Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 07:59:39 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: A Reef -Flat Landing? I have researched the weather and oceanography during the time period on question (July 2-9), based upon all meteorological and oceanographic observations, mostly from the ships at sea. Major storms are readily apparent via the bridge logs of the ships, due to the period, wave height, and direction of swells and seas. These data can be used to determine whether any large and significant storm was within 2000+ miles or so. July is a calm month for the tropics, and is so indicated in the readings. There is no major swell, nor swell heights of much signficance. This rules out anything but a small, localized squall or minor organized storm. The Colorado ran closer to Gardner/Niku than all other ships, and there is nothing in their records to indicate anything but nice, benign, tropical weather. Almost all the swell was from the east, in concert with the predominant surface winds. If the plane was on the western side of Gardner, then it would have been in the lee of the swell, minimizing any damage by wave action. If the plane was not up on its gears, but on it's belly, all bets are off. Coral growth on islands is incredibly slow, perhaps 5 cm/100 years. Most accumulation is done by migration of sand due to major storm events. *************************************************************************** From Ric On its gear, standing in one meter of calm water, the airplane shouldn't move. But, of course, even on rare flat-calm days the water on the reef at high tide moves. I would expect some tendency to weathervane with the advancing or retreating tide under even the calmest of conditions. Add just a little bit of swell and I think you'd have a situation at high tide where the airplane would lift and shift a bit with passing waves. That could be very tough on the gear and quite scary to experience if you were inside. Bottom line: Rather than taking unusually rough seas to move the airplane, I think it would take unusually calm seas to leave it undisturbed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:03:44 EDT From: Jack Underwood Subject: Re: Watch what you wear! Well, having been a lurker for a few years now, I finally have something totally useless to add. The fellow with the 5 planes theory was right that there is a Clinton, SC. I live twenty miles from it. But, he failed to get that correct, since it not a mountain town, but thirty miles from the nearest mountains. So who was supposed to have died in Clinton that was the real A.E? I don't think I have heard that one before. I reallly enjoy reading along with everyone, so thanks for all the hard work. If yall ever need any help from a public librarian in upper South Carolina, please let me know. Jack Underwood ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Jack. Irene Bolam (the "real AE" of the Joe Klaas book) died in New Jersey in 1983 so I guess Clinton, SC has a new candidate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:10:17 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Watch what you wear! I would like in on this one. I understand one of the Irene Bolam's (there were two) threatened Joe Klass with a lawsuit if he didn't stop accusing her of being Amelia Earhart. After that, Joe Klass stopped making accusations. Anyone want to comment on the foregoing? I have an old E-mail from Joe Klaas where he denied accusing Irene Bolam as being Amelia Earhart. I suspected a threatened lawsuit may have been behind this. Carol Dow *********************************************************************** From Ric Bolam and her husband sued the publisher, McGraw-Hill, who settled for an undisclosed amount rumored to be in the neighborhood of a million dolars. McGraw-Hill withdrew the book from publication. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:12:44 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Knob update I talked to my dad and without seeing it the only thing he thought of was a pendulum alarm device they used on autos in the forties. It was a bell shaped device mounted on the car and when it was the car was disturbed, the pendulum would make electrical contact with the bell which set off a siren or something else. Could it be a pendulum for a bell? Chris#2511 ******************************************************************** From Ric Auto theft has never been a big problem on Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:19:33 EDT From: Jim Kellen Subject: Knob Unfortunately I don't think the quest for the identity of the knob and what it was attached to is going to be as "simple" as looking at patent drawings if there are any. Often the drawing is of a "working model" which may have little similarity to the final product as it comes out of production. Shapes, knobs etc. may change, but the patent still applies. It may be necessary to make some reasonable assumptions (ie, not a mattress spring, but perhaps a gun sight) and then look at the products of the company that owned the patent. Of course this all gets a lot simpler as more numbers come into focus. LTM, Jim Kellen 2331 ************************************************************************* From Ric The drawings do vary. Some are quite detailed while others are little more than schematics. In any case, the knob is somewhat complex in that it features a soft lead exterior and an internal steel collar or channel which probably served as an interface with whatever shaft the knob turned. I'm hop ing that the complexity of that structure will be specified in the patent. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:20:17 EDT From: Denise Subject: Putting on the Dog Ron says: "AE was on a world tour and I am sure that she brought a change of clothes along just in case she had she had to put on the dog at some special dinner or reception." A.E. requested that she were to be given no "special dinner or reception" on her world tour precisely because she didn't bring any special clothes with her. LTM (who loved a special dinner or two) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:42:56 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: "double carrier wave"? signal come from that was right on the Earhart frequency. And if one other station, that wasn't Earhart, could be transmitting on that frequency to cause the heterodyne then why not two or three or more that weren't Earhart. And why would she be using CW when she didn't know morse? The young whippersnappers don't know that radios did not used to have digital readout of frequencies and that you couldn't just tune in any frequency you wanted. Communication radios used to have only a few crystal controlled frequencies and that was all you had. To change to another frequency required having the radio taken apart by a radio technician who would install a new crystal and adjust the various tuning coils. Earhart apparently had crystals for 600 meters and for 3105, 6210 and 7500kc although it is not clear to me if she could transmit on 7500. 3105 and 6210 are harmonically related so that certain circuits in the radio could be used to do double duty and work on both of them and the antenna could be tuned to work both. Crystals weren't available for every conceivable frequency but were ground for only standard channels. It doesn't do you any good to have a radio that transmits on a frequency if nobody else had the same crystal, there would be nobody to talk to. (Any of you pilots remember using a "Superhomer"? Even into the '60s aircraft VHF radios only had a few crystal controlled transmit channels and all airports shared just these few frequencies.) 600 meters was then (and was until about one year ago) the standard world wide calling and emergency frequency and was used by every ship and coastal station in the world. I would bet that 3105, 6210, and 7500 were standard frequencies at that time used by many, many stations world wide. So it is not much of a mystery that people heard transmissions on 3105 and 6210 after the disappearance of NR16020. Also you have to remember that the people reporting hearing these signals were using radios without digital tuning readouts. They only had a tuning dial to use and these were not very accurate. That is the reason that communications radios used crystal control to ensure that each radio was transmitting on exactly the same frequency so that they could be heard by the other stations that were listening for them. This was the essence of setting up a radio "net." What this means is that very few casual listeners could tune their receiver to either 3105 or 6210 on the tuning dial and be certain to be tuned to that frequency. Therefor many people who reported hearing Earhart on those frequencies actually were tuned to some other frequency and, obviously, hearing some other station since Earhart couldn't transmit on any other frequency except maybe 7500. Remember how difficult it was to tune in an AM broadcast station using just a tuning dial, you couldn't be certain that you had the right frequency tuned in until you heard the station identification. Then you would look at the tuning dial and it almost never indicated the correct operating frequency of the broadcast station. And this was the difficulty trying to tune in stations that broadcast continuously so that you could tune back and forth until you heard a station and then you could wait for the station ID. I really like the image of Betty with her head in the radio cabinet tuning back and forth on the tuning dial and just happening to tune onto a frequency being used by Earhart at just the precise instant that Earhart just happened to be transmitting for a couple of seconds, not very likely. Even if the transmitter was "dirty" and put out some energy on harmonics of the primary frequency even in the '30s the amount of power on the harmonics would be much, much, less than the energy put out on the primary channel which was pretty low to begin with. It would be difficult to receive the full power signal on 3105 or 6210 in the US from near Howland let alone the much weaker signal on a harmonic. Look at the difficulty Lae and Itasca had hearing AE and the distances involved were only about 1,000 miles. It is almost 4,000 miles from Howland to California and about 6,000 miles to Florida where Betty had her head in the radio cabinet. So it is very unlikely that Betty heard one of the harmonics also just by chance. Bottom line, I don't give any credence to any of the post loss messages. 73 de KA9UHH P.S Multi engine pilots use the heterodyne or beat note to synchronize their propellers. gl ************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart could not transmit on 7500. She had crystals for 500, 3105, 6210. For a better understanding of the technical aspects of the possible post-loss receptions see Bob Brandenburg's "Could Betty Have Heard Earhart On A Harmonic" at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/30_BettyHarmonic/30_Bettyharmonic.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:02:30 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: "double carrier wave"? Another point while we are talking about radios. The explanation that the reason that Itasca could no longer hear AE was due to her changing from 3105 to 6210kc and therefor the Itasca was in the "skip zone" at that time of day for that higher frequency doesn't hold water. High frequency (short wave) transmissions can be heard at great distances because of the signal bouncing off of the ionosphere (actually being refracted by it) and then returning to earth at a great distance from the transmitter. This is called "sky wave" propagation. Inherent in this type of propagation is a "skip zone" where the signal can't be heard even though the receiver is closer to the transmitter than the more distant receiver who can hear the transmission. In the skip zone the signal is passing high overhead, hundreds of miles high going to the ionosphere so it can't reach the antenna of the closer receiver. The location and extent of the skip zone is related to the frequency being used and the time of the day since the solar radiation being received during the day changes the height of the ionosphere, higher during the day and lower during the night. Usually lower frequencies (e.g. 3105 kc) provide longer range communications during the night and higher (6210) frequencies are better during the day for long range communications because the ionosphere refracts the different frequencies to different extents. But, close to the transmitter propagation is by "ground wave" and it doesn't matter which frequency is used since you are closer to the transmitter than the location of the skip zone. In fact, higher frequencies are a little bit better here since there is less attenuation of the higher frequencies by the atmosphere. The government publication, "Radio Navigational Aids" on page 4-34 has a table to use in deciding what frequency to use for communications based on the range to be achieved and on the time of day. It states: "When less than 200 NM, any frequency can be used." The accompanying table states that to achieve communication for distances between 200 and 750 NM the frequencies to use at 0400 local time at the receiving station is between 3,000 to 4,700 kc; at 0800 local, 3,000 to 6,700 kc; and at 1200 local 4,700 to 6,700 kc. At about 0800 Itasca time (closest to the loss of signal time) either 3105 or 6210 should have worked equally well even if NR16020 was more than 200 nm from Itasca and less that 750 NM away. Note, the Phoenix, Marshalls, and Gilberts are all within this range. 73 de KA9UHH l ************************************************************************* From Ric As is usually the case with your pat dismissals, the issue has already been examined far more closely with better information and greater expertise. See Bob Brandenburg's "The Radio Riddle" (Chapter IV, Section B.6 of the Eight Edition of the Earhart Project Book). Don't have an Eighth Edition? Not a TIGHAR member? If you're serious about wanting to help solve this mystery maybe you should consider joining. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:13:40 EDT From: DavyFlyer Subject: Re: A Reef -Flat Landing? I still Question that it may have been a wheels up landing, Thus have your empty wing tanks closer to water for float. Radio, they used Battery power for the 2 or 3 days?? Also that would have gotten the bottom plane to the reef so as to tear that piece of metal off that you found. If I looked over the area before landing and knew that it was a one stop ditch, and not sure of the conditions, I would go for wheels up since they are somewhat exposed like the old B17. DavyFlyer *********************************************************************** From Ric No way the batteries would last that long unrecharged. That's not me talking. That's Lockheed in 1937. The piece of metal we found was blown outward, not crushed inward. Would you land gear up if you thought there was a good chance you could land safely wheels down? I once investigated an accident where a student pilot had had an engine failure in a Cessna 150 while on the downwind leg of his landing approach. He had always heard that if you have to make a forced landing you should try to put the airplane two trees so that the wings will take the shock. So instead of just turning and landing on the runway he landed in the orchard straight ahead. He did a beautiful job and put the airplane right between two big apple trees. Sheared the wings off and rolled to a stop unharmed, very proud of himself. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:24:38 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: A Reef Flat Landing? > e.. at high-tide, the relatively shallow water on the reef flat would have > allowed a significant portion of the Electra to be above water revealing its > distinctive outline shape. (Note: since Tighar has visited Niku many times > and has targeted the most probable zone on the reef flat for a safe landing, > has someone determined the depth of water there at high tide and estimated if > the Electra would have been totally submerged, or above water. Does 60+ > years of coral growth change the depth dimensions, such that it is now > shallower? Maybe I missed it in previous expedition reports?) Historical sea level records in the area indicate the average level varies up to a foot or so every few years... I'm not sure if it is El Nino related or what. Unfortunately there is almost no data going back to 1937, for us to compare with. If I remember correctly, during the week following AE's disappearance, the moon was such that the general trend in the tides was for the high tide to get higher every day. The plane main gear is rather tall, but I understand the tail end of the fuselage is quite low, so this is critical: only a little higher high tide would start swinging the tail end of the fuselage, and then the carcass would grind itself rather very quickly. I feel it is likely there was a critical water level/wave height combination, above which destruction would snowball. The main gears are quite sturdy, but not designed for lateral efforts: Once the waves action pushes the fuselage sideways I would expect the legs to collapse, which of course leads to the fuselage becoming fully immersed, hard to see, and grinding away on the coral... Wave action and "bad weather" are not the same: a few years back I was on Palmyra, (in the same region) and we could all hear lots of pounding surf on the distant south shores When we went for a hike a little later we were amazed at the destruction on the low lying shores. With the same results that Tighar once witnessed on Niku, like veggies and sand blonwn inland a few hundred feet. The island keeper who had been there for years, had never seen anything remotely like it. All along the weather had been beautiful. Some VERY distant storm had sent several days of high swells our way. May be even only barely noticeable on a ship at sea... There is lots of likely possibilities. > It would seem, therefore, that the Electra remained more or less intact -or > if broken up, the pieces did not move shoreward - until the 1950s. Ric, could you explain that idea that stuff can get blown back up from the outside face of the reef, and back on the top flat? Do I understand correctly there is a few boulders on reef flat at Niku? Massive enough to be somewhat permanent? How big? I can't remember seeing such things anywhere else. How does the whole thing work? I understand sand, shells, coral rubble following that path, but BIG stuff? Christian D ******************************************************************* From Ric On the reef flat just to the south of the entrance to the main passage there are probably a couple dozen blocks of coral up on the flat a good 50 yards from the present reef edge. Some of them are as big as a good-sized garden shed and must weigh several tons. They are clearly blocks of coral that were broken off the reef edge and hurled up onto the flat long ago. It's hard to tell from the earliest photos but we don't see any appreciable change in their size or distributon since 1938. There are a few more blocks up near the northwest tip. I can't imagine the kind of force it would take to do that but I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't there to see it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:27:35 EDT From: RC Subject: FLOAT Mike: There have indeed been cases where a ship had to use gunfire to sink a floating fuselage acct. it was a hazard to nav. One case I recall was in the pacific & it was a Connie .. it floated for days. A destroyer fired away, but not using explosive shells, took a number of rounds to finally punch a hole below the water line. The first ditching of a four engine B-24 [that looked like a flying boat] was in a river It was more than half sunk before its forward motion ceased. It made a beautiful landing, but the bottom impact was in the area of the bomb bay doors which caved in instantly, opening up half of its bottom area. In the early '50's, a Convair 340 ran out of fuel and ditched in the English Channel less than a mile from shore. The pax waited on the wings and tail assembly for the rescue boats. The two pilots were cited for escaping from the cockpit windows and swiming to shore [to get help they said]. RC ******************************************************************* From Ric And of course there was the Provincetown-Boston Airlines Lockheed 10E that ditched just offshore Cape Cod in 1967. All the passengers and crew got out okay before the airplane sank after eight minutes. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:28:14 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Amelia Earhart Festival Carol -- Please do pass on any info you can about the Atchison festival. I could at least send a copy or two of "Shoes" to have kicking around. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:29:06 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Disappearing artefacts > I don't > think we noted any behavior like that, did we Tom? No, except that they'll walk off with just about anything that's not nailed down that might be edible. I was looking for evidence that they were attracted to shiny things, and saw none. I also haven't seen anything about it in the biological literature, which is also pretty dismissive about the business of tearing coconuts upen. Can you give us a citation to the article, Angus? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:30:18 EDT From: DAVE Subject: Re: Knob update As to why they might use lead in the knob. One of the cheaper metals, very easy to form and also, you can put a steel rod in it easily. I have seen knobs that I took off things that were a thin veneer or brass with what looked like a chalklike material inside that was hard enough to give the outer brass its shape and relative strength. In making knobs, sometimes they are made for durability, sometimes for aesthetics (glass door knobs), sometimes for economy. LTM, David Bush ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:40:00 EDT From: Craig in Kingston Subject: Knob Possibility I've got a possibility on the knob, but please take a look at and see what you think. It's not a perfect match, but it's the closest thing I've seen in the 150 patent numbers I've been through so far. It's from an October 25, 1932 patent for a 'Electric Condenser' - 1,884,229 and used again on another patent in 1978 - 4,104,595. The description of the item is as follows: "The object of my invention is to provide an electric condenser especially adapted to be used in connection with radio circuits of simple, durable and inexpensive construction having a comparitively large capacity and a comparatively small external electro-static field "...an electric condenser of the type employing a rotatively mounted knob or dial for varying the capacity of the condenser..." Craig in Kingston ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Craig. That's the best one I've seen so far but it's still "no cigar". The only real similarity is that the device has a knob. The shape of the knob is different and there is no mention of any of the distinctive features (lead compostion, steel collar). The biggest discrepancy, however, is that it's really hard to make that third figure an "8". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:41:51 EDT From: David Subject: Re: Knob update Just a passing thought here---do you know if Amelia knew how to swim at all? david *************************************************************************** From Ric No, I don't. I've seen photos of her in a bathing suit at a beach but that doesn't mean anything. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:42:58 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: coral blocks There are historical records of coral blocks being washed up and deposited on the beach in Hawaii, including one charming story of blocks being washed up just as a church was being built. Of course, after the church was finished, built almost entirely of the coral blocks, a storm came up and washed away the remaining debris. I suspect that for any atoll, you will find the reef edge relatively permanent, while the land above the water level moves around quite a bit. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:52:14 EDT From: Ric Subject: New knob update We have another digit. Jeff Glickman reports that the fourth figure is probably a "4". If it's not a "4" the next most likely candidate is a "1". That gives us four out of seven. There is a fairly high probability that the patent number on the knob is 1,894,???. That means that the patent was awarded sometime in the two week period between January 10-24, 1933. Only 999 possibilities. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:41:29 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: A Reef -Flat Landing? I mentioned once before that I personally watched a 40 foot sailboat torn to pieces in Mexico over the span of one week in very mild wave action two years ago. It wouldn't take storm conditions to tear the Electra apart in very short order. I have always believed that she landed gear up but against Mother Nature, that little Electra didn't have a chance to survive on the reef for very long. I also beleive that Betty did, in fact, hear post lost messages from AE--too many points in her recollections that could not be coincidental. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:44:42 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Knob > From Ric > ... I'm hoping that the complexity of that structure > will be specified in the patent. My bet is that the patent is not about the knob but about the mechanism to which it was attached. On this hypothesis, the knob was just a handy place to record the patent number. From glancing at the patent descriptions the other night, it seems to me that materials are rarely, if ever, described in the patent. I won't kill or die for this opinion. :o) Marty #2359 **************************************************** From Ric I would expect the materials would be mentioned only if they were an essential part of the patent. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:47:49 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Disappearing artefacts > Can you give us a citation to the article, Angus? Go to http://www.animalfact.com/article1018.html and http://www.szgdocent.org/ff/f-robcrb.htm I have to admit that the sources are not very authoritative but the author(s) do seem to know quite a bit about the crabs so there may be something in what they says re their acquisitive tendencies. Because of the use of similar words and expressions in the articles I suspect that one may plagiarise the other. Regards Angus. ********************************************* From Ric Sometimes is seems like there is almost as much mythology about Birgus latro as there is about Amelia Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:52:12 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Knob update > Auto theft has never been a big problem on Niku. Good answer. I looked at the photo of the knob and it looks like a large flat washer. Every time I hear "knob" I think of a bulbous shape, not a flat washer. Do signal bells have pendulums that look like that? Chris#2511 ****************************************************** From Ric I think you mean a clapper. Lead would not be a good metal to use in that application. We'll put a new knob report up on the website ASAP which will include a side view. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:53:36 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: FLOAT For good measure I'd like to add that there were two American International Airways Boeing 314 NC-18612 and NC-18601 (ex-Pan American "Capetown Clipper" and "Honolulu Clipper") which made emergency landings at sea following engine trouble, the first in the Atlantic on 10/14/45 and the latter in the Atlantic on 6/5/46. Being flying boats they floated very well. As engine repairs at sea were impossible, both were eventually sunk by gun fire by the USCG because they had become a hazard to shipping. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:20:16 EDT From: Marjorie Subject: Amelia in the news A friend sent this CNN connection which summarizes the theories (including TIGHAR). It includes something on Irene Bolam I hadn't heard -- that she withdrew her suit when required to give fingerprints? Title: CNN.com - Searching for Amelia - June 30, 2002 http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/30/search.earhart.ap/index.html Marjorie in Montana ******************************************************************* From Ric The story on the CNN site is an AP story put together by a not-so-sharp reporter in Hawaii. The focus on the old Irene Bolam myth is little short of bizarre. It is, I believe, true that Mrs. Bolam never consented to giving Gervais and Klaas her fingerprints but that's the first I've heard that she turned down a $2 million dollar settlement. My understanding is that the publisher, McGraw-Hill, did settle with the Bolams and took the book off the market. The AP story credits the $2 million dollar tale to Gervais. If somebody cares enough about this I suppose a call to the McGraw-Hill legal department could set the record straight. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:23:51 EDT From: Ron Subject: Re: "double carrier wave"? The girl in Florida didn't just happen to listen in on the conversation, she just happen to find it. Your right about the tuners not being very precise, but if you were just turning the knob on the tuner not looking at what was on that dial, you could still get the "skip wave" from the transmission. If the atmospherics that day were just right you could not be ten miles away from AE's transmitter and not be able to hear anything but a carrier wave. someone thousands of miles away would be getting 10s on the meter. Before modern comunications radio was a completely different animal. Ron *********************************************************** From Ric I say again, this subject has been dealt with in detail. Gary understands it better than Ron and Bob Brandenburg understands it better than Gary. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:28:58 EDT From: Mike Z. Subject: Re: Knob Possibility Ric said: "The only real similarity is that the device has a knob. The shape of the knob is different and there is no mention of any of the distinctive features (lead compostion, steel collar)." How much should we get hung up on matching the knob exactly to a patent drawing? From what little I know about getting patents, I believe you're protecting a general idea not an exact design as illustrated in the patent. A patented mechanistic or electronic device may be produced with any number of different knobs designs while the underlying device itself is protected (and thus labeled with) the same patent. The only way we'd expect an exact match between the knob and the drawing is if the knob design itself was patented (e.g., something like "Adjustment knob of cast lead with a wear-resistant steel insert"?). It seems to me that any invention that has a knob-controlled component -even if the knob itself is not shown in the drawing -is a possibility, as long as the numbers match. All I know about patents was from a little research I did in high school. Anyone more knowledgeable want to comment? T-minus 999 and counting ... --Mike Z. from Massachusetts. ********************************************************************* From Ric I agree that we may not get an accurate picture of our knob in a patent drawing. As you say, the patented device or mechanism must have a knob and the patent number will have to match the one on the artifact within a reasonable margin of interpretation. I think we'll know it when we see it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:54:03 EDT From: Craig Subject: Re: New knob update I did some more searching today, and didn't come up with much of anything. Some cool things like Aircraft Gyroscope, several Airplane Propellor's, a Slide Rule, a Sextant Adjustment Knob (just kidding), and several other things, but nothing that is in any way obvious to me. I'm also starting to wonder about the 5th digit is a 2 (assuming 1,894 is correct). I searched for everything as follows with a 2, but got nothing: 1,894,2xx 1,891,2xx Also seached were: 1,894,0xx 1,894,[3,6,8,9][2,3,8,9][0,3,8,9] I'll keep trying, Craig in Kingston ************************************************************* From Ric We have an analysis of the fifth digit from Jeff Glickman. This is a tough one but Jeff feels that it is probably a "3". The most likely first alternate is a two "2". The most likely second alternate is an eight "8". That gives us 1,894,3?? and narrows the field to 99 possibilites (if we're right so far). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:56:25 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Watch what you wear!/Bolam I think if you'll check more closely, you'll find that McGraw-Hill never paid a cent to Irene Bolam. Try Joe Gervais for the straight story. Cam Warren ********************************************************************** From Ric If I want the straight story Joe Gervais is about the last person on earth I'd go to. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:02:00 EDT From: DavyFlyer Subject: Re: A Reef -Flat Landing? Thanks on Question, good point on landing. Yes, After flying with Navy P5Ms over islands and seeing how hard it is to judge the depth of water over some possible rocky flat at a fly by speed, I would still go for wheels up to cut chances of ground loop, I would take the chance of a belly slide on water. Coarse EA Wasn't flying flying boats. Ha Thanks and keep up the good work. DavyFlyer ************************************************************** From Ric She also wasn't flying a government-owned airplane. Military pilots will seldom try to preserve the airplane if it appears safer to "spend" the airplane to save their butt. Civilian pilots who own their own uninsured airplanes will take incredibly stupid chances to save the airplane. I've seen it a hundred times. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:09:21 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: A Reef-Flat Landing? Ok then...since nobody really knows what happened, there are alot of possibilities. How about this scenario (the Tighar theory with a twist.....but still big-time speculation): The Electra never landed on the reef flat at all. Approaching Gardner Island, and seeing the reef flat come into view, AE aimed the Electra for the most probable landing area. Unfortunately, the engines gasped their last fuel and the Electra was suddenly dead-stick. AE couldn't quite stretch the glide long enough to make it onto the reef flat, and crashed a wee-bit short into the waves and surf at the reef edge. The Electra remained floating long enough for AE & FN to make their exit and swim the short distance to shallow water. Pros: a.. explains why 7 days later, Lt. Lambrecht didn't see anything during his fly-over (ie. Electra was obscured in the wave action at reef edge) b.. explains why 15 years later, airplane wreckage was present to be observed by native islanders c.. explains why Gallegher found bones of castaways, turtle/bird remains, sextant box, etc. d.. explains why Tighar has found their numerous artifacts e.. anything else I haven't thought of Cons: a.. does not support theory for post-loss radio distress transmissions (ie. radio was under water) b.. anything else I haven't thought of TR #2427 *********************************************************************** From Ric I think you accurately assessed the pros and cons. The biggest problem I have with the hypothesis is that it requires a specific event (fuel starvation) at a specific point in time and space (close enough to be near but not close enough to reach the island). It's a little bit like Elgen Long's theory about the engines quitting immediately after the 08:43 message. It could have happened but it's a huge requirement to put on a theory. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:12:14 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: "double carrier wave"? > For a better understanding of the technical aspects of the possible post-loss > receptions see Bob Brandenburg's "Could Betty Have Heard Earhart On A > Harmonic" at >http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/30_BettyHarmonic/30_Bettyharmonic.html That's a great analysis, thanks Ric. ********************************************************* From Ric You are most welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:38:13 EDT From: PBS Subject: Re: AE in the news CNN reports: "Joe Gervais' research convinced him Earhart survived, was repatriated and returned secretly to the United States where she lived in New Jersey..." To some of us, "Living in New Jersey" sounds like an oxymoron... PBS *************************************************************** From Peppy Was there ever a picture of Irene Bolam to compare with of Amelia from the TIGHAR reports???? peppy3000 **************************************************************** From Ric No. We actually think Nancy Reagan is a better possibility. Think about it. ***************************************************************** From Carol Dow I think it warrants a phone call to McGraw Hill, but the question is what would they be willing to say? Joe Klaas is telling me they are still selling his book. It's a mess. Carol Dow ************************************************************* From Ric I'll look into the Irene Bolam controversy as soon as we've finished investigating the alien abduction hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:40:24 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: New knob update Will the photo of the patent number that is being studied ever be put up on our website? I think it would be very interesting to see what Jeff Glickman is actually looking at so we could form our own opinions. (and God knows the forumites will) LTM Mike Haddock #2438 **************************************************** From Ric Yes, we'll put the analytical photos up on the website for everyone to second guess. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:42:01 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Knob Source I may have missed it while on vacation, but with all of the effort to identify the knob, has anyone speculated the source of the knob; for instance, some item that AE or FN would take from the Electra? Was there any device,etc., that this knob could be consistant with? Or is the knob independent of the equipment aboard the aircraft and not related to an Earhart artifact? Ron ********************************************************************** From Ric Hell, I dunno. It was found at the Seven Site. It has an American patent number on it. The patent was awarded after the Norwich City went aground so it didn't come from the shipwreck. It's distinctively unlike anything else we've found at the site. It has been noted that aeronautical navigation instruments have adjustment knobs not unlike this in general size and feel but there could be lots of other exlpanations. That's all we know at present. Once we have the patent pinned down we'll know what we have and then we'll see if we can figure out how it got there. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:49:00 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: A Reef -Flat Landing? Dave Flyer brought up a really good point. Was Earhart's airplane insured? Can we find out? Carol Dow *********************************************************** From Ric There may have been some third party liability coverage required for some portion of the flight but I've never heard of it if there was. As for physical damage (known as "hull") insurance (like "collison" coverage on a car) I'm quite certain there was none. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:56:38 EDT From: Craig Subject: Re: 1,894,3xx Not looking good for 1,894,3xx, unless it's from a Pressure Gauge - 1,894,366, but I'm doubtful. Craig in Kingston 1,894,3xx ---------------------------------------- 1,894,300 pocket lighter 1,894,301 nitrate processing 1,894,302 lamp shade 1,894,303 slide buckle 1,894,304 slide buckle (duplicate?) 1,894,305 cotton harvester 1,894,306 rake 1,894,307 rope measuring device 1,894,308 speedometer 1,894,309 joint 1,894,310 window shelp 1,894,311 load carrying vechicle 1,894,312 power mover 1,894,313 bobbin winding machine (sewing) 1,894,314 valve 1,894,315 mail pouch catcher 1,894,316 loom mechanism 1,894,317 tape serving machine (desk) 1,894,318 variable speed transmission 1,894,319 knitting method 1,894,320 utility trailer 1,894,321 brake band method 1,894,322 distorting elimination means 1,894,323 oil purfying method 1,894,324 mold forming device 1,894,325 fire extinguisher (huge) 1,894,326 unloading aparatus 1,894,327 fixed clamps 1,894,328 resistance tester 1,894,329 cable cutter 1,894,330 chemical manufacture 1,894,331 chemical processing 1,894,332 sanitary milk pail 1,894,333 toy projectile/parachute 1,894,334 blackboard desk 1,894,335 phantom telephone circuit 1,894,336 loom 1,894,337 hat box 1,894,338 high-voltage line connection 1,894,339 electric switch (large) 1,894,340 insulator pin (electrical) 1,894,341 conduit protector 1,894,342 barber pole 1,894,343 vacuum cleaner 1,894,344 floatation seperation 1,894,345 tea bag making method 1,894,346 tea bag making method 2 1,894,347 tire retread device 1,894,348 heating device 1,894,349 vaporizer 1,894,350 typewriter 1,894,351 stress equilazer 1,894,352 chemical processing 1,894,353 rotary engine 1,894,354 carburator 1,894,355 oil treating method 1,894,356 vehicle body construction 1,894,357 wind electric plant 1,894,358 drill and hole cleaner 1,894,359 refrigeration device 1,894,360 vapor regulator 1,894,361 suction cleaner/agitator 1,894,362 combination bed/furnace 1,894,363 car coupler/controller 1,894,364 hand fertilizer distributer 1,894,365 chemical compound 1,894,366 pressure gauge (w/knob) 1,894,367 automatic control device 1,894,368 ceramic mold method 1,894,369 viscometer 1,894,370 wheel alignment gauge 1,894,371 acidproof tank 1,894,372 pressure indicator valve 1,894,373 sound recording system 1,894,374 varnish 1,894,375 product manufacture 1,894,376 loud speaker/horn 1,894,377 food preparation 1,894,378 outboard motor starter 1,894,379 tape serving device 1,894,380 panel unit sign 1,894,381 valve tag 1,894,382 cam grinding machine 1,894,383 auto body construction 1,894,384 taxi flag 1,894,385 spring damping car truck 1,894,386 spring damping truck 1,894,387 child's toilet seat 1,894,388 pipe joiner 1,894,389 rope end finisher 1,894,390 oil well joints 1,894,391 desuperheater 1,894,392 concrete floor gauge 1,894,393 turbine pump 1,894,394 shingle machine 1,894,395 edging device 1,894,396 cutter package 1,894,397 variable speed transmission 1,894,398 rock drill 1,894,399 sewing machine ****************************************************** From Ric Lord 'o Mercy, you've been busy. Looks like one or more of the alternates is correct. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:55:49 EDT From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Floats Just curious from an historical perspective; did Ms Earhart ever consider a float plane for all or part of the last flight? Regards, S. Wesley Smith ******************************************************************* From Ric According to May Lovell's book (The Sound of Wings), Earhart and Putnam at first considered the new Lockheed 12 (a smaller version of the 10 that came out in 1936) with the addition of floats. Of course, a float plane would present some of the same problems as a land plane in reverse over the vast expanse of Africa. Amphibious floats (with retractable wheels) would be way too heavy. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 12:24:18 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Knob Possibility Once we can identify the appropriate patent number, then the manufacturer (s) should be easily found, and then an historical investigation as to what equipment carried the patented item should give us a better listing of what those pieces of equipment may be. ****************************************************************** From Ric I hope it will be that easy, but I suspect that it will be more of a chicken-or-the-egg process. We're not going to get a rock solid read on what the number is. We'll get a number of possibilities. We'll then need to investigate the most promising candidates. To get a confirmed identification we'll eventually have to have a drawing, photo or actual object of known identity that has a knob exactly like Artifact 2-6-S-45. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:13:18 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: 1,894,3xx Just a thought for some of the gun and rifle experts out there. I remember seeing little adjusting knobs on the rear sight of older type rifles. I can't recall at the moment, and I'm too lazy to look itup, but did you find any spent shells at the 7-site? **************************************** From Ric Yes. As we've said, we recovered 20 shell casings from M1 carbine ammunition and three .22 caliber shell casings. The Coasties had M1 carbines , Springfield rifles, and .45 automatics. ****************************************** From Kerry Tiller > From Craig > > 1,894,309 joint Somebody patented a Joint? Must be the rolling technique. LTM (who never inhaled) Kerry Tiller (sorry, Ric) ******************************************************* From Angus Murray What do we know about the knob? It appears to have an early thirties American patent number on it, from its construction it is more likely an adjustment rather than securing knob, it was found in close proximity to two artefacts which were probably homemade securing clips of American origin and it, like them, is damaged. A USCG origin would certainly fit. The time frame of manufacture is just about feasible bearing in mind the long lead time of military equipment, the mode of use is appropriate to equipment from the Loran station or telescopic rifle sights, the country of origin is appropriate and other, probably deliberately damaged items (from target practice), have been found at the site of certain USCG origin. The single thing that ties most of the small artefacts, which were found at the seven site, together, is target practice. The items were mostly things which would break well; vacuum tubes, plates, glassware, radio parts, a bulb. In conjunction we have shell casings. Another possibility is that it is Earhart related. We think a sextant box was found at this site, AE & FN were of American nationality, and it is quite possible that even something as exotic and expensive as a sextant could have been sacrificed to expediency when circumstances became desperate. The "securing clips" would tie in with a boxed instrument of some sort. Against this, no other Earhart related items have been found recently at the site as far as is known, the knob is of a construction less likely to have been used on a sextant, there were few, if any, American sextants (which might bear American patent numbers) available in the early thirties of a quality which FN would have been likely to use and the clips were certainly amateur made. I think if one had to bet, the USCG would be the most likely source, assuming the knob did not originate with the Bushnell survey or perhaps the water distillation unit which appears to have been used near the site. Gallagher's party, Bevington and Gilbertese seem less likely and NC not possible assuming the numbers we have are correct. I note that one possible patent number is for a pressure cooker. A weighted (lead) knob is just the sort of thing one might use to control the needle valve on such a device. The patent drawing seems to show a spring loaded valve however. 1894308 shows a couple of knobs (speedo) and 1891308 shows a knob on a pinking machine. Not much chance of these being the knob in question though. Regards Angus *********************************************** From Bill Leary > I agree that we may not get an accurate picture > of our knob in a patent drawing. As you say, the > patented device or mechanism must have a knob Maybe not. I helped with the submission of several patents and, unless the patent is for the knob itself, there's no need for it to appear in the drawings. All that has to be there is some kind of indication of an adjustment. It might illustrate a screw-and-nut type of adjustment, and they changed their mind about that before manufacture. Or if the patent focus is elsewhere might not even be that specific. If the patent for the primary gadget, and this knob were on, say, the leveling platform under it there might be nothing in the patent but an indication that the gadget has to be leveled before use. > and the patent number will have to match the one on > the artifact within a reasonable margin of interpretation. > I think we'll know it when we see it. I hope so, but I'd encourage being flexible in what you see. If we're explicitly looking for a knob that looks like this one, we may miss it. - Bill #2229 ******************************************************* From Ric Agreed. I'd suggest that we need to initially consider anything that meets three basic criteria: 1. The patent number must be within the possibilities of the numbers as interpreted by Photek. 2. The patent must have some reasonable provision for a knob of some sort. 3. The patented object must be something that might reasonably be at the site given the various known and theorized activities that occurred there. That covers a lot of ground but it does exclude things like a sanitary milk pail, a toy projectile/parachute, and a blackboard desk. ****************************************************** From Michel A couple folks have touched on this before, but this patent no. may not have much to do with "The Knob"; here's a story by way of illustration - I license veterinary vaccines for a living. (Look, someone has to do it.) One of my companies submits a bunch of label revisions, with a common feature being addition of 2 patent numbers prominently displayed on the front of the label. The logical assumption is it's a patented product, right? And hey, sure looks impressive that way, that company must have some patented technology making theirs the best product out there. But wait a minute, I licensed this stuff, I know what's in the bottle, and I know it's nothing unique or different, so I look up those patent numbers and guess what... one's for the fancy 'tear off' style label, the other's for the glue that holds it to the vial. Not much to do with vaccine products there Possible moral(s) for the subject at hand: don't dismiss a patent description because it doesn't describe The Knob, it may be for something else entirely, or for the method used to produce The Knob, the materials it's made of, the way it was used or attached to whatever, who knows. Certainly The Knob is involved in some way, but maybe in some minor, quirky fashion that's not at all obvious. What if the patent was for a method of mass-producing knob-like fasteners for vacuum cleaners that was licensed to someone else who made adjustment controls for ... um... aircraft radios using the process. Sure will be fun to figure out no matter what it is though... Michel ****************************************************** From Craig Hi Ric: Not looking good for 1,894,8xx either. The only thing of possible interest in this one was Mathematical Instrument - 1,894,886. It has knobs per se, but not like ours. Craig in Kingston ****************************************************** From Ric Well...given the cautions mentioned above...it does have a "knurled binding nut" but I think we'd be pushing it to say that something like this might be carried by a field survey crew on a tropical island, or even by a navigator on a world flight. ********************************************** From Craig Hi Ric: For those keeping score at home (or those wanting to help out) - as per Jeff's results, we have now searched: 1,891,2xx 1,894,2xx 1,894,3xx 1,894,8xx I'm starting 1,891,3xx right now. By the way, how sure was Jeff on the 9 at #3? I think I missed that email. Craig ********************************* From Ric That's Symbol #14 in the grand scheme. Here's what Jeff said: <> *************************************** From Alan Come on guys. Don't get carried away by what each patent says it is for. Many parts of devices were originally designed for some other use. If you decide to build some piece of equipment first you will use existing parts where ever you can. No one is going to invent all new knobs if they can use existing ones. Alan #2329 ******************************************************************** From Ric You're suggesting that Amalgamated Widget, Inc. obtains a patent for an adjustable widget and stamps the patent number into the knobs used on the adjustment shaft. Later they decide to produce a doohickey (as distinct from a widget) which also happens to require a knob. Having a bunch of knobs lying arond that were made for the adjustable widget (never a big seller) they decide to use the knobs on the totally unrelated doohickey? Can you cite an example of such a thing happening? ************************************************** From Alan Don't over look the possibility this "knob" may have been a temporary substitute for a broken or otherwise missing knob on some device. That means we now need to consider it might have been not just on something it was meant for but also on something it conceiveably might fit on as a temporary replacement. An example might be that a knob on some device Noonan had or maybe an aircraft radio broke at some point on the trip and a substitute part was scrounged as a replacement. So the additional question should be "On what device connected with the flight could this artifact fit?" Alan, "accidentally" muddying up the waters. #2329 ************************************************************* From Ric Yes, it's theoretically possible that Noonan lost the adjustment knob from his bubble octant and replaced with a knob from a pressure cooker that happened to fit. I'll let you argue that one with Joe Klaas. ************************************************************ From Mike in Gulf shores Hi Ric, I was looking at this page on cigarette lighters after a search on Google for patent numbers in our range when I got the latest Forum letter showing a 3 as the latest number. I know a lighter striker wheel made of lead will not spark a flint but it looks like the artifact. The knurled edges and the steel insert fit but it would have to have been sheathed in steel to spark. My computer has some problems and will not display the patent info on the USPTO site. Anyway it's a thought. http://www.vintagevault.com/aussiepete3.html "#0021 ~ BEATTIE JET (AUSTRALIAN MODEL) A Melbourne company in the 1950's decided to make the popular American Beattie Jet in Australia, under licence. Printed on the base is: BEATTIE JET LIGHTER made in Aust. by ABC Rep.Eng. Co. Pty. Ltd. Melb. #0021 ~ BEATTIE JET (AUSTRALIAN MODEL) A Melbourne company in the 1950's decided to make the popular American Beattie Jet in Australia, under licence. Printed on the base is: BEATTIE JET LIGHTER made in Aust. by ABC Rep.Eng. Co. Pty. Ltd. Melb. U.S. Pat. 1 894 300 Other Pat. PendOther Pat. Pend" Mike in Gulf Shores ****************************************************** From Ric I took a look at it. No way. *************************************************** From Craig 1,891,3xx is done. Several have knobs (annotated below), but nothing jumps out. The most notable being a Gun Sight - 1,891,395. Of Jeff's predictions, the only thing left to check is 1,891,8xx. Craig 1,891,3xx ---------------------------------------- 1,891,300 elevator 1,891,301 truck body 1,891,302 rotary pump 1,891,303 barbers comb 1,891,304 tubular metal alloy manufacture 1,891,305 refrigeration aparatus 1,891,306 worm water motor 1,891,307 feeding device 1,891,308 seaming machine 1,891,309 skimming aircraft landing sail 1,891,310 necktie holder 1,891,311 furnace feeding device 1,891,312 hydraulic dump truck hoist 1,891,313 liquid tap device 1,891,314 welding flame device (w/knob) 1,891,315 dispensing device 1,891,316 hatch frame production method 1,891,317 condensation process 1,891,318 loom shuttle 1,891,319 stoker control 1,891,320 head for lens surfacing machine 1,891,321 internal combustion engine 1,891,322 internal combustion engine 1,891,323 celophane printing method 1,891,324 pocket toothbrush 1,891,325 sprayer device (w/knob) 1,891,326 internal combustion motor 1,891,327 air conditioner 1,891,328 oil well drilling aparatus 1,891,329 oil well drilling brake 1,891,330 oil well drilling signal 1,891,331 rod cleaner/polisher 1,891,332 rontgen diagram 1,891,333 acetone production 1,891,334 hat shipping box 1,891,335 auto lube annunciator 1,891,336 wheel 1,891,337 cellulose production 1,891,338 pipe bending machine 1,891,339 washing machine 1,891,340 shock absorbers 1,891,341 electric light attachment set 1,891,342 folding crate 1,891,343 stranding 1,891,344 hat press 1,891,345 electrical condenser 1,891,346 long span building arch construction 1,891,347 excercising aparatus 1,891,348 microscope (w/many knobs) 1,891,349 rail train telephone connector 1,891,350 elevator control 1,891,351 excavator dipper switch 1,891,352 shovel type excavator 1,891,353 ad folder 1,891,354 airplane 1,891,355 fullverizing mill rollers 1,891,356 milling machine 1,891,357 refrigeration 1,891,358 lock nut 1,891,359 door operating mechanism 1,891,360 window cleaning device 1,891,361 perfume dispenser (w/knob-like parts) 1,891,362 duplex telephone aparatus 1,891,363 egg yolk tanning 1,891,364 valve seat gauge 1,891,365 valve seat gauge 1 1,891,366 platen roller (typewriter) 1,891,367 paper box making machine 1,891,368 slicing machine (w/knob) 1,891,369 carrier for electromagnetic pickup 1,891,370 glassware manufacture 1,891,371 glassware manufacture aparatus 1,891,372 sheetglass production 1,891,373 glass forming method 1,891,374 valve 1,891,375 card index 1,891,376 sheet shifter - index binder 1,891,377 index - for binder 1,891,378 index tray 1,891,379 slide support - index tray 1,891,380 portable index 1,891,381 index cabinet 1,891,382 index cabinet 1,891,383 liquid cofee extract 1,891,384 aircraft propeller 1,891,385 gull wing airplane 1,891,386 sound reproduction aparatus 1,891,387 film phonograph 1,891,388 recording of sound 1,891,389 reproduction of sound 1,891,390 car ventalation system 1,891,391 creasing press 1,891,392 engine pump 1,891,393 collapsable tea wagon 1,891,394 pull-out compartment 1,891,395 gun sight 1,891,396 filter press 1,891,397 fire control of anti-aircraft guns 1,891,398 film printer 1,891,399 motor vehicle suspension system **************************************************************** From Ric That gun sight is for an artillery piece. This is very interesting. At the very least we're seeing that it is not the case that there are numerous possibilities. Like zilch so far. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:19:27 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: AE in the news "CNN reports: "Joe Gervais' research convinced him Earhart survived, was repatriated and returned secretly to the United States where she lived in New Jersey..." Just for the record, I'll put in what I know about this Irene Bolam thing. I researched it somewhat some time back. This is what I was told. I didn't find this out myself, so if some of it is not quite right I apologize. However, I did read the book! The book by Joe Klaas and Joe Gervais was pulled from the shelves shortly after publication. Irene Bolam did sued them. To my knowledge there was no settlement, the book was not available for sale anywhere until just recently. I think it was not to be reprinted until some time after Irene's death. I think it was reprinted last year and offered for sale. It was interesting reading 30 years ago, but the book is now very outdated. It's so absurd that it's a joke. Just think about it for a minute. Amelia gave up her identity, her husband and all her friends to become Irene Bolam. She was so good at it that her mother and sister did not recognize her. Not even the press recognized her. But Joe Gervais did, and Joe Klaas wrote the story. The funny thing is that everybody else and his brother knew about it. The list is endless of those who kept the secret. The gardner, the maid, the president of some airlines, the head of some mental hospital, Jackie Cochran, some Cardinal, some guy at Weihsien Internment camp who got her out . . .and on and on and on. It's just my opinion, but I think this Irene Bolam stuff is about as far off the deep end as one can get. And the author of that book should be ashamed to re introduce it. Don Jordan Merced, CA ************************************************ From Alan Caldwell Ric, there WERE published pictures (maybe just one) of Mrs. Bolam. I saw no resemblance in her facial structure to that of AE. Although I didn't bring up the subject with AE's sister, Muriel did while verbally castrating the infamous author. She said it was a disgusting allegation and expressed sympathy for Mrs. Bolam. Muriel did not say so but I got the impression she did not know Irene Bolam. Muriel's home was almost a museum of AE memorabilia. I had no doubt Muriel believed Amelia crashed and died at sea. Alan #2329 ******************************************** From Ric There were lots of published pictures and TV spots featuring the beleaguered Mrs. Bolam. As I recall there was a minor problem involving eye color. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:22:41 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: AE in the news >I think it warrants a phone call to McGraw Hill, but the question is what >would they be willing to say? Joe Klaas is telling me they are still selling >his book. It's a mess. >Carol Dow >************************************************************* >From Ric > >I'll look into the Irene Bolam controversy as soon as we've finished >investigating the alien abduction hypothesis. Carol, A couple of cents worth: CNN has gotten stories wrong in the past; numerous times, actually. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the facts on that website are a little hokie. But I'm curious, was the civil suit brought by Bolam against McGraw-Hill or the author? In any case, an objective resolution of this "fingerprint-suit withdrawal" relationship can only be objectively resolved by finding the court records themselves; and then only if those records show that the offer for surrendering fingerprints was made and that the suit was dropped immediately afterward (by checking the dating). I wouldn't trust the author or McGraw-Hills' legal department for an objective take on the timing of motions and events. Wink: I think a court records check will quickly show this claim is false. Alik ************************************************************ From Ric Investigating this thing is a bit like investigating the Love to Mother thing. You only need to do it if you can't recognize how ridiculous it is on the face of it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:23:54 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: FLOAT If I remember correctly a B-707 ditched in the sea near the Virgin Islands in about 1970. It had air in the fuel lines : ) It is the only comercial jet airliner to make an intentional controlled ditching, this excludes the B-767 that was crashed into the Indian Ocean by terrorists about ten years ago. It floated long enough so that all of the passengers could be safely evacuated and no one was lost in the incident. Does anbody have any more details about this one? gl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:29:17 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Amelia Earhart Festival-Atchison I talked with Kristy Falk in Atchison for a list of the speakers for the A.E. Festival. This is for Breakfast with Books, Sat. July 20, 8-11:00 AM at the Public Library. Confirmed Speakers: Pat Ward, Todd Swindell, Bill Cipris, Art Parchen, Gene Tousseau, and Mary Nickerson. Unconfirmed Speakers: Elgen Long They will know more in a few more days about Elgen Long. LTM Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:21:31 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: FLOAT Gary I believe the intentional landing of the 707 was enroute to Hawaii and I think it was before 1970. You might also check out www.planecrashinfo.com. LTM Mike Haddock, #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:29:41 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Interchangeability Ric said: "You're suggesting that Amalgamated Widget, Inc. obtains a patent for an adjustable widget and stamps the patent number into the knobs used on the adjustment shaft. Later they decide to produce a doohickey (as distinct from a widget) which also happens to require a knob. Having a bunch of knobs lying arond that were made for the adjustable widget (never a big seller) they decide to use the knobs on the totally unrelated doohickey? Can you cite an example of such a thing happening?" Well, we could start with the American automobile industry, specifically Ford Motor Company. In restoring my 1967 Ford Fairlane I am using numerous parts that were made for the Galaxie, Falcon or Mustang lines, in addition to parts specifically designed for the Fairlane. Interchangeability was a real cost cutter in those days so mixing and matching was perfectly acceptable. For example, an engine block may have a casting number C5AE-6015E. That number tells me the block was DESIGNED a 1965 (C5) Galaxie (A) Engine (E) block (6015), 5th engineering level (E), but this block was used extensively in all Ford products in 1965, 1966 and 1967. So, just because I find an engine block with that casting number doesn't mean I've found an engine from a 1965 Ford Galaxie; it could just as well be from a 1966 Mustang or a 1967 Fairlane. I don't know if other manufacturers worked that way, but I suspect many of them would. LTM, who has a hot rod heart Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************************************************** From Ric Ah, but I think we're talking about something rather different in the case of a patent number. The number on the engine block correctly identified the block although not necessarily its specific application. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:31:21 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: AE in the news Ric wrote: >There were lots of published pictures and TV spots featuring the beleaguered >Mrs. Bolam. As I recall there was a minor problem involving eye color. There is a picture of Irene in the infamous book, at least in the earlier book. I haven't seen the newer version. But don't run out a buy the book just to see the picture. It's a waste of money. Also, I hadn't heard about the eye color problem. But even if it were true, that won't stop the True Believers. They still believe that a man named Bilamon Amaron saw Amelia and Fred onboard a Japanese ship in July of 1937. The man saw something, and seemed to have a very good memory about it. He described the duo to a tee. He said the woman was wearing a skirt and the man had a mustache. Anybody out there ever see Fred Noonan wearing a mustache? Or Amelia flying in a skirt? I know, I know . . .just a minor detail! Don Jordan Merced, CA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:32:32 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Klee Passage Does anyone have any confirmation that Klee Passage exists and if so is it between Knox island and Mili atoll? A quick web search did not find it so it is difficult to believe Nina Paxton was able to find it in her school atlas or whatever in order to perpetrate a hoax. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:35:01 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Klee Passage I answered my own question with a further search. See http://marshall.csu.edu.au/html/histmaps/Langhans1897_map_Mile1.html which shows Klee Str. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:31:53 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Float Gary LaPook wrote:- >If I remember correctly a B-707 ditched in the sea near the Virgin Islands in >about 1970. It had air in the fuel lines : ) It is the only comercial jet >airliner to make an intentional controlled ditching..." Off topic & wrong, a Dutch Antillies DC-9 made a controlled ditching off the Virgin Islands in 1970 after (virtually)running out of fuel. Sank quickly & 23 died. Now back on topic......... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:34:36 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Amelia Earhart Festival-Atchison Carol, Hollywood producer Todd Swindell is THE living expert on the metamorphosis of Amelia Earhart into Irene Bolam. I suggest you contact him via the AES channel. He made a presentation at AES Oakland Conference. REB ********************************************************* From Ric Ever notice how many of these characters have Dickensian names? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:36:04 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Klee Passage Contact Woody Rogers via the Tighar channel. He is a living expert on Klee passage just off Mili. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:37:51 EDT From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Float Gosh, I somehow knew this would happen. Thanks for answering my question about Ms Earhart. Regards, S. Wesley Smith ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:38:00 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Klee Passage According to Sailing Directions for the Pacific Islands (4th Ed. 1992); "Knox Atoll lies about 2 1/4 miles SSE of the SE extremity of Mili Atoll, being separated by Klee Pass, in which there are reported to be depths of from 16 to 30 ft." Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:40:01 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: FLOAT I used several search engines. There seems to be no trace of a 707 having been ditched in the Pacific. There has been a DC-8 which landed 2.5 nautical miles short of San Francisco airport runway 28L in San Francisco Bay on a flight from Tokyo on 11/22/68. All 107 on board were safe. I think the story Gary refers to is the "textbook ditching" of a Pan Am Boeing 377 Stratocruiser on 16 October 1956 in the Pacific en route from Honolulu to San Francisco. The aircraft was named "Sovereign of the Skies". While cruising at FL 210 it suffered a runaway propeller on #1 engine, followed by loss of power on # 4 engine. This caused considerable drag, reducing the aircraft's speed. Eventually #4 engine backfired and failed. The crew calculated it was impossible to reach land on the fuel remaining and captain Ogg decided there best chance was to divert to the weather ship "November" and ditch alongside. In fact "November" was the US Coast Guard cutter "Pontchartrain" on station in the Pacific. The emergency landing was executed according to the book and is still cited as an example of how to ditch an aircraft at sea. The Boeing 377 broke in two but both halves remained afloat for about 20 minutes, allowing all 24 passengers and seven crew to evacuate the aircraft via the emergency exits and climb into the rafts that were successfully deployed. All were saved by the "Pontchartrain" life boats which had been lowered and were on stand by. You'll find all the details on www.aviationsafetynetwork.com. The story is also described by Valerie Lester in "Fasten your Seat Belts !" (Paladwr Press - 1995). The book contains good pictures taken from the "Pontchartrain" of the ditching phases and the rescue of the passengers and crew. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:41:57 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: AE in the news You're right about one thing . . . . the Bolam story fits right in with flying saucers, Elvis lives and other extreme stretches of human imagination. After first reading Joe Klaas' book - based on the research, but not necessarily the opinions of Joe Gervais - I was rather appalled at his seeming invasion of the woman's privacy. BUT, bear in mind, if you've ever read Bullfinch's Mythology, fanciful tales invariably have some grain of truth. (Sometimes a lot, too). Bolam certainly was a mystery woman, and despite having a long list of influential friends, her stories never quite checked out. Nobody ever got her fingerprints, she died a "pauper" (despite a life of high living) and was conveniently cremated, leaving no DNA samples. She did bear a certain resemblance to AE, and Tod Swindell has much forensic data to support it. The "99s" claim her as a member, but I've been told no records have ever turned up, and she (apparently) never even had a pilot's license until about the time AE was lost. Her husband (Guy - one of several) was with British intelligence. Etc. Etc. At this point in time, it looks as though she may have been a "grifter" (i.e., a highly talented con-woman) who could impress unsuspecting people with her alleged talents, cultivated the wealthy, and managed to successfully pull the wool over a lot of people's eyes. A fascinating story, and I wish I had the time to fully research it. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:43:18 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 1,894,3xx > From Lawrence > Just a thought for some of the gun and rifle experts out there. I remember > seeing little adjusting knobs on the rear sight of older type rifles. I > can't recall at the moment, and I'm too lazy to look itup, but did you find > any spent shells at the 7-site? I'm not a gun or rifle expert, but I was involved with M1 carbines for many years. Due to changes in our gun laws I haven't owned one for some years now, but I know there were at least two distinct types of knobs on the rear sight windage adjusters. One was cylindrical and knurled over its entire "cylinder" surface. The other was about the same size, but machined so it was stepped, with grooves machined into the outer surface. This one would be the closest in appearance to the knob. On the other hand, I think the knob was probably made of the same steel as the rest of the sight. I can't imagine it being a lead knob, especially as lead would be rather soft and easily damaged under wartime conditions. The M1 was a very popular "varmint" rifle in the USA, and I'm sure some of the forum either have one in the family or know someone who does. If there is a patent number on the knob it will be obvious. The Springfield Armoury in the USA would probably have details if anyone wants to ask them as they were a good source of spare parts. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:44:39 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Interchangeability > Ah, but I think we're talking about something rather different in the case of > a patent number. The number on the engine block correctly identified the > block although not necessarily it's specific application. Not only that but I was implying the use would have been on something entirely different rather than a similar use - only to expand the possibilities. I checked for an answer to Ric's challenge to give an example and found that in my house - other than door knobs - there are no knobs at all. But I'll not rest till I find some screwy example. Well, at least not until this evening. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:49:27 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: AE in the news For Alik: CNN here in Kansas City had an Irene Bolam on the TV in an interview recently, and she was mad as "H" at being called Amelia Earhart. In fact she was roaring mad. She stated the whole thing was absurd. Also, I have an E-mail from one of the Irene Bolam's (which I sent to Ric), and this particular Irene Bolam was flabbergasted at what was going on. However, if you knew Joe Klaas, you would have some of the answers. He is very aggressive. I didn't know about the fingerprints. The last A.E. Festival in Atchison, KS, had a man there with forensic evidence (the width of the eyes of the two women and all kinds of detective work) that no one wanted to accept, and the guy couldn't get his book published, and no one in the film industry wanted to touch ( he was in film production in NYC). It's a subject matter that everyone (except Joe Klass) wants to stamp out because the whole concept is so ridiculous. Here's some of the parts of the E-mail I got from one of the Irene Bolam's. I would have to have Ric's permission and Irene Bolam's permission to reprint the whole letter: "After that meeting at Morgan Hill, John and I were so filled with info that we couldn't digest it all! To be told that John's brother, Guy, was a British M16 member, and then to introduce us to Guy's illegitimate son (who looked exactly like Guy) was almost too much to comprehend at one time. Sincerely, Irene Bolam " Well, we have our moments on the Earhart Forum talking back and forth. I enjoy it. LTM Carol Dow ************************************************************************ From Ric Carol, the clip you saw on CNN was shot 30 years ago. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:57:28 EDT From: Troy Subject: Re: A Reef -Flat Landing? <> Ric, I heard that story as a student pilot but thought it was urban legend. You actually investigated this one? I thought it was just another funny joke...... *************************************************************************** From Ric Swear to God....the year was probably about 1977. I was working for National Aviation Underwriters at the time. The FBO was North American Aviation in Hammonton, NJ. They did a big trade in "ab initio" training of foreign students up through comm/inst/mel. Mostly northern Europeans, but this particular genius was a Turkish kid. I took the call and I handled the loss. Some urban legends are true. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:34:46 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: A Search in New Directions? For almost 15 years, Tighar has spent great amounts of time, money, and effort looking for evidence that AE and FN perished on Niku after landing there in July 1937. The Tighar directors and all team members deserve the greatest respect and admiration for their hard work, dedication, tenacity, and skill. However, after all these years searching, a definitive artifact that can be positively identified from AE, FN, or the Electra has yet to be found. Some artifacts recovered by Tighar are tantalizingly coincidental with items that could have been left behind by the Electra, or AE & FN as castaways on the island. Unfortunately, some of the most valuable artifacts identified in official government documentation (ie. bones, sextant box, etc.) were lost and have not since been seen. Sixty -five years is a long time for artifacts to remain on the island surface in the harsh tropical environment. Many artifacts may not have survived due to severe degradation. Native islanders, or others may have disturbed or carried-away artifacts unknowingly. For whatever reasons, it seems very evident after all the years of searching, there may not be any blatantly obvious or easy to find artifacts laying around on the Niku island surface. Perhaps what is being looked for may lay buried beneath the island surface, but therein lies a difficulty. Suppose the Tighar theory is what actually happened. That is, the Electra landed on the Niku north-shore reef flat and was able for a period of time to make radio distress transmissions. Sometime thereafter, the Electra was swept over the reef edge. AE & FN were unable to survive and later perished. If in fact the Electra went over the reef edge, then one (or more) of the following assumptions could be possible: a.. the Electra is located somewhere near the northern shore which is the most probable area on which a safe landing could have been made. An underwater search could logically be focused on the northern shore reef edge. b.. the Electra is no longer intact, and has been broken up by the surf action at the reef edge. Native islanders reported seeing pieces of the airplane in the waves many years later which lends credibility to this theory. c.. the Electra is deep underwater and wedged in a crevice or crack in the reef (this theory has been extensively discussed previously in numerous Tighar Tracks articles, FAQs, etc.). Numerous pieces lie scattered in cracks and crevices of coral. However, when the reef edge was searched by recent expedition divers, the pieces of the Electra were at depths greater than was possible for the divers to see. The heavy engines weighing hundreds of pounds may have eventually rolled down the reef slope, or over the drop-off and lay thousands of feet below. d.. even though submerged in salt-water for many years, identifiable pieces of the Electra remain. Note that Japanese and U.S. aircraft from WWII are still intact after being submerged in salt-water since 1940s in Truk Lagoon (Chuuk?) and similar battle-sites elsewhere. e.. The completely intact Electra (or broken-up pieces) may have been carried by strong currents over the drop-off and lay on the bottom thousands of feet below. Ok, if we can all agree with the Tighar theory that the Electra did in fact go over the reef edge, then in my opinion there is a significantly greater probability of finding SOMETHING stuck in the reef edge (or on the ocean bottom) than continuing to sift thru sand and rubble on the island. Based on the above assumptions that something of the aircraft remains that can be physically observed and/or retrieved, then why not shift the focus from the island (Niku) itself which has already been painstakingly searched, and focus all future search and funding at the place where the "holy grail" itself may lay waiting off the north shore reef edge? So lets now address some issues that would obviously arise in order to do this: a.. Searching for things underwater is difficult. However, modern technology and underwater research techniques have provided some excellent tools that can perform the required task. b.. Searching for things underwater is expensive. The budget Tighar has been working with the past 15 years would need increasing several orders of magnitude. c.. Independent underwater research companies currently searching the vast open waters north-west of Howland are being funded entirely by wealthy independent investors. These investors are spending their money on blind-faith alone, based only on a theory (Long). Tighar, on the otherhand has recovered numerous artifacts, official government documents, and other substantial evidence that provides SOME credibility for their theory (also, let us not forget that if the Electra simply crashed and sank, there could be no explanation for the many post-disappearance radio transmissions that were clearly received and documented). If it is possible for these other search groups to obtain funding on nothing more than a theory alone (ie. no artifacts or evidence), then it would seem feasible that Tighar with all the accumulated artifacts could attract an independent investor with the financial resources capable of funding a deep underwater search of the north shore reef edge. Also, the search area for the Niku north shore reef edge is enormously smaller (by thousands of square miles) than is being attempted by the underwater research companies searching northwest of Howland. Also, consider this - Mel Fisher searched 16 years before he finally found the Spanish galleon Nuestra Senora de la Atocha (or whatever the name of it was?). Much like AE searchers, he started with only a theory. Once again..just some food for thought. TR #2427 ******************************************************************* From Ric Thanks for your thoughts Tom. First let me say that I think there is LOTS more to be found on land once we have focused in on the right place - and I think we identified one of the right places (the Seven Site) last summer. We're also evaluating a new theory about where we may be able to find more washed-ashore lightweight debris such as Artifact 2-2-V-1 (the section of airplane skin). We'll talk about that more after we've done some more work on it. Second, let me say that I'd LOVE to search the deep water off the reef for just the reasons you list. Now let's talk about money. There is a fundamental difference between what TIGHAR is doing and what Long/Nauticos, Timmer/Willamson, and Kammerer/Whoever are doing. Those are or were commercial ventures based upon the assumption that there is an intact airplane that can be found, recovered, and exhibited for fun and profit. Just the media attention surrounding the search, even if unsuccessful, is valuable to a deep water technology company - as long as they never admit that they're through searching. How many people had ever heard of Nauticos before they got involved in the Earhart circus? TIGHAR, on the other hand, is a nonprofit testing a hypothesis that says there is nothing left but bits and pieces. And whatever is left belongs to the Republic of Kiribati. We're never going to attract treasure hunter money because there's no treasure to hunt. Kammerer gave us $300,000 for the media rights to Niku IIII because he hoped to make millions from controlling the media coverage of the smoking-gun discovery. He gambled and lost. He was ready to plunk down another couple of million to join the deep sea treasure hunt until he found out his technology couldn't perform. Hard as it is to comprehend, there are people out there who simply have that kind of money to throw around. TIGHAR's funding comes primarily from people who want to see the Earhart mystery solved for the same reason we want to solve it - because it CAN be solved. We may also continue get funding from the sale of media rights. That would be nice. We'll continue to do the best we can to raise the money we need, but we'll never be able to compete with the treasure hunters. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:43:09 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: A Hand-Cranked Generator? Was doing some net surfing looking for AE items of interest. Found a hit on this New York Times article published Saturday July 3, 1937 (the day after). This relates to recent Forum thread discussing possibility she had a portable hand-cranked transmitter: Most of the article is generic stuff we already know. But there is an interesting comment confirming AE carried a "hand-cranked generator" (hmm, could it have had a lead knob with a steel insert and....?). I wonder how they got this information? Don't recall reading anything about it in the documentation listing items she was carrying on-board for the final flight. We all know who McMenamy was. Anyone know anything about Carl Pierson, if possibly still alive? Feel free to read the whole thing: http://www.nytimes.com/specials/magazine4/articles/earhart1.html . I cut and pasted the interesting part from the article as follows: Amateurs Pick Up Signals LOS ANGELES, July 2 (AP) -- Two amateur radio operators claimed to have picked up signals tonight on frequencies officially assigned to the plane of Amelia Earhart. Walter McMenamy said he picked up weak signals on 6210 kilocycles at 6 P.M. (10 P.M. Eastern daylight time) and heard the letters "L-a-t" which he took to mean latitude. The letters were followed by indecipherable figures. The signals continued for some time. Mr. McMenamy expressed belief they came from a portable transmitter. He received other signals from a Coast Guard boat, presumably the cutter Itasca, requesting listeners to "stand by and listen on all frequencies." At 8 P.M. (midnight Eastern daylight time), Carl Pierson, chief engineer of the Paterson Radio Corporation, picked up similarly weak signals on 3105 kilocycles, Miss Earhart's daytime frequency. He said they were erratic and indecipherable. Both Mr. McMenamy and Mr. Pierson said the signals came from a hand-cranked generator. Miss Earhart carried one in her plane. ************************************************************************** From Ric Itasca, of course, never made any such request for people to "stand by and listen on all frequencies." Pierson seems to have been McMenamy's buddy and they both got a lot of press attention in the days following the disappearance. Their claims seem highly suspect. There was no hand-cranked generator aboard the airplane when it was inventoried following the Luke Field wreck nor was one mentioned in any of the newspaper interviews AE gave about what she planned to carry on the flight. We can't say that there wasn't one aboard but we can say there there is no credible primary source that suggests that there was one aboard. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:48:46 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: A Niku Cool Season? Tighar expeditions to Niku have required working long hours in oppressive heat from the tropical sun. Is there such a thing as a cool season for Niku? If so, wouldn't it be more preferable to plan future expeditions when working conditions are cooler? I suspect that because the island is located near the equator, its blazing hot most of the time. Just curious. TR #2427 *************************************************************************** From Ric From November through March temperatures tend to be a bit cooler because of more frequent rain. Of course, that's also Cyclone Season (known as Typhoons in the northern Pacific and Hurricanes in the Atlantic). Been there, done that. We'll take the heat, thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:58:21 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: L10E Model Just got my latest TIGHAR Tracks and read about the amazing L10E model Bill Harney has designed & built. Wow - just look at the rivet detail in the photos ! The cabin door even opens ! Any internal details ? (Fred's nav. position ? - just kidding :-) And how did you fabricate those props, complete with the external conterbalance weights, Bill ? Amazing. Great job, Bill. ************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately Bill Harney is not on the forum and doesn't use email - but you're right. The model is incredible. He built a special machine to punch the impressions in the aluminum to accurately reproduce the rivet patterns on the entire airraft (a subject of much research and debate between me and Bill). Noonan's nav position is in there, as is all of the cockpit detail right down to the headset hanging on the control wheel. A large section of the starboard side of the fuselage is removable to reveal the interior detail. We have lots of great photos. As soon as we can get to it we'll put a photo gallery up on the website. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:15:27 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: A Search in New Directions? While I agree with Ric about all the rest of his response, I'm not so sure about the premise that "We're never going to attract treasure hunter money because there's no treasure to hunt." True, the artifacts belong to Kiribati, and true, it seems very very VERY unlikely that there's an intact airplane to be found, but that doesn't mean that a reasonably definitive (or even not-so-definitive) collection of Earhart-related artifacts couldn't be exhibited, with the permission and to the financial benefit of the Government of Kiribati, in a context where admission could be charged or money otherwise raised by the "treasure hunters" who do these kinds of things. Long ago, a guy at the Hiller Museum in California gave us some advice along these lines, and for years we've kicked around the idea of getting together some kind of travelling exhibit based on what we already have -- not necessarily as something to which admission would be charged, but as a way of attracting attention to our work. Anyhow, I certainly understand that there aren't any "treasure hunters" beating down the door wanting to support a deep water search (or anything else), but I don't think that's necessarily because there isn't any treasure to be found; it may be just that nobody's recognized the commercial value (to investors, TIGHAR, and Kiribati) in what we already have or might find. Well, nobody but Mike Kammerer, who's something of a -- er -- special case. ********************************************************************** From Ric This gets into some fairly interesting philosophical and ethical issues about the nature of philanthropy. The gentleman who gave us the impromptu lecture at the Hiller Museum was basically telling us "There is no such thing as philanthropy any more. It's all about return on investment. If you want to attract big dollars you have to show the prospective contributor how he'll come out ahead financially." That is certainly one approach, and a not uncommon one these days - but true philanthropy is not dead. FedEx, for example, has supported us with free project-related shipping for about five years now. I have never seen TIGHAR or the Earhart Project touted in a FedEx ad and it was only in the last few moths that we got around to putting their logo up on the TIGHAR website. That brought a phone call from the FedEx legal department saying, "Hey! Who said you could put our logo on your website?" I explained the situation and the attorney said, "Oh, okay." Most of TIGHAR's funding comes from true charitable contributions from our members. They ask for nothing more - and nothing less - than to be a part of this epic quest. Is there money to be made from a travelling exhibit of Earhart artifacts? Probably, but I suspect that the collection would have to include a smoking gun of some kind to draw enough of an audience to make it pay. Do we want to seek funding from an individual or corporation who would want to cut a deal like the following? "I'll give you $5,000,000 to thoroughly search the island and surrounding waters on the condition that I get the proceeds from the exhibition of whatever you find." Of course, we'd have to get Kiribati to go along with the deal. They're not stupid. They'd want a cut. The real problem with a deal like that would be that it would change the entire nature of the project. The Earhart Project would be "owned" by someone whose principle motive was profit. We would all, in a very real sense, be working for that someone. Kammerer intially wanted to buy the entire project. We wouldn't sell it. We limited the transaction to the commercial exploitation of information developed during the contract period. Even so, he tried his damndest to run the project but, with the contract on our side, we were able to stand toe to toe and trade expletives until he baccked off. The strength of TIGHAR's investigation is the contributed expertise and hard work of a diverse and truly impressive array of bright and knowledgable people. How many of you would be eager to knock yourselves out to make someone else richer? If this project had to hire the help it now gets for free, $5,000,000 wouldn't be nearly enough. Hell, I'd want that much myself as salary. I have always felt that this can't be done as a treasure hunt. It's not worth doing as a treasure hunt. It's way too difficult. The only treasure that's worth this much work is the satisfaction of using our brains and our backs to find the truth. The fact that it's the truth about what really happened to Amelia Earhart is almost incidental. I think that funding for the project will continue to come from individuals and corporations who share our values and understand the nature of true philanthropy. I hope we'll also get more funding from the sale of media rights - a form of commercial expoitation that does not compromise the fundamental nature of the project. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:17:03 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: A Search in New Directions? > Second, let me say that I'd LOVE to search the deep water off the reef for > just the reasons you list. Let me add that I can see no supportable reason to search any particular place OFF of the island. Although it may seem rational our duo landed on a particular stretch of beach and/or in a particular direction that fact is really unknown. In any case we have no clue as to where the plane might have ended up if washed out to sea. We don't know whether it sunk immediately or floated off with the current for some indetermine time and distance. That leaves an awesome volume of ocean to search in. Even the question of whether they DID land on Niku has not been pinned down irrefutably. Lots of good evidence but no smoking gun quite yet. I think the plan being followed is the only sensible way to go. Somewhere on Niku the magic bullet will be found. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:21:18 EDT From: DavyFlyer Subject: Re: A Reef -Flat Landing? As a student from in the 50s, and an old tail dragger in Mich.; and coming out of grass runways, I was instructed to do the same upon takeoff because of the apple orchards. NEVER turn back to the to the runway; was drilled in to me. I guess the kid forgot what end he was on. As I said the other day, we also where told it "It was a good landing if you could walk away from it." A lot of training was also to study the land (which a lot of Computer Aviators never heard of). I know, we don't have much grass left. Anyway, this instructor came out of the 20s . Maybe he had the same instructor??? DavyFlyer ******************************************************* From Ric This is getting way off topic, but the student lost the engine (probably from carb ice) on downwind just before turning base. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:24:57 EDT From: Paul Gilbert Subject: Visited Gardner I spent a few years in the Phoenix Isle,Hull isle and Canton and I took a trip to Gardner several times before they became occupied. **************************************************************************** From Ric By all means, tell us more. When were you out there and why? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:33:44 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: the "un-Knob" update After reading all the recent posts, I, too begin to wonder if we are not jumping the gun in calling this a "knob"... What if indeed this item was >meant< to be heavy, hence the lead... Pendulum of some kind, counterweight, scale weight, speed governor, (tele)typewriter part, etc... The steel insert in that case is still for mounting, but not for a control knob to a shaft. Ideas anybody? (this is as far as I can guess at the moment). As for the patent Nr being cast on the "item", that might imply it was not an internal, hidden part; and may be it was a critical part instead... Ric, also: is the Nr cast with the part, or was it stamped later? Christian D ************************************************************* From Ric The number is cast into the part. The figures (letters and numbers) stand up above the surface but have been squished and distorted by impacts to the soft lead. The sides of the object feature "knurling", raised parallel lines cast into the surface apparently to provide a grip for fingertips. I call it a knob because that's what it looks like but it could, of course, serve some other function and just look like a knob. I agree that it is probably not an internal component. It certainly appears to have been intended to be manipulated (specifically, twisted or turned) by fingertips and it would make little sense to put patent information someplace where nobody would see it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:57:52 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: A Hand-Cranked Generator? Actually, Ric, the Itasca did ask for all ships and stations in the area to listen in for Earhart. This message, sent out on 500 kHz, was sent several times. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if McMenamy and Pierson picked this signal up on the international distress frequency, and the newspaper account is a corruption of that radio message. ************************************************************************ From Ric I stand corrected. At 0103 on 7/3/37 ITASCA sent the following message out to "CQ" (All ships, all stations): AMELIA EARHART PLANE ENROUTE HOWLAND ISLAND FROM LAE NEW GUINEA UNREPORTED SINCE 2045 GCT JULY 2 AND APPARENTLY DOWN AT SEA POSITION UNKNOWN PERIOD ITASCA SEARCHING PROBABLE NORTHWEST SECTOR OFF HOWLAND ISLAND PERIOD REQUEST SHIPS AND STATIONS LISTEN ON 500 KCS FOR ANY SIGNALS FROM PLANE COMMANDING OFFICER U S COAST GUARD CUTTER ITASCA Pierson claimed to have heard signals on 3105 at 8 p.m. PST on 7/2 (0400 Z on 7/3) McMenamy claimed to hear signals on 6210 at 10 p.m. (0600 on 7/3). Both could have been in response to the ITASCA request at 0103 Z but ITASCA had said to listen on 500 kcs. The times that Pierson and McMenamy say they heard Earhart would be daylight in the Central Pacific (15:30 and 17:30 respectively). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:02:17 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: AE in the news >From Carol Dow > >For Alik: > >CNN here in Kansas City had an Irene Bolam on the TV in an interview >recently, and she was mad as "H" at being called Amelia Earhart. In fact she >was roaring mad. She stated the whole thing was absurd. Also, I have an >E-mail from one of the Irene Bolam's (which I sent to Ric), and this >particular Irene Bolam was flabbergasted at what was going on. However, if >you knew Joe Klaas, you would have some of the answers. He is very >aggressive. I didn't know about the fingerprints. > >The last A.E. Festival in Atchison, KS, had a man there with forensic evidence (the >width of the eyes of the two women and all kinds of detective work) that no >one wanted to accept, and the guy couldn't get his book published, and no one >in the film industry wanted to touch ( he was in film production in NYC). >It's a subject matter that everyone (except Joe Klass) wants to stamp out >because the whole concept is so ridiculous. > >Here's some of the parts of the E-mail I got from one of the Irene Bolam's. I >would have to have Ric's permission and Irene Bolam's permission to reprint >the whole letter: > >"After that meeting at Morgan Hill, John and I were so filled with info that >we couldn't digest it all! To be told that John's brother, Guy, was a British >M16 member, and then to introduce us to Guy's illegitimate son (who looked >exactly like Guy) was almost too much to comprehend at one time. >Sincerely, Irene Bolam " >************************************************************************ >>From Ric > >Carol, the clip you saw on CNN was shot 30 years ago. Don't read on if you are not Carol...or a physicist; this will probably bore you. Carol (and Ric), Indeed. I'm confused, and maybe it's my fault. But I thought Irene Bolam died in the sixties (maybe it was the eighties)? Unix was just being born, sendmail was a theory and email didn't exist. Is there yet another "Irene Bolam" you are referring to here? I have seen a video of Irene Bolam defiantly refuting the claim that she was A.E., but I thought that video was pretty old (Ric's reference?). Anyway, in my experience, when physical evidence (much of what TIGHAR is working with) contradicts hearsay or subjective interpretation, it is usually the case that the physical evidence is the better characterization of reality, which is why I doubt the Irene Bolam story. Clearly, Ric feels that this claim is remarkable to the point of absurdity. I agree, but feel only that remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. An insouciant attitude towards probability has resulted in more truths stranger than fiction than I am comfortable enduring. I am prepared to entertain the most ludicrous theory, provided the evidence for it is staggering and irrefragable. Probability is a funny thing; it is well defined only if the information upon which it is derived is estimable, and then only in the context of that information: a 'probability' can change like night and day based on the addition of a single, simple piece of information to your knowledge. Based on the estimable evidence we have, it is highly improbable that Irene Bolam was in fact AE. The key to sorting out claims like this, in my view, is to see if we can juxtapose human behaviors and physical evidence with subjective claims and interpretations. If the evidence is 'discontinuous' primarily along that juxtaposition, it is a red flag that screams for the physical evidence/behaviorally driven conclusion. That is what we have here, and it is why I was interested in the fingerprint/civil suit situation since it denotes behavior as opposed to subjective interpretation or hearsay. But that is not near enough and for it to change, the information context must change (some new, highly compelling evidence must be made available). I agree with Ric that, given the context and probabilities we have, it would not be an efficient use of time and resources to look for that highly compelling evidence. As for your last comment, I like reading the posts more than posting, but I share in your enjoyment. Alik ****************************************************************** From Ric It was, indeed, another (and later) Irene Bolam who emailed Carol. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:18:59 EDT From: Nick Subject: I'd have done the same thing Ric: I'm sure you (or maybe even I) could have turned and sideslipped onto the runway with no sweat. But a student pilot losing an engine on the downwind leg is probably well advised to land STRAIGHT AHEAD. How many pilots have gotten themselves killed trying to turn back? I still think he did the right thing. Nick in Cali, Colombia **************************************************************************** From Ric You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the well-known admonition against "turning back" to the runway after an engine failure. It applies to loss of power immediately after takeoff before the aircraft has attained sufficient altitude to permit the diving turn necessary to avoid a stall while reversing course. An aircraft that has attained pattern altitude has no such concern. Take up tennis. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:21:00 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Knurled knob on Carbine I have an I.B.M. WWII vintage M-1 Carbine with the knurled windage adjustment knob. No numbers of any kind on it. It also appears to be made of the same oil dipped hardened steel as the rest of the rifle. As you mentioned, it wouldn't make any sense at all to have any lead in it except for the bullets! Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:59:34 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: A Search in New Directions? > Most of TIGHAR's funding comes from true > charitable contributions from our members. > They ask for nothing more - and nothing > less - than to be a part of this epic quest. I hope to be able to say that I "particpated in a small way." Not necessarily "contributed" (I take that word to mean that I did something, other than money, which advanced the cause), but participated. I sent a few dollars, I asked a few questions, I offered a few observations. That's it. Oh, and I learned a bit. > The real problem with a deal like that would be > that it would change the entire nature of the project. > The Earhart Project would be "owned" by someone > whose principle motive was profit. I think you'd loose some of us, maybe a lot of us. It could be argued, I suppose, that with that much cash in the bank you could actually do without most of us. On the other hand, if the PRIMARY purpose is to teach/learn HOW such an investigation works, that would be pretty much entirely missing the point. - Bill #2229 ****************************************************************** From Ric I think it even goes beyond that. The fascinating thing about solving the Earhart mystery is that everybody thinks he/she can do it. None of us (well, not many of us) would set out to find a cure for AIDS or develop new techniques in brain surgery without extensive specialized education and lots of help from all sorts of experts. But everybody feels competent to tackle the Earhart mystery - journalists, general contractors, soccer moms and, Lord knows, every airplane pilot who ever pushed a throttle. That's what makes it the popular phenomenon that it is. The strength of TIGHAR's approach is that it relies for funding upon credibility which, in turn, comes from a broad base of peer review and consensus. It would be an unusual sponsor indeed who could write check to meet all the funding needs and not try to steer the search toward his own pet theory. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:20:52 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: A Reef Flat Landing? Sorry it took me so long to respond to this, but I wanted to check, and it got away from me for a bit. > While "NavCads" flew as observers on some of the Colorado search flights, all > of the back seat guys on the morning flight of July 9 (McKean Island, Gardner > Island, and Carondelet Reef) were enlisted seamen. Did this come from the Colorado logs, or is there another source? The ship's newsletter only mentions the pilots, Lt. Lambrecht, Lt.jg L.O. Fox, and Lt. jg W.B. Short. The observers were listed as Aviation Cadets J.A. Wilson, W. Jordan, and R.A. Leake. ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Never believe what you read in the newspaper. There were two flights on July 9th. According to the ship's log, the morning flight that searched McKean, Gardner, and Carondelet Reef was flown by: Aircraft 4-0-4 Pilot: Lt. John O. Lambrecht Observer: Seaman 1st Class J.L. Marks Aircraft 4-0-6 Pilot: Lt. (jg) Leonard O. Fox Observer: Radioman 3rd Class Williamson Aircraft 4-0-5 Pilot: Lt. (jg) William B. Short Observer: Lt. C.F. Chillingworth (Chillingworth was the ship's Damage Control Officer.) The afternoon flight that searched Hull and Sydney was flown by: Aircraft 4-0-4 Pilot: Lt. John O. Lambrecht Observer: Cadet J. A. Wilson Aircraft 4-0-6 Pilot: Lt. (jg) Leonard O. Fox Observer: Cadet W. Jordan Aircraft 4-0-5 Pilot: Lt. (jg) William B. Short Observer: Ensign W.A. Sullivan (Sullivan was a Junior Watch and Division Officer) There was a NavCad aboard named Raymond A. Leake but he didn't fly that day. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:41:01 EDT From: DavyFlyer Subject: No Subject Ric; Over the years, I always felt a group like yours will be the one that will solve this mystery. Its like Charles Lind., it was the small guy with a desire to solve and conquer. Sure one needs monies, but this is not the main desire of the conquer; ( I hope I discern this). And what happens? It seems the forces work with that person. Question; How many days did AE transmit after Landing? Also, do you have someplace in here the list of trans. that one can look up? And where did that data come from? Do you give any of the Ham radio stuff any value? and why is it (appears) to be all thrown out, Its not just because maybe the Gov. thought it was a put on I hope. These guys seem to be a worthy group, I thought. Thanks DavyFlyer ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. <> Then I guess we'll have to do it because there is no other group like this. <> I've never thought of myself as a conqueror, but it's a good excuse to buy another hat. Lest anyone accuse me of being the illegitimate child of Mother Theresa, I have nothing against money. When this thing is wrapped I have every hope and intention of writing a book and making a bundle. (TIGHAR does not have a pension plan.) < Sort of the Jedi Theory of Earhart investigation. I like it. <> Most to the alleged receptions occurred during the first three nights. There were just a few sporadic receptions up until July 9. Nothing after that. <> Not yet. We'll have that as part of the study we're preparing. << And where did that data come from?>> Official government messages, newspaper accounts, anecdotal recollections, anything we could find. <> Yes. Some of it looks very credible but we'll have to look more closely at it. <> The Gov. (specifically the Coast Guard) was covering its butt. After the search failed, all of the alleged post-loss transmissions were declared to be either misunderstandings or hoaxes - even the ones the Coast Guard investigated and declared to be legitimate at the time. If the airplane and crew went down at sea and sank immediately then the search never had a chance and nobody did anything wrong. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:41:59 EDT From: Denise Subject: There could be less in this than meets the eye! Alan Cardwell says "there WERE published pictures (maybe just one) of Mrs. Bolam. I saw no resemblance in her facial structure to that of AE." Well, if we're basing stuff on facial structure, I've seen published photographs of both Fred Noonan and Amelia Earhart's dad and let me tell you ... there is such a resemblance in their facial structures it's almost uncanny. You know, I think that there's a perfectly good conspiracy theory in their someplace that is definitely going to waste. Maybe someone should do something about it! LTM (who never wasted a good conspiracy theory) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:46:47 EDT From: Denise Subject: Thinking like a teacher ... Ric says: "Now let's talk about money. There is a fundamental difference between what TIGHAR is doing and what Long/Nauticos, Timmer/Willamson, and Kammerer/Whoever are doing ..." Look, instead of worrying about getting your own funding to search the reef edge and lagoon, why doesn't TIGHAR just publicly challenge the Nauticos to a sorta battle-to-the-death match? Dare them, through the media, to bring their zillion dollar equipment and their big-time funding and come along to Nikumaroro to check out your hypothesis for you! Since they've come up so empty-handed on the Long hypothesis, I'm sure they'd not dismiss such a proposal out of hand. And I'm certain the media would just love it. And since we all know that TIGHAR isn't wrong, what is there to lose? Some of the credit, sure ... but find the Electra and they'd be so much credit to go around, everyone will get heaps of it! I see this as a total win-win-win situation for everyone. LTM (who loved a win-win-win situation) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Hey Nauticos! Instead of spending millions of dollars investigating the theory you think is right and will result in an intact airplane that will make a fortune for your investors, why not spend millions of dollars checking out our theory which, if it's right, will only result in historic scrap metal? Who could pass up a deal like that? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 13:05:30 EDT From: Paul Gilbert Subject: Re: Visited Gardner Well, I cant tell you to much what I did on the Island, from 1968 to 1972 working as a contractor for the government. **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. You were not out there before the islands were settled. You were there after they were abandoned in 1963. Can you not tell us much because you don't remember or because it's still classified? I know that some of the islands, including Gardner, were being considered as sites for biological weapons testing. Were you out there with the naturalists (Clapp, Crossin, Hackman) from the Smithsonian who were cataloging the flora and fauna in 1968? Perhaps you were aboard the Coast Guard cutter PLANETREE that supported that trip. Later you may have been part of the initial survey work for the SAMTEC missile tests. It would be useful to us to know the extent of your activities at Gardner. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:33:10 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: I'd have done the same thing Good advice to Nick. Aerodynamics, Nick, absolutely dictate putting it in dead ahead. Even a slight bank kills off lift. You wouldn't get a fraction of the way around. Alan, with over 20 years of never turning back. #2329 ********************************************************************* From Ric It's a function of altitude. In most light singles, loose the engine at 500 feet - put in down someplace in front of you. Loose the engine at a thousand feet and you have some options. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:35:26 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: A Reef Flat Landing? Thanks. > From Ric > Never believe what you read in the newspaper. This I know from first-hand experience - that's why I asked. In the followup you've done, have you ever located or talked to those observers? ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric Of the six crewmembers on the Gardner flight we've been able to confirm that all are dead except for Seaman J.L. Marks. Can't find him. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:40:17 EDT From: Lawrence Glazer Subject: search in a new direction? Your response to Tom King's communication about possible commercial exploitation - and particularly your (in my opinion) realistic assessment of what it would mean for this project - have inspired me to re-up membership for another year. If you still have my credit card number, just go ahead. If not, let me know & I'll send you the number or a check. In my experience, this project's use of internet communication between interested amateurs to help solve an historical mystery is unique, and should serve as a model for all such projects. And it is consistently entertaining! Best wishes. Lawrence Glazer ******************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Lawrence. May you stand as a shining example and an inspiration to all those forum subscribers who still haven't gotten off their butts and put their money where their mouth is. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:44:01 EDT From: Ric Subject: No forum Monday We'll have a TV crew here all day on Monday so the forum will resume on Tuesday. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 16:02:25 EDT From: Pete Subject: P'cola sextant I was looking through the site bulletins again when I noticed something. The image of the sextant that a Pan-Am pilot borrowed from FN, and now in the Pensacola Museum's hands has some features that seem familiar. Looking in the upper left-hand corner of the image, there seems to be some kind of semicircular cover, similar to 2-6-S-43, but on this sextant there seems to be an extra ridge in the center for strength. Just above and to the right of the cover is a small knob that appears to be for a set-screw to lock the instrument in place. Since sextants are treated with great care, could 2-6-S-43 be our own set-screw knob? As for the box, in the lower right hand side, just off the center is a brass retainer holding one of the eye pieces, and both 2-6-S-03A and 2-6-S-03B resemble that retainer. What do you think? LTM Pete #2419 **************************************************************************** From Ric -43 has been conclusively identified as a component from a large radio tube, almost certainly a relic of Coast Guard target practice. The resemblance of the retainer in the Ludolph box to -03a &b is pretty general but I do think that some kind of home-grown retaining device for a sextant box is the best explanation we've come across yet. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 16:05:26 EDT From: Warren Subject: J.L. Marks Have you tried using the social security death index to locate J.L. Marks? (or at least confirm his status). Here is a link: http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi Best wishes, Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think it was available on-line back when we were looking for him. Somebody want to give it a try? All me we have are the first two initials "J.L.", and the last name "Marks". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 16:11:59 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: No forum Monday Local, or can we look for you on a national show? It's always great fun to point at you on the screen and tell everyone within earshot, "I know him. He runs that group I belong to..." ltm jon *********************************************************************** From Ric It's too embarrassing.... It seems I'm to be a segment on a show called "Radical Sabbatical" that runs on something called the Fine Living channel. See: http://www.fineliving.com/fine/radical_sabbatical/1,1663,FINE_1413,00.html Believe me, I'd rather be doing the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:55:15 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: J.L. Marks I used the link that Warren listed, and found three listings for J.L. MARKS. None of them would have been old enough - the DOB on the oldest was in 1932. There are probably a bunch more, but since we don't know the first name, there's no way to check. Besides, without knowing the DOB or the SSN, it wouldn't matter anyway, because we couldn't be sure. ltm jon ************************************************************** From Pete I've left a post with usscolorado.org hoping someone there knows "J.L", and if he is still among us. I'll let the Forum know if I get any replies. Pete #2419 *************************************************************** From Ron Dawson A couple of years ago, I did some research on J.L. Marks. I am away from home now but when I get back, will look it up. From memory, I seem to recall that the Navy said he was not a crewman on the Colorado. Smooth Sailing Ron Dawson, 2126 *************************************************************** From Ric Well....whoever was keeping the deck log was under the impression that somebody by that name flew with Lambrecht on both the 8th and the 9th. ***************************************************************** From Lee Boyle, presently at the Beach in Bethany Beach, DE for the summer. Re: J. L. Marks. The Veteran Administration (Insurance Department) will tell you if a Veteran is still living or has passed away. You will need his navy serial number. This can be done by phone to the local VA. They will give you an answer right away. I have done this many times. ************************************************************ From Chris in Petaluma, Ca. Because there seems to be a lot of WWII pilots that settled in this area, I checked the phone book just for fun. Nothing in Sonoma County but one in Marin County just south of here. A Jackson L. Marks in Corte Madera. I checked on that genealogy site and found he died in 1988. Was born in 1915 and would have been 22 years old in 1937. His SS# was issued in Illinois. His last address was Corte Madera! Chris#2511 *********************************************************** From Ric Sounds like a candidate. ********************************************************* From Mike Holt Socail Security Death Index (SSDI) results for "J L Marks" as the search criteria: Birth Death Last Residence SSN Issued 24 Apr 1932 Jan 1990 (not specified) 225-34-9733 Virginia 22 Oct 1952 Jul 1988 (not specified) 389-58-8047 Wisconsin 13 May 1960 15 Jun 1989 92113 (San Diego, CA) 566-25-7022 California Two things to keep in mind about the SSDI: it's not complete, and it's not complete. I have used it extensively in one of my other lives (as an adoption resarcher), and it's very frustrating if one is searching for someone born prior to about 1950. If the person sought died before about 1970, their name probably will not be in the list just yet. Or so it appears from here. In any case, none of those listed are the right one. If there's a record anywhere of Seaman Marks' home town, a different name or a birthdate, that would help. The only real answer is probably the U.S. Navy. I don't know to whom to address such an inquiry. I tried on the SSDI list JAS*, JAM*, JOE*, JON* and JOH*. At that point I couldn't think of any more names. These are one I found who were born long enough before the search to be possibles. If anyone is near those "Last Residence" locations, a check of the obituary might quickly reveal whether the person is the one we want to know about. LTM (who can find her family Bible) ******************************************************* From Chris in Petaluma, Got Jackson L. Marks phone # and tried it......disconnected. Could someone better at the internet try to find out what his history was? Chris ******************************************************* From Ric Okay...so we have a Jackson L. Marks botn in 1915 and died in 1988. Lived at one time in Illinois and last residing in Corte Madera, CA. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:59:39 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: A Reef Flat Landing? Re Ric's comment "Of the six crew members on the Gardner flight we've been able to confirm that all are dead except for Seaman J.L. Marks. Can't find him." Ash Wilson was still around in northern California, when I interviewed him, a little over a year ago. blue skies, jerry ****************************************************** From Ron Bright Carol Osborne has interviewed J. Ashley Wilson who was the observer on the afternoon flight with Lt Lambrecht. He also landed at Hull, talked with Jones, but said that there was nothing passed between the two. I dont know if Carol talked with Lambrecht about the morning flight over Gardner. Wilson is alive and well in Calilfornia. LTM, Ron B *************************************************************** From Ric Yes, I had a nice chat with Ash Wilson back in 1990. He wasn't on the flight over Gardner and had no information about it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:03:55 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Nauticos search I have an old E-mail from Dave Jourdan at Nauticos where he states that for them to find the Earhart airplane it almost has to be all in one piece. The chances of finding broken pieces that would amount to anything are practically zilch. That's what the man said. If you want me to I can dig into the archives around here and post it. So, that's one huge strike against Nauticos. If the plane "smacked" the ocean, he was very dubious about finding anything unless it was the next thing to a complete accident. The possibilities of Nauticos, needless to say, are not too high and sinking lower in my estimation. That's probably why Elgen Long wrote his book the way he did. Otherwise, it would have never stirred up as much interest. If there is any inquiries into this, I'll see if I can't find the E-mail. I would take it to mean that the broken pieces of the airplane would probably be buried under shifting sand and goo and whatever else goes on in the seabed. They wouldn't be that visible after all these years.. LTM Carol Dow ******************************************************* From Ric It's not that pieces would be buried. It's that anything smaller than an intact airplane would be too small to find. I don't need to see the email. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:06:48 EDT From: Paul Gilbert Subject: Re: Visited Gardner Your second guess is correct, a survey crew and a primary contractor with SAMTEC, not military but civilian. ******************************************************* From Ric Okay, you worked for Global. You were based at Canton. When you traveled to Gardner did you go by boat or helicopter? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:08:02 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: of numbers and knobs You wondered about examples of patented items wherein the patent was later used in a different item which bore the same patent number as the original item. I happen to have recently come across just such an example. (because I subscribe to the Forum, and learned how to do a patent number search) My uncle, who collects old stuff, recently picked up at a garage sale what he thought was a very well made toy rifle. I looked at it and recognized it as a training drill rifle (non-firing) used by military school cadets, complete with working bolt, adjustable cotton sling, and a stacking lug. It is about a 1/2 size replica of a M 1903 Springfield. We used them for drill in Cub Scouts when I was a kid. Anyway, on the buttstock, there was a decal which I presume originally had the manufacturer's name, but all that was legible was "aining Rifle" which I presume originally read Training Rifle; "ompany" which would be the manufacturer's name, as in XXX Company; and "US Patent 2,649,849." I was a bit surprised to find that US Patent 2,649,849 was for a toy cork firing pistol patented by a Mr. Parris in 1950. Careful examination of the drawings and 3.5 pages of very small accompanying text revealed that my uncle's cadet drill rifle uses the exact same trigger reset mechanism as Mr. Parris's cork pistol. So, to bring this back on topic, I suggest a very careful look at drawings and text for any items in the knob patent search which seem promising. LTM, who thinks that Radical Sabbatical would be a much better name than High Five for the Niku V expedition. You guys can discuss it at the EPAC Conference ;-) Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:39:20 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: "Un-knob" update > I call it a > knob because that's what it looks like but it could, of course, serve some > other function and just look like a knob. Yeah! I had forgotten about the knurling... Big chance that is done for a knob function. One small alternative I can think off is for the thing to be jam-fit in a hole. Or do I remember that the knurling is only along a short section, at the top of the cylinder? I think lead has been used for all kinds of plug inserts, to use in holes drilled in masonry or other metals, to attach other things... What is the pattern of the impacts? Is it mostly on the top? -would support the jam-fit insert idea. Then, also, if the whole patented gadget consist of the "knob" alone, it at last makes perfect sense for the Pat Nr to be on it! Any oldtimer has suggestions for a chunk of lead being a patented device all by itself? Does the impact pattern indicate anything else? Any scratch marks, like from a prying screwdriver? Could the colonists have use this thing as a fishing line lead? Impacts made by hitting coral rock? Any limestone traces in the metal? Cheers. Christian D ******************************************************************** From Ric No damage to the knurling to suggest use as a plug. No traces of limestone. No discernable pattern to the "insults" except that the blows that distorted the letters and numbers were apparently directed more or less squarely on the top of the knob. No damage to the sides. There is no noticeable deformation of the overall cylindrical shape of the knob. There is some evidence of upward prying with a flat-surfaced tool (small flathead screwdriver or knifeblade?) on the underside edge. There is pronounced deformation of the central hole (easily seen in the photos on the website) which appears to have been caused by lateral pressure against the shaft or central post the knob was once attached to. In other words, the damage to the knob seems to imply that it was pried off the shaft it once turned. It looks like somebody hammered on it and then inserte a knifeblade of small flathead screwdriver between the base of the knob and the surface of whatever device it was mounted on. They pried upward on one side, which cause the central hole to cave in against the shaft on the opposite side. This enlarging of the central hole permited the knob to be removed from the shaft - but why? Somebody went to considerable trouble to pry this knob off whatever it was on - and it appears that whatever it was on was American. I like your idea about secondary use as a fishing line weight. That would explain why no other part of the device was found with the knob (although it could be nearby in a place we haven't yet searched thoroughly). Suppose the knob was removed specifically because it was lead and just the right size for a fishing line weight? Who's gonna do that? - The colonists and the Coasties both fished and both had access to American-made devices at one time or another, but nobody did any fishing at the Seven Site where we found the knob (about 100 meters from either the lagoon or the ocean). - The castaway might be the most logical owner of an expedient tool that was found not far from other objects which could also be expedient tools (glass sherds for cutting). If the knob is an expedient fishing line weight used by the castaway (and perhaps carried in the sextant box along with other essential items) then it expands the logical possibilities of what the original device might be. For example, if the knob turned out to be from some big bulky airplane component it would be hard to explain its presence at the Seven Site so far from where we think the airplane ended up. However, if it's only virtue to the castaway was its size, weight and the fact that it has a convenient hole in the middle - that's not a problem. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:42:54 EDT From: Denise Subject: One Thing Teachers Know is How to Get Stuff for Free! Ric, you ask: "Who could pass up a deal like that?" Are you sure you aren't scoffing at this suggestion too soon? Sure, on the surface it looks like there's nothing in it for the Nauticos, but people take pleasure in proving theyr'e right and the other guy is totally nuts! And with this challenge you'd be offering them the glorious opportunity of proving you're wrong. The Nauticos being given the chance of proving Ric Gillespie is totally nuts? Hey, you can't put a price on something like that. Furthermore, since, to date, the Nauticos have come up emptyhanded (and we all know -snigger! - that this will continue to be the case no matter how much money they spend on it) are you sure they won't welcome such a challenge since it gives them a definite place to look? In shallow water too? And, don't forget, they'd get masses of media exposure, which, in the end, would come to millions of dollars worth of free advertising. (I even think they'd even welcome the ensuing publicity when they end up proving themselves to be the ones who are totally nuts!) See, you say there's nothing in it for them ... but, hey, are you so sure they'd see it that way? LTM (who'd say "Putnam would approve") Denise ********************************************************************** From Ric I'm flattered that you think it would be worth a cool million or so to anybody to prove me wrong about anything. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:48:51 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: No forum Monday Could I get an 8 x 10 autographed glossy? (just kidding) Great job on the last edition of TIGHAR Tracks!! At the expense of sounding corny, when I see the quality of the work put out in TIGHAR Tracks, it makes me proud to be a member. By the way, any idea of how much the picture to be painted of the Electra landing on Niku is gonna run? Love to have a copy if it's not too expensive for this old dude!! Again, great job on your last publication. Thanks much to you and Pat for all your efforts. Very much appreciated. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ***************************************** From Ric Thanks Mike. We haven't set prices on the prints yet. We'll put that information out as soon as we have it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:54:47 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Thinking like a teacher ... As usual, I can't argue with your logic, but I think Denise has a point. If these deep-sea guys are as good as they claim to be, why wouldn't one of them check out the deep water around Niku? You told me that Ballard was "waaay too smart" to look for the Electra. I truly believe that if he looked at the evidence and seriously studied the Niku Hypothesis why would he not take a shot? He strikes me as a very brilliant and very logical guy who loves the notiriety. The search wouldn't entail hundreds of miles as in the Nauticos/Long expedition. If the Electra was washed off the reef as we believe, how far could it be from the reef? Given the limited search area and the publicity one would get from finding the Electra, even if only an engine was found, how difficult would it be for a man like Ballard to raise the money for a restricted area search. If these deep-sea guys can find Gus Grissom's Mercury capsule or the Titanic or the Bismarck, why not the Electra? I may be way off base but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of attracting some deep-sea outfit to participate in the search. I believe that the only "smoking gun" evidence lies in the deep water off the reef where we believe she landed. Our work to date has been thorough and impressive. However, it seems that it could take forever to find the proverbial "needle in the haystack". I support everything TIGHAR has done. I just wish we could attract a deep-sea team to search the deep water around Niku. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:55:50 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: 1,894,3xx For: The Wombat Don't forget that Garand also manufactured the M-1 rifle. Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:00:58 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: AE Found Well, gang, its been a great ride but the mystery is solved. The Weekly World News (July 16, 2002 issue) cover story is "Amelia Earhart's Plane Lands .. with a skeleton at the controls!". The story says she landed gear up at Howland on May 21, 2002. Included is a photo of the Electra with, indeed, a skeleton at the controls. I believe the photo is of the Luke Field crash awkwardly doctored with the addition of the skeleton and several soldiers in more modern uniforms. No word on Fred. I guess the poor bastard is still in that other dimension. This is what I get for doing the grocery shopping. Tim Smith 1142 CE ********************************************************** From Ric So the Weekly World News has found Amelia again. That's very good news. There could be no firmer measure of our return to saner times than for that arch-tabloid to return to one of its favorite stories. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:14:50 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Search flight on July 9, 2002 Ric wrote: >There were two flights on July 9th. According to the ship's log, the morning >flight that searched McKean, Gardner, and Carondelet Reef was flown by: > >Aircraft 4-0-4 >Pilot: Lt. John O. Lambrecht >Observer: Seaman 1st Class J.L. Marks > >Aircraft 4-0-6 >Pilot: Lt. (jg) Leonard O. Fox >Observer: Radioman 3rd Class Williamson > >Aircraft 4-0-5 >Pilot: Lt. (jg) William B. Short >Observer: Lt. C.F. Chillingworth >(Chillingworth was the ship's Damage Control Officer.) For those who might be interested, I have a photograph of the Vought O3U-3, Corsair, # 406, flown by Lt (jg) Leonard O. Fox on the July 9, 1937 search mission. The photograph depicts the aircraft in the "land" configuration. At the time of the flight the landing gear was replaced by floats. Request the photo from me at RKelleyWA@aol.com and I will respond with the photo attached to my reply. It's interesting to note that the observers assigned to the search flights were not aviation orientated. For example, I would question the qualifications and ability of the ships Damage Control Officer to perform as a qualified observer during a critical, political search. Sounds like the question which was put to the crew of the USS Colorado was, "Who wants to go flying today?" Seaman and cadets were selected as observers. No wonder the overflight of Nikumaroro, (Gardner Island), produced negative results. LTM, (who delights in expert observations), Roger Kelley ************************************************************************** From Ric We have a great inflight photo of that same airplane from the Nat. Archives in float configuration. Apparently it was the example of the O3U-3 that the Navy used for its record photos of the type. I 'spect that Radioman Williamson and our friend Marks were the regular assigned observers. The usual job of the ship's planes was to spot for the big guns and that took some specialized training. Search and Rescue was not yet a recognized speciality and its apparent that the pilots could invite their brother officers along for a ride during the Earhart operation. I doubt that swabbies were extended such courtesies. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:17:44 EDT From: Nick Subject: Electra Complex >Well, if we're basing stuff on facial structure, I've seen published >photographs of both Fred Noonan and Amelia Earhart's dad and let me tell you >there is such a resemblance in their facial structures it's almost >uncanny. You know, I think that there's a perfectly good conspiracy theory >in their someplace that is definitely going to waste. Maybe someone should do >something about it! I think we have all the elements of an Electra complex here... Kind regards, Nick in Cali, Colombia ********************************************************** From Ric You're not by any chance having drug problems down there, are you? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:30:46 EDT From: Pete Subject: J.L. Marks I received a reply from the USS Colorado Association. The Secretary/Treasurer informed me they have no J.L. Marks in their database. I rechecked the "TAPS" section of the website, and neither a "Marks" nor a "Lambrecht" are included. As for Jackson L., maybe the Navy Public Affairs Office could find something? Other than that, only the County Clerk's office that covers Corte Madera might have relatives, or a least the Executor of the Estate, listed with the Death Certificate. LTM (who doesn't know when ships first had Alpha Rosters either) Pete #2419 ************************************************************** From Dan Postellon >Two things to keep in mind about the SSDI: it's not complete, and >it's not complete. You can say that again! >it's very frustrating if >one is searching for someone born prior to about 1950. If the >person sought died before about 1970, their name probably will >not be in the list just yet. Or so it appears from here. That's not quite the problem. People born before 1950 are less likely to have needed a social security number. Originally, many people were exempt, for example if self-employed. Registration started about 1938 or 1939. The Social Security System has to know that you died for you to be listed in the SSDI (duh). If the person involved had a social security number, but never collected benefits, and died during the time that social security death benefits were not paid, they are not in the list. Names make it to the list soon after death, if the number was reported. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(and her seventh cousin three times removed). ************************************************ From Dennis McGee Ron Dawson said: "From memory, I seem to recall that the Navy said he was not a crewman on the Colorado. Ric said: "Well....whoever was keeping the deck log was under the impression that somebody by that name flew with Lambrecht on both the 8th and the 9th." Ron may be right; didn't the Navy, as well as the other services, often send guys TDY (Temporary Duty) for special assignments? I had lots of friends in the Air Force that were forever going hither and yon on special short-term assignments, though their permanent duty station was XYZ Air Force Base. So maybe Marks was on special assignment from somewhere else and went aloft with Lambrecht "for the ride." So far we've uncovered nothing to indicate that any the spotters on the search aircraft were anything but an extra pair of eyes. There is no indication that any of the spotters were trained in that discipline. According to the roster you posted earlier some of the cadets were also taken aloft, apparently as spotters, so it appears the Navy wasn't taking their search duties too seriously. It would be easy to imagine -- given the background we now have on the USS Colorado search -- the Navy just going through the motions to satisfy the big brass, send up a few planes with "spotters" and report back that nothing was found. In that type of environment it's easy to see how a TDY guy would get a ride on a search mission: "Hey, Marks! You want to ride along with Lambrecht on this search? Grab a life jacket and meet me at the catapult in 10 minutes." "Sure, why not?" LTM, who's had her share of freebies Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************* From Ric As I mentioned in an earlier reply, I suspect that an enlisted man aboard the aircraft was a regular crewmember. Officers, when possible, extend such courtesies to other officers. ************************************************** From Art Carty You can add John L. Marks, born 1916 in Washington, D.C. He is also on the 1930 Census, still living in Washington. Right age for a Navy Seaman but nothing else. My best guess is that a Navy Seaman would be between 17 and 25 so the target birth years are 1912-1920. Other J.L Marks found: James Loice Marks, b. 8/1908, died 8/1968 ( a little too old for a Seaman) Researching dates on.... James Lincoln Marks Jason Lindsay Marks Jeffery Lee Marks Jeffrey Lon Marks Jimmie Lewis Marks Joe Lee Marks Johann Ludolf Marks John Lalande Marks John Lawrence Marks Joseph Lee Marks No US Navy WWII records of note are on line except foreign internments. I am using Ancestry.com and all their associated data bases if any one else wants to join in. I've forgotten (happens during a "quest"); what would we do if we actually found the right J.L. Marks, anyway? LTM (who can't remember her kids names half the time) Art from Maine #2268 ********************************************************************** From Ric If he was still alive and lucid we'd ask him what he remembers about the flight over Gardner Island during the Earhart search and especially if he could give us any idea what Lambrecht meant when he said "signs of recent habitiation were clearly evident.." ...and whatever he told us would be 65 year old anecdotal recollection. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:19:44 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: J.L. Marks Is it possible that our mysterious J.L. Marks could be tracked through the squadron the planes were assigned to? In other words, perhaps he was assigned to the aircraft squadron and not the ship proper. The 4-O-6 designation presumably means plane 6 from observation squadron 4, correct? LTM, Michael ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure how Naval Aviation units were organized at that time with regard to planes assigned to cruisers and battleships. My suspicion is that the "4" referred to the Colorado rather than to a squadron. *************************************************************************** From Alan I echo the ss index problems. My Dad was born in 1905 but DID get a social security number. He died in 1983 but is not in the index. I've always thought that strange as he worked 30 years for the Social Security Administration. The answer is quite simple however. At death no one thought to apply for SS death benefits. THAT is what triggers the entry. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Angus Murray Is there any chance this was J.L. Marx, ie the spelling was incorrect? Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric Or Marques? However, the name appears as "Marks" at least twice in the ship's deck log on different days. ************************************************************************* From Ron Dawson I received a letter from National Archives and Records Admin. on 8 Oct 99 and quote: "Dear Mr. Dawson: This is in response to your August 14, 1999 letter, requesting a search of the muster rolls for the USS Colorado (BB-45) for the name 'J.L. Marks'. I regret any inconvenience my delay in responding may have caused. I examined the muster rolls for the USS Colorado (BB-45) for the period June, 1937 through December, 1937, including the report of changes for each roll (compiled quarterly), but did not locate the name 'J.L. Marks'. Sincerely, Richard W. Peuser, Old Military and Civil Records, Textural Archives Service Division. " from Ron: I am looking for the reply I got from military records division which was also negative. Jeez, Ric, how did we amass so much stuff? I have 6 file folders on FN and 5 folders on naval research. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson, 2126 **************************************************************************** From Ric Staggering isn't it? And it can become a real problem when we forget what we already know. The J.L. Marks thing is a puzzlement. I wonder how common it is for people to be on a Naval vessel and somehow not show up on the roster. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:22:40 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: J.L. Marks Actually, it makes good sense to see if we can find Marks - if he's alive, or even if deceased, there could be contemporaneous letters, diary, etc., that could make reference to the flight and the information we're interested in. ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric You're right of course. The Earhart search was an unusual event and people tended to write home about it. Pilot Bill Short's letter to his father is one of the best contemporaneous descriptions we have of the Colorado's aerial search. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:27:39 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Search flight on July 9, 2002 > From Ric > > I 'spect that Radioman Williamson and our friend Marks were the regular > assigned observers. The usual job of the ship's planes was to spot for the > big guns and that took some specialized training. Search and Rescue was not > yet a recognized speciality and its apparent that the pilots could invite > their brother officers along for a ride during the Earhart operation. I > doubt that swabbies were extended such courtesies. I 'spect you're right. The job of observer would not be a full time job. It would be a collateral duty. I'm sure enlisted ratings were assigned or volunteered for such duty, but not on a case by case basis. It would have been a permanent duty whenever the occasion arose. As such, be careful not assume the observers were untrained. Although the individual's primary duty (his "rate") may have been Radioman, any collateral duty he may have held on board ship (Damage Control Petty Officer, Publications Custodian, etc.) would have training in that area associated with it. As for the officers, it may have been a case of buddyism, but it may also have been a need make a check mark in the necessary qualifications for command. Unless he held a warrant instead of a commission, the Colorado's damage control officer was a black shoe line officer holding an engineering division officer's post. A mere stepping stone in the pipeline to command. If that was the case, he too may have had to go through training before going up on a real observation mission. My point here is let's not dismiss the observers as incompetent out of hand just because we ASSUME they didn't know what they were doing. LTM (Who never had her Mom quals signed off, but learned them OJT) Kerry Tiller ********************************************************************* From Ric Also bear in mind that the Colorado's aircraft were radio-equipped (morse code back to the battleship). For that you need a radio operator. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:46:14 EDT From: DavyFlyer Subject: No Subject Please guide me on this if you already gone over it. My problem is this. If AE landed on some island and was not sure what it was, wouldn't you send your transmission with some sort of identifiable information to pin point.? Like "on island with grounded ship" ; may not even know the name yet. If she didn't, then one asks, she never saw it? Then this could only be if she never was there??? which to much points that she was. Then is it possible that her approach and landing could be done on a section of the island that she may never had seen it? I went back and looked at that Betty's Book. And I noted that it was said "watch the battery"; which makes one wonder if they where not running engine. Also this water coming in, thing. Do you feel like maybe they stayed with the plane to the very last, up to 2 days before trying to get to shore. Maybe Fred climbed out of it and never made it to shore. Next thing. This NY NY and sounds like Something like New York. A teen in the 30s from Fl. would be well aware of New York. But to them, I believe, New York is run together and is one word. So if AE was calling out the name of the ship, and Betty isn't familiar with the sound of the last part, then you see why she would say, "sounds like something like New York, or NY. Thanks DavyFlyer ************************************************************************* From Ric Bear in mind that the vast majority of the post-loss transmissions contain no intelligible information. She could have been saying "There's a big old wrecked ship here." and nobody heard it. We don't know what the situation was so we can't make assumptions about a person would do or say. I do think that it's safe to say that if the plane was on the reef, the crew did not stay in plane during the day. The heat would be unbearable. At low tide it should have been no problem to move back and forth between the plane and the shore. Takes about ten minutes of careful walking with plenty of opportunity for painful slips and falsl on the coral. As for "NY, NY" in Betty's notebook; there has been speculation that it was "Norwich City" which Betty heard as "something like New York City" which she then wrote down as "NY, NY". There has also been speculation that they thought they were on Atafu which was also known as "Duke of York" Island and so may have been saying "Duke of York, Duke of York" which Betty heard as "something like New York, New York". Both are interesting theories but fundamentally unprovable. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:12:00 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: 1937 USN Earhart SAR Effort No one who has ever put to sea has taken life threatening searches less than serious -Do not take 1937 lack of sophistication in modern Sea,Air, Rescue (SAR) procedures for lack of interest by the participants - Unsuccessful SAR events are always open for speculation and second guessing - I can assure you from experience an unsuccessful SAR event does not happen from lack of interest from the participants! Respectfully: Tom Strang **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll confess to an aversion to using anachronistic terminology. Talking about SAR operations in 1937 is a bit like describing Army operations on the frontier in the 1870s as "insurgent interdiction." While not strictly inaccurate, I think it makes it more difficult to remember the context in which the events occurred. That's why I refer to "Gilbertese" rather than "I-Kiribati" colonists and why I'll sometimes refer to Gardner Island rather than Nikumaroro depending on the period and the context. But to get to your point - fortunately we don't have to speculate or second guess about the general attitude toward the Earhart search aboard USS Colorado. We have several official reports, a number of shipboard publications, press releases, and a diary/letter by one of the search pilots. There was considerable excitement and enthusiasm early in the search which gradually gave way to boredom, resentment, and even a touch of cynicism as the voyage dragged out, the heat grew stifling, and the search proved fruitless. They did their duty but they were more than glad to hand off to the Lexington Group when it arrived. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:16:13 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: J.L. Marks > Okay...so we have a Jackson L. Marks born in 1915 and died in 1988. Lived at > one time in Illinois and last residing in Corte Madera, CA.< Yes, Jackon L. Marks was born Oct. 28, 1915 and died Dec 1, 1988. His SS# is 329-24-9295 issued in Illinois. Last know address was 123 Buena Vista Ave. Corte Madera, Cal. At last resort I'll call the remaining Marks' in Marin and try and find a relative. Chris #2511 *************************************************************************** From Ric No need to make it a last resort. Your chances of locating a relative are probably pretty good. It's just a hassle to do it that way, but good detective work is almost always a hassle. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:59:28 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Ship on reeef? > From DavyFlyer > If AE landed on some island and was not sure what it was, wouldn't you > send your transmission with some sort of identifiable information to pin > point.? Like "on island with grounded ship" ; may not even know the name yet. Apropos of "ship on reef" messages, where did Luttrell get his "ship on reef south of equator" message from? If this message is not apocryphal it can of course still be interpreted as referring either to the NC or to the aircraft. Did AE ever refer to the A/c as "the ship"? Regards Angus. ****************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately, Luttrell does not cite his sources. He has a message on July 2nd quoted as " Plane on reef 200 miles directly south of Howland". We've found no such message on the the 2nd but late in the search a Coast Guard message reported that a ham operator named Frank Feitas of Yreka, CA said that he had "HEARD VOICE SIGNALS LAST FRIDAY JULY NINTH SOMETIME BETWEEN MIDN IGHT AND DAWN COMING FROM THE EARHART PLANE AND RECOGNIZED THE VOICE OF AMELIA EARHART HAVING HEARD IT BEFORE SHE SAID THAT PLANE WAS ON A REEF 200 MILES DIRECTLY SOUTH OF HOWLAND AND THAT BOTH WERE OK AND PLANE HAD ONE WING BROKEN." Luttrell's "ship on reef south of equator" message, which he says was heard on July 3rd, is almost certainly the message heard by 16 year-old Dana Randolph in Rock Springs, Wyoming probably on July 4th. A message sent to Itasca by by Coast Guard headquarters in San Francisco at 15:10 PSTon July 4 reads: "UNCONFIRMED REPORTS FROM ROCKSPRINGS WYOMING STATE EARHART PLANE HEARD 16000 KCS REPORTED POSITION ON A REEF SOUTHEAST OF HOWLAND ISLAND THIS INFORMATION MAY BE AUTHENTIC AS SIGNALS FROM MID PACIFIC AND ORIENT OFTEN HEARD INLAND WHEN NOT AUDIBLE ON COAST VERIFICATION FOLLOWS." About two hours later another message stated: "FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY QUOTE INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN" I'm not sure where the "ship" quote came from. I have yet to see a source which purports to quote exactly what Dana Randolph heard. A reference to "ship" on reef" would be ambiguous. Earhart, like everyone else in aviation in the 1930s, occasionally referred to her plane as a "ship". Ron Bright did a lot of work on the Rock Springs intercept back in 2000. It's one of the most credible of the post-loss messages because - It was investigated at the time and judged to be credible. - The timing corresponds to the most active period of receptions. - The reported frequency is close to a harmonic of Earhart's frequencies. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:00:31 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Thinking like a teacher ... For Mike Haddock -- Actually, Bob Ballard (an acquaintance of Randy Jacobson's) has looked at the hypothesis. He did a pre-publication review of our book, and pronounced the hypothesis a viable one. That doesn't necessarily mean he's ready to put a search for the Electra very high on his already rather complex priority list; he's pretty busy in the Black Sea right now, I think. TK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:04:05 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: J.L. Marks Maybe Marks was a secret plant on the Colorado by Chester Nimitz coordinating AE's secret mission to Saipan and, and , and-----(just kidding)---I wholeheartedly agree with an earlier point you made about the Naval search for AE being a matter of covering their ass because something went terribly wrong. As we all know the military, and most other forms of government don't like to be caught in a boo-boo. I have always been of the opinion that the communication arrangements between AE & Itasca were questionable at best with plenty of fault on both sides. It's easy to point fingers after all these years but the reality of the situation was that two people died and, in my opinion, unnecessarily. Finally, how did the taping at your home go? I think we would all be interested in hearing about it if you would care to share. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 **************************************************************** From Ric The taping was very routine. The usual questions. The usual answers. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:29:31 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: Re: J.L. Marks I did a quick bit of checking on USN scout plane squadrons, which confirmed my suspicions. USN aircraft prewar did carry a three part code scheme. The letter in the middle was the unit type - F for fighter, T for torpedo, S for scout, B for bomb, O for observation, CS for cruiser scout, etc. The number to the left is the squadron number, the number to the right the aircraft's number within that unit. The CS designation only came about in 1937, before that float planes on cruisers were in "S" (technically VS) squadrons. Observation squadrons provided the planes for battleships. There are some examples at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/s-types/soc.htm with captions mentioning squadron numbers and the picture showing the marking on the plane. It stands to reason that if Marks (and let's presume that this is his name) doesn't show up on the Colorado's rolls, then he might show up in records from VO-4 (or VO-4b - I haven't quite figured the numbering completely out yet...). LTM, Michael ******************************* From Ric Thanks. I learned something. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:34:12 EDT From: Timothy Subject: J.L. Marks/4-o-6 >From Ric > >I'm not sure how Naval Aviation units were organized at that time with regard >to planes assigned to cruisers and battleships. My suspicion is that the "4" >referred to the Colorado rather than to a squadron. Actually the fuselage code 4-o-6 would translate to the the sixth plane (third aircraft of the second section) of the fourth observation squadron. VO-4 had three(three plane) sections one on the USS Colorado BB-45, another on the USS Maryland BB-46 and the third on the USS West Virginia BB-48. Thomas E. Doll and Berkley R. Jackson and William A. Riley, Navy Air Colors United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard Aircraft Camouflage and Markings Vol. 1 1911-1945 (Squadron/Signal Publications) 46. I personally think that J.L. Marks would most likely have been with the squadron and not the regular ships company. Timothy ************************************************************ From Ric Which might explain why he's not on the ship's roster..... That's interesting. The three ships you mention make up the "Maryland Class" and probably all had the same sort of catapult and recovery gear. Makes sense to have one squadron servicing them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:37:20 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Search flight on July 9, 2002 Hmm - this is interesting, and something I wasn't aware of. > From Ric > > Also bear in mind that the Colorado's aircraft were radio-equipped (morse > code back to the battleship). For that you need a radio operator. Of course, it leads to the question as to whether there anything in the Colorado's radio logs regarding "signs of recent habitation" (or any other relative transmissions - ie: "there's an airplane on the reef flat, but it doesn't have twin tails, so it can't be AE"). Okay, maybe not that relative... ltm jon ****************************************************** From Ric We get spoiled by the Itasca and think that a ship's radio logs are routinely archived. They're not. Itasca's were saved only because of the Earhart incident. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:50:20 EDT From: Timothy Subject: J.L. Marks/4-o-6b >(or VO-4b - I haven't quite figured the numbering completely out yet...) Prior to July 1, 1937 the "b" in the designation VO-4b would have meant the squadron was assigned to the battle fleet. However The fleet squadron Re-Organization that took effect July 1, 1937 dropped the "b" from the designation. Timothy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:03:03 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: KDN callsign > About two hours later another message stated: "FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK > SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY QUOTE INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR > SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN" Should this actually be understood as: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY - " INVESTIGATION REVEALS THE SIGNALS WHICH WERE HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES ARE THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ". THE RESPONSE WAS SIGNED KDN. or FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY - "INVESTIGATION REVEALS THE SIGNALS WHICH WERE HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES AND THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ WERE IN FACT SIGNED KDN NOT KHAQQ" ie was KDN the callsign of the investigator or apparently that of the originator of the mysterious signals? Presumably Dana Randolph or parent was not a ham and had no callsign? Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric The entire text of the message from San Francisco HQ to Itasca was: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY QUOTE INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN UNQUOTE I have a recollection that Ron Bright determined that KDN was the call sign of the Rock Springs airport who did the investigation. Perhaps our radio gurus could confirm who KDN was. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:04:14 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: Re: J.L. Marks/4-o-6 Ric wrote: "That's interesting. The three ships you mention make up the "Maryland Class" and probably all had the same sort of catapult and recovery gear. Makes sense to have one squadron servicing them." Actually, there's more to it than that - the three ships the Maryland class made up Battleship Division Four and would be expected to operate together in war time. It makes sense to have a single float plane squadron as well for the ships of the division, as they were integral to spotting shell fire. Actually, having an observation squadron per battleship division was SOP at the time - see http://www.geocities.com/scs028a/1940BatFor.html LTM, Michael ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:07:14 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: J.L. Marks/4-o-6 > Timothy wrote: > I personally think that J.L. Marks would most likely have been with the > squadron and not the regular ships company. If Lambrecht and the other pilots don't show up in the ship's company, that would certainly tend to support this hypothesis. It wouldn't make sense to include the pilots in the ship's roster, and not the observers. ltm jon ********************************************************** From Ric Ah, but Lambrecht, Fox, and Short ARE listed in the deck log's list of officers. There is no list of enlisted men in the deck log. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:14:31 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Search flight on July 9, 2002 > From Ric > > We get spoiled by the Itasca and think that a ship's radio logs are routinely > archived. They're not. Itasca's were saved only because of the Earhart > incident. Rats. As anal as the military is about everything else, you'd think they'd have this stuff someplace. Particularly since they should have realized we were going to need it.... ltm jon ********************************************************** From Brinkman You may find this of some use, or not. http://www.utahbooks.com/heritage_more.htm "From McKean Island we altered course to Gardner Island covering a wide area of water enroute. The planes continued on to the S.E. and Carondelet Reef then returned to the ship. The next flight flew eastward to Hull Island where the planes landed in the quiet waters of the lagoon. An outrigger canoe came away from the beach. A white man in the canoe was asked if he had seen anything of Amelia Earhart. He said, "No, who is she?" The pilot explained and asked if he had a radio to keep up with the news. He responded with a British accent, "Yes, but the bloody battery has been dead for two years."" ********************************************************************** From Ric Well...he has some of it right. Only one plane landed in the lagoon at Hull and Jonesy's radio problem was not that the batteries were dead. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:21:11 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: "Anachronistic Terminology" "Anachronistic Terminology" - I love big words - I apologize for the time frame confusion in my last post - Forgot forum school house analogy - Still in forum kindergarten - " enthusiasm then boredom, resentment and even a touch of cyicism", you gave a very good description of the emotions experienced during and after an unsuccessful life and death search at sea. Thanks for your guidance. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:26:45 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: J.L. Marks/4-o-6 Okay, we know from Ron Dawson that Marks doesn't show up in the ship's Muster Rolls for the period from 6-37 to 12-37. (I wonder if Lambrecht, et. al. are listed?) The ship's deck logs, however, DO list the officers but not the enlisted men. Probably there are entirely too many EM's to include in the deck logs. Officers on- board, on the other hand, are probably significant enough to list even if they aren't directly assigned to the ship. I think it's a good bet that if the "Muster Rolls" for the squadron can be found, Marks will be there. (Muster Roll - sounds like stale pastry. Just the sort of thing one might find in the Navy) ltm jon (whose "senior trip" to exotic locations was transported courtesy of the USS General William Weigal) ***************************************************************** From Ric For the record, the Colorado deck log lists a compliment of 63 commissioned and 13 noncommisioned officers. I would imagine that the enlisted crew numbered something over a thousand souls, ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:27:21 EDT From: Timothy Subject: correction to 4-O-6b >(or VO-4b - I haven't quite figured the numbering completely out >yet...) >Prior to July 1, 1937 the "b" in the designation VO-4b would have meant >the squadron was assigned to the battle fleet. However The fleet >squadron Re-Organization that took effect July 1, 1937 dropped the "b" >from the designation. >Timothy Sorry the "b" actually stood for "Battle Force" not Battle Fleet. Timothy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:38:45 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Ship on reeef? > Luttrell's "ship on reef south of equator" message, which he says was heard > on July 3rd, is almost certainly the message heard by 16 year-old Dana > Randolph in Rock Springs, Wyoming probably on July 4th. "South of equator" is interesting because its just the sort of message Noonan might have wanted sent if he did not know his exact position, if for instance the sextant had been lost or damaged in a crash-landing. He could guess he was more probably south of the equator by the lack of visibility of the pole star and possibly even work out a more exact latitude from the transit time of the setting sun's disc as it crossed the horizon. Knowing this transit time, and from the almanac the expected azimuth of the sun at that time on the particular date from an assumed position on the equator he could calculate a latitude north or south of the equator. All he would need is a stop-watch chronometer ( AE's Omega would do) and the Almanac for an approximate latitude. This gives some credibility to such a message. However, it may be a different message from the Rock Springs one especially as "SOUTHEAST OF HOWLAND" allows the possibility of north of the equator. PS I found this which confirms your match between the two messages. Message: 15 Subject: Re: Wyoming message---Call sign Date: 10/12/00 From: Ron Bright The newspaper account I have (The Honolulu Star Bulletin) states that the young lad could not hear any further numbers or any call sign. I don't know the origin of the KDN sign off. He claims he only heard the faint voice "Amelia Earhart calling...ship on reef south of equator." It still does not explain the discrepancy between the USCG report and the above message. Regards Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric Unfrotunately, we don't have the source for the information in the Coast Guard message. How did Dana get the word out? Did his father contact "the authorities" as Betty's father did? Did the information come to the Coast Guard via a phone call? A telegram? It would seem likely that the Coast Guard's information would be better than whatever was reported in a Honolulu newspaper, but we can't be sure of that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:44:33 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Horseshoes and hand grenades If Feitas heard a post lost message between mid-night and dawn on July 9th, then Lambrecht missed the Electra by about a day. Talk about your bad luck. ************************************************************************* For Ric A number of things are making me begin to suspect that the biggest factors that kept Lambrecht and company from seeing the airplane were the high tide and high surf that were present when they made their overflight. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:53:55 EDT From: Subject: OT - FYI OT but just for the interest. Wasn't there some forum talk of this fairly recently? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51621-2002Jul10.html (Ballard's location of the PT-109 wreckage) ************************************************************************* From Ric My goodness....have we added another abbreviation to Forum Lore? LTM has become legendary. Now we have OT for Off Topic. Yes, we had a chat about finding things that aren't lost. The real point is not to "solve a mystery" (there was none) but to verify or correct the historical record. In the case of Kennedy's boat, it turns out that the Japanese destroyer did not cut it in half but rather struck it a glancing blow that cut off part of the stern. It's not hard to imagine how, in the darkness and confusion, the crew may have gotten a skewed impression of exactly what happened but it's always good to have the facts. I also applaud the decision to leave the wreck undisturbed and, with any luck, the 1,200 foot depth will keep it that way. LTM and not all that OT Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:54:48 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: J.L. Marks Perhaps Marks was assigned Temporary Duties aboard the Colorado from elsewhere, but I only have the logs from July 1 through the 31st. The Muster Rolls on the deck logs only list officers. On July 9th, the deck log states that Marks, S1c accompanied Lambrecht. S1c means Seaman First Class. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:25:44 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: KDN callsign >Should this actually be understood as: > >FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY - " >INVESTIGATION REVEALS THE SIGNALS WHICH WERE HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES >ARE THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ". THE RESPONSE WAS SIGNED KDN. Yes, this is correct, according to telegram format. KDN is the initials of the person sending the message, not a radio callsign. >or > >FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY - "INVESTIGATION >REVEALS THE SIGNALS WHICH WERE HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES AND THOUGHT TO >BE FROM KHAQQ WERE IN FACT SIGNED KDN, NOT KHAQQ" NO NO NO.... Uh-uh. see above. >ie was KDN the callsign of the investigator No... see above. KDN is the initials of the investigator. >or apparently that of the originator of the mysterious signals? Presumably Dana >Randolph or parent was not a ham and had no callsign? KDN would not, in any event, be a ham radio callsign. Such callsigns always have a number (a single number from 1 through 9, prior to WW2) following the first letter. >FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY QUOTE >INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE >FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN UNQUOTE > >I have a recollection that Ron Bright determined that KDN was the call sign >of the Rock Springs airport who did the investigation. I rather doubt that this would be correct. As above, it almost certainly is the initials of the sender of the message. LTM (who sometimes suffers from paranoic schizophrenia) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Randy Jacobson I've always interpreted the message as meaning that the person in Rock Springs thought that the message was from Earhart, not that the message was in fact, from Earhart. It's part of the ambiguities of radiotelegraphy and the use of short phrasings. Ric and I have argued repeatedly over this particular message. When read in the context of the request for more information, my interpretation makes more sense. *************************************************************************** From Ric No it doesn't. First of all, there's no way that anyone in Rock Springs could determine that the message was actually from Earhart. How would they do that? The message says: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRYQUOTE INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN UNQUOTE I interpret this to mean: We asked somebody in Rock Springs to check out this report about a kid named Randolph hearing Earhart. The investigator reported back to us that, after looking into it, he thinks the signals heard near sixteen megacylces were indeed from KHAQQ. You seem to interpret it to mean: We asked somebody in Rock Springs to check out this report about a kid named Randolph hearing Earhart. The investigator reported back to us that, after looking into it, he confirms that the kid thinks he heard Earhart. What sense does that make? Some investigation. They already knew that the kid thought he heard Earhart. What they wanted to know is whether the kid's claim might be legitimate. The real question is my mind is who is this KDN guy and how qualified was he to investigate this? By the way, Ron Bright, with the help of the local newspaper in Rock Springs, was able to find a newspaper photo of Dana Randolph. He's black, in a town that was about 99.9 percent white. In a strange way, that probably enhanced his credibility. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:27:29 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Search flight on July 9, 2002 > From Ric > > We get spoiled by the Itasca and think that a ship's radio logs are routinely > archived. They're not. Itasca's were saved only because of the Earhart > incident. Ric's right. There is an enormous amount of log keeping that goes on on board ship: daily muster rolls of everyone on board (including embarked aviation squadrons who are treated as just another ship's division for admin paper work purposes), there are a number of different radio logs, engineering logs including the "Bell Book" (engine telegraph orders from the bridge), navigation logs, weather logs, damage control logs (they keep track of what damage control fittings - water tight doors, valves, etc. - are logged open or closed), weapon status logs, leave and other personnel logs, medical logs; the list is endless. But they are all kept in the event something happens that needs to be investigated (which, hopefully, is seldom). All these logs save one are kept on board for a pre-determined length of time and then disposed of. The only log that is archived is the ship's "smoothed" Deck Log which is eventually sent to Washington for historical archival. There are guide lines for what that log should contain, but how valuable to historic research a specific deck log is pretty much depends upon the commanding officer who signed it. LTM (who's logged quite a few leagues herself) Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:30:27 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Search flight on July 9, 2002 >We get spoiled by the Itasca and think that a ship's radio logs are routinely >archived. They're not. Itasca's were saved only because of the Earhart >incident. Hmm -- any variation in policy between USCG and USN, I wonder? I had occasion to review the Navy's Federal Records Act procedures a few years ago, and I certainly thought they provided for archiving ships' logs. Of course, the procedures (and the FRA) are relatively new, though I think the original FRA dates to the '30s. ************************************************************************** From Ric As Kerry Tiller says, ships' logs are indeed archived but the reference is to the smoothed deck log, not the innumerable other records kept of daily activities. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:23:47 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: "Un-knob" update >This enlarging of the central hole permited the knob to be > removed from the shaft - but why? Never seen it mentionned how this knob would be fastened to the shaft? Just a press fit? Some sort of set screw? If a knob, it needs some means of securing to whatever shaft... Either way, it is likely a castaway/native would not have the right tools and would just use a heavy blade to work it loose... Also, if this is a US item, could it have been used early on by the castaway? It would have to have come on the plane, but we seem to agree, that lead items are not likely on AE's plane!?!? Can anybody think of what sort of item on a plane HAS to be made of lead, back in the thirties??? Electrical batteries, FN's ship's gear, I suppose... More likely to be from the Loran station stuff? Cheers Christian D PS: just checked a book called "Materials Handbook"... Didn't give me any new ideas. Do we know the exact composition of this lead? Could the "knob" be part of an electrical battery (or its accessories, servicing tools)? May be a connector on the top -hence the prominent Pat Nr? One of the few virtues of lead is its corrosion resistance: how about a stopper for a chemical container? Drives me crazy... **************************************************************************** From Ric Me too. <> You've heard me talk about the steel collar around the inside of the knob. I suspect that the collar provided the interface between the soft lead knob and the steel (?) shaft via some kind of bushing that fit inside the collar. The shaft must have protruded into the hole in the middle of the knob and there may have been a set screw that pushed the bushing out against the collar for a tight fit. Operation of the knob could have been either a turning (rotating the shaft) motion or a push/pull function. The lack of any kind of registration marks makes me lean toward a push/pull. <> We have detailed SEM results, yes. I'll be happy to send them to you if you know how to read them. <> Yes, it does appear to be a U.S. item that was patented in the early 1930s so, if the castaway had it they almost had to have brought it with them. <> It doesn't fit the pattern of the known Coast Guard debris at the site which falls into two basic categories: - rifle shell casings - stuff that was shot up (radio tube parts, plates, a beer bottle) The knob is damaged but not by being shot. Somebody went to considerable trouble to pry it off whatever it was on, presumably because it had some perceived value as an object unto itself. Again, the fishing line weight (sinker) idea seems to make a lot od sense. A Coastie could have done that, but if he did he was engaging in castaway behavior (salvaging items for use as expedient tools). Doesn't it make more sense to ascribe castaway behavior to the castaway? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:56:38 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Lockheed Report 487 - Part 2 The Table on page 34 is actually much more detailed than I have said. It shows power settings in RPM and MP (but not Cambridge settings) for 200, 250, 300, 350, 375and 400 HP at sea level, 5000 and 10,000 feet, plus 350 and 400 HP at 2,500 feet. The table shows both predicted fuel consumption in gph at each setting (obviously based on the conservative curve) and an explicit specific fuel consumption figure. In addition, it shows speed, miles per gallon and hours per mile at each power setting, altitude and gross weight. Let's consider one of the Table's power settings for a moment - 300 HP per engine. The engine setting given for 300 BHP at 5,000 feet is 1800 RPM/ 25.8 MP. Fuel consumption is shown as 46.5 gph (sfc of 0.465). Remember KJ's first telegram of March 11, 1937 ? He said a setting of 1800 RPM / 26 MP at 5000 feet resulted in a fuel consumption of 43 gph. If 1800 /25.8 produces 300 BHP at 5000 feet, 1800 / 26 obviously produces slightly more than that, so 43 gph is slightly below an sfc of 0.43, and just what the "lower curve" predicts. Fuel consumption of 43 gph is also distinctly less than what the Table (based on the "conservative curve" of sfc) calls for. (I chose 300 HP for the example because it is the Table power setting that most closely matches one of KJ's telegram settings.) This Table is - in short - the sort of Table I think KJ's telegrams were meant to supplement (though one hopes that the Table was redone after delivery of the airplane to take into account the actual weight, fuel capacity and performance.) (Without starting an extended discussion, may I point out another setting from this Table ? At 5000 feet, 1700 RPM / 22.5 MP is said to give 200 BHP per engine, at 34.3 gph. In noting the "telegram typos", I called attention to a slilghtly lower setting of 1700 / 22.0, estimated it to be 175 to 180 HP per engine, and suggested that KJ's telegram should read "26 gph" rather than "36 gph." I wish to alter that opinion now, call it a 190 HP + setting, note that 200 HP gives 31.3 gph on the "lower curve" of sfc, and suggest that the telegram should read "30 point 6" rather than "36".) Taking into consideration his estimates in Report 487, what would KJ have said about a maximum range attempt with 1100 gallons of fuel at an initial gross weight of 15,000 pounds (a good rough estimate for Lae - Howland) ? It's pretty easy to figure that out. The 1,500 pound in gross weight difference equals 250 gallons of fuel. This means that performance of the plane on a maximum weight flight at 15,000 pounds would track performance on the 16,500 pound profile after 250 gallons of fuel was burned. The 16,500 pound flight plan calls for about 1.5 hours at 380 hp and 3.5 hours at 360 hp, with a total fuel consumption of about 244 gallons during those five hours. To simplify things, this means that a 15,000 pound flight could skip over the 5 hour 380/360 hp segment to the 4.5 hour 325 hp setting with performance after that point roughly identical to that outlined in the 16,500 pound plan. After flying the remainder of the plan profile (including the 12 hours at 200 hp) the 15,000 pound flight would have 144 gallons of fuel remaining (the 244 not burned reduced by the 100 not carried), which is equal to 4 1/2 more hours at 200 hp. Total duration of the flight would thus be 29 1/2 hours (only one-half hour less than the 16,500 pound/ 1200 gallon flight). Total distance would be reduced less than 100 miles to a bit over 4400 miles in 29 1/2 hours on the "lower curve" sfc (say about 26 1/2 hours and 4000 miles on the "conservative curve.") This is too long already, but let's note two or three odds and ends: 1. Report 487 indicates that at the heaviest weight of 16,500 pounds, performance deteriorates with increases in altitude: HP Sea Level 2,500 feet 5,000 10,000 400 162 mph 163 164 159 [sic] 375 153 * 151[sic] 143 [sic] 350 144 141 128 [sic] * (Kelley Johnson confirms this deterioration with his comment [page 5] that "at the highest gross weight, there is a definite disadvantage in flying higher than 2000 feet.") This indicates that V L/D ("best Lift over Drag Speed") at 16,500 pounds was higher than could be maintained at the higher altitudes at the listed horsepower settings. 2. The Sea Level Horsepower Required Curves on page 30-487 make it possible to estimate theoretical Best Endurance Speed (Ve) at the various weights, by noting the point at which the Horsepower Required begins to RISE with speed reduction. At 9,300 # this occurs between 80 and 85 mph; at 12,900 # it occurs between 90 and 95 mph; at 16,500 # it occurs between 100 and 110 mph (we can't call it any closer than that because of the scanty data). 3. The information on takeoff (pages 21-22) predicts that at sea level, in standard atmosphere, with a good field with hard turf, the takeoff distance (ie, ground roll) would be 2590 feet (0 flap), 2180 feet (20 degrees flap), 2080 (30 degrees flap) at 16,500#. Many thanks to Alan Caldwell for finding this very interesting document and sharing it with us. Oscar PS Does anyone have access to a copy of Kelly Johnson's letter to AE of February 17, 1937, which listed fuel loads and gross weight for each leg of the trip as originally scheduled from San Francisco to Natal ? I certainly would like to see that - or any other information on 10 E performance. ************************************************************************ From Ric Oscar, we'll be happy to do a computerized enhancement of page 30. I expect we'll be able to pull up most, if not all, of the information that's there. Give me a couple of weeks though. There's an awful lot on our plate right now. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:56:15 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Lockheed Report 487 - Part 1 Lockheed Report 487 ("Range Study of Lockheed Electra Bimotor Airplane") is a composite document. The first ten pages (pages 0, 00 and 1 through 8) were prepared by C.L. Johnson, on various dates from June 4 through June 19, 1936. Pages 9 through 15 and 19 through 36 were prepared by W.C. Nelson, and are dated 5/18/36. Pages 16, 17 and 18 are missing from the copy given to me by Alan Caldwell. The Index to Report 487 identifies missing page 16 as the "Normal airplane cruising charts" and pages 17 and 18 as "Engine power curves". In all probability the Engine Power Curves of Report 487 were the same Engine Power Curves shown on pages 11 and 12 of Report 465 - ie, the Power Control Chart (Curve No. 2868) for the P&W Wasp Engine S3H1 and a chart by C.L. Johnson dated Nov. 14, 1935 "taken from PW Curve #2868". It is probable as well that the "Normal airplane cruising chart" 487 was the same document called a "cruising chart" in the Index to Report 465 - ie, the "Level Cruising Performance" chart (dated Nov. 14, 1935) shown on page 10 of Report 465. Pages 7 through 36 of Report 487 contain a series of graphs, charts and tables with estimated performance data. Because of deficiencies in reproduction, in my copy some of them are difficult to read - the very interesting page 30 is almost illegible - but a lot of information is available. There are some internal inconsistencies, which are perhaps not surprising considering the nature of the document. In his Report 487 summary, Kelly Johnson projected an "optimum range" of from 4100 to 4500 statute miles in still air (flight duration 27 to 30 hours) with 1200 gallons of fuel and an initial gross weight of 16,500 pounds. (The 10% fudge factor in range and endurance is based entirely upon variations in specific fuel consumption.) Figure I (page 7) is KJ's chart entitled "RECOMMENDED FLIGHT PROCEDURE ... Data for Obtaining Optimum Range". I interpret it to outline the maximum range flight as follows: Take off and climb to 2,000 feet Fly (about) 1.5 hours at 380 hp (155 CAS = 160 TAS) Fly (about) 3.5 hours at 360 hp Fly (about) 4.5 hours at 325 hp Climb to 4000 feet Fly (about) 8 hours at 250 hp (146 CAS = 157 TAS) Climb to reach 8000 feet about 18 hours into flight Fly remaining 12 hours at 200 hp at 8000 feet (135 CAS = 155 TAS) with descent at 150 CAS (173-150 TAS) during the last hour or so (I use the term "CAS" [calibrated air speed] for the airspeed numbers shown by this chart, and I made the rough conversion of the reading to True airspeed [TAS] for the altitudes specified. The actual chart contains only one airspeed number for each segment of the flight, and says that it is "True Indicated Airspeed". Today we call that "Calibrated Air Speed" - CAS is neither the True Airspeed nor the Indicated Airspeed, it is rather what the indicated airspeed WOULD BE IF the plane had a perfect airspeed indicator, and IF the pitot tube were located in a perfect spot that would eliminate errors caused by disruption of airflow, etc.) The estimated maximum range is based upon the assumption (or hope) that the plane could achieve certain fuel consumption figures. Kelly Johnson was explicit about this on page 6: "The Cambridge Gas Analyzers should be carefully calibrated in flight TO SEE IF THE FUEL CONSUMPTION DATA USED IN THIS ANALYSIS CAN BE OBTAINED. This should be done before attempting any long range flight." (Emphasis added.) The expected "specific fuel consumption" (sfc) is set out in a small graph labeled "Fuel Consumption" in the upper left corner of page 13, which shows sfc at various horsepower settings. Three curves are plotted - the "conservative curve" (as KJ called it on page 5) which would give 4100 miles range, and the "lower curve" which KJ says "reaches a minimum specific fuel consumption of .42 # / BHP / Hr. [and] which MUST BE OBTAINED TO GET 4500 MILES RANGE." (Page 5; emphasis added.) (The third curve is an intermediate curve, which splits the difference between the other two.) These sfc data do not show what I expected with regard to the efficiency of the engines at power settings in the 200 to 350 hp range. P&W (and Lockheed) specified a normal sfc of 0.52 at 412 hp and 0.48 at 350 hp in the data sheets on the 10E and its engines. The 10A operating manual predicts sfc as low as 0.46 at lower power settings on the 10A's (slightly smaller) engines. From this, I expected a gradual reduction in sfc as power was reduced from 350 to 200 hp - but this is not what the Fuel Consumption graph shows. At 350 hp, the "conservative curve" predicts sfc of 0.46 and the "lower curve" predicts 0.42. At 300 hp, the curve shows sfc of 0.465 to 0.425. At 250 hp, sfc is given as 0.47 to 0.43. At 200 hp, the numbers are 0.515 to 0.47. According to this chart, Specific fuel consumption RISES as power is reduced below 300 hp. (We should note here the word of caution inserted in Report 487 [page 20] by W.C. Nelson, who prepared the Fuel Consumption curves - "Complete data on the fuel consumption of the engines was not available so generalized data on aircooled engines was used." Also note that Nelson's total fuel consumption and sfc data on page 34 track the "conservative curve".) These sfc data predict total hourly fuel consumption as follows: 400 hp (per engine) 56.0 to 62.0 gph (off curve - 400 hp est. 62 gph by Nelson p.34) 380 hp " 54.0 to 58.0 gph (off curve - 375 hp est. 57.5 gph " ) 360 " 50.4 to 55.2 gph 350 " 49.0 to 53.6 gph 325 " 45.5 to 49.8 gph 300 " 42.5 to 46.5 gph 250 " 36.2 to 39.2 gph 200 " 31.3 to 34.3 gph (These numbers alter my opinion about one of the "Telegram typos", but we'll discuss that later.) Since we know that Kelly Johnson's 4500 statute mile "maximum range flight" depended upon the LOWER CURVE fuel consumption being achieved, by referring to both KJ's chart and the specific fuel consumption numbers, we can estimate that fuel consumption during the maximum range flight would be something like this: Engine start and warmup - 15 gallons Takeoff and climb to 2000 - 15 1.5 hrs at 380 hp (54 gph) - 81 3.5 hrs at 360 hp (51 gph) -153 4.5 hrs at 325 hp (46 gph) -207 Climb to 4000 - 15 Total time to this point about 10 hours. Fuel consumed about 490 galllons. Fuel remaining about 710 gallons. Aircraft weight about 13,500. Followed by 8.0 hours at 250 hp (37 gph) -296 gallons climb to 8000 - 15 Total time to this point about 18 hours. Fuel consumed about 800 gallons. Fuel remaining about 400 gallons. Aircraft weight about 11,700. Followed by 12.0 hours at 200 hp (32 gph) -384 gallons Total time of the flight about 30 hours. Fuel consumed about 1184 gallons. Average speed - something over 150. Range something over 4,500. QED. A 4,500 statute mile range was important to AE and GPP. On March 5, 1936, Lockheed's president Robert B. Gross wrote Putnam, referring to previous "informal assurances that a range of 4,500 miles was possible with 1,050 gallons of gasoline. We still believe it is possible, but in order to achieve this range, the conditions would have to be perfect and the mixture control operation during the flight would demand the utmost care and attention." In Gross' letter, Lockheed therefore limited its range guarantees to 4,000 miles with 1,050 gallons of fuel, and 4,500 with 1,200 gallons, at [an average?] cruising speed of 145 mph at 4,000 feet. (A "true copy" of the letter - said to be at Purdue - is in the Appendix of L.F. Safford, FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY: compare Walter J. Boyne, BEYOND THE HORIZONS, page 75, which paraphrases the letter to the same effect.) Kelly Johnson was thus more conservative about range than the Lockheed management. His conclusion was that the plane could be flown for a distance of "between 4100 and 4500 miles ... with 1200 gallons of gasoline" (Page 6) - that is to say, KJ felt that not even 1200 gallons "guaranteed" 4500 miles range. What about the airspeeds shown in KJ's plan? They are a bit of a puzzle. KJ implied that the projected speeds at various weights and altitudes were based upon W.C. Nelson's work as set forth on the graphs on pages 26, 27 and 28, and the Table on page 34 of Report 487, but there are some discrepancies. Nelson's Table (page 34) gives information on the expected performance of the plane at various horsepower settings and at three different weights (9,300 , 12900 and 16500 pounds) for sea level, 5000 and 10000 feet. For the purpose of this discussion, I have simplified the table (inserting in parentheses speeds for 10500 pounds normal gross weight from Report 465, page 10): ALL DATA FOR 5000 FEET - speeds are true velocity in mph [* = not shown] 16,500 pounds 12,900 # (10,500 #) 9,300 # HP per engine 400 164 * (194) * 375 151 * (191) * 350 128 [sic] 170 (188) 181 300 * 156 (178) 170 250 * 133 (168) 157 200 * * (158) 139 [sic] What's going on here? The theoretical calculations made by Nelson show slower speeds at 9,300 pounds than the actual Report 465 tests showed at 10,500 pounds. Perhaps (immersed in his calculations) he failed to note that. Perhaps there is some other explanation. Further speed questions arise when we examine KJ's maximum range chart (Figure I, page 7). As noted above, KJ calls for the last 12 hours of the flight to be at 200 hp per engine at 8000 feet (on the graph, this portion of the flight is actually drawn on what seems to be the 9000 foot line). KJ shows airspeed for this portion of the flight as 135 mph "true indicated" (CAS), which converts to 155-156 true velocity (TAS). Query 1: Is the 135 mph figure the INITIAL, the CONSTANT or the AVERAGE CAS for this portion of the flight ? Query 2: Why is KJ's true velocity (say 155) at 200 hp and 8000 feet significantly HIGHER than the 200 hp true velocity given by Nelson for 200 hp at 9,300 pounds for 5000 feet (139 mph) or 10000 feet (143 mph)? (Especially odd when one considers that KJ is giving this velocity for a flight segment during which the weight of the aircraft is expected to be 11,700 pounds at the beginning of the segment.) Did KJ note that Nelson's figures for 200 hp were below the actual flight test numbers in Report 465, and adjust accordingly ? (Note that Report 465 page 10 shows a TAS at 200 hp of 162 at 8000 feet at 10,500 pounds, which correlates plausibly with 155 TAS for this segment of the flight when the aircraft starts out 1,200 pounds heavier than the normal 10,500 gross weight.) KJ"s specification of a 250 hp per engine setting at 4000 feet beginning 10 hours into the flight (ie, at an aircraft weight of 13,500) is also inconsistent with Nelson's figures showing a true speed of 133 mph at 5000 feet and 250 hp per engine at 12,900 pounds. KJ indicates CAS for this segment as 146 mph (157 TAS) which correlates better with the 10,500 pound figures in Report 465 (about 167 mph at 4000 feet) than it does with Nelson's numbers. Nelson's own maximum range analysis on page 35 (based on the "conservative curve" of fuel consumption) calls for a flight of 4000 statute miles in 25.68 hours burning 1165 gallons of gas. He doesn't specify altitudes and power outputs (other than to say they are "optimum"), but one can work backwards from the three tables on page 35, the table on page 34, and the graphs on page 14 to see that Nelson called for a gradual reduction in TAS from 162 mph at 16,500 pounds (and 2,000 feet) (400 hp per engine) to 143 mph at 9,300 pounds (10,000 feet and 200 hp per engine according to Nelson's calculations). Nelson inserted a table on page 35 showing that on the flight 1000 miles would be covered in 6.20 hours; 2000 miles in 12.49 hours; 3000 miles in 18.94 hours. Using these numbers, we can see that he expected the average speed for the first 1000 miles to be 161.29 mph (1000 divided by 6.2 = 161.29); for the second 1000 miles 158.98 mph (12.49 - 6.2 = 6.29, and 1000 divided by 6.29 = 158.98); for the third 1000 miles 155.4 mph (1000 divided by 6.45 = 155.04), and for the last 1000 miles 148.37 mph (1000 divided by 6.74). The average speed over 4000 miles, of course, would be 155.76 (4000 divided by 25.68). This (in conjunction with Nelson's optimum speed table on page 35 and also Nelson's Chart in Figure IV on page 10-487) indicates to me that Nelson's theoretical performance supposed a gradual reduction in power. Query: did KJ expect a gradual reduction in power in the execution of his "maximum range" flight plan? (That is to say, at the end of 10 hours did he expect the power to be reduced to 250 hp and be left there, or did he expect a gradual reduction from 325 hp to 200 hp per engine, with power AVERAGING 250 hp during that period?) There are some indications that he did expect a gradual reduction, but the matter is certainly not clear. On page 2 of Report 487, KJ's instructions for the flight say that "at 2000 feet, the power should be reduced to 380 BHP/engine and the flight continued at the values of altitude, power, rpm and speed shown on the inclosed curve." Remember that one cannot continue flight at constant "altitude, power, rpm and speed"- if altitude and power are maintained, speed will increase as fuel burn reduces the weight of the aircraft. Note that KJ's chart on page 7 indicates RPM and MP for suggested power settings and labels MP "AVERAGE Manifold Pressure" - does this indicate that KJ expected speed to be held by decreasing MP gradually during each segment of the flight? (This - as we have discussed before - is the theoretical optimum technique.) On the other hand, KJ does show staged reductions from 380 to 360 to 325 hp, and it is just as reasonable (perhaps more reasonable) to assume that his 250 hp and 200 hp settings indicate an immediate sharp reduction - that is, after all, what he specified on the Hawaii flight. What does Report 487 indicate about the effect of weight on speed? In short, it indicates that in general the effect was somewhat less than I expected. On page 6, KJ says "The incease in gross weight from 10,500# to the average weight throughout the maximum range flight (namely 12,900#) cuts down the high speed to 200 mph at 10,000 feet at 450 BHP output per engine. High speed at sea level with a gross weight of 16,500# and 450 BHP /engine is 177 mph." (Report 465 indicates that high speed at 450 BHP / engine and 10,500# gross weight is 195 at sea level and 213 at 10,000 feet.) The key to the discussion of the estimated effect of weight is the unfortunately only semi-legible chart (in my copy) entitled "SEA LEVEL HORSEPOWER REQUIRED CURVES" on page 30, in conjunction with the "Horsepower Required and Available" Curves on pages 26 to 28. By dint of much squinting, and cross-checking with the Curves on page 36, I have been able to decipher most of the chart on page 30 (but not all of the notations and equations below the chart). The chart consists of 5 columns, the last three of which are subdivided into 3 columns each (for 16,500 #, 12,900 # and 9,300 #). The first column shows velocity in mph (Vmph) from 65 to 200 mph, in 5 mph increments to 100 mph and 10 mph increments thereafter. The second column ( "q%") apparently shows the dynamic pressure for flow (which is defined as 1/2 the air density multiplied by the square of the velocity - see John Anderson, AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN page 58 and INTRODUCTION TO FLIGHT pages 150-51). The third and fourth columns show, respectively, the Coefficients of Lift (C subscript L) and Drag (C subscript D) for the 10E at each of the 3 weights and for each of the velocities given. (The Coefficients of Lift and Drag vary both with weight and velocity - the lower the velocity, the greater the effect of weight.) The Fifth column gives HP required at each of the three weights to maintain the airspeeds shown on the chart at sea level.. Let's note in passing that the "Horsepower Required" for any given weight and velocity does not equate to "brake horsepower produced" by the engines at a given power setting. As John Anderson says (INTRODUCTION TO FLIGHT page 373) "not all [brake horsepower] is available to drive the airplane; some of it is dissipated by inefficiencies of the propeller itself ". The graphs on pages 26 through 28 of Report 487 illustrate this dissipation. Let's take 150 mph at sea level and 12,900 # for an example. The chart on page 30 says that 451 horsepower is required for that speed and weight. The graph on page 27 indicates that a setting of 300 BHP per engine (600 BHP total) is required to yield the necessary 451 HP for this altitude, speed and weight. (Note as well that the chart on page 27 indicates that 300 BHP produced at 1700 RPM yields more net Horsepower than 300 BPH produced at 1800 RPM.) The basis for these "Horsepower Required" calculations is obscured (in my copy) by the terse (and illegible) equations on the bottom of page 30. I can see HPreq = DV / 550 (presumably indicating that horsepower required is equal to the product of drag and velocity, divided by the foot pounds of energy [550] per horsepower). This equation is simplified to HPreq = C subscript d A q Vmph / 375 and then in turn to HPreq = 1.22 C subscript D q Vmph. I can see that A [presumably the coefficient of angle of attack] is given as 458.[?] and this correlates with the final simplification of the equation since 458 divided by 375 = 1.22. I can see that equations are also given for some coefficient (it looks to me like C subscript L) for 16,500 #, 12,900 # and 9,300 #, but no amount of squinting will clarify the intervening numbers. I believe that I can also read "W = C subscript L A q", but I wouldn't testify to that under oath. If anyone has a clearer copy or can read these equations, I would appreciate corrections and amplifications. In any case, the equation HPreq = 1.22 C subscript D q Vmph indicates that the horsepower required varies with C subscript D (the coefficient of drag) at a given velocity. Since the Table on page 30 gives us "Cd" for each speed and velocity, let's look at the numbers given by the Table for Sea Level for 140, 150 and 160 mph (the general speed range with which we are dealing) for a moment. Vmph Cd at 16,500 # 12,900 # 9,300 # 140 0.061 0.049 0.039 150 0.053 0.043 0.036 160 0.047 0.040 0.034 The sea level horsepower required for 140 mph at the three weights is 520, 418 and 333, respectively. For 150 mph it is 556, 451 and 378. And for 160 mph it is 596, 508 and 431. (Note the additional information on the Coefficients of Drag and Lift [and the "additional variation in "e" to account for the change in propulsive efficiency with angle of attack" mentioned on page 20] on the graph on page 24.) (to be continued) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:59:13 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: KDN callsign > KDN would not, in any event, be a ham radio callsign. Such callsigns always > have a number (a single number from 1 through 9, prior to WW2) following > the first letter. Mike, Yes, I'm sure you're right. I should have remembered this! > LTM (who sometimes suffers from paranoic schizophrenia) You can reassure Mother (and er... Mother) that just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean to say that we're not after them. LTM ( who's in two minds about having schizophrenia) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:00:18 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: J.L. Marks > Perhaps Marks was assigned Temporary Duties aboard the Colorado from Randy. The problem with that is that the muster rolls also carry temporary duty personnel and "enroute" individuals as well. After 1938, we can look at muster rolls directly by getting copies. However, before 1938, the forms are in huge book form which NARA is not willing to lug over to the copy machine. Therefore, they do the searching for you and you have to rely on their work. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:07:53 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: KDN callsign > From Mike E. #2194: > > No... see above. KDN is the initials of the investigator. Who, then, is KDN? Did KDN leave any letters, reports, etc.? The initials, it can be inferred, have been familar enough to the recipient of the message to require no further indentification. > The message says: > FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCK SPRINGS IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY QUOTE > INVESTIGATION REVEALS SIGNALS HEARD NEAR SIXTEEN MEGACYCLES THOUGHT TO BE > FROM KHAQQ SIGNED KDN UNQUOTE > > I interpret this to mean: > We asked somebody in Rock Springs to check out this report about a kid named > Randolph hearing Earhart. The investigator reported back to us that, after > looking into it, he thinks the signals heard near sixteen megacylces were > indeed from KHAQQ. > > You seem to interpret it to mean: > We asked somebody in Rock Springs to check out this report about a kid named > Randolph hearing Earhart. The investigator reported back to us that, after > looking into it, he confirms that the kid thinks he heard Earhart. An exercise: both rewrite the message so that it could plausibly be reinterpreted as the other guy interprets it. I can see how both could be read into the text. > What sense does that make? Some investigation. They already knew that the > kid thought he heard Earhart. What they wanted to know is whether the kid's > claim might be legitimate. The real question is my mind is who is this KDN > guy and how qualified was he to investigate this? Did the kid say he heard AE or did he say he heard something that was on the right frequency and contained something that could be interpreted as identifying the sender as AE? > By the way, Ron Bright, with the help of the local newspaper in Rock Springs, > was able to find a newspaper photo of Dana Randolph. He's black, in a town > that was about 99.9 percent white. In a strange way, that probably enhanced > his credibility. Fascinating. The local ham folk probably still know about him. It would be interesting to know what he told his family and his friends about all this, later in life. LTM, Mike ******************************************************************** From Ric There's no indication that Dana was a ham. More likely he was a kid just like Betty who cruised the dial of a shortwave set. As I recall, Ron Bright made some inquiries but didn't come up with any current family. Some good detective work in Rock Springs might turn up more about Dana and about "KDN". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:38:14 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: OT - FYI OT - The TIGHAR vocabulary expands... > I also applaud > the decision to leave the wreck undisturbed and, with any luck, the 1,200 > foot depth will keep it that way. Alas, it didn't work for the Titanic... ltm jon ***************************************** From Ric Fortunately, the Solomons are a long way from France. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:49:04 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: OT - FYI - Ballard This is also OT on Ballard, K.C. neswpaper article states, "The sea floor was littered with volcanic debris and chunks of limestone coral making identification of boat pieces impossible. It was just frightening," he said. "A substantial part of the boat was buried in shifting sands with only the torpedo launcher still showing. " Ugh, OT - FYI Carol Dow ************************************************************************* From Ric Frightening? To sit in an air-conditioned control room and watch images transmitted from an ROV? If you want "frightening" try the landing channel on Niku in a skiff at low tide on a day with a strong westerly swell. If only the torpedo launcher was still showing how does he know that the destroyer only struck the ship a glancing blow? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:50:21 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Lockheed Report 487 - Part 2 > Oscar, we'll be happy to do a computerized enhancement of page 30. I expect > we'll be able to pull up most, if not all, of the information that's there. Ric, I'm trying to do the same thing and running into the same problem -- full plate. The missing pages in the document I sent you and Oscar were missing at the California Library. I have what Oscar sent me and I'll send those pages to the library as I agree they ARE the missing pages. Alan #239 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:01:05 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: J.L. Marks Ron Dawson said: "Randy. The problem with that is that the muster rolls also carry temporary duty personnel and "enroute" individuals as well." Earlier I had suggested -- as did Randy J. yesterday -- that perhaps J.L Marks was TDY (temporary duty) to the Colorado, and that he may have been Lambrecht's spotter by virtue of a impromptu free ride. Subsequent posts disproved those ideas and Ron Dawson's statement above seems to rule out Mr. Marks being TDY to the Colorado. Supporting that, I believe, is the fact Marks was Lambrecht's spotter for both the a.m. and p.m. flights, indicating the pair may have had some type of working relationship, not a likely scenario for a TDYer. Earlier suggestions that perhaps Marks' name was misspelled seem more likely. My questions are: Who filled out the logs and how likely would it be that individual would actually know who Marks was. If the log-writer was an officer, what are the chances he would recognize the name "Marks?" Were these names given to the log-writer verbally or in writing? If it was verbal, it would be ease to see where the writer would not hear the correct name, though with all of the hard consonants in "Marks" it would seemingly be difficult to garble. Was there ever anyone by the name of Marks on the Colorado? How far back to the logs of the Colorado go? Could he possibly have been a new guy whose paperwork hadn't yet caught up with his assignment? Is J. L. Marks the original D. B. Cooper? Are we crossing into another dimension . . .? LTM, who has too much time on her hands today Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************** From Ric Marks did not fly on both the morning and the afternoon flights. Marks flew with Lambrecht on the morning of July 8th and the morning of July 9th. The log entry on the 8th was made by Ensign A.R. Weldon. The log entry on the 9th was made by Ensign J.R. Maurer. I have no idea how likely it would be that either officer knew Marks personally. I would expect that information about the crewing of the aircraft was passed to the bridge in some written form. Remember also that we're looking at "smoothed" logs which would supposedly have spelling errors corrected. We have the Colorado logs for the Earhart cruise. Earlier logs are available at the Nat'l Archives. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:18:03 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: OT - FYI I know I've mentioned on several occaisions that we should encourage Ballard to consider Niku for a future search. You indicated that Ballard has, in fact, reviewed the TIGHAR Hypothesis and considers it valid. For the life of me I can't understand why he won't take a shot at the Electra. If there is a more famous missing plane than the Electra I'm not aware of it---not taking anything away from Nungisser & Coli. With all the other incredible finds like Titanic, Bismarck and now PT 109, the Electra would make one hell of a portfolio. Comments? LTM (who sometimes just doesn't get it) Mike Haddock #2438 *********************************************************************** From Ric In all humility, what makes you think that Ballard would be any better at this than we are? All he could bring to the table would be underwater search expertise and fund-raising horsepower. The woods are full of companies with excellent underwater search expertise and any fund-raising Ballard did for us would come at the expense TIGHAR's control of the project. I didn't spend 14 years bringing the Earhart Project to this point to hand it off to anybody. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:20:19 EDT From: Nik Subject: Re: Ballard / Frightening Frightening because of the fear of having your ROV getting tangled in the wreckage and losing it. Nik ***************************************************************** From Ric It's all a matter of perspective. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:22:53 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Lockheed Report 487 - Part 1- For Oscar Boswell << In his Report 487 summary, Kelly Johnson projected an "optimum range" of from 4100 to 4500 statute miles in still air (flight duration 27 to 30 hours) with 1200 gallons of fuel and an initial gross weight of 16,500 pounds. (The 10% fudge factor in range and endurance is based entirely upon variations in specific fuel consumption.)>> Oscar, As I understand it, Take off at Lae was in the vicinity of 980 gallons of av. gas. Not to be the spoiler in this, I quoted the following from Goldstein and Dillon: "The weight was the heavy load of fuel necessary because there were no refueling stops on this leg. According to Griffin's message to Miller, the Electra had aboard 1,100 gallons of gasoline and 75 gallons of oil. Although the search vessels and various writers accepted these figures as accurate, Safford questioned them. First, ". ..NR16020 could take only 46 gallons of oil, even if the oil in the two engines could be included." Second, while the fuel tanks had a total capacity of 1,170 gallons, cal- culations indicated that the Electra carried no more than 1,016. The cabin tanks were full for the first time in the flight. The wing tanks with combined capacity of 162 gallons weren't full and held only 50 gallons of 100 octane fuel.' These lower figures make considerable sense; indeed, Polhemus (Ann Pellegreno's navigator) estimated that the Electra could not have become airborne under the current conditions if carrying more than 980 gallons." So, as Ric would say, I dunno? Who's right and who's wrong? Blasted mystery that's what this is. Secretly I pray your calculations are right....enough range for 4,000 + miles. When I was flying we calculated av. gas at 6 lbs. to the gallon. So 100 gallons meant 600 lbs. and a lot of weight. Hello to Alan Caldwell. Over to you. LTM Carol Dow ********************************************************************* From Ric Aaaaaargh! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:50:33 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: OT - FYI I certainly understand & appreciate your point. Having said that, does TIGHAR have any plans afoot to do a deep water search? Ric, I'm not trying to beat this to death. I'm a big supporter of TIGHAR and yourself as you well know. Would a next logical step for TIGHAR be to promote a deepsea search and done in such a manner that you wouldn't be "handing off" the project? Or is that not possible? If it isn't, and I'm sure you would know, then I'll shut up about the deep sea search. Honest!Nonetheless, I believe that the "smoking gun" we would all love to find is in the deep water off the reef where we believe AE landed. Finally, my comments in the prior posting were in no way intended to suggest that the TIGHAR staff was less competent than anyone, Ballard included. I have an abiding respect & appreciation for all that has been done and I have been very impressed. That's all. Finis!! LTM **************************************************************** From Ric As you know from your recent TIGHAR Tracks, later this month (next week in fact) we'll be holding a special planning conference of the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) here in Delaware. That conference will begin the planning of the Niku V expedition. Whether or not a deep water search will be part of Niku V is one of the many questions the council will be addressing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:54:50 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Horseshoes and hand grenades > From Ric > > A number of things are making me begin to suspect that the biggest factors > that kept Lambrecht and company from seeing the airplane were the high tide > and high surf that were present when they made their overflight. ... and seem to recall quite a bit of discussion on the forum last year or so about the inability to determine the tidal status of Gardner Island at the time of the arrival, based upon current data. As an exercise, however, and through application of the Elgin Long Method (start with conclusion - work backwards), there is an interesting pattern which you have probably already observed. Presuming that AE arrived at Gardner three to four hours after ETA Howland, and presuming that they arrived at Gardner during the middle third of the low-tide cycle (ie: reef flat clear and available for landing), and presuming a standard 12-hour tidal cycle, the island would in fact have been in the middle third of the high tide side of the cycle when Lambrecht flew over it at about 9-ish in the AM. With a little surf action, I think you are absolutely right, the airplane would have been virtually impossible to spot. ltm jon ******************************************************** From Ric The tidal computations are lot more complex than that but fortunately we don't have to speculate about tide and surf conditions at the time of the Colorado planes' overflight. The photo of Gardner taken during that flight shows a high tide and strong surf. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:57:41 EDT From: Ed in PSL Subject: Re: OT - FYI Just a thought for consideration towards the next expedition. Are you aware that there is a three year study underway to examine the feasibility of using sea lions for underwater archealogy. My understanding is that the sea lions can go down as far as 1500 feet. Would an arrangement with the folks doing the study to test the sea lions off the reef be something that TIGHAR could implement? Best regards, Ed of PSL #2415 ***************************************************************** From Ric I had not heard of that study. Sea lions. If they can be taught to distinguish between Norwich City wreckage and airplane engines I'm all for it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:59:27 EDT From: Oscar Subject: 487 Reformatted (Redux) I hope the third attempt to reformat works: Speeds at 5000 feet for HP per engine indicated at 16,500 pounds (column A),12,900 pounds (column B), 10,500 pounds [data from Report 465] (column C) and 9,300 pounds (column D): HP A B C D 400 164 - 194 - 375 151 - 191 - 350 128 170 188 181 300 - 156 178 170 250 - 133 168 157 200 - - 158 139 The coefficient for drag for mph shown: 140mph = 0.061 at 16500#; 0.049 at 12900#, and 0.039 at 9300#. 150 mph = 0.053, 0.043 and 0.036 respectively 160 mph = 0.047, 0.040 and 0.034 Performance deterioration with altitude, speeds at A(sea level), B (2,500 feet), C (5000 feet) and D(10,000 feet): 400 HP: A= 162; B= 163; C =164; and D= 159 375 HP: A=153; B (not shown); C=151; D=143 350 HP: A=144; B=141; C=128; D(not shown). Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:01:49 EDT From: Oscar Subject: Re: Polhemus estimates > From Carol Dow > Polhemus (Ann Pellegreno's > navigator) estimated that the Electra could not have become airborne under > the current conditions if carrying more than 980 gallons." At one time, I was quite impressed with Polhemus' estimates (and Dick Stripel's use of them) because they represented a systematic approach to the question of weight and takeoff distance limiting the amount of fuel carried. They suffer, however, from the GIGO problem. Stripel calculates that the 10E could not have taken off from Lae at more than 15,300 pounds, and then uses Mr. Polhemus' figures to calculate the maximum fuel that could have been carried at 15,300 pounds as 980 gallons. But - as we now know - even with 1100 gallons of fuel, the 10 E (as actually built) would have grossed under 15,000 pounds - my own estimate is about 14,800 at Lae - and so the Stripel/Polhemus figures don't do anything other than confirm that 1100 gallons could have been carried. There's really no serious question that the 10E actually weighed 1000 pounds or so less than Polhemus thought (perhaps he based his estimates on the very conservative Lockheed projections before the plane was built). Ric has the original weight figures (7265 empty). Add the crew and baggage (350 ?) , 60 gallons of oil (450 - I believe that's all they carried though Lockheed provided capacity for 75) and 1100 gallons of fuel (6600) and you get 14,665 pounds, plus whatever spares and equipment they carried. But, like Newton, we should never forget that we can see what we see "because we are standing on the shoulders of giants" - or at least well-intentioned and intelligent people who helped pave the way for us. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:40:31 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Lions and TIGHARS Ed in PSL said: "Would an arrangement with the folks doing the study to test the sea lions off the reef be something that TIGHAR could implement?" No chance. Lions and TIGHARs don't get along very well. LTM, who'll retreat to her den now. Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:49:43 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: OT - FYI > In the case of Kennedy's boat, it turns out that the > ((..omitted..)) > I also applaud > the decision to leave the wreck undisturbed and, with > any luck, the 1,200 foot depth will keep it that way. Of course, that was also Ballard's intention for Titanic. Over 12,000 feet didn't help keep that one that way. I expect they'd consider 1,200 feet a non-issue. - Bill #2229 ****************************************************************** From Ric It's a matter of economics. Twelve hundred feet puts it beyond the range of the casual souvenir/treasure hunter. It's doubtful (to me anyway) that artifacts from PT-109 would bring in enough money to make a salvage/looting expedition profitable. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:51:55 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Aaaaaargh! Two contemporaneous, written sources from the leading aviation authorities in Lae state that NR16020 departed with a fuel load of 1,100 U.S. gallons -- and we're still wasting bandwith on this? "Aaaaaargh!" is putting it mildly. LTM, Russ ******************************************************* From Ric I think that we can only accept that there are many things that will always be a mystery to some people. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:10:05 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: KDN callsign I checked my files and KDN was the local Rock Springs, Wy. station, who reported the incident to the Coast Guard in SF. Interestingly, only one article was run in the Rock Springs paper, including a full photo of Dana Randolf (not Charles Randolf as reported by the Hawaiian Star Bulletin. He heard the signals on 4 July, not 5 July. He is 16, not 12. Randolf was reportedly a radio fan, not a ham. He or his family reported the signal pickup to KDN, and then the Bureau of Air Commerce got in the act, and it may have been them who contacted the Coast Guard. He said he didn't hear any call letters (KHAQQ) so someone added AE;;s call letter to the intercept. He heard it on an "inexpensive" short wave radio. The editor of the paper was trying to track down relatives of Randolf to see if anyone recalled more details. There is nothing in the article to suggest that Randolf had any other motive to "hear" AE, but of course he may have intercepted other signals. I would guess the the Bureau of Air commerce investigation is long gone. LTM, Ron B. ************************************************************** From Ric I'm confused. You say that KDN was the local commercial radio station in Rock Springs. Mike Everette says it's the sender's initials. Should be easy enough to check and see if there was a commercial station KDN in Rock Springs in 1937. It would make sense that Dana might call the local radio station and that they might investigate on behalf of the Coast Guard (who probably had few installations in Wyoming). Who says there was ever a Bureau of Air Commerce investigation? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:22:00 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Horseshoes and hand grenades > The tidal computations are lot more complex than that but fortunately we > don't have to speculate about tide and surf conditions at the time of the > Colorado planes' overflight. The photo of Gardner taken during that flight > shows a high tide and strong surf. Granted that it's too complex to figure the tide at the time of the putative landing from all this distance in time, would it be possible to get a useful idea of what the tide state was going backwards X hours from the known conditions at the known time of the overflight and photograph? - Bill #2229 ******************************************************************** From Ric Does the Lambrecht photo show full high tide? A rising tide? A falling tide? The difference could a couple of hours or more. We do hope to be able to nail down an accurate hindcast of the tidal situation based upon the historical tidal information we've found for Hull and Samoa corrected using tidal information we collected at Niku last summer. The Lambrecht photo will provide a check, of sorts, on that data in that if we hindcast a dead low tide for 8 a.m. on July 9th we'll know we've screwed up. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:23:47 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Lions and TIGHARS > No chance. Lions and TIGHARs don't get along very well. > Sorry Dennis, I can't help myself - that's a BEARish attitude - Oh My. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:31:48 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: J.L. Marks For Cam Warren You certainly stimulated a lot of folks to go look at the SS death index and chase Mr. Marks through the Naval Archives, but I suspect you have already done this research yourself and wonder why you don't just share the results with us? Am I wrong, or do you already know something about J. L. Marks that you haven't put on the table? If I'm right, please explain what the point of wasting a whole bunch of Forumite man hours and bandwith is when you already have the answer? Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:32:57 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Polhemus estimates Delighted with the answer. Am personal friends with Ann Pelegreno. Some of what you quoted I didn't know about....but I know now. Many thanks. I might have to pitch some of these points to a Hollywood producer someday. Am saving E-mails. Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:41:02 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: KDN callsign I have contacted the Rock Springs Historical Society and the archivist is quite interested in the story as it is apparently close to the anniversary date when AE landed a "helio" aircraft at their Rock Spring airport . They are going to commorate the cite with a plaque, etc,, ceremony. Seems to me that GP had a ranch or property in Wyoming (Dusty?) He will confirm whether or not the KGN was the local radio station in 1937; my notes may have fouled it up but we will know shortly. He is also sending me a "famous" photo of AE in front of that aircraft. (You must know what it was, some kind of gyro??) Also he will pick up where the reporter left off, and chase down Randolf's relatives, the Bureau of Air Commerce and try to track down the sequence of events after Randolf heard the signal. He checked oral history but struck out. City is now about 30,000, but lots of directories, etc available. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************** From Ric They've gotta be talking about the Pitcairn PCA-2 autogyro she flew coast-to-coast in 1931. It's KDN not KGN. It's good that he's interested. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:35:34 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Autogyro I have a great picture of AE about to leave Burbank in the autogyro (the same one she cracked up 3 times on the flight). It's probably the same one everybody else has. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:39:39 EDT From: Subject: Re: KDN callsign From Randy Jacobson You have the Berne List. Why not simply look up Rock Springs, Wy? ***************************************************************** From Ric My Berne List covers "Coast Stations and Ship Stations" as of September 1937. Rock Springs, Wyoming will not be a Coast Station until after the earthquake. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:09:19 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: KDN >From Ric > Should be > easy enough to check and see if there was a commercial station KDN in Rock > Springs in 1937. This is the only KDN info I could find in a quick google search: --------------------------------------- Message: Subject: Re: dissing Wyoming message Date: 10/11/00 From: Hue Miller Ric writes: > It does look like the CG dismissed the account because it was > on the wrong frequency (which could have been a harmonic) and because it was > signed "KDN" instead of "KHAQQ." On that basis they would have also > dismissed Betty's account out of hand. > I think that the Rock Springs message has to go back in the "could be > authentic" column for now at least. Okay Ric, but you'll be called on to explain which harmonic ( i.e. 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x.....and so on) of 3105 or 6210 is ~ 16000. Also, here's KDN: from: "Commercial & Government Radio Stations of the United States" Dept. of Commerce, Radio Division, ca. 1935 (no cover, have to date it in context of Berne Lists I acquired it with, and information I know about in it -- for example, does not include Itasca as having direction finder -- presumably added later, before 1937...) Rock Springs, Wy. / Fixed aeronautical and fixed point-to-point / KDN / 240 3360 3370 5920 5940 kcs. / Gov't business exclusively / 24 hours / Owner: Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Lighthouses. I am not exactly certain of the use of this station, as there is a separate listing for a commercial-aircraft station at the Rock Springs airfield. Hue Miller ---------------------------- I'm not competent to speculate on the harmonic but if the message was signed by a local government aeronautical station that seems pretty weird. Either we have hoax that was perpetrated by a local government employee who was so stupid that he signed it with the local call letters, or the "message was signed KDN" is in error. *********************************************************************** From Ric <> Well that solves the KDN mystery. We (that is, I) didn't understand the messages back when those forum discussions were going on but it now seems clear that the Coast Guard asked the local Bureau of Commerce air navigation radio facility to check out the Dana Randolph story. Apparently the Bureau of Lighthouses maintained aeronautical navigational aids at that time. Makes sense. The first airways were marked with a series of light beacons. It also makes sense that the Coast Guard would know the folks at the Bureau of Lighthouses. *************************************************************************** From Ron Bright Radio Historian Donna Hallper advised me that the only radio station in Rock Springs Wy in 1937-38 was KVRS. Therefore it seems that the KDN was the radio/telgraphers initials. If one needs a question of radio in the US she is an well recognized expert historian. ************************************************************************ From Ric Just goes to show that even well recognized experts can be wrong. ************************************************************************* From Mike E. #2194: My opinion of the message remains that "KDN" is the sender of the telegram... not the sender of the purported Earhart message. Okay, so who is KDN? This could very well be the call letters for a commercial (AM) radio station of the era; coincidentally it could also be a set of initials for a person. I think the latter... if the telegram was sent by someone at the Rock Springs radio station, it would make sense that the last phrase would read something like "SIGNED SMITH KDN RADIO" which is, by interpretation, "sent by Mr. Smith of Radio station KDN." For information purposes: Standard commercial telegraph format precedes the signature on a message with SIGNED or SGD, followed by the name or initials of the sender (preson who filed the message with the carrier). Military messages are the same, except the Navy used (may still) a variation: BT SMITH SENDS The procedural signal (prosign) BT indicates a break between the text and the signature. In this case Smith is the person sending. For what EVER this may be worth.... LTM (who keeps up with what everyone says) and 73 ************************************************************************* From Ric As it turns out you're correct that KDN is the sender of the message which reports the results of the investigation. KDN is not, however, the initials of an individual but the call sign of the government facility which carried out the investigation. We still don't know, and probably never will know, exactly who looked into Dana Randoph's allegations but at least we know that it was somebody who should have been well-qualified to assess the possibility/probability that he really heard Earhart. I think the Rock Springs message has to be seen as one of the most credible of the alleged post-loss receptions. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:08:06 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: OT - FYI > It's a matter of economics. Twelve hundred feet puts it beyond the range of > the casual souvenir/treasure hunter. It's doubtful (to me anyway) that > artifacts from PT-109 would bring in enough money to make a salvage/looting > expedition profitable. I thought your initial point was technological, not economic or... whatever you'd call it when sports divers scavenge a ship. From that point of view, I have to agree. - Bill #2229 **************************************************************************** From Ric Below about 200 feet, technological and economic become the same issue. ************************************************************************** From Alan > All he could bring to the table would be underwater search > expertise and fund-raising horsepower. Mike, (I know the quote is actually Ric's) Where would you suggest Ballard apply his underwater search expertise and why? Meaning what is the support for searching in a particular place? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:39:57 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: ?? > Hello to Alan > Caldwell. Over to you. My good friend Carol Dow wrote this and a lot more. Carol, If I answer that last posting of yours Ric will kill me. I can tell you right now he would not want me to start pointing out the holes in your email. He would not want me to say that when you think you are getting divergent "facts" ask what the support is for them. Nor would he want me to tell you to question Goldstein, Dillon, Griffin, Miller and Polhemus on how they could know what was or was not on AE's 10E on July 2, 1937 at Lae Aerodrome that morning? But I WILL tell you that you are correct in that 6lbs times 100 equals 600lbs. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:43:28 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Lions who TIGHARs can bear For Ed of PSL #2415 Ed -- can you give us a bit more information on the study of sea lion archeology? I'm envisioning trying to teach a sea lion to use a trowel. Seriously, though, is there a source you can give me for info. on this study? Stranger things have happened. Maybe. ************************************************************************* From Ed of PSL I read about the sea lion project on the Institute of Nautical Archaeology site at: http:Ina.tamu.edu/fieldprojects02.htm. The following is copied from that project description: "Pennipeds in Underwater Archaeology San Diego, California. This three-year project, in conjunction with SLEWTHS, will train and test the use of sea lions in the open ocean for locating shipwrecks. The past three decades have seen tremendous advances in the use of highly trained marine mammals in scientific research. Of particular interest is the Californian sea lion (Zalophus californianus), an extremely intelligent social penniped that is easily conditioned for work with humans. Numerous natural attributes make pennipeds - and specifically, sea lions - optimal survey associates for nautical archaeologists. They are: quadrupedal; easily transportable; highly mobile (on land and sea); well adapted to the aquatic environment, capable of swimming to speeds of 5-10 mph and repeatedly diving to depths of 1,300 ft. They can carry large arrays of working equipment (recording and acoustic devices) and are capable of acute visual and tactile discrimination. Furthermore, sea lions can work well in both marine and fresh water environments that often prove hostile to archaeologists (e.g. low visibility, swift currents). " Best regards & LTM Ed of PSL ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:44:36 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: J.L. Marks Well I'm striking out left and right. I spent 3 hours at the Marin County Civic Center and found that Jackson L. Marks didn't own his own home. (at least not at that address). In 1985 he gave power of attorney to a Dorothy R. Marks. Am trying to find her but so far nothing. She could have been his daughter or wife who may be dead. The legal owner who owned the house from 1956 to 1997 is nowhere to be found in this area. I've contacted the next owner 97-2000 and haven't got an answer back. I also found Marks actually had died in San Francisco (rest home?). I checked on microfilm the obituaries in 1988 in the Marin Independent Journal and the S.F. Chronicle-NOTHING. Doesn't that just figure?? I have called a few of the other Marks' in the phone book but haven't finished yet. WHEW! There has to be a family member out there somewhere!! Chris#2511 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:42:48 EDT From: Art Carty Subject: Re: OT - FYI > From Ric > > ....... I didn't spend 14 years bringing the Earhart Project to this point to > hand it off to anybody "I"? Huh? What's the goal here? Control? Writing a book and making a bundle? Providing a platform to provide a real life example of scientific method including peer review? Solving the mystery of what happened? All of the above? None of the above? Tell you what, Ric - the "I" comment really ticked me off. The Earhart Project is not the Ric one man band and traveling circus, it's a collaborative effort. There seems to be a point of view on the forum that is saying the engines and main structural support beams have GOT to be somewhere (they can't be nowhere). If they aren't on land and aren't on the reef flat, there is really only one place they can be consistent with the Tighar hypothesis - in the water. Let's look. If they aren't there, the hypothesis of a reef flat landing is disproved. LTM (who must be dealing with menopause 'cause she's really PO'd) Art Carty #2268 *************************************************************************** From Ric You compel me to be immodest. I said that " I didn't spend 14 years bringing the Earhart Project to this point to hand it off to anybody." because I'm paid to lead this investigation and I'm the one who, for better or for worse, has kept it alive and moving forward. As much as TIGHAR and the Earhart Project has relied upon, and continues to rely upon, the contributions (financial and otherwise) of hundreds of TIGHAR members, the fact is that none of it would have happened, or would happen now, unless Pat and I were willing to make the sacrifices and provide the leadership that we have. It has been a long road and many good people have come and gone from the project. Other than myself, only one member of the Niku IIII expedition team (John Clauss) has been with the project consistently from the beginning. From the beginning, I have personally done virtually all of the (successful) fund-raising for TIGHAR and nobody but Pat and I have had our livelihoods on the line. For everybody else it's a hobby, a diversion, in many cases a passion. For us it's the whole shootin' match and there have been many times when it has been REAL lonely. We're tremendously grateful to those (like you Art) who have come to the rescue with timely contributions that have helped keep the wolf from the door, but we're still the ones who take the phone calls from creditors and take a fraction of our alotted salaries so that TIGHAR can keep going. We don't complain about it. We asked for this and we're gambling that it will eventually pay off. If you begrudge me the hope that I'll one day make a bundle on a book, I'm sorry. I may be an idealist, but I'm not an idiot. Meanwhile, our goal is the same as yours and everyone else on this forum - to find a conclusive solution to the Earhart mystery. If the TIGHAR board of directors feels that there is somebody out there who could do a better job of leading the effort they have the power and authority to replace us. There may be a point of view on the forum that there have GOT to be engines and structural components off the edge of the reef for the Niku hypothesis to be true, but points of view on the forum do not determine how we conduct the investigation. TIGHAR is not a club that votes on what we should do next. We're a mission-driven foundation with a board of directors who oversee an executive committee (me and Pat) whose responsibility it is to make those decisions. We seek out the best advice we can find and always prefer to reach a consensus among experts, but ultimately the buck stops with us. As you know, we've recently formalized an Earhart Project Advisory Council to help us evaluate the evidence we have and help us make make those crucial decisions about where and how to look for more. Again, I'm sorry if you found my admittedly somewhat egotistical statement offensive. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:46:01 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: ?? Alan Caldwell & Carol Dow Alan, I really appreciate your help and the help of everyone at Tighar. Every now and then I go off the deep end, and there is someone there to pull me back. It's great to be on a website with a strong leader like Richard Gillespie. I never make "misteaks." Many thank you's to Oscar Boswell and quite a few others to whom I am greatly indebted. You all are doing a great job of keeping me straightened out, which I need every now and then. LTM- OT-FYI Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:55:44 EDT From: Pat Reed Subject: Re: OT - FYI Well, all I can say is "Hear! Hear!" Ric! Good for you- perspective gets lost sometimes and the bottom line really is who has the most at stake, who takes the most risk. For those 2 things, some reward must come. Sometimes the reward is certainly delayed. It will come. Thanks for all. ********************************************************* From Ric Thank you. ********************************************************* From Chris in Petaluma > If the TIGHAR board of > directors feels that there is somebody out there who could do a better job of > leading the effort they have the power and authority to replace us. And besides, how on earth could we replace someone nearly as good looking as Ric for the photo ops?? Impossible! Chris *********************************************** From Ric It's awful when you don't know whether somebody is putting you on. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:01:39 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Floyd's story again: One thing bothers me about the Kilts story and that is the condition of the reef flat. There is no doubt that he was at Gardner in 1946 and heard a story about bones. We know that the bones were discovered early in 1940, not in 1938. We know that the bones did make it to Fiji and Hoodless, and were not tossed into the sea. But why does he describe the reefflat as being pot marked with hugh cracks making a safe landing impossible? According to you, portions of the reef are so smooth, one can rollerskate on it. Was he looking at a different area of the reef or have conditions on the flat changed since he was there? I'm sure he must have visited the Norwich City and seen the reef at low tide. So, why the negative statement about the reef? ************************************************************************ From Ric Good point. The reef certainly hasn't changed (we have numerous photos). Kilts must be talking about the "canyons" or "fissures" along the reef edge - the ones like our divers investigated last summer. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:02:41 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: J.L. Marks For Andrew McKenna - I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. Is there another Cam Warren alive and living in New Jersey that maybe is the spitting image of Fred Noonan?? Cam Warren (the REAL one) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:04:16 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: J.L. Marks > From Chris in Petaluma, Ca. > > Well I'm striking out left and right. I spent 3 hours at the Marin County > Civic Center and found that Jackson L. Marks didn't own his own home. (at > least not at that address). In 1985 he gave power of attorney to a Dorothy > R. Marks. Am trying to find her but so far nothing. She could have been > his daughter or wife who may be dead. This, from Superpages.com: Dorothy Marks 17700 Avalon Blvd, Carson, CA 90746 (310) 329 - 6438 Dorothy Marks 78517 Yavapa Ct, Indian Wells, CA 92210 (760) 360 - 0232 Are these near Marin? (This is the same data as on Yahoo and Smartpages, but with Zip Code.) > The legal owner who owned the house from 1956 to 1997 is nowhere > to be found in this area. I've contacted the next owner 97-2000 > and haven't got an answer back. I also found Marks actually > had died in San Francisco (rest home?). I checked on microfilm the > obituaries in 1988 in the Marin Independent Journal and the S.F. > Chronicle-NOTHING. Doesn't that just figure?? Obituaries must be a lost art. In the Olde Days, one could find all sorts of neat stuff about families, including extra children and comments on personality. Alas! What are the birth and death dates of Jackson L. Marks? > I have called a few of the > other Marks' in the phone book but haven't finished yet. WHEW! Good luck. > There has to be a family member out there somewhere!! I once looked myself up via the Internet, and found that at least two of me live in this city at addresses I've never seen. Someone with my name died in 2000. I'll check my geneaology sources. One of them may be able to make a connection. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:37:55 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: J.L. Marks For: Mike Holt Indian Wells is about 3 hours south of Los Angeles. Carson is about 20 minutes from LA. Hope this is helpful. Good luck on your search. Mike Haddock #2438 ******************************************************* From Chris in Petaluma, Ca To Mike Holt Thanks for the info on Dorothy. Will make calls this afternoon. Jackson L. Marks, b.Oct 28, 1915 d.Dec 1, 1988. Last known address: 123 Buena Vista Ave, Corte Madera, Ca. SS# 329-24-9295 issued in Illinois. Died in San Francisco. Owner of the house in Corte Madera from 1956 to 1997 Dorothy Weidenman. Can't find her. Chris#2511 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:40:17 EDT From: Gary Subject: Re: ?? Alan Caldwell & Carol Dow Carol would make a great boxer, she sure rolls with the punches and gets up from the canvas very quickly.... ******************************* From Ric That's our Carol. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:43:11 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: J.L. Marks To Mike Holt and the forum-- To answer your question --NO-Carson and Indian Wells are in Southern California. Carson-a suburb of Los Angeles--about 15 miles SE-close to Long beach. Indian Wells- a part of the Palm Springs Metro area--about 70 miles east of LA in the Low Desert/Indio area--where all them rich people hang out... LTM-- Jim Tierney ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:23:45 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: J.L. Marks For Mike Holt The Dorothy Marks in Carson is disconnected, however I was able to leave a message at the Indian Wells # which is near Palm Springs. Found a Ruth Weidenman (sister/daughter?) near Sacramento who's # is good. I'll try her tonight-I got her answering machine. Chris ********************************************************************* From Mike Holt > From Jim Tierney > > To Mike Holt and the forum-- > To answer your question --NO-Carson and Indian Wells are in Southern > California. Oh, well, She might have moved there (he says hopefully). > Carson-a suburb of Los Angeles--about 15 miles SE-close to Long beach. > Indian Wells- a part of the Palm Springs Metro area--about 70 miles east of > LA in the Low Desert/Indio area--where all them rich people hang out... This may be promising! If we find a rich relative, maybe they'll fund part of the project! (America, land of opportunity) I did find one Rootsweb listing for a Marks family that lived in Oklahoma. I sent a note to the researcher asking if they know of a Jackson L. Marks who was in the U.S. Navy. I said his papers might be able to shed some light on a historical mystery, but I can make something up to hide this connection if that's desired. Ric? This is from the California death index: MARKS JACKSON LEWIS Date of birth: 10/28/1915 Mother's maiden name: LEWIS Sex: M Place of birth: OKLAHOMA Place of death: SAN FRANCISCO(38) Date of death: 12/01/1988 SSN: 329-24-9295 Age at death: 73 yrs And then this, just in: the "other" Jackson Marks in the SSDI: JACKSON MARKS Birthdate: 17 Jun 1918 Date of death: May 1983 Last residence: 26347 (Flemington, Taylor, WV) Last benefit paid to: (none specified) SSN: 235-14-2938 Card issued: West Virginia I know this last one isn't him, but it helps to know about all the false trails. I'll update you if something turns up in my inbox. LTM (who knows all of her family and where they are) Mike Holt ************************************************************************ From Ric No need to be sneaky. Many times, explaining the possible connection to the Earhart mystery opens all kinds of doors (through which flow all kinds of garbage). ************************************************************************* From Mike Holt > >From Chris in Petaluma, Ca > > Thanks for the info on Dorothy. Will make calls this afternoon. Jackson L. > Marks, b.Oct 28, 1915 d.Dec 1, 1988. Last known address: 123 Buena Vista > Ave, Corte Madera, Ca. SS# 329-24-9295 issued in Illinois. Died in San > Francisco. Thanks. > Owner of the house in Corte Madera from 1956 to 1997 Dorothy Weidenman. Well, one person with that name is dead: DOROTHY WEIDENMAN Date of birth: 21 Jan 1912 Date of death: Sep 1984 Last residence: 10977 (Spring Valley, Rockland, NY) Benefit paid to: 10977 (Spring Valley, Rockland, NY) SSN: 075-05-7757 SSN issued in: New York Unless her family does some of the strange postmortem accounting mine is known for, this Dorothy isn't the one. > Can't find her. Neither can I. None of my usual sources ( that is, all the White Pages web pages) can provide a lead on where "Dorothy Weidenman" might be now. (Finding anyone named Weidenman seems to be difficult.) Given the dates of ownership and that she's not listed as dying after 1996, I think her family probably put her in a retirement community (charming term!) somewhere nearby. I certainly hope the facts are purely coincidental that J.L gave power of attorney to a Dorothy and that the house was owned by a Dorothy. We don't need any more conspiracy theories. Better luck next time, I suppose. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:26:29 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Lions who TIGHARs can bear Thanks, Ed. I've certainly learned something new today. I'll have to look into it. I doubt if sea lions would help much at Niku, though -- not a friendly environment for them, and the pieces we're looking for are so small.... But it's wonderful to contemplate. ********************************************************************** From Ric Oooops. Sorry about your gazillion dollar trained sea lion. I guess we forgot to mention that this place is Shark City. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:28:49 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Floyd's story again: The reef flat is variable in terms of its surface -- very smooth north of the Norwich City and in other places, but pretty bumpy, cracked, and pockmarked in others. I'll bet that if we looked closely at the flat near the old Loran Station, Kilts' frame of reference, we'd find it to be something like what he describes. ******************************************************************** From Ric That's pretty true as I recall from my helicopter ride last summer. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:40:30 EDT From: Troy Subject: Re: OT - FYI Ric , there is a difference between egotism and confidence. I see your actions less that of hubris but more that of leadership. I hope you make a bundle on that book and I know I'll never make a cent. Though I've invested money, its a non-profit for pete-sake. If I was looking for a financial ROI, I would have invested in a business (though not the last 18 months!) So, seriously, make a lot of money with the book but be sure to keep up the work as you've been doing. I'm really looking forward to Niku V. I only wish I had my sabbatical then so I could come along and do some of the grunt work ******************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Troy. Even though TIGHAR is nonprofit, we have to provide a ROI (return on investment) in the form of genuine progress toward a solution to the mystery and "investor" satisfaction in knowing that they helped make that progress possible. Hell, anybody can buy stock in WorldCom. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:54:01 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Knob update 1694239 Patent no 1694239 shows some (admittedly slight) resemblance to our artefact although it is difficult to make the photomicrograph which appears to show an eight into a six. I seem to remember that it shows some evidence of having been levered off. Could these marks be the marks of where wires had been compressed against the edge of the device when it was clamped up tight? It is certainly the type of thing the coasties might have had. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I can see, the knob doesn't exhibit evidence that anything was ever compressed or clamped to it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:11:54 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Floyd's story again Ok, so if Floyd never ventured far from the Loran station, he would never have seen the natural runway north of the Norwich City. Thus, his statement to the press about the reef flat. This brings up an interesting question about Amelia. What is the stall speed of an Electra 10E? Could shehave maneuvered the Electra to fly at such a low speed and low altitude to actually observed the SMOOTH reef flat or was her landing an act of desperation and she just got lucky? ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, there's no way to know, but if she had wanted to "drag" the proposed landing area before committing to a landing (standard procedure for off-airport or questionable surface landings) she should have been able to lower the gear and about half flaps and safely take a low and slow look. How slow? Minimum single engine speed was 95 mph so she shouldn't really get slower than that, but the airplane would fly just fine at 80 mph. Either way, as long as she wasn't worried about the fuel running out any second she should have had plenty of opportunity to take a good close look at the proposed landing surface. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:12:26 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Floyd's story again: Another good thing to remember is that Floyd's story was being told through a newspaper reporter. I suspect the journalist may have "enhanced" the drama of the descriptions he was given to make for a better story. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:13:15 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Chauncy's Electrical Atmospheric Generator. Half a dozen problems solved at once! See http://www.rexresearch.com/feg/britten.htm Obviously AE & FN were equipped with Chauncy's electrical atmospheric generator! After the fuel ran out they were still able to transmit by drawing electricity from the air!! You will see the loop antenna that we so foolishly thought was for direction finding mounted on the roof of Chauncy's house (or is it on his hat?). On the right in the picture is the box containing the electrical generator which Gallagher mistook for a sextant box. Further down the page is the diagram showing the binding posts of which we have one terminal knob. When you look at the patent number shown you will see that Photek have made a few careless errors but got the first two numbers right. Was AE secretly testing this revolutionary invention for the US government? No wonder AE destroyed and then buried the evidence so that any wandering Jap agents would be unable to steal the invention! No wonder the US government covered up the loss of a vital piece of technology which might have shortened the war! Imagine the consternation when Carol reveals this to the waiting world! I must go now to take another dose of my medication. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:14:41 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: J.L. Marks Ok, Dorothy Marks and Dorothy Weidenman are the same person. I just talked to her sister in- law Ruth and she had some info on Dorothy but doesn't know where she is or if she's alive. She says Dorothy was a little nuts and claimed to have won some sort of lottery, but she's not sure if that was the truth or her nuttiness. Dorothy would be about 75 now and she smoked a lot and might be dead. But if she owned that house in Corte Madera in 1956 she bought it for around 15-20 thousand dollars. In 1997 she could have gotten $450,000. not a bad profit. I called the # again in Indian Wells (near Palm Springs) and left another message. Makes sense she would take that profit and retire to Palm Springs. Ruth is going to call another relative to find out Anything about Jackson L. Marks in 1937. Apparently in later life he was a real estate agent in Marin County always saying he was going to strike it big, but never did. This keeps getting better and better. Chris#2511 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:18:46 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: J.L. Marks The Dorothy Marks in Palm Springs is NOT any relation to Jackson. Ruth Weidenman couldn't shed any light either except that Dorothy Marks has a brother named Paul Ray (oh no! a common name!?)and a sister but doesn't know her name. She thinks both of them were from the Berkeley, Calif. area. Mike would you try your sources as will I on this Paul Ray? Also Dorothy Marks had a heart condition which cuts her odds of being around. They had no children. Ric,after all this is ironed out, does this mean I'll get to go on the Niku V expedition? When in High School a form given to my dad asked what my strengths were. My dad replied "can lift heavy objects". Chris#2511 ************************************************************************** From Ric <> No, but you have a great career ahead in telemarketing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:23:14 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Itasca Sorry if this is an old question; whatever happened to the Itasca and are any of it's crew still with alive (from the Earhart search)? Regards, S. Wesley Smith ************************************************************************* From Ric I think we used Itasca on the 1991 expedition - no, sorry - but it was similar vessel. Itasca, as I recall, was scrapped quite a while ago. The only crew member we found still alive was Frank Stewart, the quartermaster. We interviewed him but his memories were pretty "off the wall". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:25:31 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: drifting Tahitian man drifts 133 days at sea after boat runs out of gas WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- A Tahitian man who drifted for 133 days across the South Pacific was recovering in a hospital in the Cook Islands yesterday after his boat ran onto on a reef and he was found by local fishermen. * Read the full article at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/78434_survivor13.shtml ************************************************************************ From Ric Castaways can happen. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:37:56 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Searching the reef I would hope that nobody is trying to begrudge Ric the opportunity to write a book, produce a film, or otherwise make an honest buck off the Earhart Project. But I (and a lot of other Earhart enthusiasts) remain puzzled by TIGHAR's apparent resistance to an underwater search at the foot of the reef. If the Niku Hypothesis is correct -- a wheels-down landing on the reef flat north of the Norwich City -- then the engines and other major structural components should still be down there, within a fairly circumscribed area. As Art says, if they aren't on land (and 5 expeditions to Niku seem to say they aren't), then they gotta be in the water. If the engines and main beam >are< down there, then TIGHAR is proven right and the money should start rolling in for future expeditions to determine Earhart's ultimate fate. (Imagine how many skull holes you could excavate with a million bucks from National Geographic!) If the engines and mean beam >aren't< down there -- here Art and I disagree -- it doesn't conclusively disprove the Niku Hypothesis. It will, at most, merely eliminate one area from consideration. This is not "handing off" the Earhart Project. It is simply calling for assistance from somebody who has the expertise, equipment (and perhaps funding) you lack. Doctors and lawyers do it all the time; it's called a "consult." Ballard already has pronounced the Niku Hypothesis "viable" and he apparently has considerable financial backing. Swallow hard and give him a call. LTM Pat Gaston **************************************************************************** From Ric Let's let Bob speak for himself. This is from an interview on a recent episode of National Geographic Channel's "Expeditions". Ballard said he does not go "out" unless he feels he will succeed. He said, "I've been asked many times why I don't look for Amelia Earhart. Fat Chance! ". Ballard's funding for his searches comes from National Geographic. Nat'l Geo is, and always has been, an organization whose primary purpose is to generate copy for the magazine and, more recently, television. These people are in the entertainment business. We have met with them several times. If and when we have a "sure thing" they will be happy to take over our project, fund the culminating expedition, and claim it as another Nat'l Geographic triumph. There is NO resistance at TIGHAR to an underwater search off the edge of the reef. It's just a matter of identifying the right technology and raising the money, but we won't sacrifice the integrity of the project to do it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:40:49 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: lead knob Just a thought. Is this lead as a way of attaching it to a steel cable? Just crimp a bit of steel on the cable, and cast the knob around it. Lead does cast easily, and at low temperatures. Does anyone out there know how choke cables on cars were attached? Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 **************************************************************************** From Ric I just don't see any sign that the thing was ever crimped. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:42:14 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: OT - FYI > Alas, it didn't work for the Titanic... > > ltm > jon > ***************************************** > From Ric > > Fortunately, the Solomons are a log way from France. Yeah, but pretty darn close to Noumea!! Wouldn't the main difference be that the Titanic is under the hi-seas, and PT-109 is in someone's territorial waters? CD. ******************************************************************** From Ric One would like to think that it would make a difference. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:45:06 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: AE Found Is this an "I read it so it must be true" story? Actually the real scary part of this is that some people will actually believe it. Regards David ********************************************************************** From Ric Especially since the gap between the supermarket tabloids and "legitimate" media has gotten about as wide as the one between the platform and the subway train. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:56:24 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: J.L. Marks For: Chris in Petaluma, You might check with the state board for real estate licensing in Sacramento. If Marks was in fact a real estate agent, Sacramento should have information on him. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:51:14 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Itasca Itasca was given to the British for Lend-Lease, and I believe it was lost during WWII. The latter may be wrong. ************************************************ From Ric It may have been secretly repatriated and is now in New Jersey under a different name. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:58:52 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Thoughts on Lambrecht and Co. searching Gardner Ric, since you were up in a light plane/helo over Gardner, I wonder what your impressions are of this: Lambrecht and company were obviously looking for an intact plane. At the time, most thought it would be in the lagoon, as they really didn't know much about the necessity of being on all wheels for radio messages. When they came upon the island, I suspect their attention was concentrated on the lagoon, bird avoidance, and the general appearance of the island. I suspect both pilots and lookouts were looking inward on Gardner while circling the island, and not paying too much attention to the beach/surf area. I suspect Gardner was an incredibly beautiful sight, and individual's attention would be focused on the landward areas, rather than the seaward edges. I wonder if this "bias" of viewing may have been in effect, and might be a contributing factor in them not seeing a plane out on the reef edge (along with the crashing surf, etc.). ********************************************************** From Ric Well, we know that they looked at the shipwreck but that may have done more harm than good in that debris on the reef anywhere nearby might be dismissed as part of the wreck. I spent the better part of an hour in the air over Gardner and I didn't look at anything twice. There's a lot to see. Lambrecht and company probably spent less than 15 minutes there. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:00:38 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Choke! Dan Postellon said: "Is this lead as a way of attaching it to a steel cable? Just crimp a bit of steel on the cable, and cast the knob around it. Lead does cast easily, and at low temperatures. Does anyone out there know how choke cables on cars were attached? I'm not sure where your heading with this but prior to the 60s, generally the choke cable was routed through a hole in the lever controlling the choke and a screw holds the cable tight. There were no lead weights involved. This system lasted until the early 60s when automatic (temperature operated) chokes came along, wherein the choke would slowly disengage as the engine heated up. LTM, who faithfully choked her Studebaker Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:02:07 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Itasca <> Yeah, the USS Irene Bolam. Dennis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:19:51 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Searching the reef Ric, thanks for your response. A couple of observations: "Nat'l Geo is, and always has been, an organization whose primary purpose is to generate copy for the magazine and, more recently, television." Well, yes, but the same could be said of Time Magazine, your local newspaper, or TIGHAR, for that matter. It takes money to publish a magazine, just as it does to go exploring on Niku. The ultimate (as opposed to immediate) goal is advancing the frontiers of science and knowledge, and Nat'l Geo has a pretty solid track record in that area -- stretching back a century or more. "If and when we have a 'sure thing' they will be happy to take over our project, fund the culminating expedition, and claim it as another Nat'l Geographic triumph." I have read a lot of Nat'l Geos and seen a number of their TV shows, and I'm unaware of the chest-thumping you describe. A typical magazine article might say, "Prof. Willoughby-Smythe's expedition was funded by the National Geographic Society," but that's about it. The rest of the article is about the perfesser, not the Society. Nat'l Geo made Ballard a folk hero. What makes you think they would ignore TIGHAR? As for the "sure thing" -- well, I wasn't there during your discussions. But it certainly wasn't a "sure thing" that Ballard was going to find the Titanic in 1986. Other expeditions had tried and failed. Matter of fact, I believe the wreckage was located several miles away from where it "should" have been. As an observer it seems to me that what Nat'l Geo demands in return for their bucks is a substantial possibility of success, not mathematical certainty. The task is one of persuasion, and now you have a book to back up your theories. "It's just a matter of identifying the right technology and raising the money, but we won't sacrifice the integrity of the project to do it." Aw, c'mon, Ric. Do you think Ballard lets the Society, or any other donor, dictate >how< he goes about doing his work? Does the Society prescribe the boundaries of the search area, how many passes Ballard will make, what equipment he will use? Nah. They're betting on his research and his track record. The issue isn't integrity, it's control. I know you have 14 years in this, and you have advanced the Earhart knowledge base exponentially during that time. But the appeal to organizational purity is unconvincing. TIGHAR sells expedition slots to big contributors, and it was not above contracting with Kammerer to fund Niku IV. I'm not the least bit critical of any of this -- you do what you gotta do. But some of us, and I assume that includes you, would like to see this mystery solved during our lifetimes. A compromise is not necessarily a sellout; AE's last journey was not dubbed "The Purdue World Flight." LTM Pat Gaston ************************************************************************ From Ric Thank you for your advice. If you'll let me know how long you plan to live we'll amend our schedule accordingly. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:28:28 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: J.L. Marks What happened to the search of the other J.L.Marks in Washington D.C.? Dead end? Ric, should I be putting any more effort into this search? Chris#2511 ******************************************************************** From Ric That's up to you. The J. L. Marks who flew with Lambrecht is at least 83 years old if he's still living. It's a long shot, to say the least, that finding him would add anything to what we know about the search. **************************************************************************** From Suzanne Astorino: Mike Haddock wrote: >You might check with the state board for real estate licensing in Sacramento. >If Marks was in fact a real estate agent, Sacramento should have information >on him. The huge online public records database site http://www.searchsystems.net/ Indeed shows Jackson Lewis Marks was a realtor/broker: http://secure.dre.ca.gov/publicasp/pplinfo.asp?License_id=00188423 Suzanne *************************************************************************** From Mike Holt > From Chris in Petaluma > > The Dorothy Marks in Palm Springs is NOT any relation to Jackson. Ruth > Weidenman couldn't shed any light either except that Dorothy Marks has a > brother named Paul Ray (oh no! a common name!?)and a sister but doesn't know > her name. She thinks both of them were from the Berkeley, Calif. area. Why can't this ever be easy? > Mike would you try your sources as will I on this Paul Ray? Also Dorothy > Marks had a heart condition which cuts her odds of being around. They had > no children. Paul Ray? There don't seem to be any "Paul Ray Marks" in any of the usual data bases. > Ric,after all this is ironed out, does this mean I'll get to go on the Niku > V expedition? When in High School a form given to my dad asked what my > strengths were. My dad replied "can lift heavy objects". Gee. My dad left that one blank. > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > < V expedition? >> > > No, but you have a great career ahead in telemarketing. Maybe he could canvass the very very rich for funding! (Good managers use all their resources!) > From Chris in Petaluma, > > Ok, Dorothy Marks and Dorothy Weidenman are the same person. Why does this always happen to me? > I just talked > to her sister in- law Ruth and she had some info on Dorothy but doesn't know > where she is or if she's alive. She says Dorothy was a little nuts and > claimed to have won some sort of lottery, but she's not sure if that was the > truth or her nuttiness. Dorothy would be about 75 now and she smoked a lot > and might be dead. Sister-in-law? With which name was Dorothy born? I'm getting confused. Born about 1925, then... That'll help me chip away at the SSDI's offering of 112 Dorothy Marks, as below: DOROTHY MARKS Date of birth: 29 May 1926 Date of death: 28 Aug 1998 (V) Last residence: 94546 (Castro Valley, Alameda, CA) SSN: 559-24-6763 Issued in: California DOROTHY M MARKS Date of birth: 24 Apr 1927 Date of death: 22 May 2000 (V) Last residence: 95351 (Modesto, Stanislaus, CA) SSN: 569-28-9831 Issued in: California I searched for the birth years of 1920-1933, and the two above were the only hits. Either of them in the ballpark? > But if she owned that house in Corte Madera in 1956 she > bought it for around 15-20 thousand dollars. In 1997 she could have gotten > $450,000. not a bad profit. I called the # again in Indian Wells (near > Palm Springs) and left another message. Makes sense she would take that > profit and retire to Palm Springs. Maybe that was the lottery she won? > Ruth is going to call another relative to find out Anything about Jackson L. > Marks in 1937. Apparently in later life he was a real estate agent in Marin > County always saying he was going to strike it big, but never did. He might have led Dorothy to her big strike, though. > This keeps getting better and better. As my daughter reminds me, "Humans are so weird." I gotta find a hobby. (Chris, do you want to take this off the list?) Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:30:23 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Thoughts on Lambrecht and Co. searching Gardner The most impressive thing about your helicopter video of Nikku is that it clearly illustrates just how big the place is. I kept thinking while watching the video how easy the Electra could be in so many different places and how difficult it would be to find. Especially when you consider how slow & backbreaking the clearing of the scaveola is. I would highly recommend that all TIGHAR members who are really serious about the search for AE get a copy of this video. It's really an eye-opener. The video is well done. The narrator is a little whippy, but other than that.......(just kidding) LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric Whippy...that's a new one. I think I like it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:35:49 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Itasca > From Randy Jacobson > > Itasca was given to the British for Lend-Lease, and I believe it was lost > during WWII. The latter may be wrong. > > ************************************************ > From Ric > > It may have been secretly repatriated and is now in New Jersey under a > different name. What's the hull number? Itasca is not listed in Silverstone's "U.S. Warships of World War II," which I find most odd. Ric, I suspect she was used in the Philadelphia Experiment, camouflaged as a new destroyer escort. LTM (who's never lost a boat in her life) Mike Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric Anybody know Itasca's hull number? I should know this. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:44:54 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Wreck / Knob ? Several questions from forum kindergartener - Was Norwich City ID'd on 1937 nautical charts for Gardner Island area? - Knob you have, is steel sleeve inside diameter tapered? - Lastly, what is the inside diameter of the steel sleeve? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************* From Ric The nautical charts of Gardner available in 1937 were based on an 1872 survey, showed no wreck, and were wildly inaccurate. The steel insert in the knob is not exactly a "sleeve". Envision a car tire with no wheel and short sidewalls. That's sort of how the steel insert is shaped. I haven't measured the inside diameter of the insert but we can do that as soon as we get the knob back from Jeff. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:48:29 EDT From: Wildwoodflower Subject: Re: lead knob the knob is part of a fuse, the oval part in the center has been damaged, which is a shallow slot for a soft metal conductor. ********************************************************************** From Ric Interesting hypothesis. Show me an example. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:50:27 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Searching the reef > But I (and a lot of other Earhart enthusiasts) remain puzzled by > TIGHAR's apparent resistance to an underwater search at the foot of the > reef. Pat, let me take a crack at an answer to your (and others) question. I have said this several times before and no one has responded with an answer of any kind. Tell me where you would search and what support you have for searching in that particular place? Just because there is a theory of where AE might have landed won't cut it. Tell me what evidence there is that AE definitely landed on Niku in the first place. I think she did but I'm not going to toss in a couple million just because I think that. But let's suppose she DID land on Niku. What evidence is there to tell us where of several possibilities she landed and in which direction and once on the ground whether she taxied the plane elsewhere or left it where it stopped? Now let's suppose it is sitting there at low tide with tanks all nearly empty and high tide or a storm sweeps it off into the water and it floats off to Lord knows where, THEN sinks. Now how big is the possible search area? Don't bother to tell me it couldn't float because it was wrecked. The ancient memory of a little girl seeing airplane wreckage or hearing about it doesn't tell me that. Tell me why none of that is possible and the plane could ONLY be in one easily searchable area at the "foot of the reef?" THAT'S the reason not to do an underwater search. No one knows where to search. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:51:55 EDT From: Shane Brinkman Subject: Re: Itasca HMS Gorleston was commissioned into the Royal Navy on May 31st, 1941. As the former US Coast Guard Cutter "ITASCA" she was one of 10 Lake Class Cutters that were loaned to Great Britain under the Lease Lend Agreement of 1941, and renamed after Coast Guard Stations around the British coast. On April 23rd, 1946 "GORLESTON" was returned to the US Coast Guard where she resumed her former name and duties. On October 4th, 1950 the cutter was decommissioned and sold for breaking up. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:55:48 EDT From: Dave Chase Subject: Moon and Tide expert I was reading the NYT on-line and found this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/16/science/space/16MOON.html Apparently Dr. Olson is quite an expert on recreating historical astronomical/moon/tide data. The article goes into a number of situations he helped resolve or explain. This line caught my attention: "Indeed, he modestly claims, by using his computer program, "We can calculate the tides in any port in the world on any day in history." " Do you have any interest in approaching this fellow to see what his program says about July '37 around Niku? Let me know if you need help, I'll be happy to contact him. DC ************************************************************************* From Ric The technique and software are well known. You notice that his says "any port in the world" and there's the rub. You have to have have good current data for that particular location in order to accurately hindcast. Niku was never a "port" and the only tidal collected (that we know of) are the data we collected. We're workin' on it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:03:22 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: Re: Itasca > Anybody know Itasca's hull number? I should know this. CGC-50 - see http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/alpha-i.html. best wishes, Michael ************************************************************ From Tom Strang I believe Itasca hull number to be WPG 321 home ported out of San Diego in 37. Respectfully: Tom Strang *********************************************** From Bob Brandenburg The hull number was 321 according to Fahey's "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet", 6th Edition. FWIW, Itasca was loaned to Great Britain during WWII, was returned after the war, and later was sold - - presumably to ship breakers. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:07:13 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Searching the reef Another point which may not have been considered is that in the area of the NC there is likely a massive debris field at the foot of the reef. Hundreds of tons of steel plating may well overlie any electra remains. And how do you tell a coral encrusted main spar from a hunk of coral encrusted NC? Navigating a submersible in those conditions may be something a search organisation would be dubious to do without any real guarantee of finding anything worthwhile. It is quite likely they wouldn't find anything even if there were something there to find. The result of finding nothing would be a bit like the carbon dating of the Turin Shroud. Immediately most people would jump to the conclusion that there was nothing there to find and would lose interest, ignoring all the other evidence. An abortive search might actually be counterproductive in terms of funding. Regards Angus. ********************************************************************** From Ric You make an interesting point about the Norwich City. The stern of the ship was intact in 1937 but broke off and sank during a storm in January 1939. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:27:49 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: USCGC Itasca The USCGC Itasca carried Hull No. 50 from her launching until transferred to GB as lend lease in May/June 41. Ref-Faheys Two Ocean Fleet Edition-copyright 1941--Page 42 She became--Number 321-when returned after the war.. Faheys Sixth Edition--Page 40-copyright 1950--lists her as --"Sale" while two other returned sister ships are listed as Active Atlantic--AA.. I have no other good info on her final disposition...... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ************************************************************************** From Ric That seems to solve that mystery. In 1937 she was Hull No. 50 and only later (after her repatriation as the USCGC Irene Bolam) did she become WPG-321. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:33:40 EDT From: Pete Subject: Re: lead knob Mike E might be able to explain this one: Found at www.antiqueradio.org are images of a US Army AN/GRR-503 short-wave receiver. The second top image will come in close up, and two "knobs" are at the base of the set, looking like our favorite piece of lead. The knobs don't look like the ends of fuseholders. Any ideas? image is : www.antiqueradio.org/art/angrr503.jpg BTW, is the Western Electric model number for AE's set in the highlights somewhere? My circuit design instructor is old enough to have designed with tubes and seems familiar with Western Electric gear. He still has a tube designer's manual so he may have the schematics Mike E wanted. LTM Pete #2419 ********************************************************************** From Ric No similarity to anything on the military radio. Generally speaking, Earhart's transmitter was a Western Electric Type 13C. Her receiver was a Type 20B. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:49:36 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Searching the reef Ric wrote: "If you'll let me know how long you plan to live we'll amend our schedule accordingly." According to the actuarial tables I should be checking out sometime between 2020 and 2030, but as I am not a man of moderate habits those estimates may be on the optimistic side. Thanx for your most cogent response,. LTM Pat Gaston ************************************************************************** From Ric My response was not cogent. My response was smartass. I sometimes resort to smartass when it becomes apparent that cogent is getting nowhere. I've explained (several times now) why we have no interest in asking Bob Ballard to do what he has already said he is not interested in doing. I have also described what we've learned about the National Geographic Society in various negotiations with their senior staff on a number of occasions over the course of about fifteen years. That didn't satisfy you. After about five years now of moderating this forum, I've learned to recognize the syndrome. I haven't found a tactful way of dealing with it but I have learned not to fall for it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:52:31 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Searching the reef Pat, I have a few friends who might pick up a good part of the underwater search tab if, and I repeat for the umpteenth time, some of you critics would please say where you think the search should be and WHY. But I can tell you why none of you will respond to my challenge - you can't. You can't say where or what a practical search area is and back your theory up with ANY reasonable support. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:56:22 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Searching the reef When you talk about the "foot of the reef" what kind of depths are we talking about? does it drop off straight to the abyssal plain? gl ************************************************************************* From Ric No, it's a slope of varying steepness. We're not sure how deep it goes or how far out you have to go to get there because there has never been any good bathymetry recorded there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:00:18 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Search of Niku I'll say it again, Gardner Island was the only place where Amelia could be. This, according to Putnam, Byrd, and Mann. Yet, a landing party never set foot on the atoll. ******************************************************************* From Ric When this is finally proven to any reasonable person's satisfaction (and it will be), everyone will look back over the evidence and say, " My God! How could they have missed her? It was so obvious!". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:10:29 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Itasca While on the subject of the ITASCA, a daughter of a crewman aboard the ship in July 1937 contacted me regarding her father, Seaman Alfred Charles John MARINELL. (Now deceased). She reported that her father left her an album of photos of the ITASCA, Howland Is, and ship's personnel that he had taken as an amateur photographer during the search for Amelia. The daughter is reluctant to send me the photos as she believes they may have some intrinsic value. She doesn't know what to do with them such as a copyright. I can't give any legal advice but she consented to allowing some researcher a review of the photos for historical purposes. My guess is they are not worth much, if anything, but apparently the photos show much of the interior, many of Howland airfield, Gilberts,and ship's personnel. None are labeled. If you know any Earhart researcher at Kauai, Hawaii, let me know and I can steer him/her to the daughter. Rollin Reineck has been unable to get to Kauai. LTM, Ron Bright *********************************************************************** From Ric Anybody need an excuse to go to Kauai? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:38:40 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Itasca > Anybody need an excuse to go to Kauai? Would Purdue buy the collection? Mike ************************************************************************* From Ric Almost certainly not. The Purdue collection is about Earhart, not the Itsaca. If there were photos of AE the university would probably accept them as a contribution but I'm not aware of any occasion when they have purchased material. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:51:54 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Searching the reef I have one question about the aircraft shown in Tighar Tracks vol13 #1/2 September 1997 page 14. Is this still being considered to be AE's aircraft? Ron Berry ********************************************************** From Ric After much debate, the best we can say about that photo is that we don't know what airplane it is or when or where the photo was taken. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:59:11 EDT From: Mike E Subject: Re: lead knob The AN/GRR-503 radio is a relatively recent vintage judging by the high nomenclature number alone. I have actually seen and held this "knob." Quite honestly it does not look like any kind of radio knob I have ever seen from the era of AE, but that does not preclude its being part of something else from that period. Right now I am leaning to the idea that it is a cap for something, but that's by no means a firm conviction. Question... and I apologize if it seems dumb. Are we really sure this thing is cast lead, or is it an alloy like pot metal or monkey metal, with a high lead content? Lead, itself, is relatively soft and malleable. When I examined this thing I did not get the impression that it fit the profile for lead. And, I have the diagrams for the WE 13C and 20A/B. LTM (who drives with a lead foot) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric I have the SEM printouts and I want to have them looked at by someone who knows more about how to read them than I do. But if the metal is an alloy of lead it's an alloy with a very high lead content. When Tom King originally found the thing he described it as a "cap". It's mostly the knurling that makes me think of it as a "knob". Semantics. It's an enlarged thingy that goes on the end of a shaft and is apparently intended to be manipulted by human fingers for some purpose. I suppose it could also be a push-pull "button". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:16:22 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Searching the reef Alan Caldwell indicates he might get a group of investors to search underwater off Niku IF he had a viable, reasonable theory, to support where he should start looking. It seems to me that your investigation the past 12 years has developed a reasonable theory based on the evidence you have presented that the Electra most likely landed just northish of the Norwich City on the reef, probably low tide. Since the Electra has not been discovered in the lagoon or the atoll land area, the Electra went off the reef near the landing area, according to Tighar's theory. Would it be fair to say that off the reef a mile or so on either side would be the place to start, given unlimited funds and expertise? Alan, have I misinterpreted your challenge? If anyone can give you an answer Tighar should be able to. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Pat Gaston For Alan Caldwell: "Just because there is a theory of where AE might have landed won't cut it. Tell me what evidence there is that AE definitely landed on Niku in the first place. I think she did but I'm not going to toss in a couple million just because I think that. But let's suppose she DID land on Niku. What evidence is there to tell us where of several possibilities she landed and in which direction and once on the ground whether she taxied the plane elsewhere or left it where it stopped?" As a matter of fact, Alan, I don't think there is any evidence that AE "definitely landed on Niku in the first place." But it's not my theory we're talking about, it's TIGHAR's. That theory, as I understand it, is that the Electra landed wheels-down in the general vicinity (probably north) of the Norwich City. The airplane remained intact for anywhere from two to four days, then was swept off the reef flat and/or dashed to smithereens by surf action, to the extent that Lambrecht and five others were unable to spot any telltale hunks of wreckage on July 9. Recently, Ric has speculated that the Electra still may have been largely intact on July 9 but was hidden from Lambrecht's view by high tides and pounding surf. The Niku Hypothesis is eminently "testable" because if it is correct, then the engines and other major structural components should still be on the ocean floor within an area that I am not competent to define, but that is capable of definition by those with sufficient expertise given the assumptions described above. "Now let's suppose it is sitting there at low tide with tanks all nearly empty and high tide or a storm sweeps it off into the water and it floats off to Lord knows where, THEN sinks. Now how big is the possible search area? Don't bother to tell me it couldn't float because it was wrecked. The ancient memory of a little girl seeing airplane wreckage or hearing about it doesn't tell me that." Yes, and the airplane could have been beamed up by space aliens, or towed far away by that phantom Japanese trawler. But concentrating on the innumerable (however unlikely) things that >could< have happened is simply a rationalization for doing nothing. Why send men to the moon given the myriad of potential disasters that could befall them? The Niku Hypothesis, in its current formulation, is reasonably specific and therefore testable. (Aside to Angus: Sure, there will be NC iron down there as well, but as to whether this precludes a successful search, well, I'd like to hear it from the experts. I would think that a wing or tail section of the Electra would be easily distinguishable from NC wreckage.) If the "little girl" you mention is Emily Sikuli, then what you're saying is that you don't buy her story. Fine, but again we are talking about the TIGHAR Hypothesis and not the Caldwell Hypothesis. The TIGHAR Hypothesis relies heavily on Emily's testimony as to the approximate location of the airplane wreckage. If TIGHAR wants to disavow Emily, then of course all bets are off. But TIGHAR has not done so, nor should they feel compelled to do so because you doubt her credibility. "THAT'S the reason not to do an underwater search. No one knows where to search." To paraphrase Ric, if we knew exactly where to search then the Electra wouldn't be lost. But we >do< have a reasonably specific hypothesis that is testable, given sufficient funding, expertise and equipment. You claim there is insufficient evidence to support an underwater search in any given area. What quantum of evidence do you regard as sufficient to justify such a search? A big hunk of Electra? But if TIGHAR finds a big hunk of Electra, doesn't that render an underwater search unnecessary? Aren't we talking in circles here? Let me add that I truly hope the wreckage is down there and if it is found (whether or not by TIGHAR), Ric & Co. deserve all the credit for nurturing and publicizing the Niku Hypothesis. If the wreckage isn't found, then you modify the hypothesis and test again. But all of this takes lots of money, and that was my original point about seeking outside help. LTM Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll say it again. The deep water off the edge of the reef in the vicinity of the Norwich City is one of the areas we'd like to search. Before we can do that we have to identify what kind of technology might be appropriate and then figure out how best to make it available to the project. It may be that more evidence will need to be found on land to further bolster the hypothesis before we're able to find the funding for a high tech underwater search. In any case, nobody knows the island, the reef and the problems better than we do and I have every confidence that the team of expedition veterans and researchers that we have assembled as an Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) is competent to help us decide how best to proceed. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:29:38 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Searching the reef > No, it's a slope of varying steepness. We're not sure how deep it goes or > how far out you have to go to get there because there has never been any good > bathymetry recorded there. There is a reasonably detailed bathymetric chart at http://www.wwfpacific.org.fj/phoenixbackground.htm which shows that the water just off the reef may not be much more than 300m deep. This could be pretty easily sounded by Tighar on the next expedition. It appears that the drop to the abyssal plain at four or five thousand metres takes place over ten or fifteen miles. Too deep for divers but within sealion range. Perhaps you could offer Slewths an opportunity to test their trainee archaeologists. Regards Angus. ********************************************************************* From Ric Your idea of a reasonably detailed bathymetric chart is bit different from mine. In any event, 300m is plenty deep and based upon what we know about the nature of the reef slope from first hand experience at lesser depths, it's a nightmare of a place to try to use remote sensing technology. (Oceaneering International lost a $5,000 sonar fish in this same area in 1991.) I'm not opposed to making inquiries about the use of trained sealions but I will be VERY surprised if this is an appropriate application of that search technique. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:36:12 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: lead knob I can't understand why you haven't done a specific gravity test. Its dead easy, any school laboratory would have a specific gravity bottle (you could even buy one!) and one could get a very good idea of average density from it. The geometry of the steel insert could be measured and its weight deduced via the density of steel. It would then be a simple matter to calculate the density of the remainder. Even if it were not possible to see all the insert, if the average density was greater than steel one could at least confirm that the main material was lead, a lead alloy or contained an element with a greater density than steel. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric I'm interested on focusing on the information that will enable us to identify the object. Right now the patent number seems to be the most promising avenue of investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:39:42 EDT From: Ric Subject: No Forum until Tuesday 7/23 With a TIGHAR board of directors meeting all day tomorrow (Thursday) followed by an Earhart Project Advisory Council conference on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and a day off (whew!) on Monday, there won't be any forum until next Tuesday. See you then. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:19:37 EDT From: Ric Subject: The forum resumes Thanks for your patience. We had an awesome conference and there is lots of new information to put out and there are several important projects underway. We'll put a report up on the website, including a page describing just who these people are who make up the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC), as soon as I can pull it all together. In the meantime, Jeff Glickman has completed his analysis of the numbers on Artifact 2-6-S-45. We'll be putting the results up on the website in the next few days. We don't yet know for sure what the thing is but there are some intriguing possibilites and we've all agreed to stop calling it "The Knob". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:20:52 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: lead knob > From Ric > I'm interested on focusing on the information that will enable us to identify > the object. Being sure it was such an unusual material as lead would be an important clue to its use. > Right now the patent number seems to be the most promising > avenue of investigation. So far, all the likely US patents consistent with Photek's identifications have been checked out without result. I have checked likely GB patents. Of course it may be a CA or NZ etc. patent. One does not need to be unsure of many numbers to have a huge number of possibilities and the matter is complicated by the fact that the number may not refer to the knob or only to some general feature which is not immediately apparent. Approaching the problem from the other end and searching on words associated with its possible use and then looking for Patent numbers that are close might be more productive. You say that you want someone to interpret the SEM results and yet an accurate density measurement would be conclusive if the density turned out to be that of lead ( unless of course it was a mercury, silver, platinum etc alloy that just happenend to have the same density as lead. Since these are all rare and expensive metals, I think we can eliminate this possibility) Since the test in question would take about ten minutes to do there is really nothing to lose once Photek have finished their analysis. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:38:20 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Itasca > Anybody need an excuse to go to Kauai? > > Would Purdue buy the collection? > > >From Ric > > Almost certainly not. The Purdue collection is about Earhart, not the > Itsaca. If there were photos of AE the university would probably accept them > as a contribution but I'm not aware of any occasion when they have purchased > material. I was casting about for a way to put the collection in the open and at the same time make the holder of it feel like something valuable had happened. Perhaps it could be suggested that the collection be offered to Purdue. ************************************************************ From Ric I'm not saying the suggestion shouldn't be made. Anybody who has anything they want to donate to the Purdue collection should contact the curator, Katherine M. Markee, at kmarkee@purdue.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:44:03 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Searching the reef British Admiralty chart 184 shows that the depth off the western reef flat drops to 500 fathoms within about 1,400 yards from the reef edge. As for using sealions, I happen to be familiar with the US Navy's sealion program. A sealion can be trained to locate a specific type of object, but not to perform a general search for nonspecific targets. Training a sealion is a lot like training a dog. You have to show it exactly what it is to search for. In our case, that means we would need to know the exact condition and appearance of the Electra parts we want the sealions to find. How do we manage that without first finding the Electra ourselves? Bob Brandenburg #2286 ************************************************************************ From Eric As per the discussion of using sea lions to do underwater work at Niku, here is a link to an interesting article about a mission performed by Navy-trained sea lions: http://www.sarinfo.bc.ca/Library/Literature/SeaLionRescueTeam.lit.txt Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. **************************************************************** From Ric I think we can forget the sealions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:45:03 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Searching the reef > (Oceaneering International lost a $5,000 sonar fish in this > same area in 1991.) I suspect the significance of that statement is lost on our "search under the water" advocates. Reminds me of the golfer showing off his new golf ball. He said it was an electronic marvel with a built in homing beacon so that he could never lose it. His friend asked where he got it and the golfer said, "I found it." Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:10:33 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Searching the reef Patrick Gaston writes: > But concentrating on the innumerable (however unlikely) things that >could< >have happened is simply a rationalization for doing nothing...... The Niku >Hypothesis, in its current formulation, is reasonably specific and therefore >testable. Pat, you're not even close. I think the Niku theory is correct. But to say it is specific and testable is foolish. You're just impatient with the necessary and plodding scientific method of research. Also I don't doubt the little girl's credibility but I damned sure would not bet a few million on it and neither would you. You still have not given the slightest reason why any particular place under water should be searched. You said, "You claim there is insufficient evidence to support an underwater search in any given area. What quantum of evidence do you regard as sufficient to justify such a search?" The answer is - the slightest piece of artifact that can be shown to have come from the Electra, anything aboard the Electra, AE, FN or anything they might have had with them. Your suggestion it has to be a huge hunk of the plane is ridiculous as you know. If you'll think rationally about it you can see that is exactly what the guys are doing. But that's just step one. Step two is having a sensible rationalization on WHERE to search. You also said, "But concentrating on the innumerable (however unlikely) things that could have happened is simply a rationalization for doing nothing." That isn't true at all and you know it. It is not at all unlikely the plane could have landed in the opposite direction, a different section or taxied once it was on the ground. It is also not unlikely the plane could still float. Why not for heaven's sake? What makes you think it has to be in a certain place in the water? Give me a reason and if it makes sense I'll buy it. No one has suggested aliens were involved or phantom ships. Be sensible. Finally there is no "Caldwell hypothesis." I don't know where the plane is. I think it landed on Niku but I don't know that nor do I know where it landed nor in which direction nor if it was moved once on the ground. You don't either. I have never at any time advanced a theory as to what happened to the Electra. I'll go back to my original challenge. Pick a place under water to search and tell me why that's the only area the plane could be in. And before you get silly with your "exact location" nonsense again I'm not expecting GPS coordinates. Just tell me which end of the island or which side you want to search and how far out. Pat, I have the feeling you aren't particularly buying the Niku theory. I may be wrong but that's the impression I get. There are a number of reasons why (to me)it is reasonable to believe AE ended up on Niku - sufficient reasons to spend a lot of time and money testing that idea. The island is a specific and definite area. It is also small. The water surrounding Niku is neither specific, definite nor small. The land area is also easier and far less expensive to search. The theory the plane or parts thereof could be found in an undefined area at great expense at who knows what depth or buried under 65 years of Lord knows what is just not going to open anyone's pocket book particularly when there is no good proof it was ever there in the first place. Now, rather than whining at the sand sifters the energies of the "under water" gang might be better spent coming up with a "reasonably specific and therefore testable" (your words) place to search. It is my belief, or perhaps hope, solid evidence is forthcoming and in the not too distant future. It would be nice then to have a good plan as to where to look for the plane. Given your initial statement, "As a matter of fact, Alan, I don't think there is any evidence that AE 'definitely landed on Niku in the first place.'" it seems odd you would suggest pouring zillions into an underwater search rather than solving the first order of business - OTHER people's zillions I might add. I understand your idea of testing the Niku theory is to find the plane wreckage. That was not ignored nor lost on me. I just don't see the practicality of it. I suppose I put more faith in our hero digging in the sand (coral) than I do sea lions frolicking in the surf. Sorry, Pat. That wasn't fair. Amend that to read .... than I do using all the latest under water search technology and unlimited (but unavailable) millions. Alan, in good humor #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:13:04 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: lead knob >the knob is part of a fuse, the oval part in the center >has been damaged, which is a shallow slot for a soft >metal conductor. This gets into the "where-have-I-seen-this-before" arena.... I seem to recall, but don't quote me! that one radio broadcast station I worked at while in college had a basket of "residue-of" stuff from their old 1928 transmitter that had been scrapped long, long, LONG ago.... Ric wrote that the fuse question begs an interesting hypothesis. I agree; had not thought of a fuse or fuse holder cap. I have some 1930s and early 1940s electronics catalogs and will do some digging. Does someone have access to old electrical supply catalogs (not electronic/radio)? If this is a fuse cap or fuse holder cap, I think it would be associated with a fuse approximately 3/8 to 1/2 inch diameter. Probably at least a 10-amp fuse, maybe up to 30 amp or (long shot) even a 60 amp rating. If no one else finds anything I can go to the University library and search old electrical journals... when I get a free afternoon (yeah right). Only thing is... fuse holder caps usually have threads to screw into the body of the holder; or a "bayonet-base" that locks into place with a quarter-turn motion. LTM (whose fuse is always rather short) and 73 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:17:32 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: lead knob >I suppose it could also be a push-pull "button". Ha! Like a switch on an old fashioned car dashboard? Anybody know if lead was ever used on antique cars/millitary trucks/bulldozers controls? Or on power plants? On electrical switchboards? Not necessarily an electrical control, may be a remote knob for an engine choke? Anybody with a faster 'net connection than me to do a bit of search on WW-II Caterpillar controls?... (the weight of lead is not too detrimental to a Cat!) We got to bump someones memory into gear! Someone has got to know what this thing is! It still is quite hard to explain why a mere accessory "thingy" (as per Ric) would bear a patent number! That has got to be a major clue, but doesn't ring a bell here -unless the thingy is the appliance, all by itself. CD ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:20:03 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: Wreck / Knob ? > Envision a car tire > with no wheel and short sidewalls. That's sort of how the steel insert is > shaped. Then, Ric, isn't it a bit of a stretch to say it fits on a shaft? You are not talking about a cylindrical mating surface? Looks like there is too much engineering to this thingy to be just a lowly knob? So much so that it deserved to bear a patent number? Makes me think of a race for bearing balls... CD *********************************************************************** From Ric It's clearly not just a lowly knob. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:21:30 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Noonan Hollywood link? During a totally unrelated researh project, I found the imdb.com entry for "Sally O'Neil," who was really named Virginia Louise Concepta Noonan. Born October 23, 1908, in Bayonne, New Jersey; died June 18, 1968, in Galesburg, Illinois. She worked in 37 movies between 1925 and 1937. Might she be a relation to Fred? I'm not sure what can be made of this, but it came as an interesting surprise. There are, according to imdb.com, about 100 Noonans in films during the period 1890-2002. Fred's not in any list. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:24:20 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Lam. photograph Not being a pilot, what do you think the altitude was when Lt. Lam. or his observer took the photograph? Was there only the one photo? *************************************************************** From Ric Just one photo. I'd ballpark it at 1,200 feet but that's just a guess. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:29:21 EDT From: Ric Subject: Death to the turbines Mike Holt did not send the following as a forum posting but it's too good not to share. Mike, you're a poet. ***************************************************** Death to the turbines! We gotta get rid of these turbines, they are ruining aviation. We need to go back to big round engines. Anybody can start a turbine, you just need to move a switch from "OFF" to "START", and then remember to move it back to "ON" after a while. My PC is harder to start. Cranking a round engine requires skill, finesse and style. On some planes, the pilots aren't even allowed to do it. Turbines start by whining for a while, then give a small lady-like poot and start whining louder. Round engines give a satisfying rattle-rattle, click-click, BANG, more rattles, another BANG, a big macho fart or two, more clicks, a lot of smoke and finally a serious low pitched roar. We like that. It's a guy thing. When you start a round engine, your mind is engaged and you can concentrate on the flight ahead. Starting a turbine is like flicking on a ceiling fan: Useful, but hardly exciting. Turbines don't break often enough, leading to aircrew boredom, complacency and inattention. A round engine at speed looks and sounds like it's going to blow at any minute. This helps concentrate the mind. Turbines don't have enough control levers to keep a pilot's attention. There's nothing to fiddle with during long flights. Turbines smell like a Boy Scout camp full of Coleman lanterns. Round engined planes smell like God intended flying machines to smell. I think I hear the nurse coming down the hall. I gotta go. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:33:40 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: Completely, Totally Off Topic The odds of someone like me ever getting to muck around in the heat, dust, bugs and crabs of Nikumaroro looking for the "any idiot artifact" are slim, as in equivalet to the celluloid cat being chased by the asbestos dog through you know where, but I digress. At least I can FEEL like I'm a part of Niku V by wearing my really cool-looking TIGHAR cap. Khaki colored, embroidered logo, fancy-shaped bill and genuine metal adjusting buckle. It doesn't get much better than that, forumites. *ponders the above ramblings* I need to get out more. Monty Fowler, # 2189 ************************************************************* From Ric If you're supporting the work you ARE a part of the team. Wear that hat with pride. In a world of phoney "adventurers", you're the real thing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:35:12 EDT From: Tom Roberts Subject: Re: Lockheed Report 487 - Part 1 For Oscar Boswell: You wrote: "The basis for these "Horsepower Required" calculations is obscured (in my copy) by the terse (and illegible) equations on the bottom of page 30. I can see HPreq = DV / 550 (presumably indicating that horsepower required is equal to the product of drag and velocity, divided by the foot pounds of energy [550] per horsepower). This equation is simplified to HPreq = C subscript d A q Vmph / 375 and then in turn to HPreq = 1.22 C subscript D q Vmph. I can see that A [presumably the coefficient of angle of attack] is given as 458.[?] and this correlates with the final simplification of the equation since 458 divided by 375 = 1.22. I can see that equations are also given for some coefficient (it looks to me like C subscript L) for 16,500 #, 12,900 # and 9,300 #, but no amount of squinting will clarify the intervening numbers. I believe that I can also read "W = C subscript L A q", but I wouldn't testify to that under oath. If anyone has a clearer copy or can read these equations, I would appreciate corrections and amplifications." Oscar, as you suggest, these are simply the equilibrium equations for the aircraft: Horizontally - Horsepower equals drag force times velocity: drag force equals drag coefficient (C subscript D) times reference (wing) area (A = 458 square feet) times dynamic pressure (q); the 375 factor is equal to 550 (ft-lb/sec) times 3600 (sec/hr) divided by 5280 (ft/mile). Vertically - Lift force equals weight: lift force equals lift coefficient (C subscript L) times reference (wing) area (A) times dynamic pressure (q). That's the easy part. The more difficult analysis I leave to you. LTM, Tom Roberts, #1956CE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:39:47 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: A.E. Festival in Atchison Glad everyone is back. Want to report in on the A.E. Book review in Atchison. Most of it was the usual Irene Bolam stories which drove me up the wall and down again,and the rest of it was on the Marshall Islands and Saipan. The LTM letter came up at the conference, and, of course, Miss Carol shot it down. I gave a lot of credit to the Tighar group while I was there. In my opinon, Tighar has absolutely the best research, and it is open to the public which is more than you can say for AES and their secret society (pardon me for saying so but it is true). I really went to bat for Tighar. By the way, Ric your picture and your search at Gardner Island was in their newspaper at the Amelia Earhart Festival along with, of course, who else but Nauticos. There is one thing that came up at the seminar and that is a Mr. Tod Swindell stated that there are audio tape files in the San Francisco public library between Fred Goerner and Admiral Chester Nimitz broadcasting on KCBS San Francisco. The tapes are open for public listening, I understand. Am wondering if anyone at Tighar would be able to check this out? Are they for real or is someone just blowing smoke? Or, is this old hat and OT (off topic). Ric, over to you. Carol Dow #2524 *************************************************************** From Ric I don't know if there are tapes of Goerner's radio interviews with Nimitz or not. I was not aware that he ever interviewed the Admiral on the air. I also can't imagine what difference it could make. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:42:42 EDT From: Duane Babler Subject: Re: Searching the reef im no great thinker but reading your emails is intreaging and i hope that you find the electra some day. but if there was any proof that they landed there its long gone. and if the government didnt cover things up. than you just got to take a shot at it. search the water and the land for hevans sake. <<>If you're supporting the work you ARE a part of the team. Wear that hat >with pride. In a world of phoney "adventurers", you're the real thing.>> your right and teemwork will solve the mystery ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:14:14 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Death to the turbines > Mike, you're a poet. Oh my gosh. I gotta admit I didn't write that one. I got it from a pilot buddy who throws up when he spends too much time near kerosene comets. (I am, however, working up a Top Ten list of things one should not do if one is Amelia.) Mike ************************************************************************* From RC " .. Anybody can start a turbine, you just need to move a switch from "OFF" to "START", and then remember to move it back to "ON" after a while." It is even easier than that! The start switch is spring loaded to the off position. Removing the finger to pick your nose releases the switch to fall back to the off position. RC ************************************************************************ From MH Ric: Would you mind if I reposted that one on Avsig (CompuServe's Aviation Forum)? I'd attribute it to Mike Holt from the TIGHAR Earhart list. -mh ************************************************************************** From Ric S'ok by me but, as noted above, Mike didn't write it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:15:48 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: A.E. Festival in Atchison For Carol Dow, Thanks for the Atkinson report. You mentioned the LTM letter came up but a "Miss Carol" shot it down. Who is Miss Carol and what were her reasons? I and my group, Dusty Miss, et al did a lot of work on the origin of the letter. In my opinion AE was not at Weishein and did not write the message; the research speaks for itself. LTM, Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:21:28 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck / Knob ? > From Ric: > It's clearly not just a lowly knob. Thanks to Ric and Pat's invitation to participate in the recent EPAC meeting, I've had a chance to hold 2-6-S-45, look at it under a microscope, and discuss it intensively with Jeff Glickman and the other folks at the meeting. The first time I held S45 (as it's known to its friends), it did look a lot like a knob that would sit flat on a surface and allow a pushbutton to pass through it. I've seen things like that on cameras. The knurling looks like something for grabbing the knob and spinning it for some kind of adjustment. But S45 is very light, even flimsey. It looks like it was made for one-time use. One of the candidate patents is for sealing bottles or jars with malleable metal. The hole in the steel insert does not match the opening in the lead sheathing, so it does not seem that the steel insert gripped whatever passed through the hole in the lead. It seems that the construction of S45 would begin with the steel insert being placed on something else and possibly crimped into place. The walls of the steel insert seem to be curved a bit, as if they were rolled around the mouth of a bottle or jar or a pipe of some kind. The lead sheath would have been pre-cast in a mold with the patent numbers etched into it, according to Jeff Glickman, and then would have been crimped over the steel insert and whatever it was attached to. Under the microscope, he was able to identify a line that could have been made in the lead by the crimping device. The sides of the sheath below the knurling seem to slant in a bit--possibly also formed by the crimping tool and meant to guarantee a tight fit? I asked people what the properties of lead are that would make it useful in fabricating S45. Some suggestions: cheap easily cast malleable conducts current seals low melting point (fuse applications) There seemed to be a consensus that lead would not have been used for any kind of food item. Someone suggested that S45 resembles the kind of seal on medicine bottles that have a rubber center that is pierced by a hypodermic needle. Of course, if S45 is a push-button of some kind, the steel insert could have been a seat for a spring. Whatever passed through the hole in the lead sheath would have had to have retained the object against the force of the spring. I found an object on a fire extinguisher at Ric's house that sort of resembles the geometry of S45, but in that application, the patent numbers would have been buried against the body of the fire extinguisher. The hole is S45 is also way too small for the pump plunger on the fire extinguisher to pass through. My overall view (amateur opinion) is that S45 is a sophisticated piece of engineering that was meant to cap or seal something economically and once-and-for all. It doesn't seem to me to be something that could be removed, serviced, and replaced by the end user. Someone else was holding out for the view that it is a snap of some kind, which would allow it to go on and off its fixture. Marty #2359 ****************************************************************** From Ric Jeff Glickman's full analysis of the letters and numbers on S-45 is now up on the TIGHAR website. You'll especially want to read his Prelimiary Opinion Letter. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:22:25 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Crystal Balls Here's a possibility: 1994229 , 1935, mercury-operated temperature stabilised piezo-electric crystal for controlling natural period (read frequency of oscillation) of electrical circuits. This presumably could have been used by the USCG but it seems AE's radio used oven stabilisation of the crystals. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:33:13 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Noonan Hollywood link? Perhaps you are aware that Noonan was good pals with Hollywood actor Eugene Pallette and wrote him a letter from Africa in June 37 on the World Flight. That letter,which is available to read, was addresseed to the Hollywood Roosevlet Hotel in LA in June 37. Strangely enough, an unclaimed letter was found at Jaluit in Nov 1937 addressed to AE in the Marshall Islands, with a return address of the Hollwood Roosevelt Hotel. And stranger yet, Margo deCarrie, AE's personal assistant, was living at the Hotel in the Fall of 1937 when the letter was postmarked! Heine speculated it could have been a hoax or then again maybe not! The envelope address etc was reported in the Pacific Island Monthly Magazine in 1938 in an article written by a John Heine, Jaluit, a special correspondent to the Magazine. No one ever saw the letter and the letter was never opened. So there you have a Hollywood/Noonan connection. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric As I recall there's more to the unclaimed letter in Jaluit story. Something about "incognito" written on the outside of the envelope. So much for the Marshalls being an impenetrable Japanese enclave. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:35:54 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Carol Dow CLD said: "From Carol Dow . . .. Want to report in . . . . drove me up the wall and down again . . . of course, Miss Carol shot it down. I gave a lot of credit to the Tighar group [not too much though, I suspect] . . . . In my opinon . . .. I really went to bat for Tighar." Sheesh! An ego is a terrible thing to let loose, much less to display publicly. Dennis ************************************************************************** From Ric Oh, I dunno. Who but Carol would speak for TIGHAR in a gathering like the one in Atchison? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:39:10 EDT From: Andy Subject: Re: Searching the reef <<>> Does Admiralty Chart #184 provide insufficient information to be considered a good bathymetry record? LTM, Andy ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. The 1939 Bushnell survey map contains far, far more bathymetry data and that is still way too sketchy. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:41:04 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Guilty, M'Lud I have been summoned for jury service next month. I wouldn't have said I was anyone's fool before I came across TIGHAR, but I'm 100 per cent sure regular exposure to the rigorous testing of evidence in two-and-a-half years on the Forum means I'll be much better intellectually equipped than if I hadn't happened upon the web site. Phil Tanner 2276 ************************************************************************ From Ric If you tell them about your participation on the forum you'll be the first one they dismiss. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:44:20 EDT From: I Stancil Subject: Re: lead knob I found this link with photos of old knobs from 1920s radios. I thought it might be helpful. http://www.oldradioparts.com/pg2.htm Good luck! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:48:55 EDT From: Oscar Subject: Re: Lockheed Report 487 - Part 1 > From Tom Roberts > , these are simply the equilibrium equations for the > aircraft: Thank you very much. Oscar *********************************************************************** From Harvey for Tom, I'm also puzzling through this area in R.487. The equation you refer to as being unclear on page 30 is, I believe, what you have stated,namely W = Cl * A*q where W = weight of plane Cl = lift coefficient A = wing area,ft sq. = 458.5 ft sq q=dynamic pressure,psf The weight of the plane in steady, level flight must be balanced by the lift. The lift,L is written as: Lift = Cl * A*q where Cl,the coefficient of lift is referred to the wing area,A. Angle of attack (alpha)does not appear explicitly in these equations. Cl,the lift coefficient is a reaspnably linear function of alpha over much of the usable range. I believe that the decimal following "458. is 5 to make it 458.5 ft sq. This is the figure given in the Encyclopedia of World Aircraft for the 10A. I have some confidence in this number since a spec. sheet for the C-36 (same airframe as the 10E) also has 458.5 ft sq. Referring to your : " but no amount of squinting will clarify the intervening numbers": The R.487 author then solves the weight equation for Cl,the lift coefficient required to support the weight at a given dynamic pressure. Cl = W/(A*q) and then presents solutions for 3 different weights of 9300,12900, and 16500 lbs If you substitute 9300 lb in the above equation for Cl,you get Cl = 9300/(458.5*q)= 20.28/q for 9300 lb Cl= 12900/(458.5*q)= 28.14/q for 12900 lb and Cl =16500/(458.5*q)= 35.98/q for 16500 lb which are quite close to the report figures. I hope this sheds some light on these numbers and pray that these equations escape the attention of the format monster. harvey #2387 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:50:42 EDT From: Carol Subject: Re: A.E. Festival in Atchison In the few brief moments that I had to say something, there was a Tod Swindell, one of the speakers, who was making points that Earhart was at Wilsheim prison and was taken to Japan as a POW and later came back to America as the spy Irene Bolam. So, having gotten a head full of the absurdities, I flagged him down, and told him the letter from Wilsheim prison has been disproved. The letter wasn't from Earhart, and the LTM portion of the letter that went to George Putnam in Calif. was from a friend who's mother used to live close by to the Putnam residence. I don't know if I got it straight because I didn't have a copy of your analysis sitting there in front of me. After that Swindell didn't say anything on the subject. I have an E-mail address for Swindell. Also, I want to tell you about Swindell. He has a book which supposedly contains forensic evidence that Irene Bolam was Amelia Earhart. Last year he tried to pitch his book to film producers (he's in the business), and it failed. He doesn't have a publisher, and I cautioned him that Joe Klaas got into a lawsuit when his book first came out (which happened). Over to you. Carol Dow #2524 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:51:59 EDT From: Carol Subject: Re: Carol Dow Listen you guys, lay off me will you please? Carol Dow ****************************************************** From Ric Okay guys. No more picking on Carol. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:52:56 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Death to the turbines Just tell 'em it was found by Larry Rice (one of those pilots who delights in one-hole biplanes with round engines). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:27:26 EDT From: Ric Subject: Search Logic Last weekend's EPAC conference spent a great deal of time discussing and debating the prospect of how best to search for conclusively identifiable aircraft wreckage at Nikumaroro. Leading the discussion was Howard Alldred, a PhD geologist from New Zealand whose specialty is the geomorphology of coral atolls. Additional insight was provided by Randy Jacobson who has a PhD in geophysics, and extensive experience in oceanographic sensors and measurements. The entire Dive Team from Niku IIII was also present to provide commentary on video of the underwater environment. To make a very long story short, a consensus was reached on the following points: 1. The objective of the search is conclusively identifiable wreckage from NR16020. 2. Many, many pieces from the plane - not just objects that have a surviving serial number - could be conclusively identifiable. 3. The few components, such as engines and propellers, that originally had serial numbers affixed may no longer have retrievable numbers. 4. According to the current TIGHAR hypothesis, the heavy portions of the wreck probably traveled down the reef slope into very deep water while the lighter portions probably traveled shoreward to eventually wash up on or in the beach. Some, if not most, of these were probably collected and used by the colonists for local purposes. Other pieces, such as 2-2-V-1 (the section of aluminum skin) remained, and still remain, buried in the sand along the shoreline of the island "downstream" of where the airplane broke up. 5. The heavy portions of the wreck are very few in number - engines, gear legs, possibly the main beam (spar). They could be heavily coral encrusted and difficult to recognize. They could also be co-mingled with Norwich City debris therefore making remote sensing very difficult. 6. By contrast, the lighter portions of the wreck should be far more numerous and infinitely easier and more economical to find on land once the correct area is identified. 7. No organized TIGHAR search has ever been conducted in the area now considered to be most likely to contain conclusively identifiable wreckage. Conclusion: A deep water search doesn't make sense at this time. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:28:45 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Noonan Hollywood link? > From Ron Bright > > Perhaps you are aware that Noonan was good pals with Hollywood actor Eugene > Pallette and wrote him a letter from Africa in June 37 on the World Flight. > That letter,which is available to read, was addresseed to the Hollywood > Roosevlet Hotel in LA in June 37. I remembered that, but what I was hoping was that some new details of that might arise from a link in a different direction. No one involved in the last flight is a boring nonentity. > Strangely enough, an unclaimed letter was found at Jaluit in Nov 1937 > addressed to AE in the Marshall Islands, with a return address of the > Hollwood Roosevelt Hotel. And stranger yet, Margo deCarrie, AE's personal > assistant, was living at the Hotel in the Fall of 1937 when the letter was > postmarked! > > Heine speculated it could have been a hoax or then again maybe not! I never heard of this one. > The envelope address etc was reported in the Pacific Island Monthly Magazine > in 1938 in an article written by a John Heine, Jaluit, a special > correspondent to the Magazine. No one ever saw the letter and the letter was > never opened. What happened to the letter? How do we know this is real, if no one ever saw it other than the writer of the article? > LTM, > Ron Bright > ************************************************************************ > >From Ric > > As I recall there's more to the unclaimed letter in Jaluit story. Something > about "incognito" written on the outside of the envelope. > > So much for the Marshalls being an impenetrable Japanese enclave. Yeah, Ric, but if she was CAPTURED she might have been able to smuggle a letter out!!!!! Then Margo deCarrie and AE would have been able to carry on a correspondance until the Japanese shot her!!!!! (I gotta get a hobby. Or a mistress. Or just start grad school.) LTM, Mike H. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:29:52 EDT From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: Guilty, M'Lud I was one of the chosen last month. The only ones dismissed were lawyers and doctors; it was a personal injury case (frivolous and without merit!). As uncooperative, narrow minded and irascible as I could be I was stuck! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:37:11 EDT From: Ed Croft Subject: Patent possibility I remember in one of the previous expeditions that you recovered a fire extinguisher that could have come off the plane. Is Patent # 1894325 a candidate for that ? curious, Ed Croft *************************************************************************** From Ric If you'd look at the patent you'd see that it's a patent for a fire extinguishing system for buildings. We've looked at the small portable extinguisher we recovered from the village and it has nothing like artifact S-45. I'd like to ask that anyone who has a suggestion about the possible identity of the artifact take the time to at least first check out the patent on the USPTO site at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:43:33 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Search Logic I read this post a couple of times and I'm still not sure if I am following the logic here. In item #7 you mention the "area now considered to be most likely to contain conclusively identifiable wreckage". Where is that area? the 7 site? LTM (who gets a little confused at times) Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric No. The Seven Site has nothing to do with this. The shoreline downstream of the area where we think the airplane broke up is on the western end of the island not far from where the village was. We know that that area overwashes periodically in severe weather events. For those who have the grid map, we're talking about blocks WF17,18 and 19. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:44:21 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Wreck / Knob ? I don't believe it would have been used for sealing something - but if it was it would have been for something like brake fluid cans and such, but considering the types of lids used during that time, it is a big departure from the norm. It wouldn't have been used in any food or drink, since lead is a poison. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:44:57 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: A.E. Festival in Atchison Carol, Thanks for explaining the Weishein/Earhart myth to those at the conference. I am aware of Tod Swindell's research and theory. I don't believe it. LTM, Ron ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:48:51 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: A.E. Festival in Atchison For Ron Bright Ron, it really helps to get a thank you note now and then. Carol ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:42:59 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Carol Dow Who is picking on Carol? Carol is a sweet person and no more goofy than many of us. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:44:06 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Search Logic > Conclusion: > A deep water search doesn't make sense at this time. Excellent analysis and quite timely. Looks like there is little danger we'll get off track. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:24:45 EDT From: Warren Subject: Starter? Maybe these folks have seen the "knob" while rebuilding Bendix Eclipse airplane starters: http://www.aerotechlou.com/starters.shtml Best, Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric We've started to look into this possibility and here's what we know so far: -The Bendix Eclipse Type E-160 starter was standard on all Lockheed 10s. Various versions of the E-160 are compatible with many airplane engines up to 2600 cu. in. displacement. - We don't have direct documentation that NR16020 had E-160 starters but we also know of no reason why it wouldn't have the standard equipment. - People who rebuild E-160s have been unable to find anything on the starter itself that resembles S-45. - The E-160 starter was engaged in the cockpit by either a foot peddle or a "push switch". The Lockheed 10 used the push switch. For each engine there was a starter push switch and a "magneto booster coil" push switch side by side. All four push switches were mounted on a panel in front of the pilot's right knee and covered by a flip-down metal shield. Photos of NR16020's cockpit do not show what the actual push switches looked like because the guard shield covers them (damn!). One much-modernized Lockheed 10A - c/n 1091 hangared in Denton , TX - has no guard shield and the push switches appear to be modern replacements, but they are the same approximate size as artifact 2-6-S-45. - The Maintenance and Overhaul Manual for the E-160 starter has a schematic that shows the push-switch to feature a button that pushes a shaft. To find out whether the starter push switches on Lockheed 10s resemble S-45 we need to find an existing Electra that has not been "restored". We're following up on several possibilities. (This sort of thing has been a recurring problem for TIGHAR and is the root cause of much of our frustration with the air museum world that values appearance over true preservation.) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:30:06 EDT From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: A.E. Festival in Atchison To Carol Dow,I for one want to say thanks!.I read everything you put on the forum,I enjoy your open mind and your enthusiasm. I (for one)think you are a lot of help to Tighar and I appreciate your thoughts very much. Terry Lee Simpson(#2396) LTM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:31:26 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: The Round Lead-Based Artifact with Partial Patent Number Suppose the patent search for the Round Lead-Based Artifact with Partial Patent Number (a.k.a. "the Knob", a.k.a. "the Thingy", a.k.a. Artifact 2-6-S-45 ) is unsuccessful. Instead of researching the RLBAPPN and trying to figure out what it was once attached to, why not make some assumptions of what it may have been attached to (with specific focus on equipment on-board the Electra), and go find some examples to examine?? Here are some ideas: a.. Does any of the radio equipment of the exact model as installed in the Electra still exist that could be examined? b.. Does any flight instrumentation of the exact model (e.g. altimeter, DG) as installed in the Electra still exist that could be examined. c.. Is there any knowledge of the brand and model of sextant that FN used. If so, is the manufacturer still in business and be contacted to see if they have a sextant of exact model that could be examined. d.. Can the manufacturers of the radio equipment or flight instrumentation be contacted and asked if it was common practice for them to put patent numbers on their individual components? I'm going to guess that answers to all the above is that the manufacturers are no longer in business, or there is no longer any existant equipment that could be examined. I looked again at the Tighar website photo of the RLBAPPN being held between index and thumb fingers. It is larger than I had previously realized. Sure looks like it would make a great dial for adjusting some sort of radio-tuner gizmo. Tom Riggs #2427 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:35:55 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Wreck Photo I have been spending a lot of time going over the Carrington photo. The possible AE Electra 10E there is a part of a rack that is standing up on the left side of the aircraft, there is what looks like another one behind the engine mount on the right but it looks like it has had a bad time. Then another in the same area but farther back bent in a different direction. Then there is yet another one of these braces lying on the top of the wing where the cabin should be. The first one that I mentioned is the easiest to recognize it is el (L) shaped with a wye(Y) brace at the top. Just below where the wye(Y) intersects with the up right portion is a notch for a cross beam. The object on the wing of the Carrington photo has a metal band sticking up from the bottom of it that could br used to hold a fuel tank in place. I have only one picture showing the inside of AE's Electra and I can see part of one of these braces. does anyone have pictures of the inside of the Aircraft? There is a lot of engineering in this one object and although they have been used in other aircraft I would be willing to bet that not to many Electras had as many long Distance tanks installed in them as AE's. The reason that I bring this up is this one thing that might be found in shallow water because it could easily get caught up on the reef. also a part like this could be mistaken for something from the ship wreck. Ron Berry *************************************************************************** From Ric There were no racks holding the fuselage tanks in place. The tanks appear to have been held down by metal straps that went over the tanks and were bolted to the floor. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:43:58 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Having the Right Tool for the Job Previous Tighar expeditions to Niku have required alot of manual digging, chopping, hacking, etc. After a short while of this type work in unbearable heat, the participating team members become completely exhausted. The time it takes o recover from their exhaustion means less time they have to spend doing productive research. Since I am a firm believer in having the right tool for performing a task, I have to ask this question: What is the feasibility of transporting a small backhoe/front-loader or "Bobcat" type equipment to Niku on future expeditions. This equipment could be used to dig holes, move debris, cut paths thru scaevola, etc. This would minimize exhaustion of team, and allow them to concentrate on other more meaningful tasks. Also, instead of using machetes to hack thru scaevola, why not use chain-saws or "weed-whacker" type tools with brush-cutting blades? I'm going to guess the difficulties involved would be finding/funding a ship large enough to transport such equipment, and after arrival finding a way to transport off-ship and across treacherous reef to shoreline. Also, Niku island government officials wanting to protect natural environment have in past approved of team digging manually with shovels, but may not approve of larger-scale digging with machines, or cutting thru scaevola with chainsaws, etc. Just some more thoughts. Tom Riggs #2427 ************************************************************************** From Ric You're correct in that getting a "Bobcat" or similar machine ashore and transported to where we would need it on the island would be a mammoth undertaking. Also, we need to stay up close and personal with the clearing operation so we can keep an eye out for intersting stuff. We do use chain saws but they tend to overheat or break and a chain saw accident out there is about the last thing you want. At the recent EPAC conference, one idea that came up was hand-held powered nippers. Might be just the thing for cutting scaevola. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:48:53 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: The Smoking Gun?? I think there is very little doubt that the knob is 1891826, the spout and closure. The number is only two digits different from Jeff's best guess and the difference believable. The "knob" has evidently lost the spout by it being broken off. It has all the features of the patent, a seat, a malleable metal construction, a milled edge (visible in the section drawing) and is described as "small". This being the case, we are looking for a small container of something volatile or flammable or both, which requires a spout. Something that springs to mind is lighter fuel for a rechargeable lighter. Although AE was not a smoker, Fred smoked "mild as may" Marlborough. Of course the cap could equally well have come from someone in the USCG (if indeed it is from a refill), or Bushnell as there were virtually certain to be smokers amongst them. A much less likely container would be one for gun-oil. This however would not need the high quality seal intended by the patent. There are many afficionados of smoking paraphernalia so it will probably not be difficult to track down whether lighter fuel was supplied in a container with such a closure. Unfortunately, if this is indeed the case, it will not get us much further down the road of the AE mystery. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric I don't share your confidence about the artifact's identity but I agree that it's a possibility that bears investigation. To me, the plastic deformation of the central hole strongly suggests a central shaft that was much harder than the soft exterior of the artifact. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:52:03 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Carol Dow Alan, thanks for the support. Here's something we can all have a laugh over. Here's more of the very latest from the Atchison whatever it was. Did you know that just after Earhart disappeared, President Roosevelt disappeared on his private yacht with a group of friends for about 30 days. Supposedly, they went to the Marshall Islands looking for Earhart. Can you imagine the President of the United States disappearing for 30 days and no one knows where he is? Also, this was 1937 and war is looming on the horizon from both sides of the ocean. Goofy did you say? I won't mention who dropped that one except to say the party has many, many hours of flying time. Where does "stuff" like this come from....who knows? I do have to shake my head. It's unbelievable at times. By the way this is a true story....holy Toledo. Carol Dow #2524 ************************************************************************ From Ric Where did anyone ever get the idea that having many, many hours of flying time is an indicator of anything but a capacity to endure boredom? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:53:52 EDT From: Ric Subject: No Forum until Monday What can I tell ya? It's summer. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:19:42 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Revelation - a mystery solved! I did some further research on my idea that the "knob" was actually the spout and closure described under patent number 1891836. A trawl of the web found both lighter fluid and gun-oil were supplied from the thirties to the fifites in tins with this type of closure. A number of other types of oil, eg oil for hairclippers and household oil were also supplied in the same type of can. I e-mailed a dozen or so people, collectors etc, to get some feedback on where the patent number was and its form and layout. The vast majority could find no patent number, but then I struck lucky. Kelly Seales (an appropriate name) had a can of "Revelation Gun oil" which carried the exact patent number in the same place as on the knob and with the same, rather unusual format. PATENTED : NO 1891826, complete to the colon. The cap was an exact match. The can was also an early one with oval rather than rectangular cross section. I have obtained some (very poor quality) pics which I have sent to Ric. When I had first seen the patent, everything dropped into place. Lead is a most unusual engineering material and I can think of few examples where it might be used as a knob. As a closure however it has a number of advantages. It is easily crimped into place. It forms an effective seal at the resealable end of the spout. It will produce no sparks in a lighter-fluid refill application. Mazac (or Zamac) the magnesium/aluminium/copper alloy is not soft enough to seal as effectively. This is one application that makes complete sense. It is also easy to see how the ragged hole arises in the middle, from where the spout has been broken out. We know the USCG used the site for target practice. Anyone with a firearm in the tropics will know that they need particular care to prevent corrosion of the bore and rifling. It would make complete sense that the USCG should take gun oil with them to oil the guns during and immediately after use. On the other hand it doesn't make a lot of sense to have lighter-fluid refills or household oil on hand. Even if Noonan used a lighter, there is little doubt that a refill can for it would have been considered unnecessary extra weight and I feel pretty sure it did not originate from the Electra. I think we can therefore be pretty sure that the knob is the remains of the spout and closure of a can of gun oil. This is completely consistent with the other USCG items found at the site. One can't help wondering if the Seven site really is the Bones site. Even the cache of clamshells could have been left by the USCG. The fire sites certainly could have been theirs. Only the "trails" and the two holes in the ground would seem to less equivocally support the Seven site as being indeed the Bones site. Regards Angus ******************************************************************* From Ric Congratulations Angus. I think that there's a high probability that S-45 is part of a closure from a tin of something. The photos Mr. Seales sent to you and that you sent to me are indeed of very poor quality. I can tell that there is some kind of raised inscription on the top of the cap and that the central spout appears to be separate piece that could conceivably be broken out leaving the kind of damage we see on the artifact. It is also apparent that the cap in the photo is NOT an exact match. Our artifact has more rounded sides and appears to be not as deep top-to-bottom as the cap in the photo. I can't tell anything about size because there's no scale in the photo. That said, I think the reported match of the wording clinches it that we have part of can spout for a small can of something. Until we find an exact match, the rest is speculation. Gun oil is one possibility. We have direct evidence of three types of firearms at the site; - .30 caliber M1 carbine (numerous shell casings) - Springfield rifle (a "stripper clip") - a .22 caliber weapon of some sort (3 shell casings) The first two types are consistent with the U.S. Coast Guard and the broken Coast Guard stoneware, radio tube parts, and repaired holes in the water tank strongly suggest that there was some Coast Guard shooting done at the site on at least on occasion. The .22 is not consistent with any weapon known to be issued to Unit 92 or brought to the island by any of its members according to the several veterans we've talked to. Gerald Gallagher, on the other hand, is known to have had a Colt .22 caliber automatic pistol on the island and it is inventoried with his personal effects. I have a very clear recollection of seeing correspondence about the pistol being much admired and, after his death, being given or sold to one of his colleagues, but I can't find the reference in the file. Maybe we didn't copy it. Anyway, I'm quite sure that the pistol did not remain on the island. Three and a half boxes of .22 ammunition are shown in the inventory, but no can of gun oil. If Artifact S-45 came from a can of gun oil (still a matter of conjecture) it seems to me that Gallagher is a more likley source than the Coast Guard. It seems like Coast Guard gun oil would almost certainly be G.I. issue and unlikely to come in a can with that patent notification on the spout. However, as Angus points out, gun oil is essential to maintaining any weapon in the tropics and the very absence of such an item from the Gallagher inventory might be seen as an argument for him having exhausted his supply and dismantled the cap of the can while trying to get at the last dregs. In any event, I don't think we yet have enough information to draw conclusions about whose can of something the spout was on. Was there a special lubricating oil used on sextants that could have been in the castaway's sextant box. Is there anythng in the Luke Field inventory that may have had such a spout? Is it from Gallagher's gun oil? Did one of the Coasties have can of lighter fluid? If we can find an exact match we may know more, but at this point it seems like S-45 probably does not have "smoking gun" potential. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:32:11 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Starter? > From Ric > To find out whether the starter push switches on Lockheed 10s resemble S-45 > we need to find an existing Electra that has not been "restored". We're > following up on several possibilities. (This sort of thing has been a > recurring problem for TIGHAR and is the root cause of much of our frustration > with the air museum world that values appearance over true preservation.) I'm here in Tucson. The Pima Air Museum has an old United Airlines 10A. I remember discussing this on the forum a couple years ago. You said TIGHAR had gone all over it with the proverbial fine tooth comb, but of course, at the time, the push/pull knob for the Bendix starter would have had little or no significance. Did you come away from Tucson with good enough interior photos, or would you like me to trundle my butt out to the museum to have another look? I worked on this machine briefly in the mid 70s as a volunteer "restorer", but that was mostly elbow grease work on exterior aluminum corrosion. I have been in the cockpit of the plane, but I've been to bed since then and don't remember what it looks like. I haven't been to visit the museum since I've been back in Tucson and don't know how much "restoration" has been done. Is it worth checking out? LTM Kerry Tiller ******************************************************************* From Ric Pima's airplane is the oldest surviving Lockheed 10 (c/n1015, the 15th Electra built) but I'm not sure how many changes were made to it while it was in service. We don't have photos of that cockpit (our research was focused elsewhere). Angus' research greatly decreases the chances that S-45 is a starter button but it would be good to know what that cockpit looks like so if you're looking for an excuse to visit the museum we have a member by the name of Bruce Tobol who works in the shop there. I can put you in touch. LTM, Ric ******************************************************* From Herman De Wulf / Belgium (#2406) I found some pictures of Amelia Earhart's Electra cockpit. You may have seen them before, perhaps not. When I read your comment I think the closed guard shield you refer to can be seen in the first picture. It is located near where the pilot's knee would be. In the following pictures, which I borrowed from Purdue University, one shows some work was being done as the instrument panel is open. But this has nothing to do with the knobs when are trying to find. In the picture showing AE in the PIC seat, the guard cannot be seen as her right knee hides the guard shield. But compare the instrument panel in this picture with the one showing her sitting in the co-pilot's seat. It seems to me that some instruments have changed in the place where the instrument panel was open in the previous picture. But the picture is not very clear. However, the last picture shows the cockpit of Air Canada's CF-TCC. This cockpit had to be adapted to today's state of the art requirements, which includes a whole new nav/com radio package, GPS and transponder. But this is not the point. The point is the switches/knobs that are now where the pilot's knee would be. The were not there in 1937. However, there is one that apparently is still a push-pull knob (in the colored picture it is brown). Does this mean the E-160 is still used ? It might be interesting to as Captain Alan Macleod. He has retired fro Air Canada service but he still pilots CF-TCC. When I flew in the aircraft in 2000 I talked to the mechanic, a young man who knew every nut and bolt in the plane. I forgot his name but Alan MacLeod will certainly know him and brig you in contact with him. He'll know about the starter and the push-pull thing. The other alternative, Ric, is that you travel around the world to go and inspect the supposedly authentic L10s left. There is one in New Zealand, one in Australia and one is hanging from the ceiling in the British Science Museum in London. I have tried in vain to get information on this one, which was operated by British Airways (not to be confused with the airline with the same name today) until the outbreak of WW II. I don't think the Brits cared to change the cockpit and after the war the aircraft was donated to the museum. To have a look at that instrument panel you'll need a long ladder and it will be a long climb ! Perhaps the curator has pictures of that cockpit ? I intended to send these pictures by fax. But at second thought, since you'll be away until Tuesday, I can just as well send the pictures by mail. They should reach you within four days and you'll have the benefit of the color print of the CF-TCC cockpit. Which is interesting because of the push-pull knob. Enjoy the weekend ! LTM Herman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:49:53 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Carol Dow > Where did anyone ever get the idea that having many, many hours of flying > time is an indicator of anything but a capacity to endure boredom? Worse than that, Ric. It's no indication the person has even learned to fly. During my career I met many examples of such. All are dead. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:55:50 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Round Lead-Based Artifact with Partial Patent Number >From Tom Riggs: > ... I looked again at the Tighar website photo of the RLBAPPN being held between > index and thumb fingers. It is larger than I had previously realized. Sure > looks like it would make a great dial for adjusting some sort of radio-tuner > gizmo. The close-up photos make it look bigger than it is. I didn't have any thing to measure it with, but I'd say it's not more than 15 mm (0.6") across and about 9 mm deep (0.37") deep. The hole in the top might be 5 mm (0.19") across, though it is misshapen if it was originally round. Although it looks for all the world like a knob that would sit on the surface and get twirled (or like a button that might get pushed to start an engine), looking underneath RLBAPPN shows that the steel insert does not fill the interior completely. It neither comes down to the bottom edges of the sheath nor does the hole in it match the whole in the sheath. There is no place for a set screw to hold it to the post it twiddles or the plunger that it would push. That's what makes it look like a one-time fixture to me. Marty #2359 ************************************************************** From Ric As you've by now seen from Angus' research, you're probably right. For the record, the diameter of the artifact is 18mm and its depth is 7mm. The diameter of the central hole is 5mm. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:04:57 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Speaking engagements? To all the Los Angeles area Forumites who've expressed interest in having a talk about The Quest: It looks like I'll be in and around the San Fernando Valley on or about August 27-28, and could easily extend the visit a day or so in either direction to give talks, sign books, or whatever. If anyone has an organization you think might be interested in sponsoring something, please contact me and I'll send a little info. sheet. I usually do a 1-hour Powerpoint presentation with lotsa pictures, lots of time for discussion, answering questions, dodging rotten tomatoes, etc.. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:43:29 EDT From: Ric Subject: Electra Research Alan Caldwell received the following information from his friend Colin Denholm who is rebuilding a Lockheed 10A in New Zealand. <> The fact that the same push-switches were used throughout the aircraft would seem to greatly reduce the likelihood that the starter switches bore a patent number for the starter. Given this information and Angus' findings regarding the can spouts I think we can dismiss the hypothesis that S-45 is a starter button. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:57:09 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Round Lead-Based Artifact with Partial Patent Number > From Ric > ... For the record, the diameter of the artifact is 18mm and its depth is 7mm. > The diameter of the central hole is 5mm. Thanks for the measurements, Ric. Kudos to the Niku IIII team, to Jeff Glickman, to Angus, and to you and Pat for collecting, preserving, and identifying the artifact. If it is some kind of oil-can cap, it can't be the definitive artifact that we all hoped it would be shortly after it was picked up. But TIGHAR has once again shown how to methodically wring the most information out of an artifact and produce a reasonable evaluation of its meaning. I think that's a pretty impressive result, even if it doesn't help decide the Niku hypothesis. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:27:49 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Revelation - a mystery solved! - update You're quite right that we can't jump to any conclusions on what the cap might be off. I was merely speculating on the most likely origin. In order to tie this down more precisely, I have a collector looking through his collection of 100+ tins which includes quite a number of army issue tins. We will get dimensions, milled edge or not, possible date and patent number format on any with patent numbers that he has. I am also chasing some better photos. Regards Angus. ********************************************************************* From Ric Excellent. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:30:17 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Revelation - a mystery solved! Great work, Angus! It certainly looks like you've nailed the artifact. Which means that most of the stuff we've found at the Seven Site (cartridges, radio parts, now the lead thing) can be attributed to the Coasties. However, there's plenty still to keep me from jumping to the conclusion that this is JUST a Coastie site. 1. Yes, the fire sites COULD have been theirs, but that would mean that they were doing a rather odd kind of reef fishing -- catching lots of different kinds of reef fish in small quantities, and eating them all together -- and simultaneously eating sea birds, which are not likely to be very pallatable to an American tummy. Possible, sure; probable......? 2. The caches of clamshells COULD have been left by the Coasties, but if so they were going to quite a lot of trouble to drag them up to the site and bash them open with rocks. Seems like you'd have to be pretty hungry to do that. 3. We know that somewhere in the neighborhood, Gallagher and the colonists found a skeleton with the bones of birds, turtle, and fire. Sure sounds like the Seven Site fire features. 4. Multiple sequential uses of the same site are very common; that's why we get tells in the Middle East, and buried 18th century structures in New York City. Often one of our hardest problems in archeology is teasing apart the layers representing sequential occupations. It's especially hard at a place like the Seven Site, where there's not enough deposition to build up sequential soil layers of any depth; everything winds up mixed. My guess is that this is what we have going on: a fairly ephemeral castaway presence, which stimulated a lot of clearing by the colonists, which opened up an area that the Coasties could travel through, and where the colonists could do things. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:24:42 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: The Travel Channel Interesting program on the travel channel tonight (10:00PM-11:00PM) California time. It started off as a valid, non-biased report on Earhart. After 30 min., it became evident that this was a Nauticos adventure. They mentioned the "Tater Report"(Chater Report), someone on Lae was in contact with the Electra for 4 hours after take-off and knew specifics of the flight (1000 feet at 140 knots). Then a tropical storm hit and our heroes began using 10% more fuel than expected. It was stressed that there was no way the Electra could have reached the Phoenix group after expending so much fuel. After 16 hours into the flight, Itasca received it's first message from the Electra. It was explained the Electra had no mores code capabilities, and at 1000 feet, visibility would be 20 miles, but after 20 hours and 13 minutes, the engine on the Electra coughed. The Electra went down some 50 miles from Howland Island. The program then turned to the company, Rockwell Collins, and individuals, Tom Vincent, Rod Bloclson, Roger Hatchet, Tom Dietweiler, and Charlie Snodgrass. I guess they are working on a program called, "Renav". Evidently, they are analyzing the radio traffic from the Electra based on radio strengths (S-5 to S-1). Bottom line, the Electra rests in 17,000 feet of water in an 500 sq. mile area near Howland Island. What I want to know is how they knew the engine coughed? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:28:10 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: S-45 ID'd ? If you have metric measurements for artifact S-45, does this suggest foreign manufacture rather than of American origin? - Angus Murray in his post listed "PATENTED : NO 1891826," - Is this number a US or foreign patent number ? Respectfully: Tom Strang **************************************************************************** From Ric We have a metric measurement because I measured it with a metric ruler. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:24:34 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Travel Channel > From Lawrence > > Interesting program on the travel channel tonight (10:00PM-11:00PM) > California time. It started off as a valid, non-biased report on Earhart. > After 30 min., it became evident that this was a Nauticos adventure. I caught just the second half. Thanks for the report on the first half-hour. It was hard to watch the part on Elgin Long's teams. I especially hated the arrogance of the voice-over: "We now know what happened." > The program then turned to the company, Rockwell Collins, and individuals, > Tom Vincent, Rod Bloclson, Roger Hatchet, Tom Dietweiler, and Charlie > Snodgrass. I guess they are working on a program called, "Renav". No. They did a simulation (in hardware and software) designed to provide distance estimates based on perceived signal strengths. The TV show was very vague about what assumptions the radio sleuths made about the quality of the Electra's antenna and its tuning prior to or during the trip. "Renav" is what Nauticos is doing to try to define a search area with the highest probability of yielding results. It's worked with ships and subs, but in those cases, I believe, there was lots more navigation data available than what can be gleaned from the Chater Report. > Bottom line, the Electra rests in 17,000 feet of > water in an 500 sq. mile area near Howland Island. > What I want to know is how they knew the engine coughed? That's how all engines sound when they run out of gas, I guess. ;o) I hadn't picked up that Long's theory about the time of fuel exhaustion is based on the 20:13 (GMT) message, "will repeat on 6210." He reasons that the message was not heard because that was the moment that the engines stopped turning and AE and FN were too busy to make another radio call. It seems to me that the data given in the program provides another explanation: AE's "daytime" frequency (6210) didn't work well up close, for whatever reason. The first message that Lae was able to record was four hours and 18 minutes into the flight. See the whole Chater report at . I wonder whether our heroine had trouble changing bands on her transmitter. When she switched from 6210 to 3105, Lae lost contact with her; when she switched from 3105 to 6210 next morning, the Itasca lost contact with her: "Miss Earhart had arranged to change to 3104 KC wave length at dusk, but signals were very strong and the plane was then called and asked not to change to 3104 KC yet as her signals were getting stronger and we should have no trouble holding signals for a long time to come. We received no reply to this call although the Operator listened for three hours after that on an 8-valve super-heterodyne Short Wave Receiver and both wave lengths were searched. "It was presumed the plane had changed the wave to 3104, the reason for that being that Miss Earhart claimed it to be a better night wave than 6210 and had used it on her flight from United States to Hawaii previously." (I don't know what Chater says 3104 and TIGHAR says 3105). LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************* From Ric There's no doubt that Earhart's crystals were for 3105 and 6210. Those frequencies are mentioned in numerous messages and other documents. I don't know why Chater got it wrong. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:13:56 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: The Travel Channel > What I want to know is how they knew the engine coughed? Bigger question, Lawrence -- How do they know ANY of the supposed "facts" they are using? I watched the stupid program even knowing what garbage they would spew out. How could I do that? I won't bother pointing out all the most obvious errors and distortions but there is no doubt that if one MANUFACTURES specific data for input one can output specific results. In computerese the term is GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Using unsupported, illogical, erroneous and created "facts" can only result in an unsupportable, illogical and erroneous result or sheer luck. Given the supposed credentials of that group it is mind boggling that they are kidding themselves so blatantly. If they find the Electra it will be because they blindly stumbled across it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:33:01 EDT From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: The Travel Channel Gee - listen to the incoherent ramblings of those who know precious little of the other side. Sometimes, the beauty of the forum is it's avenue for the marketplace of ideas. Other times, it is the soapbox for those that feel threatened and inadequate. Remember, people are stupid - shows cannot be. Regards, S. Wesley Smith ******************************************************************** From Ric By all means enlighten us. What is Nauticos not saying that makes their case reasonable? ********************************************************************* From Jim Tierney I watched the Travel Channel program last night here in Southern California. It was a recent effort because they covered the Nauticos search in some detail. Elgen Long and his scenario/conclusions were in great detail. Also the five engineers at Rockwell-Collins in Iowa and their reconstruction of the signals was given great weight because of its depth and validity. The shots of the lady dentist in her Avro Avian plane were pretty. She left last Aug 31st and I dont believe she ever completed her trip because of the complete suspension of private flights after 9/11. The show was full of suppositions/half truths/inaccuracies and false conclusions- but really featured Elgen Long/Nauticos and their findings. TIGHAR WAS NOT MENTIONED ONCE. I still dont know why they gave 5 minutes of film time to the bush pilot who flew around New Guinea and pontificated on how and why AE didnt make it. He had no connection with anything. It was an exercise in futility. I am glad I saw it but it was a waste of time. Any other comments from the LOL- Legion of Lurkers- out here in cyberspace. Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ************************************************************************* From Carol Dow Am wishing you would put out a press release on the findings of The Travel Channel and blow them apart. I missed the program, but Mr. Elgen Long is enough to send anyone to the madhouse (I have always thought). Start a rhubarb, why not? It's good for business (joke). Here's some points: 1. How did anyone know the engine coughed? 2. The range calculations from the Tighar group suggest Earhart had at least four hours of fuel remaining after the Electra arrived in the Howland area (I believe I'm right although Oscar Boswell is saying she had enough fuel to fly ever further). 3. The frequency settings were incorrect, 3105 vs. 3104. 4. If the engine coughed, ran out of fuel, and spiraled into the water the plane would have broken up on impact making it virtually impossible to find on the sea floor. The remains would be covered by sand & sediment 60+ yrs. later. 5. The Long search is dependent on finding the airplane intact. The above is just a start. I think it's a good idea. Take a vote? No, you don't want to do it? I think you should. Look at all the publicity that Long and Nauticos is getting. It's undeserved. I'll bet that Donna McGuire at the K.C. Star would run your story. Carol Dow #2524 **************************************************************** From Ric We're not interested in blowing anybody apart. The information we've collected is available to anyone with a modem. Think of the Earhart Mystery as an IQ test. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:01:02 EDT From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: The Travel Channel Come, come, come, my ruffled friends! Can't you spot entertainment television when you see it? Of course the program is filled with inaccuracies because otherwise it wouldn't be on the Travel Channel. My goodness, choose your battles dear ones. Take pride in your erudition; have pity on those not so blessed; take hope that you are right. Regards, S. Wesley Smith ***************************************************************** From Ric Indeed. Consider this. They went out there with a National Geo one-person film crew aboard, dropped 1.7 million gold grickles, and the only market they could find for a show was the Travel Channel. Any ridicule beyond that is gilding the lily. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:12:26 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: S-45 ID'd ? > From Ric > We have a metric measurement because I measured it with a metric ruler. A Vernier Caliper is handy for that sort of thing... More accurate than eyeballing across a ruler and a lot cheaper (from about a dollar up) than a micrometer. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:04:48 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: C/N 1015 in Pima? Ric wrote: Pima's airplane is the oldest surviving Lockheed 10 (c/n 1015, the 15th Electra built)..... This does not jive with my records. Are you saying Linda Finch's Lockheed (which has C/N 1015) is in the Pima musuem? LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. I know better than that. The airplane at Pima is c/n 1011, the 11th Model 10 built and the oldest surviving Electra. Constructor's number 1015, formerly owned by Linda Finch, is now owned by Mike Kammerer and is hangared in Santa Fe, NM. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:35:02 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Artifact S-45 I have been reading the postings about the possibility of S-45 being a gun oil can. I have developed the following rhetorical, unanswerable questions. 1. Why would the coasties clean their rifles at the 7 site? They weren't in the "field" on a combat mission. If they fire here, as practice, for convenience, I would presume they would clean back at the base--otherwise they would have to carry all of the cleaning equipment back and forth as well. 2. Why is the can/cap here? While I recall that there were a significant number of 22 Caliber shell cases (possibly Gallagher's), there were not as many military caliber casings (Coasties) found. Would the Coasties police their brass? If they didn't police their brass, there doesn't appear to be enough rounds fired to justify a "special" cleaning other than at the base in the ordinary routine or upon their return. 3. Where is the can? I doubt that they carried the can back without the cap. If it was empty, it was garbage. If it still had oil/cleaning fluid in it, It would have spilled all over without the cap. If they lost the cap, it became garbage. 4. Did the can rust away leaving the cap? Either the coasties or Gallagher, if this was his home away from home, could have left the can of oil. It makes more sense for Gallagher though. If this was his home, and if the 22 Caliber shell casings are his, he would clean his weapon here. The "missing" can and the lid are in the right place. I doesn't seem like the Coasties would clean their weapons here and, if they did, I wouldn't think they would leave their cleaning materials when they went back to base. 5. How fast do ferrous metals rust on Niku? Has enough time passed for a tin or steel can to rust away from July of 1937, from Gallagher's residency, from the war years? 6. Is it possible that a cap on an item left with the cache of supplies from the Norwich City could have met the criteria of S-45? If so, the can/cap might not have been on the Electra, but was salvaged by AE and taken to the 7 site. Is this item like the cork and brass chain and the Benedictine bottle found by Gallagher at the 7 site? If AE did find the Norwich supplies, wouldn't she have raided it for all it was worth? Is this why the cache hasn't been found near the grounding site of the Norwich City? Just food for thought--fire away ************************************************************************ From Ric You make some excellent points. Ferrous metal rusts almost "while-you-wait" on Niku. There was an unidentifiable, rusted-away, ferrous object found with S-45. Some of the rusted pieces were collected and we have them in a ziplok bag as Artifact 2-6-S-52. It now seems very likely that this was the can that the cap (2-6-S-45) was once on. I'll betcha that a further search of the area will turn up the lead spout that was apparently intentionally broken off, most logically to get at the last dregs of whatever was in the can. I agree with you. Weapon cleaning in the field doesn't make any sense. We've recovered twenty .30 caliber shell casings and there could be as many as twenty more back in the bush, but that's still not enough to suggest that somebody was shooting there for a protracted period of time. We've only found three .22 caliber casings and there could, of course, be more - but the same is true for Gallagher as for the Coasties. It just doesn't make any sense that somebody would be scavenging the last drops of a can of gun oil in that location. Whether Gallagher ever stayed there overnight in some kind of shelter or not (why would he?) it seems safe to say that he never "lived" there. So Watson, what could somebody have in a can designed to dispense its contents in drops or a thin stream that would logically be present at such a remote location and was so important that somebody tore the spout off to get at the last drops (or because the spout became clogged)? LTM, Ric