland, Baker, and Gardner.) The plane is at 7000 feet (2000 feet over the overcast). The navigator's assumed position is within a box 100 miles long (N to S) and 30 miles wide (W to E) centered on Dallas, but you can't see the 2 mile hole or the 1 mile hole, even though he thinks you "should" have flown over it. Without celestial, radio or pilotage, the chances of finding the hole over Beaumont by flying SE are roughly the same as AE's of finding Gardner. (You can simulate this with a hood and a safety pilot. Prepare a DR flight plan from Dallas to Beaumont. Put on the hood and let the safety pilot fly you around the "box" and then take the control and set course for Beaumont. The safety pilot should be instructed to call "Beaumont airport in sight" when he sees it, and you can take off the hood and land. Reports are welcome.) Three questions: 1-how do you determine when the plane has reached the Latitude of Beaumont (remember you need an LOP passing through Beaumont [Gardner] because all the same island landfall problems exist there as exist at Dallas [Howland] if you don't hit dead on.. 2-How do you decide which way to turn on the line ? 3-How much fuel do you have to search ? The point is this, I think - you have expended your fuel RELOCATING the problem rather than solving it. Maybe they did that. Maybe they finally got lucky that day and made it. I hope so. But it was by no means a certainty as many seem to think. And I question whether that was the proper "Plan B" - but then we all question a lot of their plans and decisions, don't we ? Oscar ************************************************************************** From Ric <> Any position is an assumed position unless you have a solid pinpoint fix. Noonan's sunrise LOP was not a razor-thin line but it wasn't a wide amorphous band either. "We must be on you but cannot see you." conveys confidence that has been shaken by an unexpected result. They have not been able to get a DF fix and yet, using only DR from the sunrise LOP they felt that "we must be on you". If Noonan felt that he could not determine when he had reached a line running through Howland to an accuracy better than 30 miles it's hard to understand the confidence implicit in "we must be on you". Your hole-in-the-overcast thought experiment is deceiving because you imply that you have to hit the hole dead-on when, in fact, an island - especially an island with a lagoon - can be seen for many miles from - what? 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 feet? - probably as high as they could get and still stay under the cloud bases. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps "running on the line" was a dumb thing to do, but that's what she said they were doing. I have great respect for your ability to crunch theoretical numbers but I'm not comfortable saying that Noonan was kidding himself or that he wasn't aware of things that are obvious to you. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:07:09 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Philosophy of fuel reserves There is a Pan American Airways (www.panam.org). It's mainly by and for former employees. It has some interesting stories. I think there must be someone there who knows what the regs were in 1937 when they started routes across the Pacific. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:47:02 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Chris Kennedy > > [1] what a particular pilot determines is an acceptable reserve for a flight > to a major, inhabited island chain such as the Hawaiian Islands, that same pilot > might not consider to be an acceptable reserve for a flight to Howland, even > though they are of equal distance. Is this a fair statement? > [2] implicit in the idea of an acceptable reserve is the idea > that the pilot has a "Plan B", > [3] wouldn't this be best decided before leaving on the flight? > [4] did ... you encounter anything that indicated that Noonan may have been > using an offset navigation to the north as part of such a back-up plan to locate > Howland? > [5] "Plan B" ... may have been a different way of reaching our primary destination, > Howland. Any thoughts? > > From Ric > > [6] How much of a reserve do you need to execute that plan? Four hours will let > you cover about 500 nautical miles of the LOP. If you're further off than > that you've got bigger problems than any reserve will make up for. Thanks to Chris Kennedy for these questions. The answers to quetions 1, 2 and 3 are all "yes"., especially so in the case of number 3. The time to think about the appropriate response to any emergency is before it happens. An emergency cannot be handled by surprise or denial. The response must be "I thought this would happen; that's why I prepared for it; I know what to do !" (I plagiarize a bit here from the teacher of a different subject, who will not mind, I think.) Questions 4 and 5 refer to the "offset" question. I am not aware of any direct evidence that FN used or intended to use an offset on this flight. I personally ASSUME that he did, that it was to the left (North) and that it consisted of an 11 degree turn to 67 degrees true at 1745. I have my reasons, but I am not ready to talk about them today. (This is by no means an innovative position, and many people have said something similar during the last 60 years.) Such an offset would have caused an interception of the advanced LOP about 33 miles Northwest of Howland (assuming that the original course was dead on for Howland). Even if such an offset were used, we don't know whether the ACTUAL interception of the LOP was North or South of Howland, because we don't know how accurate FN's assumed Latitude was. And thanks to Ric for comment 6, which neatly makes the point that a 4 hour reserve at (or near) Howland is an adequate SEARCH reserve, but not an adequate ALTERNATE reserve - if "Plan B" is to go to an alternate, you still need some amount of reserve at that alternative to have a rational Plan B. Which leads me to the February 2002 of FLYING, which I hadn't had time to look at until Friday. The "AFTERMATH" column by Peter Garrison (page 74) is entitled "Elementary" and contains the story of an ATP with 25,000 [sic] hours, who planned a flight in a Piper Arrow with an estimated time enroute of 3:10 and fuel on board of "4 hours". Because of deteriorating weather, he changed his destination in flight, thus increasing his estimated flying time to about 3:50. He finally arrived in the area of the alternate around 4:10. He then requested a PRACTICE ILS approach, ran out of fuel at 4:20, and crashed. All 3 occupants of the plane died. There are all sorts of implications and lessons here - and I am not going to compete with Peter Garrison in outlining them - but I am going to quote the last sentence of the article "The reserve should be viewed as insurance against unforeseen problems at the destination ... AND NOT AS CAPITAL TO BE EXPENDED ENROUTE." Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Allow me to offer my own uninvited answers to Chris' questions: <<[1] what a particular pilot determines is an acceptable reserve for a flight to a major, inhabited island chain such as the Hawaiian Islands, that same pilot might not consider to be an acceptable reserve for a flight to Howland, even though they are of equal distance. Is this a fair statement?>> Yes BUT any given airplane will only carry just so much fuel. Earhart went out of Lae with every drop she could carry (without compromising her 100 octane takeoff tank). She had as much reserve as she was going to get. She accepted the risk when she took off whether the reserve was "acceptable" or not. <<[2] implicit in the idea of an acceptable reserve is the idea that the pilot has a "Plan B">> Yes, and many record setting flights in the 1920s and '30s were made with neither an acceptable reserve nor a Plan B. What was Lindbergh's "Plan B" once he passed the point of no return. Or Earhart's on her 1932 crossing? I've made at least one such flight myself, although nothing in their league. <<[3] wouldn't this be best decided before leaving on the flight?>> Of course. And that goes for the recognition that there is no Plan B that is guaranteed to save your bacon. We're not talking about the kind of flying most people ever do. <<[4] did ... you encounter anything that indicated that Noonan may have been using an offset navigation to the north as part of such a back-up plan to locate Howland?>> As you know, I don't see any evidence that Noonan used an offset on this trip and I do see evidence that he did not. <<[5] "Plan B" ... may have been a different way of reaching our primary destination, Howland. >> Yes, the "textbook" method. Run along the line of position. But Oscar says: >...a 4 hour reserve at (or near) Howland is an adequate SEARCH reserve, >but not an adequate ALTERNATE reserve - if "Plan B" is to go to an alternate, >you still need some amount of reserve at that alternative to have a rational Plan B. But running on the line is the only way to SEARCH for Howland and not totally abandon your chances of getting out of this alive if you don't find it. There is no acceptable alternate and there is no such thing as an acceptable reserve on a flight like this. If you don't find Howland you're probably going to lose the airplane, and if you don't find land you're probably going to die. Welcome to the Golden Age of Aviation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:49:49 EST From: Denise Subject: The castaway experience Th' WOMBAT, treasure, when you say "I subjected visitors from Wales to an uninhabited tropical island a few years ago - and they're coming back for more." you clearly have "tuff stuff" friends. Cherish them! Friends of mine subjected a young man from Seattle to the archetypal "desert island experience" by sailing off and leaving him behind on one. (Hey, he kept saying he'd love to be a castaway! They just obliged.) When they came back after a few days to pick him up ... they had to ferry him straight to the nearest hospital to be treated for shock, exposure, dehydration, sunburn, and something akin to a nervous breakdown. Seems that when he realised they'd gone, he just lay down on the beach, curled up in a foetal position, and sucked his thumb until rescued. And the saddest part of this is he was only a few miles offshore, practically in Suva Central, within sight of it, within hailing distance of passing boats, within swimming distance even . But, as I relished telling my stupid friends, considering they left him on an island in the heart of tigershark breeding territory, a less wimpy fellow would have come off a lot worse. LTM (who preferred sunburn to shark attacks anyday) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:51:25 EST From: Denise Subject: Re: Alternates Pat Gaston writes: "I don't want to belabor this Gilberts business, but ..." Look, the way this adds up for me is simply this: turning back to the west gives you the chance to maybe reach ONE group of islands four hours away. Turning north gives you the chance to maybe hit Howland and then not hit the Marshall Islands - since you know you don't have the fuel - seven hours away. But turning south (or whatever that LOP line is) gives you the chance to: 1) hit Howland. 2) see Baker and turn back to Howland. 3) hit Baker 4) hit the Phoenix Group two hours away 5) hit the Tokelau Group four hours away. I know what I'd do. In fact, I definitely know what I'd do since the alternatives are just different degrees of downright stupid. And I'd like to throw in here my previously mentioned formulation that the likely advice given to A.E. by your average Pacific-flying cowboy-type (was there any other kind?) would have been "find the nearest island with a lagoon and land on the reef." Turning south along the LOP line would be the best way to deliver on that! LTM (who didn't like any degree of downright stupid) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:53:04 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 Ref the patent numbers, I looked on both my pre-war Leicas, and neither has a visible patent number anywhere on it, so that's no help. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:55:15 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Belgium Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 To Jon Watson, I think the P in DRP does not stand for Partie but for Patent. I believe DRP stood for "Deutsches Reichs Patent" LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:06:32 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bones on the Beach To Bob Brandenberg: Thanks for the data on binoculars. I'm generally familiar with 7X35 and 8X50 binoculars from my adventurous days. Ric said: "Okay, so you're standing on a 20 foot tall platform erected over home plate and looking down at first base. Can you recognize the objects there as the bones of the guy who got left on base last season? Under perfect conditions, you bet. A nice white bone against the dark brown infield dirt - piece of cake, ribs, femurs, ulna, all clear as a bell. But of course Niku does not offer perfect conditions. If the "bones" (after all, we're taking Jones' word on this) were from the crew of the NC it would have made them about eight(?) years old. During that time they would undoubtedly have suffered from the sun, erosion, critters and, possibly, be at least partially buried as a result of tide and wind actions. At 600 feet away (90 feet under 7X magnification in our example), and depending on the angle of the sun, I suspect the now-weathered bones would have blended fairly well into the white-gray-pink sand of the beach would not be clear and distinct images. From 90 feet away the viewer may be able to see something but would it be recognizable as bones, much less human bones? The exception, as I said earlier, might be a skull or pelvis, due to their particular and unique shapes. But as for identifying smaller bone such as ribs, femurs, ulna etc., I'm not convinced. And of course the big question is how would Jones know from that distance the bones are human. And by the way, what are his qualifications to reach that decision, assuming he is looking at something other than a human skull? LTM, whose "bone"afides are correct Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll agree that bones could be hard to pick out against a background of coral rubble and/or sand, but if we examine the alternative hypothesis - that somebody went ashore and saw the bones up close and personal - we have to explain why they didn't bury them (too scared, in too much of a hurry) and how they saw the bones of nine people who had been buried and dug up by wild pigs. Eleven men were lost in the wreck. Only three were buried. We're not going to sort this out by debating it. If somebody thinks it's important enough they'll have to find the ship's log. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:21:22 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: LOP > From Mark Prange >> ......when the sun is rising and setting north of the >> equator, the line which describes their location .....is perpendicular to >> the line of sight on the sun >> at dawn and skewed away from being perpendicular to the >> equator--it will run from north east to south west. > > > Should this last line read "north west to south east"? My typo. I had the correct line drawn on my mental compass. I just mislabelled it when I translated from pictures to words. Sorry about that. :o( Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:22:02 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: From Gerry Gallagher TO--Gerry Gallagher--- Thank you for such a lovely letter of appreciation to TIGHAR for the plaque at Mr Gallaghers grave site.... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:24:43 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Bones on the beach? > Okay, so you're standing on a 20 foot tall platform errected over home plate > and looking down at first base. Can you recognize the objects there as the > bones of the guy who got left on base last season? Hey, I can do this one! My back yard is 75 feet deep, and just across the alley is a cemetery. > Okay kids, here's another chance for you to conduct an experiment that will > be hard to explain if the cops stop by. I suppose a TIGHAR card would be a good thing to have when the cops arrive. Seriously, though, how hard would this be to simulate? I have a feeling that we've all looked at something very similar in distance, size and shape, and it's just not connectiing right now. LTM (who has a neat beach) Mike Holt in Richmond VA *************************************************************************** From Ric If you think this one is good, wait until you see our how-many-clams-can-a-person-eat-in-one-sitting? experiment. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:28:44 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 Ric, perhaps this has already been answered, but are you able to determine how many numbers there are, even though we can't make out what the exact numbers are yet? This may help narrow down the possibilities of the type of number this could be (U.S. or some other country's patent numbers, etc.). Could these possibly be symbols, rather than numbers? --Chris ************************************************************************ From Ric Not yet. I can tell that the Ludolph patent numbers Mark cited would fit in the available space given the size of the characters we can make out, but we can't yet tell how many characters are present. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:30:02 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner/Mapping ERROR In addition to what Mr. Boswell is saying, something to keep in mind is the fact that we have NOT been able to determine that the flight actually knew about the east/west mapping error as to Howland's position. We have tended to concentrate on the problems in determining whether you are north of south of Howland (assuming, as TIGHAR does, that Noonan did not run an offset to eliminate this issue altogether). If the flight did not know of the error, Noonan's navigation to Howland as described by TIGHAR may have been fine but the flight would've effectively navigated to the wrong spot, thus helping to explain the "we must be on you but cannot see you" transmission. This might be the capper to all the other incredible screw-ups on this flight and the one which finally did it in. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:30:46 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Plan "B" Thanks, Mr. Boswell; I appreciate your time in discussing the basics of "reserves" (both in theory and practice) and answering my subsequent questions. Good luck in your continuing work. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:26:53 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner Sounds like that climate change the scientists are telling us about... *********************************************************************** From Ric No, not really. Sporadic drought has been a characteristic of the region for many years. We have, however seen a greater frequency of high surf "westerly" weather events in just the 12 years we've been visiting the place. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:39:11 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Gallagher's House > From Gerry Gallagher > When I look at pictures of Gerald sitting in the house he built on Niku, So some of Gerald Gallagher's effects survived the voyage from Niku. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric You're jumping to conclusions. Perhaps Gerry would like to fill the forum in on what he has discovered about the shipping-of-effects issue. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:41:28 EST From: RC Subject: Re: Philosophy of fuel reserves > From Herman De Wulf >. I think there must be someone there who knows what the regs were in 1937 > when they started routes across the Pacific. Herman .. The guy you want is an old bowling partner that lives near me. I'll ask. RC PS. I will take a guess that the reserves for those operating under the sked. airlines in those days were conservative, but maybe less so for the 'boats. You may recall the air corps 1st. round the world attempt at one point taxiied quite a way. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:47:01 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner If the Island was "lush and inviting" in October 1937, it would have taken some time for the coconuts to feel the effects. For the first few months, the trees would probably show no noticeable difference, then gradually there would be a decline in the number of new nuts. There is an amazing amount of water present in the trunks of palms, so new nuts still form and still contain water. I dug out one of my old textbooks on tropical agriculture and it appears tests in the 1930's showed the effects of severe drought on the coconuts was worst some 13 months after the end of the drought, with the numbers of nuts actually increasing during the term of the drought. The test conditions were not as severe as the conditions on Gardner though as the worst of the drought was only three months. It would suggest that the coconuts may have been still producing nuts, but fewer in quantity until the rains returned in April 1939, so if our castaway was alive and had been collecting nuts for water they would have stayed very close to the coconut trees for most of the drought period. Of course, the rats would have been competing for the nuts also, so most of the fallen nuts might be empty. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric Gallagher found the bones of the castaway far away from the only coconut trees on the island. That's a fact. Are you saying that the castaway moved away from the coconuts after April 1939? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:51:26 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Bones on the Beach > From Dennis McGee > To Bob Brandenberg: Thanks for the data on binoculars. I'm > Under perfect conditions, you bet. A nice white bone against the > dark brown infield dirt - piece of cake, ribs, femurs, ulna, all clear as a > bell. But of course Niku does not offer perfect conditions. "Found " exposed human bones are often various shades of brown or gray. And non-human bones can be confused with human bones, even skulls. There is an extensive forensic literature on the skulls of small breeds of dogs (like pugs) or even hydrocephalic calves being mistaken for human skulls. It can be tougher than it looks, even though there were no cows or odd breeds of dogs on Nikumaroro. Ideally, you would have the bones themselves to examine, or at least a good photograph. Since you do not have either, all that you can say is that someone saw something on the beach that he thought were human bones. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who has a bone to pick...) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:53:52 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Plan "B" One issue that I have raised once or twice to no avail is the option of climbing again to adequate altitude (8-10 thousand feet?) to take further celestial shots of both sun and moon for a two body fix followed by another run at Howland. This is usually dismissed as suicidal from a fuel standpoint, and for less than ideal sun moon cuts. I have no idea regarding the fuel, but the sun-moon cut issue is easy to explore via the almanac data on the USNO site. I put together a table at one time, and could do so again - but my recollection was that the cuts were adequate to take either another run at Howland or to use as a starting point for a different Plan B, Gilberts or otherwise. Especially considering the options. Any comment on the fuel side of the question? Would you have considered a climb to establish position by fix? TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:52:32 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Philosophy of fuel resrves > From Gary LaPook > My only point is to bring in what the FAA thinks is a > perfectly safe fuel requirement based on current information to give food for > thaught. Of course today the pilot and dispatcher have much more acurate weather > and winds information to make their decisions. Not to mention GPS (or Doppler or INS or whatever). Two hours reserve projected at landing at (say) Paris in a jet covering 500 or 550 miles per hour is different from 2 hours in a plane making 150 (or whatever) in the middle of nowhere. And on many runs you have places to refuel if you need to. I am by no means a frequent foreign traveler, but as a passenger I have made unscheduled stops in Bangor, Guam and Shannon (twice) for fuel. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:00:52 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Ric > [1] What was Lindbergh's "Plan B" > once he passed the point of no return. > [2]But running on the line is the only way to SEARCH for Howland and not totally > abandon your chances of getting out of this alive if you don't find it. > [3]There is no acceptable alternate and there is no such thing as an acceptable > reserve on a flight like this. If you don't find Howland you're probably > going to lose the airplane, and if you don't find land you're probably going > to die. [1] Lindbergh was over land for most of the last 500 miles of his flight, and landed with enough fuel to go to Rome. [2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to the line to encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. If you decide that 100 miles is the maximum area of error of Latitude, you cover the 100 miles of the line, and fly that 100 miles course at intervals of say 15 miles parallel to the line. One pass(say N to S) = 100 miles, fly East or West (let's say West first) 15 miles, fly the line (S to N100), fly West 15, fly the line (N to S 100), fly East 45 miles, fly the line (S to N 100) fly East another 15 miles and fly the line (N to S 100). The total mileage is 590, at least 100 of which you have already covered on your first pass (necessary in anyone's scenario). Assuming that you have encompassed the proper search area, this will bring you within 7 1/2 miles of Howland TWICE. (And, assuming you can see 7.5 miles, the actual N - S area of the search is 115 miles, and W - E is 75.) The extra 490 miles requires a bit over 3 hours at 40 gph (perhaps 3 1/2 if you drop to 28 gph to increase your endurance). [3] Very true. And that's why you need to find Howland. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric <<[2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to the line to encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. >> Have you used this method or do you know of anyone who has? Why do you suppose that Weems recommended running on the LOP rather than the Boswell Method? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:09:15 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: "Retreating" the LOP ? > From Ric > [1] If Noonan felt that he could not determine when he had reached a line > running through Howland to an accuracy better than 30 miles it's hard to > understand the confidence implicit in "we must be on you". > > [2]Your hole-in-the-overcast thought experiment is deceiving because you imply > that you have to hit the hole dead-on when, in fact, an island - especially > an island with a lagoon - can be seen for many miles from - what? 1,000, > 1,500, 2,000 feet? - probably as high as they could get and still stay under > the cloud bases. > > [3]Perhaps you are right. Perhaps "running on the line" was a dumb thing to do, > but that's what she said they were doing. > [4] I'm not comfortable saying that > Noonan was kidding himself or that he wasn't aware of things that are obvious > to you. [1] I agree with you that FN had confidence in his position, plus or minus some number of miles North and South and East and West. I merely disagree that staying "ON" the line was the only thing to do. See my earlier posting today suggesting a search pattern. [2] I didn't say they had to hit the hole dead on, and (in anticipation of your objection) provided the safety pilot/hood scenario as an alternative experiment. The Safety Pilot can see Beaumont as well as Gardner, once the pilot gets him into range (the hood is to deprive the pilot/navigator of landmarks). [3]Not only is it NOT dumb to "run on the line", it is the right thing to do. But because there is POSSIBLE ERROR both in the original LOP (due to refraction error in observation of Sunrise, which can equal plus or minus 1 minute [of time] or 15 nautical miles) and in the dead reckoning "advance" of that line over (say) 175 to 200 miles (which equals what ? 5 miles or 10 miles or more ?) it might be prudent to consider both "retreating" and further "advancing" the line to a series of parallel lines incorporated into a search pattern, rather than continuing "on the line" This procedure is just as consistent with the radio transmissions as your scenario.. [4] I don't doubt for a minute that FN was quite competent and understood these things better than either of us. I believe your lack of comfort stems from a certainty that you know what the plan was. (I don't.) You may be right - or (I say it without disrespect ) you may be kidding yourself.. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric My confidence that I know what Earhart meant when she said they were "running on the line" is based upon the fact that running on the advanced LOP was an established and recommended procedure. It is also what Noonan's contemporaries believed she meant. I am very much disinclined to think that she meant a procedure that you have just thought up, no matter how reasonable it might seem in this time and place. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:15:40 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) And just why can't you take a sun sight from below a scattered cloud layer? It only takes a few seconds for a single sight and a minute or two to take a number of sights for the purpose of improving the accuracy by averaging them. For anyone who doesn't believe that this is possible I recommend that you read Chichester's book "Seaplane Solo" published in 1934 in which he describes the "offset" method of finding an island which he does twice in his historic first solo flight from New Zealand to Australia. Pages 74 through 78 relate how he was searching for a hole in the overcast (not scattered) to obtain a sun sight so he could determine when to turn on to the LOP to find Norfolk island. And again on pages 159 through 166 he again had to find holes in the overcast to find Lord Howe island. Actually, everyone should read this book, it is a great read. And the way he describes the excitement and relief of finding land after a long overwater flight is exactly in agreement with my experience of overwater flying using a sextant for navigation. And Chichester was using a marine sextant which would have made it more difficult for him than it would have been for Noonan with a bubble sextant. Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe it's not as hard as we have thought. I'd like to hear Doug Brutlag's opinion on this. My recollection is that Chichester was flying a very slow, open cockpit airplane. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about your experience in long overwater flights using a sextant for navigation. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:16:28 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Alternates > From Woody > > Oscar, I have ONC L-16 that has the northern Gilberts and southern > Marshalls in it. Would that be of any use to you? That's right folks- I'm > still lurking out there somewhere! Woody Thanks very much, but I have L-16. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:17:31 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Zone of Uncertainty > From Angus Murray > a possible 15 mile error is a possible15 mile error. Which means Noonan > (in theory) was always within 15 miles of the LOP. Therefore he didn't have > to search more than 15 miles to East or West of his position. Remember, you > are not searching a 30 mile zone of uncertainty round Howland added to a > 15 mile error in your own position. You are searching a zone of uncertainty > round your own position. You're right. I should have said a 60 mile search was the prudent thing to do, considering both possible errors in the Sunrise determination of Longitude, and possible DR errors in "advancing the LOP". Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:21:54 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Ric > <<[2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to > the line to encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. >> > Have you used this method or do you know of anyone who has? I believe that James Lovell got lost on a night training mission. He lost radio, radar, and instrument panel lights. He flew a search box and found the carrier by catching a glimpse of the phosphorence caused by the ship's propellors. If I have the right astronaut, the story is told in _The Lost Moon_. LTM. Marty #2359 *********************************************************************** From Ric There's a technique dating from WWII and possibly somewhat earlier called the "Square Search" which some have speculated Earhart used, but you'd be hard put to describe it as "running on the line". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:50:46 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Gallagher's House It is my belief that the effects of Gerald were boxed and prepared for shipping back to England. War broke out and there is no evidence that the items were ever shipped ... there is an order to ship, but that was only to consign the shipment to the Company in Suva to ship the items. After 2 years of tracking this ... it is my belief that the items NEVER left Fiji. Ironically the Company is still in business. However, the Company did experience looting and had to move their offices during the war years. Thus, it is my opinion and the facts do lead to the conclussion that the effects were only turned over to the shipping company in Fiji that handled all the shipping for the Colonial Service. I have even talked to a representative of the Company in Fiji who advised me that they did not have a clue what happened to the effects and that paperwork MAY be available in storage. But the indications certainly lean to the probability that nothing ever left Fiji. The photo that I supplied to Ric came to the family through a colleague of Gerald's who passed on the photo. The photo was taken upon completion of the house built by "Irish" on Gardner. (Ric, I am sure will share that and the other photos with you all). However, I am unable to find any proof whatsoever that items of Gerald's personal effects ever made it out of Fiji where they were last traced to, inventoried, boxed and paperwork prepared for dispatch for shipping . In short, there is proof that the move of the items was in "motion", however there is no proof of them actually being placed on a ship or received by family. Delays were common then. The original plaque for Gerald's tomb for example too many years to go from the idea stage to the actual plaque being ordered fro New Zealand I believe it was. A few photos .... YES obtained through third parties that knew Gerald. Personal Effects that made it back .. ABSOLUTELY NONE at all found to date! Anyway, I have not given up and will follow up on the possibility of some ancient records in the vaults of the Shipping Company that may lead torwards another thread of possibilities! Gerry ("Karaka Jr") Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:52:02 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Plan "B" For Marty Moleski The incident of finding a carrier at night was Jim Lovell as was told in the movie Apollo 13 based on Lovell's book "Lost Moon". What does that incident have to do with navigation or flying on the line? He just lucked out by having a visual reference on the water that took him right back to the carrier. Just curious. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:53:38 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Gary LaPook says: > And just why can't you take a sun sight from below a scattered cloud layer? It > only takes a few seconds for a single sight and a minute or two to take a number > of sights for the purpose of improving the accuracy by averaging them. I have a lot of experience shooting and plotting celestial navigation for the Strategic Air Command. Even using a periscopic sextant at 35,000 feet in a fairly stable jet plane a momentary sextant shot is useless for the purpose of finding a single island. The possible and probable error is beyond reasonable use. Using the equipment that Noonan had makes the idea ludicrous. The suggestion that his device could be used for any exacting purpose at 1,000' in an Electra under the cloud cover they had defies logic. FN could have been lucky and miraculously got an instantaneous shot that was perfectly accurate. 99 times out of a hundred his instaneous shot could have put him most anywhere. In either case he would have had no way to know. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:40:10 EST From: Mark Subject: More on Patent Numbers Well, I've found out a bit more information... no earth-shattering breakthroughs, I'm afraid. First, the Germans: The German Patent contact suggested the string could be "NO - U1xxxxxx" in which the "N(?)" indicates Norway, and the U indicates a "utility" class patent (the most likely class). I had been assuming that the "N(?)" was "No" or "Nr", short for "number". They have also provided the (current) definitive document regarding country codes. "OL" and "UL" do not (currently) exist. I am inquiring further elsewhere on when such codes were standardized and what previous conventions (if any) were used. From the British: My contact at the British Library has provided a concise history of British patent numbering conventions dating back to 1617. From this information, I have drawn the following points of note: 1) The "OL" is not likely to be a "01", as neither Britain nor the US tends to use leading zeros except when an alphabetic country code (or other such code) prefixes the number (checking on this to be certain). 2) If the "OL" is a country code, it probably dates from post-1915, which is when Britain adopted the GBxxxxxxx nomenclature. I am checking on when/if this was an international standardization. Further, on inspection of the country code list, and warping things in my mind (a dangerous activity, I admit), I thought about this: The "OL" can be characterized as a "roundish or U-shaped thing" followed by a pair of straight lines at right angles in an L-shaped pattern. I look down the list of valid country codes, and the closest match happens to be "DE", follwed somewhat by "GB" (imagine the upper right portions of the E and B gone, along with the cross-line on the G). Anyway, that's all merely speculation and mind games. One difficulty I am having is that most people involved in patent law are much more involved in the documentation than in labeling of products, which appears to be largely up to the manufacturer. This colors somewhat their interpretations, as they are considering what would appear on a patent *document*, not a patented *item*. On the other hand, since labeling appears to be left largely up to the manufacturer, there may be too much variation involved anyway. For the record, though I have described the object, I have not told any of my contacts anything about the investigation other than that the object was found at an "archaeological site" and that it is "badly weathered". I have done this in order that I not color their opinions in any way on what the inscriptions may mean. Good idea? Bad idea? Is there any possibility of getting higher-resolution images of the knob on the site? Or perhaps images (if any) and data from the SEM tests? Thanks, Mark in Horse Country *************************************************************************** From Ric We can't put higher resolution imagery up on the website. It's 72dpi any way you slice it. I have some photos I shot of the SEM screen but it really wouldn't tell you anything. I think that the key to getting a look at these letters/numbers/runes/whatever is to: 1. Clean the knob of oxidation product don to bre metal WITHOUT further degrading the bare metal. 2. Lighting the knob with high intensity directed light from an 85 degree angle. 3. Taking multiple photographs, rotating the knob slightly each time. 4. Carfully examining the photos. At best, we may not come up with a clear interpretation but we should come up with a range of possibilities among which we can look for a logical match with a known number and ultimately (we hope) confirm it with a photo, drawing, or real life example of the object. I don't see any harm in telling people why this object is of such interest. We can't identify the thing based upon somebody's opinion anyway. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:41:24 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From me: > ... James Lovell got lost on a night training mission. > He lost radio, radar, and instrument panel lights. He flew a > search box and found the carrier by catching a glimpse of the > phosphor[esc]ence caused by the ship's propellors. ... After sending this, I did find internet confirmation that the story comes from Lovell and _Lost Moon_. > From Ric > There's a technique dating from WWII and possibly somewhat earlier called > the "Square Search" which some have speculated Earhart used, but you'd be > hard put to describe it as "running on the line." Agreed. If I remember correctly, Lovell's idea was to start at the most probably location he could calculate for the carrier, then fly ever-larger boxes. He was very lucky that his last lights blew out in time for his eyes to adapt to the dark, making it possible for him to pick up the phos-phor-e-scence (left a syllable out of it the first time) behind the ship. Whatever luck AE and FN had on their final flight, it wasn't good enough to save them. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:43:30 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Tom MM > > One issue that I have raised once or twice to no avail is the option of > climbing again to adequate altitude (8-10 thousand feet?) to take further > celestial shots of both sun and moon for a two body fix followed by another > run at Howland. This is usually dismissed as suicidal from a fuel > standpoint, > > Any comment on the fuel side of the question? Would you have considered a > climb to establish position by fix? Yes. They were very light at the time. A cruise climb at (say) 140 mph and 60 gph would have taken them from 1000 to 8000 in 14 minutes at a cost of (14/60 times 20 gph = ) about 4 gallons of extra fuel, a loss that would have been recaptured in 2 hours by leaning to 38 gph at altitude, even disregarding the increased speed on the same fuel flow at 8000. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:44:25 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bones on the Beach I think that believing they saw the bones of 9 people on the beach when only 3 were buried kind of suggests they didn't actually do a head count... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:54:27 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner > From Ric > > Gallagher found the bones of the castaway far away from the only coconut > trees on the island. That's a fact. Are you saying that the castaway > moved away from the coconuts after April 1939? No, I'm suggesting that the bottle should indicate that the castaway had a source of fluids for drinking and that if there was a drought on the only regular source of fluids might be fallen coconuts. Other than the freshwater lake - which dries very quickly - what other water source would they have in a prolonged drought? What other reason to carry a bottle to a place like the 7 site? Depending what size Benedictine bottle was in common use on Gardner around 1930's it could hold enough water for survival. If you keep your activities limited and stay out of the sun you could survive quite a while on 750ml a day. I wonder how much you need to prevent kidney failure? I go through 1500ml a day on average at 35deg C. I suggest that our castaway would have had to be close to the coconut trees early in the morning (like daybreak). Meaning the 7 site possibly had another signifigance - like a daytime rest and eating area. On the other hand, perhaps they hiked from the 7 site to the nearest coconut palms in the dark so as to be able to collect nuts at daybreak. What is often incorrectly called coconut milk and is really coconut "water" (how's that Denise?) might even have a side benefit as it is fairly high in sugar. Unfortunately it has no real nutritional value other than that, but a certain amount of sugar may have helped energy levels a (very) little. I have absolutely no idea what the relatively high potassium content would do over a prolonged period though. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric I'll let anybody who has been there or seen the video comment on the likelihood of someone living at the Seven Site and be relying on Arundel's cocos for water, thus necessitating frequent trips back and forth. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:55:34 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Zone of Uncertainty > From Angus Murray > a possible 15 mile error is a possible15 mile error. Which > means Noonan (in theory) was always within 15 miles of the LOP. Therefore > he didn't have to search more than 15 miles to East or West of his position. Assuming an accuracy of about 15 nm, at 1000ft Noonan could see the horizon for a little over 35 miles all around him, subject of course to any haze and glare. That meant he was looking at about 3800sq miles of ocean through a cone that would seem to be moving that 3800sq miles at up to 2 miles a minute. If he could be confident of a 10 - 20 nm error he should have expected to see Howland. If Howland wasn't in its charted position, it or Baker should have still been visible either side of the line. It's still a lot of water though! (I imagine someone will check my math and correct me if I'm wrong. 35miles squared = 1225m * 3.1412 = 3848 sq miles). Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:02:52 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Gary LaPook > > And just why can't you take a sun sight from below a scattered cloud layer? It > only takes a few seconds for a single sight and a minute or two to take a number > of sights for the purpose of improving the accuracy by averaging them. I find this fascinating, and I'm eager to learn more about how FN could have done this. I would appreciate seeing a detailed, step-by-step feasibility analysis, taking into account all of the controlling factors, such as: 1). where in the Electra FN would shoot from; 2). how he would accommodate the physical arrangement of the A-5 bubble octant to his shooting position; 3). how he would acquire a sight line to the sun given the sun's altitude and azimuth, the heights of the cloud tops and bottoms, the amount of cloud cover at the time and the near-grazing incidence of his visual angle to the cloud bottoms; 4). how much time FN would need for a string of, say, 10 shots to average the sight, given that his octant didn't have an averager, and he had to write down the altitude and time for each shot and then reacquire the sun for the next shot; 5). how convective turbulence would affect the accuracy of FN's shots, given that he was flying just below the convective condensation level over the central axis of the tropical Pacific warm pool, which is the warmest patch of ocean on the planet. Bob Brandenburg #2286 **************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag For Ric & Gary, "And Chichester was using a marine sextant which would have made it more difficult for him than it would have been for Noonan with a bubble sextant". Gary, I will politely disagree with you on that statement. This is why. Some months ago I took my Pioneer A-7 sextant out in a Twin Beech for the purpose of shooting sun shots during the day and collecting data on the accuracy of the shots to be used in another project. The A-7 is basically an A-5 with a pencil scratching averager mod., in other words similar to the A-5 Noonan reportedly borrowed from the Army Air Corp. to use on the flight & in use by Pan Am in that time period. The weather was mostly clear with a wind from the SW at 15 knots or so. The conditions were just so that between the wind & thermals it would generate a ride of occasional light chop. Not a bad ride for you & me, but more than enough to make for laborious shooting with a bubble sextant. I have several sextants in my collection, a few A-10's (my personal favorite), Navy Mk 5, A-12, Kollsman Periscope, and the A-7 which I bought a few years ago when it was offered to me as finding an A-5 was impossible. While most of my experience has been shooting from a usual stable jet platform, I find it more challenging to shoot from a smaller aircraft with a piston engine powerplant, particularly a radial engine powerplant. The problem with a bubble sextant is that the bubble in the viewing chamber is extremely sensitive- if your platform (aircraft) is not in perfectly straight & level 1 G flight it will most definetly cause an error on the alignment of the bubble throwing it out of kilter if you will, introducing error in your Hs. If it's the least bit turbulent-forget it and wait for smooth air to resume your shooting. The piston engine powerplant also brings a level of vibration to the airframe that can also influence your bubble error particularly if you try to steady your hand or arm holding your instrument against any part of the airplane like the way a photographer tries to steady his camera. The point of all this is to say that I believe it to be more difficult to use a bubble sextant in an aircraft given the fact that the bubble artificial horizon is prone to errors from turbulence, vibration, and aircraft accelerations. With Chichester's marine sextant he did not have to depend on a sensitive bubble dancing around in his view-the marine sextant uses the view of the natural horizon which just sits there, although he undoubtedly had a problem trying to hold the airplane steady with the stick between his knees and shooting at the same time. As long as he shot from a low altitude (1000 ft or so) he would not have a major dip to correct for when using the marine sextant, which I believe he did. That day shooting from the Twin Beech, it was one challenge after another trying to hold the sextant still for 2 minute shots just from the occasional light chop and the R-985's rattling the airframe. It was a chore to get decent shots-I think the errors were around 20-25 miles, possibly more, I'd have to look it up again. The A-5/A-7 is also a rather clumsy instrument to use as well. It is like trying to hold an oblong bowling ball of about 5 lbs. next to your eye. The A-10 is much lighter and ergonomically condusive. While both are capable of accurate shots, the A-7 is simply easier to use and less laborious to hold steady. If our duo experienced similar ride & weather conditions that I encountered, Fred would have had great difficulty in calculating an accurate enough LOP from the sun to guide them to Howland. He was also very fatigued and I believe additional errors probably were made as such. He had planned on getting the Electra close enough to pick up the DF steer from the radio operator on the island but as we all know never got it. Just from this experience, it is my opinion that because of difficulties/errors/capabilities/limitations of using celestial navigation at that time along with fatigue, the odds of finding a 1.5 square mile rock in the pacific without DF after 20 hours of flight were slim at the very best. Ability to calculate an accurate enough sun LOP to use as a landfall would be questionable in my mind for even the best ace navigators of any period, especially if fatigued. I do not claim to be any kind of expert on this. I am only an air transport pilot who is self-taught and has practiced this off & on for 14 years in heavy jets & general aviation aircraft. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Gary LaPook Alan, Sure, taking a 2 minute average of sights provides greater accuracy than a single sight but according to Weems it only takes a few sights to average to bring the accuracy up to acceptable levels. Noonan did not have an averaging sextant so it was up to him to take several sights every time himself and figure out the average, all that was required was that Noonan use his normal procedure. Noonan obviously knew how to do this or he would have disappeared long before 1937. And there is no reason to believe that in "scattered" cloud conditions (less than 6/10th cloud coverage, meaning that most of the sky, most of the time, doesn't have any clouds in it) that there would not have been many opportunities to take an entire two minute series of shots and certainly many, many opportunities for taking a least the minimum number to obtain a usable number of sights to average. And we do know that a single sight can work or else Chichester would have drowned in the Tasman Sea, twice. I would expect a navigator in Noonan's position to give it his best shot at taking sights in these less than optimal conditions as if his life depended on it, because it did. And remember your experience was in a jet cruising at 450 knots and you probably did most of your navigation at higher latitudes where the combination of the high ground speeds and high latitudes could produce very large "wander error" and "coriolis error" which would not have presented much of a problem for Noonan at the equator at 130 knots. Another thing you should consider in comparing your navigation experience in a B-52 or KC-135 at 450 knots and 35,000 feet flying over the pole with the navigation in a slow electra at 1000 feet over the equator in that the phugoid oscillation period of your airplane was a lot longer so you required a lot longer shooting period to average out the errors caused by the accelerations caused by the phugoid. Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric You didn't accept my invitation to share with us your flying and navigational experience. I'm beginning to suspect that you have never flown a small aircraft just under the bases of a scattered cloud deck. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:09:12 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: "The Thinking Man's Method" > From Ric > > <<[2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to the > line to encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. >> > > Have you used this method or do you know of anyone who has?