Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:03:12 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Linda Finch's Howland view Bob Perry wrote: > This may have been covered, in which case delete. > There is an excellent video > tape of Finch's flight taken from Reid Dennis' chase plane which includes a > fine view of Howland close up as they flew over it. Does the video show what Howland looked like from about 20 down to 10 miles out? That would be interesting. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:24:04 EDT From: Jon Radford Subject: Re: Airspeed and minimum fuel consumption. You would want to fly at best 'glide' speed for the aircraft type. This would be on the aircraft spec sheet. it gives most economical distance to fuel use. It would not be slowest or fastest speed for the aircraft and you would not want flaps as this adds drag. ********************************************************************** From Ric What aircraft spec sheet? We're talking about a 1930s airplane. The Lockheed specs show various cruise speeds for various altitudes and horsepower settings but no single "best economical cruise" which of course, will change with the weight of the aircraft. Whether or not to use flaps depends on whether you're going for maximum time aloft (loiter time) or maximum range, and it also depends on the airplane. On some types, partial flaps at low speeds increase lift more than they add drag. I would guess that would not be the case with the Model 10. Why are we talking about this? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:27:09 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust >> Her Electra was modified to carry 1800 gallons of fuel compared to >> Earhart's Electra that carried only 800 gallons of fuel. > > As you should know by now, Earhart's Electra had a fuel capacity of 1,151 > gallons. I'm more than a bit skeptical about the 1,800 gallon figure. Regarding that fuel. Correct me if I'm wrong (I was once) but isn't 1800 gallons around 10,800lb (approximately). Finch says the take off weight for Honolulu - Oakland was 17,000 (approx). Crew weight would be around 550 - 700lb plus. Lets be conservative. 10,800+550=11350. That gives us a fully equipped Electra with extra nav gear, extra tanks, and crew luggage etc weighing in at 5650lb. Is that really likely? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric No, of course not. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:37:50 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subjject: Re: Niku IIII Tide > From Ric > > No, we did not record daily highs and lows. We were off doing other > things. We did, however, record and photograph particular tidal states and > events on particular dates and at particular times. Bob Brandenburg has > used those observations to correct tidal data for Hull Island and we think > we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. To test the system we're > looking back through photos and video of previous expeditions taken at > known times to see if the system can accurately predict (hind-dict?) what > the tide was doing. If we can accuratley hindcast to 1989 we can accurately > hindcast to 1937. I was working on something like that a couple of years ago, which was why I asked if you would keep the data when you did Niku IIII. The idea was that if you could get a series of accurate daily data over a couple of weeks that could be compared with a few places where we know the state of the tides on the days in question in 1937, you could pretty much work it out. Obviously, the ideal would be Howland, as you should have records for high tide at Howland on July 2, 1937. Calculating the lows for Howland shouldn't be hard if you know the swing. From there you just need to know how far apart the tides at Niku are, and what the approximate change is from day to day. Unfortunately it is never exactly the same (in minutes) but as an hourly or half hourly component, it is accurate enough for a week or so. It would give you a general look at what the tide was most likely doing. If we can aproximate the time of Lambert's photo for that date it could give you a bit of a check point. If you can find the times of high and low for Pearl Harbour on the day, that might also provide another comparison, if you know the variation between tide times on Niku when you were there and times at say Pearl Harbour and wherever the home base of Nai'a is. For that matter, the crew of Naiia probably keep the tide times daily. For times on Howland in 1937, if Itasca's log doesn't show the tides, then it should be able to be deduced from the times the launch left with equipment or, and returned with personnel from the Island. If there is a series of entries incrementing by around 1/2 hour on successive days, that is probably high tide. (Unlike Niku, there doesn't seem to be landing channel at Howland). Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric I say again, we think we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. We still need to run some tests to make sure we have it right. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:45:59 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning > From Ric > ... If you're getting traffic with attachments > from the Earhartforum address it's a virus that > is reading the addresses that you frequently > receive mail from. Not quite accurate. It's the klez worm. It is not on Carol's machine. It is not on TIGHAR's machines. It is not delivered by the EarhartForum. The worm is on a machine that just happens to have Carol's address and the address of the EarhartForum on it. It sends an e-mail with attachments TO an address selected at random from all of the addresses on the infected computer. It fills in the FROM field with other addresses chosen at random from all of the addresses on the infected computer. So when you get e-mail containing the klez worm, telling the person it came FROM that they are infected is false. Telling the person that the message came TO is also false. The worm is not on either one of those two machines. In briefer form from http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.klez.h@mm.html : "This worm searches the Windows address book, the ICQ database, and local files for email addresses. The worm sends an email message to these addresses with itself as an attachment. The worm contains its own SMTP engine and attempts to guess at available SMTP servers. For example, if the worm encounters the address user@abc123.com it will attempt to send email via the server smtp.abc123.com. "The subject line, message bodies, and attachment file names are random. The From address is randomly-chosen from email addresses that the worm finds on the infected computer." Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Marty. We Mac-users are in awe at the expertise that Windows-users display just keeping their machines running - some of the time. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:49:08 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust I wonder where she put 1800 gallons and still manage to remain airborne? Regards David ************************************************************** From Ric Yet another great aviation mystery for us to solve. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:50:27 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides > So you would retrodict something? Sounds like you could get into also as > much trouble with that as with hind-dict. > > (This could turn into a very marginal thread very quickly.) I think both of you guys are quite ept with creating new words. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:51:37 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP > What would be the most logical > search pattern? Maybe we're both missing each other's point Lawrence. Sorry. My point in this case is that the scenario you ask about (300 pounds of fuel) is not answerable. Not enough information is known. For example if I thought I was almost on top of Howland my response would be different than they would be if I wqasn't sure where I was or if I thought I was a significant distance North or South of Howland. I don't know WHAT Noonan thought. I recognize a number of hypotheticals could be constructed but the answer to each would be of little or no use. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:55:20 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Why? Because. Ric said: "Why are we talking about this?" Because the ether is restless, quarks are forming, and our future is uncertain. We seek solace in the familiar. The forum is a comfortable venue and Ric is like a big gruff dad; huffin' and puffin', acting cranky and scratchy but really enjoying it all. How close is that? LTM, who cherishes serenity Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Big gruff dad? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:04:39 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Forum notice Later this week I'll be traveling to California for our Aviation Archeology Course and Field School. I'll be pretty busy with that until about Oct. 14 and while I'm gone Pat will be standing in as Forum Moderator. Any gunslingers who want to call me out into the street will have to wait until I get back. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:34:34 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides > From Ric > I say again, we think we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. We > still need to run some tests to make sure we have it right. If I remember correctly, there were some objections by folks at EPAC about whether the high / low tide data was gathered using the appropriate techniques. Or, to put it less offensively, the tidal study may be improved by using the standard instruments of the trade on the next trip to Niku. :o) LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************* From Ric Bob Brandenburg, you'll recall, was not able to be at the conference and so could not participate in the discussion. I would submit that it doesn't matter whether the data are collected by standard instruments or divined by reading tea leaves, as long as the table can hindcast, retrodict, or otherwise dict into the murky mists of the past and accurately describe the tidal state at known times. Bob did it the hard way because it was the only way he had. If we have the opportunity to deploy and later retrieve conventional tide measuring instruments we'll do it but, as was discussed at the conference, that's pretty hard to do at a place as remote as Niku. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:06:36 EDT From: John Buontempo Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust I may be missing something (or a lot) here, but what is the deal with Linda Finch's attitude toward sharing info about her airplane and the flight in 1997? It appears (to me anyway) that she doesn't or didn't want to share any useful data with anyone, just her reflections during the trip. Reflections are nice, if you are writing a romantic novel or doing a biography. I would think that something as significant as a re-creation of a very historical event such as AE's RTW trip should have been more open to technical detail and actual facts and data (such as fuel amounts, fuel flow figures, takeoff weights, landing weights, power settings, etc.) than just "the weather was nice and the island was beautiful" type of communication. Pardon me and/or chastise me if I am going in the wrong direction here. Any comments are welcome! John Buontempo **************************************************************************** From Ric I was greatly puzzled by the way the whole operation was conducted until I met with the head of Community Relations/Corporate Communications at Pratt & Whitney in Hartford, CT a year or so later. I was fund-raising, reasoning that if P&W had 5 milion to drop on Finch's recreation of the Earhart flight it might have a million or so to spend on actually solving the mystery. I didn't get any sponsorship but I did get the straight story on the Flight of the Finch. In 1996 Pratt had just undergone a corporate downsizing with thousands of layoffs. They had a huge public relations problem in Hartford. If you can't provide jobs, give 'em bread and circuses. The PR firm hired by Finch to find sponsorship for her proposed flight hit Pratt & Whitney at just the right time and they saw a chance to refurbish their image with a high-profile media event. The local paper, the Hartford Courant, assigned a woman reporter who would cover the preparations and go along on the trip. The educational/children-oriented aspect of the project made it look less like a publicity stunt. It was never about historical research or collecting data. Finch adamantly refused to even discuss the mystery aspect of the Earhart story, in part because she doesn't know anything about it but mostly because you don't court controversy when you're doing corporate PR. The mainstream media saw through the fluff very quickly and the flight never got much press coverage, but the Courant's coverage was genrally laudatory and, at the end of the day, P&W felt that they had gotten their money's worth. The bad taste left in so many mouths was of no consequence. The whole thing is best forgotten. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:08:21 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning So true Ric... I guess that's why Apple has an astounding 10% of the market ;-) Dave ************************************************************************** From Ric I like to think of it as being in the 90th percentile. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:09:56 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: Linda Finch's Howland view Ross Devitt wrote: >Does the video show what Howland looked like from about 20 down to 10 miles >out? That would be interesting. The first shot of Howland appears as a long, thin sliver after Finch's plane comes in out of a cloud bank, and from a distance (not stated. It would be folly to guess it, but I will anyway...From the dimensions, ie, length, of the island at that distance I would guestimate no farther away than 15-20 miles). The next shot is a beautiful view of the entire, green island, then the flyover at low altitude, when Finch dropped the wreath. The island is larger than I thought, and Finch's flyover (at whatever speed) took 15-20 seconds. Given the fact that Howland is so flat, it is easy to see how AE might have missed it at low altitude 10-20 miles away with the sun's glare. However, "we're on you and can't see you (at 1000 ft)" tells me that they were nowhere near the island, and they were circling the open ocean. LTM, Bob #2021 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:11:25 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Grace McGuire's 10E If any of my fellow forumites in the Comedic Conspiracy Chorus have beaten me to the punch on this, no need to post it twice. Maybe Grace McGuire got her 10E from fellow New Jersey resident Irene Bolam. ;-) LTM, who probably, once or twice, has regretted teaching me to read. Dave Porter, 2288 ********************************************************************** From Ric Shhhhhhhhhh...nobody is supposed to know about that. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:15:43 EDT From: Pat Reed Subject: Nov. 2002 Air & Space From Pat Reed You probably already know, but the above referenced issue has a story - starting page 57 - on old aircraft crash scenes and people who make this a hobby. No purpose other than FYI, especially knowing your course starts soon. ************************************************************************ From Ric Yup. Nice spread on our own Craig Fuller, TIGHAR 1589EC. Craig will be one of the instructors next weekend. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:56:17 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning > From Ric > > I like to think of it as being in the 90th percentile. Touche' :-) ************************************************************************ From Kerry in Tucson I'm proud to be in the top 10%. It's kind of an elitist thing with us MAC people. I must admit though, I'm a little underwhelmed with OS X; probably because it pushes my poor old beige G3 to its limits. In retrospect, (hindspect?) I could better have spent the 130 bucks by donating the money to TIGHAR. I miss my old SCSI daisy chain. LTM (About the only person I know without a computer) Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric We've resisted the urge and are still happily running System 9 on Pat's G4 and my blue G3, but I saw the new "twin-engine" G4 with the big flat screen the other day and I'm in love. But enough of this....if Apple wants to advertise on the forum they'll have to pay for it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:26:55 EDT From: Michael S. Subject: Navigational Logic Alan wrote: >IF he ran NW then SE and we only surmise that, it must have soon become >obvious his east/west position was not as good as he thought. At that point >hanging around was pointless and they most likely headed SE for some form of >land. > >You can thus see that if the East/west position was good they would have most >likely seen Howland as they ran north and south.* There would have been no >reason then to fly back and forth from east to west. Since they obviously >DIDN'T see Howland they must have realized the East/west position was not as >accurate as they thought. Where are they to look now? The only reasonable >choice would have been to create some sort of search pattern in all four >directions within the immediate area of where they thought Howland was but >search only until fuel reserve dictated they had to abandon the search and go >look for easier to find land. If AE/FN believed that they were east or west of the LOP, and did not know in which direction or what distance, then it is no longer a matter of simply flying on a course of 157 degrees to hit Gardner. As the TIGHAR website says, "You can't fly to a known destination from an unknown point." (See http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html) If they believed that they were off the line, then why does heading SE give them a BETTER chance of finding land than continuing to search for Howland? The best and only response I've seen so far is that, if you're off the line, then you might spot Gardner or McKean by going SE, and two possible targets are better than one. ************************************************************************ From Ric It's probably worth saying yet again that nobody knows, or (barring the discovery of a detailed journal) will ever know how they got to Gardner, but it really does look like they got there. I tend to favor the idea that Noonan was fairly confident of his East/West position and was disinclined to do any East/West searching for Howland. For one thing, his use of the 157/337 line suggests that everything after sunrise and the descent was done by DR and if you start wandering around you run the risk of losing track of where you are and then you're really screwed. That's why the standard, textbook procedure was to simply run on the advanced line. Concocting alternative plans is fun but it's also fairly pointless. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:35:53 EDT From: Michael S. Subject: Navigational Logic Alan wrote: >Oh, Oh! But why didn't they see Howland if it was all so easy? Reread what I >just wrote. I wrote about navigating not spying a tiny speck under adverse >conditions. It would have taken but a few scattered clouds, shadows, glare >and reflections to miss a piece of land the size and altitude as Howland. >Different problem. don't confuse the two. For Ric, Alan, or anyone else: Would spotting Gardner be any less difficult than spotting Howland? I seem to recall that Gardner is bigger than Howland (not sure by how much) and because Gardner is an atoll, this might also make a difference. Also, what information, if any, did AE/FN have about Gardner (location, size, etc.) and how accurate was it? ************************************************************************** From Ric Spotting Howland or McKean should probably be about the same. They're both small (a mile or so in diameter) "makateas" - coral islands with no significant lagoon or vegetation other than some low scrub. Gardner, by contrast, is a true atoll nearly four miles long by over a mile wide with tall trees and a big, turquoise- colored lagoon. Should be MUCH easier to spot. How much Earhart and Noonan knew about Gardner or any of the islands to the southeast is a big fat unknown. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:54:20 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides Ric wrote: > I say again, we think we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. We > still need to run some tests to make sure we have it right. Cross Checking data against something else can provide support. If you can calculate what the tides should have been at Niku, then using the same data, calculate what they should have been at say Howland and Pearl Harbour (or anywhere else) on the same set of days, you should be able to use known states of tide to prove your calculations. BTW, on the fun new words thing, if interdict means formal prohibition, does hind-dict mean the prohibition is informal? Is hindcasting facing away from the water when you throw your line in? I won't even try retrodict! Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I think you may have some misconceptions about this tide thing. Tides at Howland or Pearl Harbor or Fiji or Samoa don't mean much. We're talking about making very fine determinations about water levels not only at a particular island but at a particular place on that island. At low tide the water level on the reef at the landing channel on Niku is different than it is up by the Norwich City, and the level changes depending upon whether it's a spring tide or a neap tide or somewhere in between. Accurately hindcasting the conditions at a particular time at a particular place is an immensely complicated computation. Fortunately for us, we have the shipwreck which we can use as a tidal gauge on the very part of the reef we are most interested in. We've photographed and videoed the wreck at many tidal states over the years and in many cases we know exactly when the photos were taken. We also have lots of photos of people standing beside the wreckage so we know, for example, how much water it takes to cover the base of the Norwich City's engine. By taking the tidal information for the nearest island for which we have data (Hull) and "correcting" it based on the photos that show us what was really going on at Niku we can come up with tide tables that can then be hindcast and checked for accuracy against other photos. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:02:51 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning Ric wrote: > I like to think of it as being in the 90th percentile. Wonder where that leaves us poor Unix/Linux users.. :-( Th' WOMBAT ********************************************************************** From Ric The Unix/Linux system is probably the best there is but in a home computer application it's a bit like using a Maserati to run back and forth to the corner store. The new Mac operating system (OSX) is a Unix system and, installed on a computer with enough horsepower to handle it, is reportedly almost crash-proof. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:08:13 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: The Sydney Island engines If memory serves (because I can't for some reason find the postings that discussed it) did Ric not get within the last year some more recent photos of the C-47 wreck on Sydney Island, which we initially thought might have a bearing on our favorite Lockheed Electra? If one or more of the Sydney island photos shows both engines at that site, and also the surrounding area, that eliminates (to me at least) the possibility of Bruce Yoho's Canton engine as having come from there. LTM, Monty F., No. 2189 ************************************************************************** From Ric That is correct. We have a photo taken by a friend of Bruce's that shows the two R1830 engines of the C-47 together under a coconut palm on Sydney. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:28:04 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Navigational Logic Christian D writes: >Pure DR'ing from Howland all the way to Niku seems extremely iffy; finding >Niku in the end requires mostly luck... Quite a gamble to leave the Itasca >behind and "head SouthEast"... Christian, your wording seems to suggest that AE and FN made a conscious decision to take a gamble and fly away from Itasca and head towards Gardner. That makes no sense, and can't possibly be what happened. AE and FN clearly did not know where Itasca and Howland were. That's one of the few facts everyone can agree on. So whatever their thought processes were, it seems safe to assume they knew they couldn't find Itasca where they had already looked, so the only sensible thing to do from their point of view was to look somewhere else and try to find Howland and Itasca. That somewhere else may have been SE along the LOP. Quite a different point of view, looking somewhere else to find Itasca as opposed to gambling by flying away from Itasca. ************************************************************************** From Ric If we had a nickle for every time I've tried to make this same point we wouldn't need to do any fund-raising for Niku V. The run down the LOP was not an abandonment of the attempt to find Howland, it was the ONLY reasonable way left to try to find Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:29:45 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Anecdotes, Bones by Norwich City Ric wrote: >There are two anecdotal accounts (by Bauro Tikana >and Emily Sikluli) which allege that bones were found near the Norwich City >wreck. I count 3 anecdotal accounts. The third being the information that Jones gave to the U.S.S. Roger B. Taney crew when that vessel visited Hull in the Oct/Nov 1937 time frame. This is a story that borders between being an anecdote and being a recording of a contemporaneous account. Unfortunately it is not clear if Jones saw the bones (recently) or if he is retelling a story. In any case, there are 3 stories involving bones being observed in the vicinity of the Norwich City. Reports of human bones being observed in the area of the Norwich City are, of course, not surprising given the 3 sailors that were buried there and the 8 others that were missing (who could have washed up later). In turn, evidence of a castaway is not entirely outside the realm of reason but that is a different can of worms. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:53:29 EDT From: Jim W. Subject: Finch's Find In response to Suzanne Astorino. Suzanne, I do not mean to pick on you but facts is facts and I have a small personal interest in Finch's Electra. The plane was "abandoned" at the little grass strip a short distance from my home, and the same grass strip I learned to fly out of. It was here for a while but was never hangared, rather outside next to the hangar that stored the plane I flew. I was in that Electra several times on exploratory sojourns after it lost an engine and sat here grounded after a skydiving haul. It was moved from here to Amery, Wisconsin, but did not sit there for years. This is only a minor detail but if historical accuracy is important... It's been a while since I sent them but pictures and newspaper accounts, and some history of the plane and of the Lockheed's transport from here to Amery should be in Ric's possession, for what they are worth. And I still have the articles, which are really nothing more than interesting. There is some history of the plane included but it does nothing to find AE and Fred. Jim W. *********************************************************************** From Ric In retrospect, I'm really glad we were able to get to c/n 1015 before Finch got her hands on it. The airplane is, or was, a very interesting example of the type and raised several questions that have remained unanswered. Sometime in the machine's service life the cabin section was apparently re-skinned using aluminum that was labeled exactly like Artifact 2-2-V-1 (the section of skin recovered from Niku). We know that labeling was used on aluminum that was approved only for repairs, not original construction. We see the same labeling on a replacement flap actuator cover on c/n 1052, now at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT. The only other place we've ever found that metal is on a small patch on the nose of a C-47 at the Dover AFB Museum in Delaware. In all four cases (TIGHAR artifact, c/n1015, c/n1052, and the C-47) the aluminum is .032 24ST Alclad. Why, where, and when the cabin of c/n1015 was reskinned is a mystery. The cabin windows in the reskinned airplane had right-angle corners, unlike the standard Electra windows which have rounded corners, but of course that was all changed when the aircraft was rebuilt as a replica of NR16020. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:16:28 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Navigational Logic You're right Ric, sometimes DR works out very accurately but sometimes it doesn't. The question is, would you bet your life on it? I doubt that you would have undertaken the same flight if the destination had been a small island 350 nautical miles out in the atlantic with no alternate available and no radio aids to navigation. You aimed for a spot along a shore line that is more than 100 N.M. long, one that would be pretty damned hard to miss. The shore line provided a line of position that you could have followed if you needed to to find an airport and there were lots of airports around and places to make a fairly low risk off airport landing if necessary. Not the same situation or decision for Noonan and AE. Also you knew where you were when you started which obviously they did not or else they would have found Howland. You can't DR to a point starting from an unknown point. The accuracy of your position degrades with distance traveled using DR and can only get worse and not better than the level of accuracy that you can identify your starting position. If you start out lost you can only get more lost after traveling an additional 350 NM. I'll bet you also had a pretty good weather briefing and knew the winds so you could calculate the necessary wind correction angle which Noonan couldn't be so certain of and so would be less likely to bet his life on hoping to stumble onto an other small island after flying 3 more hours and so having that much less fuel to search for the island. Air Force Manual 51-40 estimates the accuracy of dead reckoning as 10% of the distance flown so flying 350 NM would add an additional 35 nm to the uncertainty of their initial position. Navy Manual H.O. 216 would allow an even larger 60 NM of uncertainty. Check out the sources at http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/dr-accuracy.html So Ric, if you were really in their position do you really think that you would have turned your back on an island that you thought you were fairly close to, Howland, and roll the dice on a needle in a haystack 350 NM away? ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know what I'd do if I was in their position. In the Dumb Pilot Contest I concede victory to Amelia. While scud-running deaf and dumb for 400 miles at treetop level in cruddy visibility is dumb, it's not as dumb as getting yourself lost out in the middle of the g..d... ocean without knowing how to work the radios you've got. My point was that it's not impossible, or even unlikely, that they might have been able to DR down the line and find Gardner. Your argument is that it would be unreasonable for them to try to do that. That's a different issue. I'm saying that there is evidence that they did something (find Gardner) that it was possible for them to do. Are you saying we should discount the evidence we're finding on Gardner because you wouldn't have gone there? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:28:43 EDT From: Jonathan Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning Ric wrote: > The new Mac > operating system (OSX) is a Unix system and, installed on a > computer with enough horsepower to handle it, is reportedly > almost crash-proof. I managed to crash X a couple of times on my dear departed G4 Powerbook. But that was running Windows 2000 Server in Virtual PC, so maybe that doesn't count? -Jonathan. From Ric LOL. The prosecution rests. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:30:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Mike wrote: > If they believed that they were > off the line, then why does heading SE give them a BETTER chance of finding > land than continuing to search for Howland? The best and only response I've > seen so far is that, if you're off the line, then you might spot Gardner or > McKean by going SE, and two possible targets are better than one. You appear to answer your own question. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:54:24 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: Howland view As has been discussed ad nauseum, AE's view of Howland must be considered in the context of a Coast Guard cutter standing next to it with black smoke blowing out of its stacks. Linda Finch's/Reid Dennis' shots of Howland, showing the thin sliver at a distance, are interesting, but the fact that AE didn't see smoke or land suggests that she missed it by > 15-20 miles. With all the discussion we've had on FN's navigation plan, Finch's tape presents an interesting theory by a long-time aerial navigator named Weisheit. He proposes that FN wanted to take the "safe" route, depart the great circle after passing 180 deg. and fly towards the area between Howland and Baker and see one if not the other islands. AE, he suggests, in keeping with her single-mindedness a la the fiasco going to Dakar, insisted on proceeding direct to Howland and missed it Northwest, then circled in open water out of view of the island (or smoke, obviously). LTM, Bob #2021 *************************************************************************** From Ric All of which demonstations the need to rely only upon original sources and not accept conventional wisdom as truth. - As has been discussed on the forum and is the subject of a FAQ on the TIGHAR website, there was almost certainly no smoke from Itasca at the time Earhart should have been near enough to see it. - As has also been discussed (and needs to be a FAQ) the fiasco going in to Dakar could not have happened the way Earhart later described it based upon Noonan's notations on the actual map he used. All the amateur psychoanalysis of AE's supposed disregard for Noonan's instructions is based upon what appears to be story she invented to avoid getting into trouble with French authorities for landing where she wasn't supposed to. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:01:29 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Alan wrote: >Alik, a few of us DO understand that but don't go there unless you REALLY >want to confuse folks. Even if it is understood it won't advance the ball. >I've alluded to it just as you have but I'm not going to amplify that >subject. Hmmmm, I'm not a fan of ignorant bliss and I must disagree with your contention. I do not see how anyone can understand the issues involved in FNs navigation without understanding/realizing that longitudinal information is known to the navigator who calculates an LOP. Simply calculating a heading-line is pointless in the context of navigation. It makes no sense whatsoever to DR from an arbitrary heading-line _unless_, of course, you have set of 'known' longitudes for that line. So, the relevance in this discussion is proximately that, given a typical expected error in values of LOP constrained longitudes, _then_ we can say something about the feasibility of DR'ing to Gardner, and _only_ then. Simply knowing a LOP, by itself, merely relates the geometric orientation of the sun to the earth...not very exciting. If I remember right, the typical longitudinal error in LOP constrained calculations is about 10 to 20 miles. This is crucial information for understanding: 1.) The feasibility of DR from that point forward. 2.) The desire or need, and this is significant, of a navigator to shoot the sun AGAIN later. Shooting the sun for an LOP constrained set of longitudes is NOT limited to the time of sunrise. Given that an LOP constrained set of longitudes is immensely more accurate than a 350 mile DR, any marginally competent navigator would certainly want to do another shot if flying that far. Since we can't know what Noonans reasoning was, I'll leave that open, but it demonstrates why understanding my point is crucial. It is propadeutical to further analysis. As for confusion...too bad. Many folks drop out of differential topology classes because it ain't easy. But to do General Relativity you MUST know it. To understand this issue about FN, you MUST understand his techniques. That's just reality. I'm sure you knew this already, but for others they will have to 'get it' if they expect to reach any intelligent conclusions about it, or have any intelligent conversations about it. Alik P.S. Ric, you previously asked if there was anything that could be added to your website in this regard. IMHO, an explanation of this is sorely lacking and is leading to a lot of confusion. **************************************************************************** From Ric IMHO the FAQ on the website which covers the LOP issue does this in fine style without once using the word propadadeutical. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:24 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Engine Noise I know this subject has come up before, but here it goes: Considering the amount of noise generated by the P&W engines, how far could the Lockheed have been from the Itasca and still be heard (at 1,000 ft)? As I recall, no Itasca crew members reported hearing an airplane. Dave *************************************************************************** From Ric My guess would be that the Electra would have to buzz the boat before anybody on deck could have heard it over the engines, generators and general background noise of the ship. People ashore on Howland may have stood a slightly better chance but, in my experience, the "white noise" effect of surf and wind (not to mention about a gazillion seabirds) wipes out any chance to hear any kind of aircraft unless it's virtually on top of you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:09:06 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Presentation, Earhart's Shoes Book On October 12, 2002 I will be giving a Powerpoint presentation on TIGHAR's efforts to solve the Earhart mystery. Following the presentation, I will be signing copies of the book "Amelia Earhart's Shoes: Is the Mystery Solved" which I co-authored with Tom King, Randy Jacobson and Kar Burns. The presentation will occur during Zonta's District 7 Conference. When: Saturday October 12, 2002 at 10:00 AM Where: Holiday Inn St. Paul North, 1201 West Co. Road E, Arden Hill, MN, call 651-636-4123 for directions. Information on registering for the conference can be found at www.zontastpaul.org/Women_Changing_The_World.html or by calling 651-639-9566 Zonta International was a Women's organization that Amelia Earhart belonged to. Thanks again to Tom King for letting me use some of his Powerpoint materials. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:48:56 EDT From: Gary Geivet Subject: Re: Engine Noise I agree totally. Remember the military on Wake Island never heard the approaching Japanese planes over the roar of the surf, until they were upon them. I think that has been documented both on Wake Island and on Midway, too. So don't think the people on the ship would have heard the approach of the Electra. Gary H. Geivet ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:34:26 EDT From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: Engine Noise Off the coast of Viet Nam Navy pilots used to make strafing runs on our ship and we never heard them until the last minute when they shot past us. Of course a Jet is a bit different. ******************************************************************* From Ric Yeah, they're louder. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:40:42 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > From Alik > ... Shooting the sun for an LOP constrained set of > longitudes is NOT limited to the time of sunrise. OK. But as the sun rises higher in the sky, wouldn't a LOP derived from a later sighting differ from the dawn LOP? The only hard-and-fast information we have about what AE and FN were doing is running a 157/337 line. Oddly enough, that coincides with a LOP that they could have placed on their charts by observing the time of sunrise. This is not proof that FN advanced the dawn LOP by DR, but it is at least consistent with that theory. Marty #2359 ****************************************************************** From Ric The angle doesn't change very fast. Any time right around sunrise would give the 157/337 line. There's no way to know whether Noonan got subsequent LOPs but the 157/337 line is clearly the one they used and the fact that it falls near four alternative islands (Baker, McKean, Gardner, and Atafu) might suggest why. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:22:50 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Navigational Logic For Alik & Ric Was this an AE & FN disappearance theory discussion between Greek Gods of mythology or what? - You guys really dog eared my dictionary on this forum post! - keep up the good work. Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************ From Ric Erudition-R-Us. We're just showing off. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:31:15 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Finch's Find Jim W. wrote: >Suzanne, I do not mean to pick >on you but facts is facts That's OK Jim, you need not apologize to me. I made it clear that I was not the author of the so-called "facts." I stated the post was from internet pages of newspaper stories and the like. And as we all know, there is a lot of chaff amongst the grain out there! Somebody else had asked about the weight of the restored plane, and where the extra fuel tanks may have gone. Here is a graphic that might explain it, on the bottom of the net page. http://starbulletin.com/97/03/11/news/story1.html As for actual photos of Finch's plane, there are many of them. Image search engines such as Google's bring up many examples. Suzanne ************************************************************************* From Ric The graphic doesn't say whether the plane shown is supposed to be Earhart's or Finch's. It shows extra fuel tanks in the wings, which is rather odd. It also says that Earhart's plane carried enough fuel to go 1,600 miles which solves the mystery of why they couldn't complete the 2,500 mile trip to Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:35:06 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Navigational Logic It is spelled "propadaedeutical" not "propadadeutical"in my dictionary. Maybe that is why Noonan screwed up trying to find Howland as he looked up the spelling!! Ron Bright ********************************************************************** From Ric It's the Italian term for hand-propping a twin-engined plane. Seldom used anymore. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:46:33 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >IMHO the FAQ on the website which covers the LOP issue does this in fine >style without once using the word propadadeutical. Settle down Tighar! :-) Hmmm, I don't see any mention on your site of anything other than an LOP as a 'heading-line' and the absence of a explanation for why a navigator would, as a practical matter, care about an LOP at all sticks out like an elephant in the living room. So, I would hardly call that "fine style". The page makes the same mistake as others have, namely, speaking only about the LOP proper and mentioning nothing of it's real utility to a navigator; i.e. that positional information is implicitly contained in celestial-shot calculations used to plot an LOP. THAT is what the navigator is after, not a generic heading parallel to the so-called day-night terminator. The LOP is only used as the constraining tool for finding out where you are. To clear this up, you could use English, French or jive, any will do; universal translators are available :-) Alik ************************************************************************** From Ric >Hmmm, I don't see any mention on your site of anything other than an LOP >as a 'heading-line' and the absence of a explanation for why a navigator >would, as a practical matter, care about an LOP at all sticks out like >an elephant in the living room. Apparently you haven't found the elephant cleverly hidden on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/navigation.html It's in the FAQs section under Navigation as the answer to question number 2. >What is the significance of Earhart's statement "We are on the line >157/337"? Here's a brief excerpt that addresses the point you're on about. First of all, it's important to remember that Noonan knew that the rising sun would give them a 157/337 line. He had that information back in Lae, New Guinea as soon as he knew what day they were going to be making the flight. The only question was how far along they would be when the sun came up, and he wouldn't know that until he saw the sun and noted the time. Then he could draw his 157 337 line on his map and say, "Okay, we're somewhere on this line." All he had to do then was to draw another 157/337 line that passed through Howland Island and measure the distance between the two parallel lines. With a good idea of how fast they were going it was a simple matter to predict at what time they would reach the "advanced" LOP. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:48:11 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland view > All of which demonstations the need to rely only upon original sources and > not accept conventional wisdom as truth. Maybe there should be a test before posting. Read everything on the web site then take the test. Even a passing score of 60% would solve a lot of problems. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure I could pass it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:54:30 EDT From: Mike H. Subject: Re: Engine Noise How many lookouts did the Itasca have that day? Were they told to watch for the Electra? Or was it "as before" for the crew outside the radio room? Mike H. *********** ************************************************************** From Ric I don't think the number of lookouts officially posted is mentioned in any of the reports, but Earhart's arrival was a very big deal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:56:03 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Alik, I certainly appreciate your views but I'm not clear what you think would be accomplished. 1. There are only several people here who have a clue what navigation of any sort is let alone celestial and DR procedures. Most have no flying experience. Hardly any have ever been out in the ocean in a similar situation. An attempt at a technical discussion aimed at ensuring these folk have a practical and working knowledge of the subject would be less successful than creating cold fusion. 2. No one has the slightest idea what Noonan was thinking about or what he did at any time. 3. If everyone understood everything about this flight and all you would like them to understand the best anyone could do is offer a guess as to what might have occurred and make up an estimate of what the odds were that any particular event was chosen or was successful. I can tell you what the odds were - 0 or 100%. I understand what you are aiming at but I see no productive result that would have any practical use. I must assume you will disagree with my last statement so I will ask what would we find out and how would we use it and to what end? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:57:52 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > You can't DR to a point starting from an unknown point. I have lost count how many times this has been said and it's useless and of no practical value. The whole flight consists of unknown points with the exception of Lae, each fix and any opportunity land they saw. You don't start at unknown points. You fly through them. You get a fix (of whatever kind) then fly through more unknown points until you get another fix or hit destination. You "unknown point" quoters make it sound like they were totally lost out in a great big ocean with no clue where they were. Noonan's unknown points were probably 10 mile CEAs. > The accuracy of your position degrades with distance traveled using DR and > can only get worse and not better than the level of accuracy that you can > identify your starting position. If you start out lost you can only get > more lost after traveling an additional 350 NM. That's meaningless, Gary. If you DR for 350 miles you could be left, right, short or long or dead on. If you were 10 miles off at 350 miles at 700 miles you could be still 10 miles off or 20 or dead on. It certainly seems common sense that the farther one goes the more CHANCE he has of being in error but you can't quantify it or apply some arbitrary equation to it. Nice for books but worthless in real life. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:00:42 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning "Crash proof"???? Like an Electra or is it "unsinkable" like the Titanic? Regards David *************************************************************************** From Ric Obviously nothing is absolutely crash-proof, especially when trying to run Windows. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:08:41 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Marty wrote: >>From Alik >>... Shooting the sun for an LOP constrained set of >>longitudes is NOT limited to the time of sunrise. > >OK. > >But as the sun rises higher in the sky, wouldn't a >LOP derived from a later sighting differ from the >dawn LOP? The LOP itself would not differ significantly (it drifts by seasonal tilt), but what would differ are the values of longitude that correspond to that line. As they progressed eastward the values of longitude would change (if FN took another shot), and in that sense you (or whoever) are correct in saying that the LOP 'moved' (other posts notwithstanding), inasmuch as the values of longitude are different. The heading does not change, so _technically_ the LOP doesn't 'move'. But what matters to the navigator are the values of longitude constrained by the LOP (which do 'move' with each new shot), not the LOP bearing itself. In short, the LOP does not technically differ, but the values of longitude constrained by it do. >The only hard-and-fast information we have about >what AE and FN were doing is running a 157/337 >line. Oddly enough, that coincides with a LOP >that they could have placed on their charts by >observing the time of sunrise. This is not >proof that FN advanced the dawn LOP by DR, but >it is at least consistent with that theory. There's nothing odd about it at all. The LOP observed at sunrise is one and same as the day-night terminator. FN simply observed the bearing of the day-night terminator. As Ric noted, the fortuitous feature of this LOP is that it intersected several nearby islands. Try this: Visualize a football field. Now imagine that we run a plumb line across the width of the field. On one end we tie it down at the 30 yard line. The other end is tied to the 25 yard line. The plumb line is the LOP. Now, imagine that we move the plumb line down the field _without_ changing it's 'heading'. So we take the plumb line from the 30 yard line and move it to the 20 yard line. Then we must move the other end down to the 15 yard line (there is a 5 yard offset on each end). The direction the plumb line is pointing hasn't changed: the LOP is the same. But what matters to FN is not the direction the plumb line is pointing, but the YARD LINE it is on. The yard line is longitude. So, with each shot FN takes, the plumb line is indeed moving down the football field (their plane is flying down the field). So, yes, the dawn 'LOP' differs from later 'LOPs' inasmuch as they are sitting on different yard lines, even though they have the same 'heading' and are thus the same LOP. Since the plumb line sits at an angle, FN must shoot the sun with an octant/sextant and use the Nautical Almanac to solve the equation (noonmeridian - (90 - sextantangle)) in order to find all values of 'yard line' that fall along that plumb line (they will differ slightly because the plumb line is angled across the field). He then knows that he is somewhere on that plumb line and he knows what values of 'yard line' to assign for each foot (or latitude) of plumb line that crosses the field. If we move the plumb line again (the plane continues on it's path down the football field) FN will need to do another sun shot and re-calculate each of the 'yard lines' associated with each foot of plumb line. Typically a navigator isn't going to know where on that plumb line he is in terms of feet (latitude) but he DOES know the 'yard lines' (longitude) for each foot of plumb line. What people are failing to see here is that the LOP is just a constraint tool FN uses to FIND the yard line. The LOP is a means to and end, the end being to find out what yard line you are sitting on. Alik ************************************************************************* From Ric What you're talking about is shooting "speed lines". Maybe Noonan managed to do that from below the scattered cloud deck or maybe he had to get his groundspeed and so determine his progress by reading the wind and waves through his driftmeter, maybe not, but all he needed was that first shot. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:20:58 EDT From: Herman De Wulf #2406 Subject: Re: Engine Noise And faster too. When at low level jets will cruise at 400 or 500 mph. At that speed they are so fast that they seem to be coming without making a noise. Their noise can be heard only when they are real close or when they're passing overhead. As for the props, I remember from my boyhood days that North American T-6 trainers could be heard from almost a mile way against a city background because of the propeller tips turning near the speed of sound. Remembering an Electra had two such engines (the 10E's were even louder than the 10A's) I'm inclined to believe the crew on Itasca could have been able to hear them, although it is true this is difficult at sea with the noise ships make. However, as I understand it the Itasca was not moving, which would mean less noise. LTM (who loves the sound of airplanes and could identify them by their noise) ************************************************************************** From Ric You're correct that there are few things on earth more noisy than a T-6 pulling power in flat pitch but you're also correct that it's the cavitation of the prop tips that creates the distinctive "blat". At cruise power and coarse pitch, however, what you hear is the low frequency rumble of the engine itself. Itasca was "drifting" under power. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:55:23 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Ric wrote: >> First of all, it's important to remember that Noonan knew that the rising >> sun would give them a 157/337 line. He had that information back in Lae, New >> Guinea as soon as he knew what day they were going to be making the flight. >> The only question was how far along they would be when the sun came up, and >> he wouldn't know that until he saw the sun and noted the time. Then he could >> draw his 157 337 line on his map and say, "Okay, we're somewhere on this >> line." All he had to do then was to draw another 157/337 line that passed >> through Howland Island and measure the distance between the two parallel >> lines. With a good idea of how fast they were going it was a simple matter to >> predict at what time they would reach the "advanced" LOP. Fair enough, but let's assume this is indeed a one room schoolhouse. So,the reader has no idea what an LOP is, or what it's implications are for a navigator. The key sentence above is: "The only question was how far along they would be when the sun came up, and he wouldn't know that until he saw the sun and noted the time." Which you state correctly. But what does that mean? How is FN going to 'know' that? Well, he 'knows' it because he looked in the Nautical Almanac for the noon meridian at the time he saw the sun, then set his sextant angle effectively to zero. Applying some mathematical mojo gives him a series of valid longitudes for that LOP. I can't speak for others, but it would not have been clear to me what you meant by the above statement without an explanation of _how_ he knew those longitudes (his forward progress). Perhaps a sub-link on that sentence in the website would help some folks with inquiring minds. Alik ************************************************************************** From Ric I wrote that FAQ specifically because we were spending waaaay too much time on the forum explaining, simplifying, re-explaining and re-simplifying the whole LOP issue. Most of the time people just ended up confused. So far, the FAQ really seems to help and yours has been the first request for elaboration. You can chide me for making it easy to understand but I'm a firm believer that the way to convince people is to let them actually understand what you're saying rather than try to intimidate them with your superior intelligence and education. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:01:43 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: 24ST Alclad on C/N 1015 Ric wrote: > Why, where, and when the cabin of c/n1015 was reskinned is a mystery. > The cabin windows in the reskinned airplane had right-angle corners, unlike > the standard Electra windows which have rounded corners, but of course that > was all changed when the aircraft was rebuilt as a replica of NR16020. I have all the FAA records for the Lockheed 10 C/N 1015. From those records I was able to track down a guy in Florida who had worked on the airplane (this was a few years ago). His shop (that had worked on 1015) had since closed down but he had a bunch of records in his basement. He knew the airplane very well and he thought he remembered the re-skin job. He promised to dig the records out of his basement and call me back. A few months later, after no contact, I called him back. He said that in the mean time he had had a heart attack and was understandably laid up. I never followed up. If someone (preferably from Florida) would like to chase this rabbitt I will gladly share the contact information. The trail might teach us something about artifact 2-2-V-1 (aka The Skin). Contact me off-forum. Just one of many research threads that is down a ways on my priority list (but potentially important know the less). LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:07:32 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > What you're talking about is shooting "speed lines". Maybe Noonan managed > to > do that from below the scattered cloud deck or maybe he had to get his > groundspeed and so determine his progress by reading the wind and waves > through his driftmeter, maybe not, but all he needed was that first shot. Careful, Ric. You'll let the cat out of the bag that Noonan had all kinds of navigational capabilities. The nav critiquers would have everyone believing Noonan was flopping around out in the middle of a giant ocean totally lost without anything but a precomputed LOP and a Timex. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Fred's problem was not lack of capability. Studies of his past performance on long overwater flights, as evidenced by the charts he used, show him to be less than rigorous in exercising that capability. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:27:50 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >>From Alan > >Alik, I certainly appreciate your views but I'm not clear what you think >would be accomplished. > >1. There are only several people here who have a clue what navigation of any >sort is let alone celestial and DR procedures. Most have no flying >experience. Hardly any have ever been out in the ocean in a similar >situation. An attempt at a technical discussion aimed at ensuring these folks >have a practical and working knowledge of the subject would be less >successful than creating cold fusion. Whatever do you mean? I just published an article on cold fusion in Physical Reviews new Journal of Irrrepoducible results just last week :-) But seriously, perhaps I have too much confidence in the abilities of the 'common man' to understand complex things. Shape operators, Singularities and Quantum Field Theory are not that hard to understand, they just usually aren't explained very well. Too often the particulars of a discipline are obfuscated by a need to protect intellectual ego or because of a lack of genuine understanding on the part of the 'educator'. I think celestial navigation is no different. There is a lot of semantic jousting and such that goes on in the subject when the concepts are actually pretty simple. I just explained it to a seven year old child yesterday and he caught on immediately (though it did take some different language and a couple of hours to do). >2. No one has the slightest idea what Noonan was thinking about or what he >did at any time. Agreed. >3. If everyone understood everything about this flight and all you would like >them to understand the best anyone could do is offer a guess as to what might >have occurred and make up an estimate of what the odds were that any >particular event was chosen or was successful. I can tell you what the odds >were - 0 or 100%. You are probably right. >I understand what you are aiming at but I see no productive result that would >have any practical use. > >I must assume you will disagree with my last statement so I will ask what >would we find out and how would we use it and to what end? Well, I can see why you're concerned. It may not have direct relevance to your points, but the there is indirect relevance to the Earhart investigation as a whole. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a reader does not really understand this whole LOP business. He knows that an LOP proper just provides a heading line drawn on a map. What he does not realize is that longitudinal information can be associated with any LOP. Then, clearly, it is easier for him to see how FN could have been lost since FN is effectively DR all the way from his last known position (Lae?). The LOP, from the readers point of view, really tells the navigator nothing of practical import. But, let's imagine that FN did in fact know something about his 'forward progress' and that he could tie (constrain) that to an LOP drawn only 200 miles out from Howland. Now, it far less likely that FN would miss Howland. He has only to DR out 200 miles, then do some north-south guesswork. Much better than DR from some 2000 miles with a huge north-south component of uncertainty. For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. So, you see, ignorance of this detail makes the Gardner hypothesis more believable. I'm not suggesting that this is intentional or that the Gardner hypothesis is 'wrong', only that a truly scientific approach has to be balanced and complete. Certainly it is _possible_ FN was an idiot, drunk or dead in flight but that seems to me to be "proving a postive" and I need evidence for it, not 'proof' by a lack of evidence. This point, along with one I raised earlier with Ric regarding the presence of debris attributable purely to chance, are the two sticking points in the Gardner hypothesis that need to get resolved (and may very well have a reasonable explanation/answer). Alik *********************************************************************** From Ric You persist in lamenting a problem which I do not believe exists. I'd like to hear from any of the 800 or so forum subscribers to whom it is a great revelation that Noonan's sunrise LOP was a line he could actually draw on a map and be quite confident that he was somewhere on that line. That he then advanced that line by DR until it fell through Howland (and other islands) and was able to judge his progress so that Earhart could at 07:42 say "We must be on you.." has been a cornerstone of TIGHAR's hypothesis since 1988. > I need a > good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator > would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface > grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. To coin a phrase - you can't DR from an unknown point to a known point. The accepted - indeed, the textbook - technique was to run on the LOP, not construct a surface grid search, no matter how much you prefer to substitute your opinion for historical context. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:29:51 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >What you're talking about is shooting "speed lines". Maybe Noonan managed to >do that from below the scattered cloud deck or maybe he had to get his >groundspeed and so determine his progress by reading the wind and waves >through his driftmeter, maybe not, but all he needed was that first shot. That may very well answer my previous question/concern. Perhaps he could not see the limb of the sun to mark his chronometer, thus making a longitude measure impossible. Perhaps he could. But my point in the football field example was to show that longitudinal information can be obtained for any one LOP, as long as you can get the celestial shot. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:24:09 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Richard E. Gillespie wrote: >I wrote that FAQ specifically because we were spending waaaay too much time >on the forum explaining, simplifying, re-explaining and re-simplifying the >whole LOP issue. Most of the time people just ended up confused. So far, >the FAQ really seems to help and yours has been the first request for >elaboration. > >You can chide me for making it easy to understand but I'm a firm believer >that the way to convince people is to let them actually understand what >you're saying rather than try to intimidate them with your superior >intelligence and education. What I'm trying to figure out here is, are there reasonable navigational techniques that we can assume FN used barring any evidence to the contrary (proof of a positive). If so, what do these techniques and their outcomes imply for a Gardner or Howland landing attempt? Is observing the sun at sunrise so predictable that we require direct evidence to the contrary to question whether or not he in fact did so? If so, then this means he would have arrived very close to Howland island (within a combined sun-shot and 200 mile DR error margin) with some three hours of fuel remaining. What does this suggest? What are the odds that the debris found on Gardner is present due solely to chance? Can this be assessed in a cost effective manner? Those are the questions I seek to answer for myself on this forum. There are no other intentions, motives, etc. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:25:53 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Ric, the "grid search" is probably my fault as I mentioned something to that effect as a possible choice I might make if I was sure I was close in but could not see my target. I have never suggested that's what I believe AE did upon reaching Howland. In the little time they had (about an hour) from "we must be on you" till the 8:44 call running NW a ways and back SE was about all they had time for. Plus I agree with you that Noonan must have had pretty good confidence in his East/west position and so any kind of search PATTERN seems illogical. His LOP may have run nearly on top of the wrong Howland coordinates to make matters worse. Considering his CEA might have been around 5 or 10 miles on the sun shots the odds get a bit worse. However no one knew his accuracy better than he did and I would guess he shot a number of sun lines to reduce the error as much as possible. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:26:45 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Navigational Logic I think you're right that most people already understood that a sunshot derived LOP at a particular time is not merely a heading but what is better described as a "locus"( a line composed of an infinite number of possible points of position) and in this case a particular one of an infinite number of essentially parallel locus lines at right angles to the sun's azimuth, each representing a possible line of location depending on the time of the associated sunshot that gives its azimuth. The language which describes it as "longitude constrained etc" is nice and concise but not perhaps so easy for some to fathom. That being said, I think that it is indeed important that as many as possible do understand, not only the general ideas associated with navigation but also the detail. There are undoubtedly people on the forum who would both appreciate a better understanding of detail and be able to understand it, even though they do not have any background in navigation. I, for one, don't believe this is purely academic as Alan clearly does. There are positive facts that one can deduce from an understanding of the navigational problem and how they got to Gardner is far from mere conjecture as Alan would have us believe. (This will become clear in time!) Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:28:46 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a >good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator >would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface >grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. That is indeed the most fascinating aspect of this problem. Aside from running a grid or running up/down the LOP, the only feasible answer to this question is that the plane was signficantly south of Howland and Baker. Whether a grid pattern or running north, they still would not have seen either island. Any evidence to support it? Not really, but my Monte Carlo simulations based upon pure dead reckoning and flight paths according to what Earhart thought the weather was versus what the real weather was indicates a good 100 mile offset to the south. Possible? Yes. Probable? Who knows? But it does fit all available data... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:30:06 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: engine noise The Electra had a very distinct sound one that very few other aircraft had. It was high pitched and sorta out of sinc. They were slow and you could hear them comming from far off. I too can also identify a recip without looking up. The crew of the Itasca were searching the sky for that sight and sound. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:33:03 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: The Sydney Island engines Ric wrote: > That is correct. We have a photo taken by a friend fo Bruce's that shows > the two R1830 engines of the C-47 together under a coconut palm on Sydney. Do we know that that photo was taken -after- Bruce's engine was on Kanton? CD ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:33:38 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides Ric, I'm not an expert on tides, but for what I have seen on some universities web sites, the mean sea level changes from month to month, and year to year, all with no apparent relation with the moon and planets. That discrepancy can be up to a foot or so, and as the Niku tides are only 2 to 4 ft, I think you can't expect too much in the way of accuracy. Unless we can also get a grip on what the variations of msl are at Niku -or are they the same in a very wide area??? CD ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:54:03 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alan Caldwell wrote: >Ric, the "grid search" is probably my fault as I mentioned something to that >effect as a possible choice I might make if I was sure I was close in but >could not see my target. I have never suggested that's what I believe AE did >upon reaching Howland. In the little time they had (about an hour) from "we >must be on you" till the 8:44 call running NW a ways and back SE was about >all they had time for. Plus I agree with you that Noonan must have had pretty >good confidence in his East/west position and so any kind of search PATTERN >seems illogical. His LOP may have run nearly on top of the wrong Howland >coordinates to make matters worse. Considering his CEA might have been around >5 or 10 miles on the sun shots the odds get a bit worse. However no one knew >his accuracy better than he did and I would guess he shot a number of sun >lines to reduce the error as much as possible. Well Alan, that is the meat of the matter isn't it? I know that the oft-repeated phrase "you cannot DR from an unknown point to a known point" is a popular one, but that phrase does not apply here. We are talking about DR'ing from one constrained region to another (precisely what is done when you 'advance a line of position' by DR). The expected error margin for DR'ing from a constrained region (a longitudinally constrainted LOP) about 200 miles out to another constrained LOP results in an east-west error margin greater than 20 miles. So, no, he did not have a "pretty good confidence" of his east-west position if 'pretty good' means close enough to SEE Howland island. The very technique he used was verifiably inadequate to accomplish what you assume. If it was accepted convention to run the line north and south, even if such a margin is known to the navigator, then I accept that. But it is a question, not a statement. Would FN be reasonably expected to simply run the line, without adjusting the line east or west, based on convention even if he were aware of this east-west error margin? A 'grid search' need not be perfectly square. If one adjusts the line east and west, then one is effectively conducting a longitudinal grid search, which was my meaning. You can run the line on your expected intersection LOP, then run it again 10 or 20 miles east of that original LOP, then run it again 10 or 20 miles west of that original intersection LOP. With three hours fuel remaining, convincing evidence to the contrary must be provided. Rigid convention could indeed BE that evidence. The length you run the line logically should be a function of your anticipated drift error margin north and south. But again, if convention precludes it, then it would not be an expected behavior. So the question is, would so-called 'textbook' convention preclude adjusting the line for error and/or preclude an adjustment on the length of the line you run? Would FN, or any competent navigator, be expected to make a north-south drift error of some 350 miles with low head winds en route (low head winds because that's what we require for so much fuel remaining)? If FN did not assume that uncertainty, and simply ended up at 'lower' latitudes close to Gardner, then is it reasonable to expect a competent navigator to produce _that_ error with low head winds en-route? Would the navigational techniques of the day reasonably allow for such errors, or do we require remarkable evidence to show such an error? Now, one can chide _me_ for asking these questions, but they are highly pertinent and must be answered in any exhaustive, scientific analysis. I am not "laboring" a point, just being thorough. Without an answer to these questions, it seems clear to me, barring any remarkable evidence to the contrary, that FN _must_ have gotten within 50 miles of Howland and, morever, he _must_ have known it. No, we cannot "have any idea" (another popular phrase here) what FN knew or didn't know, but we can show that remarkable evidence is required that he didn't know something (proof of a negative). For example, I would be perfectly comfortable, for the purposes of figuring out the most likely outcome to the flight, that FN did in fact REMEMBER how to take celestial shots with a bubble octant and remarkable evidence would be required to convince me otherwise (like, proof that he was deceased in flight). In other words, some of the popular phrases thrown about on this forum are in fact red-herrings in that they are literally true but have little relevance to the question at hand. We need not know for _certain_ what FN thought or did, but we _can_ know with a confidence suficient for determining the most likely outcome of the flight what he knew or did in flight; depending on what that behavior was (what kind of predictability the behavior entailed). Formal logic dictates the aformentioned conclusion on the basis of known fact regarding navigation. If those facts are wrong, the questions above are designed to correct them. _That_ is why these questions are so important. In your last sentence you mention additional sun-shots. If taken at his expected Howland arrival, this would definitely tighten up the error margin, but only to about 10 or 15 miles either side of the calculated line. If (?) the charts he used were inacurrate, the margin would be worse (though he wouldn't know it). You mention the brief time they had, but remember that whatever time they did have and regardless of what route they took, it must have been sufficient to fly from Lae to Gardner as the Gardner hypothesis dictates. If we ever get past these points I'll take up the issue of "random debris" on Gardner. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:55:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alik wrote: > What I'm trying to figure out here is, are there reasonable navigational > techniques that we can assume FN used barring any evidence to the > contrary (proof of a positive). If so, what do these techniques and > their outcomes imply for a Gardner or Howland landing attempt? Is > observing the sun at sunrise so predictable that we require direct > evidence to the contrary to question whether or not he in fact did so? > If so, then this means he would have arrived very close to Howland > Island (within a combined sun-shot and 200 mile DR error margin) with > some three hours of fuel remaining. What does this suggest? From Alan Alik, I think Ric is a bit tied up with a class out in California but in any case let me give you my take on this. Noonan was considered one of the top professionals of his time with a great amount of naval and air navigation experience. If here was a technique or capability available it is not in doubt Noonan was on to it. Noonan appears to have typically not been the most precise or detailed at his navigation but it is reasonable to assume he had little need to do so routinely. In other words he could rise to the occasion if he needed to but rarely had that need. Navigating boats at such slow speeds and navigating planes over established routes is not a very challenging chore. My experience since the 50s tells me aerial navigation is pretty simple. Very little acts to make wild errors. In particular the great speed of aircraft means that it would take a 90 degree effect of considerable significance to alter course drastically. I recognize I'm using comparative terms and where I see little significance others might consider the effect devastating if they so wish. The bottom line is that I have seen nothing to indicate Noonan missed Howland by very much. The detractors want to hang their hat on the fact they didn't see the island as proof they were far afield. That won't wash. Noonan could have in fact navigated precisely to the coordinates he thought represented Howland. If they were the erroneous ones he would have never seen the island. Noonan had only from Tabiteauea to Howland to negotiate if (IF) They knew they were over that island and if the report of a plane over flying that night is correct. That may not have occurred but it is my belief Noonan would have made an effort to locate himself in relation to one of the Gilbert Islands if he had to lose altitude to do so. He was not that short on fuel. In any case Noonan had stars, planets, the moon and the sun for celestial aid. He had drift meter capability and his own good navigational sense. We have made assumptions they would NOT have descended to spot the Gilbert's and that the waning moon would not provide sufficient illumination but those are only untested theories. We have also made an assumption Noonan could not shoot sun shots or otherwise navigate (other than DR) after descending to 1,000 feet. Also untested and untestable. I don't accept those assumptions 100%. Could Noonan navigate to Howland, to Gardner or any place else he chose? My answer is yes and I see no evidence to refute that position. Now if you talk about probabilities or odds you can make any guess but that's all it would be. We think Noonan got close then went to Gardner. For whatever doubt folks have about TIGHAR's "evidence" artifacts and suppositions there is NO evidence to the contrary. None. Nothing to prove they went into the sea. Nothing to prove they didn't get close to Howland. Nothing to prove they couldn't make it to Gardner. Nothing to prove they arrived at Howland far to the North. Nothing to prove they ran out of gas. Oh, I forgot the Marshals. Well, I tried to forget the Marshals. Folks who want them to fly north out of Lae to Truck then across to Mili cannot do simple math. Fuelwise not possible. Nor would it make sense to plan a suicide mission when their plan was to fly around the world as AE's last big splash. (No pun intended) Folks who want to get the plane into the Marshals provide not even a theory. They have to ignore known evidence and create new evidence of non existent Japanese ships in the Kiribati area and contrary to Long want to create fuel usage that defies reason. I have been challenging these people for years to give a rational theory to support their Marshall idea but none will come forward. That's pretty much the sum of it to date. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:56:57 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Randy Jacobson wrote: >> For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a >> good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator >> would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface >> grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. > >That is indeed the most fascinating aspect of this problem. Aside from >running a grid or running up/down the LOP, the only feasible answer to this >question is that the plane was signficantly south of Howland and Baker. >Whether a grid pattern or running north, they still would not have seen >either island. Any evidence to support it? Not really, but my Monte Carlo >simulations based upon pure dead reckoning and flight paths according to >what Earhart thought the weather was versus what the real weather was >indicates a good 100 mile offset to the south. Possible? Yes. Probable? >Who knows? But it does fit all available data... Interesting point. This may address the question of what we can reasonably expect for north-south drift error. It may indeed be a reasonable possibility that they drifted well south of their expected destination. If so, then a southerly run of the LOP of a fairly short distance could have resulted in a visual sighting of Gardner. That is the key question, how much drift error north or south can be reasonably expected? Can we even assess that? If the answer to the first question is that it is sufficiently large or if the answer to the last question is no, then the Gardner hypothesis remains tenable as a most likely outcome. The next question has to do with debris found on or about Gardner. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:58:45 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: navigational Logic Angus Murray wrote: > "There > are positive facts that one can deduce from an understanding of the > navigational problem and how they got to Gardner is far from mere > conjecture as Alan would have us believe" Angus, you are certainly correct that a better understanding of the details would help all of us. What I was trying to point out is there ARE no details. It is mere conjecture. First of all we haven't been able to prove they went to Gardner. How they might have done it is only a guess. Now what techniques were possible is a different story and much more difficult to explain. The best I can tell you is Noonan would have used all the various navigation tools and techniques at his disposal. I think we have discussed that area many times. In sum he had various celestial bodies available, a drift meter and good common sense. Further than that I wouldn't go. As you have observed in the years that have passed the exact mechanics and application of the techniques and instruments of a professional navigator have proven to be elusive to the understanding of many. Without some sort of formal education or classroom instruction they will remain so. Perhaps that might be added to TIGHAR's education efforts - a class in navigation. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:59:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Alik wrote: > For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a > good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator > would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface > grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. That argument has been given countless times. You aren't comprehending and those who have never flown in such conditions most likely never will. Not a fault but just a fact. So you won't wonder forever about this just assume for a moment that Noonan navigated precisely to the erroneous coordinates. He is now 5.1 n.m. away at 1,000 feet. He knows his LOP is accurate but where he is North/south is less certain. He runs 157/337 in search but in vain. Why is that so difficult to understand? You want him to do a search grid. Where? If his East/west position is not accurate where would you suggest he go? Only if he believed his North/south position was very close would he have any idea where to go East/west. If that's not clear let me try this. If he is right on North/south then a quick East/west pattern would find Howland. If he was ANYWHERE North or South an East/west search would accomplish nothing. So what DID Noonan believe? No one knows. My guess is that he had so little to base his latitudinal position on that a grid search made no sense at all. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:00:32 EDT From: Janet Knight Subject: Weather At the risk of looking blatantly new to this forum (which I am), in attempting to analyze the data I have collected so far, I have a few questions regarding the conditions of flight - 1. What were the Wx conditions on or near Howland that day, and what is our source for that data? (It seems like that would be hard to determine unless they had an observation station right there - i.e. the Itasca) 2. Which altitudes to we have record of AE/FN at during the time of their last position report and prior to reaching the advanced 157/337 LOP? 3. Do we have any winds-aloft readings, and how accurate are they? I'm positive these questions are answered somewhere obvious that I haven't been able to find, my apologies to all of the 'forum veterans' for the annoyance. Janet Knight Director of Marketing & Promotions, Women in Aviation, International - Washington Chapter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:01:52 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Navigational logic Randy wrote: >... my Monte Carlo > simulations based upon pure dead reckoning and flight paths according to > what Earhart thought the weather was versus what the real weather was > indicates a good 100 mile offset to the south. Possible? Yes. Probable? > Who knows? But it does fit all available data... Do you mean by this that there was probably a 100 mile deviation to the south due to unrecognised winds? If there was any deviation from course due to a perceived need to avoid an anticipated weather sytstem the amount of this deviation would of course have been known and therefore allowed for in making an attempt to find Howland. What evidence is there for what Earhart thought the weather was and what as to what it really was? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:03:13 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alik wrote: > For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a > good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator > would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface > grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. One partial answer to this is that the DR may have been a lot more than 200 miles. If Noonan was unable to get a sun shot subsequent to his last celestial fix due to cloud, he may have had to DR as much as 350 miles. That being said, if he was below the cloud, he should have been able to get good enough drift information to make his DR reasonably accurate and lengthy DR should not have made finding Howland impossible I would have thought. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:10:22 EDT From: Lawrence Glazer Subject: Alclad Ric wrote: >In retrospect, I'm really glad we were able to get to c/n 1015 before Finch >got her hands on it. The airplane is, or was, a very interesting example of >the type and raised several questions that have remained unanswered. >Sometime in the machine's service life the cabin section was apparently >re-skinned using aluminum that was labeled exactly like Artifact 2-2-V-1 (the >section of skin recovered from Niku). We know that labeling was used on >aluminum that was approved only for repairs, not original construction. We >see the same labeling on a replacement flap actuator cover on c/n 1052, now >at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT. Labeling? I don't recall any previous reference to labeling on the Alclad fragments found on Niku. Did I miss something in the FAQ or research bulletins? LTM, who bought only designer-label Alclad. Lawrence Glazer #2424 ************************************************* Wow, a question I can answer!!! Yes, there is the faint but clearly discernible remnant of product marking on artifact 2-2-V-1. See http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/obj6.html for text on the subject. Exactly similar marking is seen on other Electra parts as mentioned above. Pat, glowing with pride at actually knowing something. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:11:26 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: The Sydney Island engines No, Del Saylor's Photo was taken before, I located the engine I found. The 1830's are not sitting on the beach but further inland. Those two engines should still be there. There is a big difference between an 1830 and a 1340 in dimensional size, one would really have to be blind to not see the difference. Hope this clears it up some, maybe not. Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:13:51 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: 1939 Aerial Survey Thought forumites might find this of interest: SOUTH PACIFIC PHOENIX ISLAND AERIAL SURVEY - 1939 In 1939 a Naval aerial survey expedition was sent to the Phoenix Island area for the purpose of making an aerial photographic survey of the various islands for the Navy Department Hydrographic Office in Washington D.C. The expedition was headed by Lt. Howell J. Dyson, U.S.N., Naval aviator, along with Lt. Gerald Huff U.S.N. Naval aviator. Two seaplane tenders, U.S.S. Pelican and U.S.S. Swan were assigned as the base supply and surface support ships for the Naval aviation operations during the survey. The two ships U.S.S. Pelican and U.S.S. Swan with the aviation units on boards staged from Honolulu with a Grumman J2F amphibian on board each ship. The photo flight crew on the U.S.S. Pelican consisted of Lieutenant H. J. Dyson, pilot, Naval aviation pilot Spencer co-pilot, Naval photographers J. Howard Chamblin and Fred Hewitt as aerial camera operators. The photo flight crew on the U.S.S. Swan consisted of Lieutenant (j.g.) Gerald Huff, pilot, and a Naval aviation pilot as co-pilot, naval photographers Oscar Bowe and Joe Cerruti as the aerial camera operators. The vertical aerial mapping cameras carried aloft in the two Grumman J2F amphibian were the T3-A, 5 lens cameras which were operated by two aerial photographers, one keeping the camera level and oriented to the line of flight, and the other was operating the view finder-Intervalometer unit for line of flight and adjustment for interval between exposures to obtain 60 percent overlap of the aerial photographs. From the author's experience flying in the Grumman J2F amphibians in the thirties, the two photographers along with the T3-A camera, Intervalometer, 12 volt wet battery equipment in the bottom mid-section of the J2F must have been a bit crowded for a comfortable photo flight. A single lens Fairchild K3A camera was also used to some extent for vertical aerial mapping of some of the smaller islands in the Phoenix group. A Fairchild F56 hand held aerial camera was used for aerial oblique photographs of various islands covered by the survey. The aerial roll film was processed in a "make-shift temporary" darkroom on the U.S.S. Pelican and the U.S.S. Swan. The aerial roll film was processed in a hand cranked Smith roll film developing fixing-washing tanks. The film was washed in sea water and rinsed in fresh water. The drying of the roll film was accomplished by hanging the film in the ship's engine room ventilator shaft. Contact prints were made from the aerial roll film negatives which were used for checking the picture to picture overlap and flight strip overlap coverage before the ships moved to the next island of the group. The South Pacific Phoenix Island aerial survey expedition spent about six weeks operating in the South Pacific before returning to Honolulu where the 5 lens aerial mapping photographs were printed on a specially designed rectification printer which produced satisfactory prints for the final map compilation by the U.S. Navy Department Hydrographic Office in Washington D.C. In 1942, during World War II, the 1939 Phoenix Island survey photographs proved to be of great aid to the planning-operations officers of the various Pacific Forces under Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz U.S.N., Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet in the Pacific Theater of Operations, 1942 - 1945. Regards Angus ******************************************** Thanks, Angus, we have copies of those pics as they are part of the National Archive. P. ========================================================================== Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:54:22 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: Howland View Ric wrote: >All of which demonstrates the need to rely only upon original sources and >not accept conventional wisdom as truth. Alan wrote: >Maybe there should be a test before posting. Read everything on the web >site then take the test. Even a passing score of 60% would solve a lot of >problems. Putting aside Alan Caldwell's haughty suggestion for the moment--we don't want him to waste too much of his time reading posts from presumably less well-informed persons; that "would solve a lot of problems"- Rely only on original sources and don't accept conventional wisdom---That's the point. The opposite has now been referenced as "fact" in the FAQ. Bob Brandenburg concluded that what the Itasca stated in its deck log regarding the visibility (length and dissipation) of the smoke emanating from the Itasca was not credible, and so that "fact" from an original source was dismissed and replaced with "conventional wisdom." He may or may not be right. I tend to favor the statements made by those Coast Guard personnel as valid. We'll never know. The other reasoning on the probable duration of a black smoke run from the Itasca seems valid. Certainly, a high bunker fuel/air ratio would not have been run continuously for several hours. However, what's to say that it was not run intermittently over a period of several hours? When the boilers were returned to normal operation, some visible smoke undoubtedly emanated from the stack, as the Itasca's engines were surely running as the ship was "drifting". Whether or not the ship, much less the island, would have been visible to anyone within 10-15 miles of Howland under then prevailing conditions is pure conjecture. What brought all this up is the Wombat's question about what Linda Finch saw on approaching Howland. I thought the video shot of Howland from that flight (probably taken from Reid Dennis' plane) was interesting, and had a ship been running nearby, one would have expected to see smoke of any color coming from it. How far away, who knows. It is pure speculation as to how far away AE/FN would have seen the Itasca were smoke coming out of its stack. I think we have some good leads in the Earhart project. In the absence of firm proof of what happened and where, speculation can lead to new insights and directions to search to get to the final resolution of the project. Even original source information should be questioned. However, we should not accept as fact suppositions which are contrary to original, documented information until there is firm proof that the original documents are in error. Give the test. I don't think there are too many answers to the questions yet. LTM Bob #2021 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:56:15 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alan wrote: >Alik, I think Ric is a bit tied up with a class out in California but in any >case let me give you my take on this. Noonan was considered one of the top >professionals of his time with a great amount of naval and air navigation >experience. If here was a technique or capability available it is not in >doubt Noonan was on to it. > >Noonan appears to have typically not been the most precise or detailed at his >navigation but it is reasonable to assume he had little need to do so >routinely. In other words he could rise to the occasion if he needed to but >rarely had that need. Navigating boats at such slow speeds and navigating >planes over established routes is not a very challenging chore. > >My experience since the 50s tells me aerial navigation is pretty simple. Very >little acts to make wild errors. In particular the great speed of aircraft >means that it would take a 90 degree effect of considerable significance to >alter course drastically. I recognize I'm using comparative terms and where I >see little significance others might consider the effect devastating if they >so wish. > >The bottom line is that I have seen nothing to indicate Noonan missed Howland >by very much. The detractors want to hang their hat on the fact they didn't >see the island as proof they were far afield. That won't wash. Noonan could >have in fact navigated precisely to the coordinates he thought represented >Howland. If they were the erroneous ones he would have never seen the island. This is pretty much what I'm driving at. What I don't know however, is what kind of error north and south could be reasonably expected of FN under the circumstances; at least to the degree that we would require remarkable evidence that the error was _greater_ than our expected margin. Can we make that assessment at all? I'm pretty confident about the longitudinal error margin that we can reasonably expect, I'm just not as well versed on the drift aspect. For drift, and to be consistent with the tighar hypothesis, let us assume that cross-winds aloft were relatively light (is that right?). There is a point in this, which I'll explain when someone can help me figure this drift question out. If my tendency to labor a point without revealing where I'm going is annoying, you must understand that I'm a scientist and I do this to avoid biasing respondants. I will explain my point in due time. >Noonan had only from Tabiteauea to Howland to negotiate if (IF) They knew >they were over that island and if the report of a plane over flying that >night is correct. That may not have occurred but it is my belief Noonan would >have made an effort to locate himself in relation to one of the Gilbert >Islands if he had to lose altitude to do so. He was not that short on fuel. > >In any case Noonan had stars, planets, the moon and the sun for celestial >aid. He had drift meter capability and his own good navigational sense. We >have made assumptions they would NOT have descended to spot the Gilbert's and >that the waning moon would not provide sufficient illumination but those are >only untested theories. We have also made an assumption Noonan could not >shoot sun shots or otherwise navigate (other than DR) after descending to >1,000 feet. Also untested and untestable. I don't accept those assumptions >100%. > >Could Noonan navigate to Howland, to Gardner or any place else he chose? My >answer is yes and I see no evidence to refute that position. Now if you talk >about probabilities or odds you can make any guess but that's all it would >be. Gotcha, but let me add a proviso. Probability is a tricky and oft-misunderstood thing. To wit, probability is defined by the information upon which it is derived. We are working with limited information here. The goal is to develop an hypothesis (or find agreement with an existing one) that will facilitate acquiring more information in order to construct a more useful and meaingful probability (like, finding the airplane on Gardner, which would make it highly likely that they in fact flew there in 1937). As basis information changes, probabilities change. If we acquire new information as a consequence of an earlier hypthesis, probabilities change. So, logically, the goal should be to try to discover _the most likely outcome_ of the flight based on the information currently at hand, at the same time acknowledging that we could be wrong. All we seek is what is most likely, nothing more. We leave certainty for God and physics. So the probability of events in the flight matter in that they tell us something about the odds of the overall outcome of the flight; that's my proviso. >We think Noonan got close then went to Gardner. For whatever doubt folks have >about TIGHAR's "evidence" artifacts and suppositions there is NO evidence to >the contrary. None. Nothing to prove they went into the sea. Nothing to prove >they didn't get close to Howland. Nothing to prove they couldn't make it to >Gardner. Nothing to prove they arrived at Howland far to the North. Nothing >to prove they ran out of gas. I humbly agree, but remember that there is also no evidence that little green men didn't kidnap them. The point being that that isn't enough. We can't prove, or even substantiate an hypothesis, by a lack of evidence. We need direct evidence of such a decision, which may in fact exist. I don't know...yet. >Oh, I forgot the Marshals. Well, I tried to forget the Marshals. Folks who >want them to fly north out of Lae to Truck then across to Mili cannot do >simple math. Fuelwise not possible. Nor would it make sense to plan a suicide >mission when their plan was to fly around the world as AE's last big splash. >(No pun intended) Folks who want to get the plane into the Marshals provide >not even a theory. They have to ignore known evidence and create new evidence >of non existent Japanese ships in the Kiribati area and contrary to Long want >to create fuel usage that defies reason. I have been challenging these people >for years to give a rational theory to support their Marshall idea but none >will come forward. > >That's pretty much the sum of it to date. Well, frankly, I regarded those hypotheses as so unlikely (though still _possible_) that I have ignored them outright. The two hypotheses I honed in on were the tighar and long hypotheses. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:57:59 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Weather Weather observations were made hourly from the bridge of the Itasca. At 6AM, noon, and 1800 local time, Howland Island sent up a weather balloon to record winds aloft. The conditions at Howland the early morning hours were very calm (6-9 knots), unlimited visibility. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:58:32 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: navigational logic In the Monte Carlo simulations, I assumed pure dead reckoning from the 0920 report (plus/minus lat/long and time that it actually was made), with the assumption that weather forecasts provided Earhart prior to take-off were provided to her and that she planned to account for the winds/directions of these forecasts. I then ran the same simulation given her ability to account for these factors, but then added in the post-take-off winds. The difference after 20 hours of flight was about 100+ nm of error. The biggest difference: winds aloft at the tail end were much lower and more to the east than forecast, "pushing" AE to the southwest. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:59:15 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: 1939 Aerial Survey Sometime back I posted an interview of Gerald Berger,an aviation Navy mechanic, who was on the Pelican during those aerial surveys in the Phoenix. He has some of his own photos of the Norwich City. He even thought he talked with Gallagher at Gardner, but alas, Gallagher was at Sydney I believe. He found nothing relating to Amelia, and we are not sure if he in fact made it to shore. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:59:52 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: The Sydney Island wreck Bruce Yoho wrote: > No, Del Saylor's Photo was taken before, I located the engine I found. The > 1830's are not sitting on the beach but further inland. Those two engines > should still be there. There is a big difference between an 1830 and a 1340 > in dimensional size, one would really have to be blind to not see the > difference. Hope this clears it up some, maybe not. I probably don't know all the pieces of this thread... What about the seaplane on the ocean beach on Kanton, the "Big John", if I remember correctly? What are the chances your engine could have come from there? Were the engines still on that wreck in the 70's? You can respond off-forum if you like. Regards. Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:00:34 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Engine and bones contest I don't think a reward for the Kanton engine is the way to go: unlike Fiji where it is mostly a matter of "keeping one's eyes peeled" for a Kanawa Box, on Kanton it is a matter of doing lots of hard work. I don't think I-Kiribati have the luxury to undertake such gambles. I rather think one would have to hire some business guy to do the dig. Would be nice to get a turn-key price, but because so much is unknown, one might have to settle for a set price per cu yd or per man-day. Tom: you said: "look around the island"... Are we or are we not rather confident that ONE certain trench is where "Bruce's engine" has got to be??? For background: Kanton has about a dozen Govt employees representing most Ministries. They have their families with them. All the young children are there, attending the local Primary shool. There is no older children: they are away to Fanning etc for Hi-School. There is a couple of independent settlers, retirees mostly; in 96 there was one young man with his family, and he was hard working; I'm sure he would have loved the opportunity of a cash job. But he was the exception, and not enough for the engine dig. I feel a work crew would mostly have to come from Xmas Is. along with some extra tools from Honolulu. I expect to be on Xmas in December, and I'll certainly inquire around and refine my assessment of what is possible. Communications is about as Ric said: nothing in common with what we Forumites are used to. In 1996 most each Ministry Rep had his own SideBand Radio; they check in with Headquarters, and as there is nothing going on, they tend to their family matters!!! One of them is doing Post Office duties, which include a daily check for radiograms; interesting question: can we in the First World still send telegrams?!?!?!?!? Radio telephone calls can also be booked! Overall, not too practical at all! If a contracted dig was to take place, a Tighar Representative might be advisable -even if only at start-up. Cheers. Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:01:11 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Navigational logic Ric wrote > You can chide me for making it easy to understand but I'm a firm believer > that the way to convince people is to let them actually understand what > you're saying rather than try to intimidate them with your superior > intelligence and education. Just so. And about time. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:02:10 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: navigational logic-- question to Alan Caldwell Alik wrote: > Well Alan, that is the meat of the matter isn't it? I know that the > oft-repeated phrase "you cannot DR from an unknown point to a known > point" is a popular one, but that phrase does not apply here. We are > talking about DR'ing from one constrained region to another (precisely > what is done when you 'advance a line of position' by DR). The expected > error margin for DR'ing from a constrained region (a longitudinally > constrainted LOP) about 200 miles out to another constrained LOP results > in an east-west error margin greater than 20 miles. So, no, he did not > have a "pretty good confidence" of his east-west position if 'prett > good' means close enough to SEE Howland island. The very technique he > used was verifiably inadequate to accomplish what you assume. Alan, am I missing something really obvious when I read the above? I'm not much of a navigator, although I'm reasonable at coastal by boat and VFR by air. (Must be - I keep getting there and back!) How many bits have I got wrong below? As I understand it, Noonan knew pretty well where Howland was from his chart. He takes a sun sight just as the sun comes up to give him a very specific longitude? Because the earth is spinning, the time of sunrise is specific to certain places at certain times? This places his East/West position very accurately but he can't tell his north south position? He has a look at how many degrees the sun is from the direction the plane is travelling and draws a straight line on the chart at 90deg to that angle, this is the LOP we keep hearing about? He knows he is somewhere along that line, but not where he is on it. He draws another line on the chart parallel to the first and running through Howland. Now he has two lines, one that he IS ON and one that he WOULD LIKE to be ON? He measures how many miles between the two lines. He knows the speed he's cruising at. He does some very simple math to work out how long it will take to get from one line to the other. He tells the pilot how many minutes it will take to get from the first line to the one through Howland. So he actually can and does fly by DR from one line to the other, but he still doesn't know how far North or South he is? That's where "we must be on you" came from? That leaves the problem of working out how he deduced his speed if the wind was stronger or lighter that he expected. We've heard about speed lines on the forum, and there are a few other tricks he may have had. Th' WOMBAT (Just discovered that WOMBAT also stands for Waste Of Money Bandwidth And Time). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:02:49 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Speaking on TIGHAR's quest in Maryland For Washington DC-area Forumites: I'll be talking about The Quest and signing books at the College Park Aviation Museum in College Park, MD on November 17th in the Museum's Speaking of Flight Program. I believe that the talk is at 2 pm (I'd better find out, duh), and I think the Museum requires reservations. If interested let me know and I'll pass on further info. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:06:12 EDT From: Dave in Houston Subject: Re: Navigational logic Angus: Finding the island is the key. As an example. We loaded up in a Cherokee 6 a few weeks back to "find" some local private airports. We had gps, vor, adf, current charts and 4 pairs of eyes. One of us was a RCAF Col. I've been flying since 1966. We almost never found the first airport and NEVER found the second. I spotted the first when I realized that it appeared to be one of two lanes of a divided road. The second we never were able to identify. And we KNEW where they were supposed to be and had the latest in direction finding equipment and plenty of eyes. Great visibility, plenty of time, plenty of fuel and several well known airports within 10 minutes of our location. Now, take a VAST ocean, no landmarks, nothing but DR for ? distance. Throw in the mix 24 hours in the air, fuel becoming "important", distance to the nearest land questionable, as well as an "exact" direction. Couple with that a choppy sea, a small, hard to identify "island". No, they could have been VERY close and still not seen the island or the ship. We'll never know because they didn't know. If they had known, they might have stayed in the area and looked. But if they are 20 miles north or 20 miles south, a grid search does NO good. They'll burn up a lot of fuel and then they have ZERO options. They did the most prudent thing. They figured they were on their lop close enough to espy Howland if they ventured over it and failing that they had a line of islands that afforded them an excellent opportunity to make a land fall while they had the fuel to get there. Also, they were counting on the Itasca's radio and probably the eyes and ears of her crew in spotting them. But if they were too far south, they never got close enough to be seen and if they were off only 5 miles in either direction, its quite possible that they couldn't see the island and the ship's crew couldn't see them. Anything short of that was pure suicide. Any more questions? LTM, #2200 Dave Bush Angus Murray wrote: > Alik wrote: > >> For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a >> good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator >> would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface >> grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. > > One partial answer to this is that the DR may have been a lot more > than 200 miles. If Noonan was unable to get a sun shot subsequent > to his last celestial fix due to cloud, he may have had to DR as > much as 350 miles. That being said, if he was below the cloud, > he should have been able to get good enough drift information to > make his DR reasonably accurate and lengthy DR should not > have made finding Howland impossible I would have thought. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:07:18 EDT From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: Re: navigational logic Alan wrote: >...Oh, I forgot the Marshalls. Well, I tried to forget the >Marshalls...Folks who want to get the plane into the Marshalls provide >not even a theory...I have been challenging these people for years to >give a rational theory to support their Marshall idea but none will come >forward. OK Alan here we go.... You claim to be a pilot. Find someone who has a computer with Microsoft's Flight Simulator on it. You should be able to fly a simulated airplane on a computer screen. The Beech Baron comes pretty close to Earhart's Electra for the simulation. Set the time and date to 19:12 Z July 2, 1937. Put the Baron over Howland (for a geographical reference point) N 00 degrees 48.00' W 176deg 38.00' at 1,000 ft. Set the wind at 081deg at 17 kts (0 ft to 10,500 ft of altitude) average wind Lae to Howland. If you use a no wind condition, point AE moves closer to Howland, to about 50 nm NW of Howland. Fly a magnetic heading of 33deg (at 130 knots TAS) from Howland until you reach N 02deg 30.10' W 177deg 14.20' (or close to it). That point ("point AE") is about 106 nm NW of Howland. Turn the airplane to 281=B0 and climb to 10,000 ft if you like so Noonan has no trouble shooting the sun for speed lines. Once you turn to 281deg the wind will boost your ground speed to 147 knots. Sit there with the auto-pilot maintaining a heading of 281deg. 4.6 hours later Mili Atoll (Knox Atoll first landfall) will appear in the windshield. The distance once you turned to 281deg to Mili is about 667 nm. You don't have to take my word for it because you can see it for yourself. Before you jump in about NOT having enough fuel to get there, one of our researchers has a letter from Kelly Johnson stating that AE should have had enough fuel for about 1500 miles more AFTER getting to Howland. I will be out of town for a couple of weeks (starting today) so that should give you enough time to do the above. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:01:38 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Test-for-posting Bob Perry said: >Putting aside Alan Caldwell's haughty suggestion for >the moment--we don't want him to waste too much of his time reading posts >from presumably less well-informed persons; that "would solve a lot of >problems" regarding Alan's comment "Maybe there should be a test before >posting. Read everything on the web site then take the test. Even a passing >score of 60% would solve a lot of problems. Well, I half-way agree with Alan's haughty suggestion, which I assumed was made with his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek. The wonder of the internet is its instantaneous communication. The downside is that everyone wants to be an expert on everything yesterday. The internet feeds our mania for instant gratification and people who visit here and don't get that go off huffin' and puffin' about what a bunch of snobs we are because we actually expect them to do some work to acquire the knowledge they seek. What unique concepts -- deferred gratification and learning. Ric and a lot of other contributors to this forum spend -- in my humble opinion -- way too much time re-explaining the same basic stuff over and over simply because some newcomers are too lazy to read the FAQs and then go off half-cocked until someone explains the data to them. For their perseverance and self-control they are awarded an A-plus. Ric's innate sense of fair play, egalitarianism, and all-around belief in democratic principles would prevent the test-for-posting idea, but maybe, just maybe, if he got really, really pissed . . . . . LTM, who tested negative yesterday Dennis O. McGee #0149E ******************************************************* >Ric's innate sense of fair play, egalitarianism, and all-around >belief in democratic principles... Uh, are we talking about the same guy I'm married to? And, btw, the Forum FAQs can be found in all their all-too-infrequently- visited glory at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html Pat, also the Webmeister ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:16:59 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational logic Randy Jacobson wrote: >In the Monte Carlo simulations, I assumed pure dead reckoning from the 0920 >report (plus/minus lat/long and time that it actually was made), with the >assumption that weather forecasts provided Earhart prior to take-off were >provided to her and that she planned to account for the winds/directions of >these forecasts. I then ran the same simulation given her ability to >account for these factors, but then added in the post-take-off winds. The >difference after 20 hours of flight was about 100+ nm of error. The >biggest difference: winds aloft at the tail end were much lower and more to >the east than forecast, "pushing" AE to the southwest. This seems to be, so far, the only direct response I've gotten on this question. So, if your simulation data is believable to the extent that remarkable evidence would be required to doubt it, and to doubt that FN was aware of his error margin, then we can safely say that FN was most probably within 100 miles of Howland and that he knew it (actually, his unceratinty would have been 100 miles along the Howland intersecting LOP, then some 40 or so miles east of west of that line). Ergo, the Gardner hypothesis requires FN to fly apprximately 250 - 350 n.m. southwest when, in all practical likelihood, he knew he was within 100 miles of Howland. By virtue of the fuel required to fly that far, and the fact that the Gardner hypothesis requires that much fuel aboard, it means that AE would have at least _possessed_ enough fuel to do a longitudinal, offset run up and down the LOP (effectively, a longitudinal grid search). To complete that run on either side of the line, 100 n.m. north and south would have taken about that much fuel, but the run would have completely eliminated FNs uncerainty as to the exact location of Howland. We should point out that had AE decided to fly to Gardner, _additional_ uncertainty would be introduced from a 250 - 350 n.m. DR to Gardner, making Gardner much harder to find than the already elusive Howland. In addition, they run the risk of arriving at their expected Gardner location with little or no fuel, making a further southerly run of the LOP impractical. I accept the historical convention of simply running the LOP north and south if that is indeed the case, but it seems remarkable to me that, even in the face of textbook solutions FN/AE would make such a decision. Indeed, it requires AE/FN to fly _beyond_ what they knew was their margin for Howland (they would have to be specfically searching for some other island, like Gardner). Is there any evidence for this besides the debris found at Gardner? My only point here is that it seems to me that remarkable evidence would be required to accept this decision as _the most likely decision_ made. Certainly it is possible, but is it most likely? Remember, we are only concerned with what is most likely, not certain (see my previous post). Perhaps FNs prior behavior in such situations can provide such evidence. Maybe he did do rote, textbook things when, in the context of the situation, to do so made no sense at all? I think that would safely constitute remarkable evidence if such a pattern can be found. Any information or thoughts from the forum on this would be greatly appreciated. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:17:55 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: navigational logic Randy Jacobson wrote: >In the Monte Carlo simulations, I assumed pure dead reckoning from the 0920 >report (plus/minus lat/long and time that it actually was made), with the >assumption that weather forecasts provided Earhart prior to take-off were >provided to her and that she planned to account for the winds/directions of >these forecasts. I then ran the same simulation given her ability to >account for these factors, but then added in the post-take-off winds. The >difference after 20 hours of flight was about 100+ nm of error. The >biggest difference: winds aloft at the tail end were much lower and more to >the east than forecast, "pushing" AE to the southwest. Almost forgot. In assessing whether or not such a decision could be reasonably expected of a competent navigator and pilot, we must also point out that Gardner had no landing facilities, another factor mitigating against such a decision. Again, it seems a remarkable decision to make for Gardner. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:18:46 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Navigational logic Randy said: > The > difference after 20 hours of flight was about 100+ nm of error. The > biggest difference: winds aloft at the tail end were much lower and more to > the east than forecast, "pushing" AE to the southwest. Interesting. I assume that this 100+ miles was a best estimate of probable error. Do you have any handle on the best estimate of maximum possible error assuming either these or maximum likely wind speeds? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:21:10 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Test-for-posting >> Ric's innate sense of fair play, egalitarianism, and all-around >> belief in democratic principles... > > Uh, are we talking about the same guy I'm married to? > > Pat, also the Webmeister Oh, Come on, Pat, if Ric didn't have those attributes you wouldn't have married him, right? (Don't burst my bubble here.) It's guys like Ric that get all the good girls, which could explain why I've never gotten married. LTM (who has given up on grandchildren from #4 son) Kerry Tiller *************************************************** That's that bubble bursting . Actually, Ric does have a keen sense of justice and fair play. Egalitarianism ain't his strong point, though. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:22:20 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Not that close Dave wrote: > Now, take a VAST ocean, no landmarks, nothing but DR for ? distance. Throw > in the mix 24 hours in the air, fuel becoming "important", distance to the > nearest land questionable, as well as an "exact" direction. Couple with that > a choppy sea, a small, hard to identify "island". No, they could have been > VERY close and still not seen the island or the ship. Whilst it may be true that they could not see the island although they were close, the distance of DRing and the distance of nearest land or its direction are totally irrelevant. I don't in any case believe that AE & Co didn't find Howland although they were very close. There are too many indications that they were not VERY close. Go to http://www.angelfire.com/ia2/hgturner/hgaccident.htm This incident involving a B29, includes many factors mirroring the Earhart flight including poor radio procedure, failure of DF equipment, ditching/landing on the beach of a small Pacific island etc. I quote: "As our ETA expired, we sighted a land mass approximately thirty-five (35) to (40) miles to our right. We turned on my ETA and headed for the landmass which we were unable to identify satisfactorily from my charts. It was a small island with very little elevation, approximately 1 mile across from north to south and approximately two (2) miles across from east to west". This was an island with no lagoon and similar to the size and elevation of Howland (at 2 miles x 1/2 mile) and yet it was spotted at between 35 and 40 miles. Visibility at Howland on 2nd July was "unlimited". If Noonan did not get a fix at his last opportunity, about 350 miles from Howland, DRing from this distance might introduce an error of about 10% or 35 miles. The monte carlo analysis suggests a much larger offset to the south if we suppose he did not get this fix. That he did not see Howland also suggests that Noonan was more likely well over 35 miles away. It has been pointed out that his errors on previous legs could be large and he was also anticipating DF information for the final leg from both their own DF equipment and that of Itasca which may have lulled him into a false sense of security. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:24:42 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: the Sydney Island wreck From Bruce Yoho The Seaplane was not there at the time I was, But there are remnants of a large aircraft on the island and the size indicates those engines would have been much larger than what I found. Also it would have been much easier to transport with the company truck. The use of the Helo means it was another Island other than Canton that I located the engine on. Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:25:40 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: test-for-posting Dennis, you are correct. Much of what I say is tongue in cheek. The main reason I down play a lot of this rather than get into deep discussions is that I would be explaining someone's assumptions. We just flat don't know much about this flight or what happened on it. Alik likes to argue and we fuss with him some but what Alik does is make up possible scenarios and then wants to tangle about them. That's a waste of time. He and others talk about "if our heroes were south of course" or "what Amelia thought the weather was" or "if they were confident of their east/west position" and all that nonsense but then after making those insupportable assumptions Alik and a few others want to argue about it. I can make up my own assumptions but it does no good. Let me tell you what we know. We know they left Lae at 10:00 local........... That's it, folks. We don't know where they were at any time after that nor does anyone else. We don't know what the weather or winds or altitudes flown were nor does anyone else. We don't KNOW what their fuel situation was or their radio status or their antennas or their health or anything else. We make guesses based on best information and that's it. We don't know whether they flew an offset or a grid or north or south on the 157/337 LOP or any other line. We don't know whether Noonan shot sun shots, moon shots or slept all the way. We don't know where they actually were at the time they made their few position reports. So what is it some of you want explained? All I read is someone suggesting some theory and then wanting to argue about it. Any one of you tell me exactly something AE and Noonan did and I'll give you the best doggone explanation you ever read but don't make up something and then ask me why I think it's rational. I don't know what they did. Alik says he wants to be able to get past the navigation questions so he can fuss about stuff found on Gardner. What navigation questions? What navigation was performed? All anyone has done is offer all the possibilities they can think up. If anyone thinks they can shoot them down one by one and come up with exactly what had to be done is tilting at windmills. You're all brighter than that. I can't wait till Alik gets bored with his navigation nonsense and starts in on Gardner. Alik, I've noticed you don't offer rational theories. You only try to shoot down those of others. You haven't advanced the ball at all. You're intelligent. You could do that if you would quit wasting your time sparring foolishly. Alan, trying to be less haughty. #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:26:36 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: navigational logic Nice try, Daryll. I DO have Flight simulator 2002 and I actually have an Electra 10E with extra fuel tanks. Doesn't work. First of all you don't have the fuel consumption the 10E had nor do you know what the winds were at any given altitude or place. You also don't know where the Electra was at any time after it left Lae so you don't know where to start your little flight. Your flight sim model does not have any of the flight characteristics the Electra had. Even my 10E is not going to exactly duplicate AE's plane. Regardless of what you interpret Johnson's letter to imply neither you nor anyone else knows what the actual fuel consumption of AE's Electra was or how much fuel they had at 8:44. Anyone can make up "facts" and create a scenario but none of yours has any factual support. You have to do better. I can put the airplane in Altoona, PA if I get to make up the facts. You made up a fuel reserve. Where did that come from? You made up winds. Where did they come from? You made up a fuel consumption. Where did that come from? You made up a starting point for your Mili flight. Where did that come from? No facts and no support but you are the first to at least make an attempt to give some kind of explanation of how to get the plane to the Marshall's. That provides a starting point for those who are so inclined to try to find support for the idea. This is a good one for Alik. Take either side, Alik. Daryll may really have something here at least to start on. As to Flight simulator I've played with that for many years. I've also flown real airplanes since 1955. I've flown nearly 5,000 hours which is not very much time but a fifth of that was combat in Vietnam and a couple places we never advertised. I flew 1194 combat missions over a five year period and lost many of my friends. I was an instructor pilot. I know my business so yes, I "claim to be a pilot." I've spent endless hours in "real" simulators. Surprise! I know the difference between real and play toys. They try but they're not the same. I've reflown AE's flight countless time in Flight sim. It's just a game. It won't tell you what you think it will. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:29:03 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alik wrote: > To wit, probability is defined by the > information upon which it is derived. We are working with limited > information here. The goal is to develop an hypothesis (or find > agreement with an existing one) that will facilitate acquiring more > information in order to construct a more useful and meaingful > probability Alik are you familiar with the term GIGO? I'm sure you are. Garbage in, garbage out. We are doing worse than working with "limited information," Alik. we're working with NO information. I well understand what you're doing and where you're going but as soon as you introduce any assumption it goes nowhere. Logically one might think if you had 5 theories and went through each one step by step eliminating those that have fatal flaws that one would end up with THE right answer. Real life doesn't work that way. One, we don't know what all the theories are. Two, without any factual data we can't find the flaws. If we start substituting in various possibilities we find they are endless. That is not to say we can't pick the possible limits on some of our variables. For example what were the winds at 1,000 feet between Howland and Gardner? We can guess that reasonably they were between X and Y in force and A and B in direction. We could even make pretty good guesses based on historical data what those limits might be. Ah, but we have a problem. We don't know there was ever a flight from Howland to Gardner. Rats! We were so close to figuring this out. You can see there is no way to construct a problem without making up the data. We put garbage in and that's what we will get out. Now if you want to talk about probabilities that's fine but what do you do with probabilities? In 1976 my youngest son was diagnosed with terminal cancer. They gave him a 12% chance to live. Wrong. He had zero or 100%. Nothing else. they tried a new cancer drug they thought PROBABLY would help. PROBABLY. What the hell do you do with PROBABLY? Gerry was 14. He is now 41 and working for CBS. What was the probability I would still have my boy? I'm sorry, Alik. I don't do probables. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:31:16 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational logic Ross Devitt wrote: > As I understand it, Noonan knew pretty well where Howland was from his chart. > He takes a sun sight just as the sun comes up to give him a very specific > longitude? Ross, that shows a pretty good understanding. A couple of points, however. As to what you wrote above, Noonan had Howland plotted on his chart. I think we can be sure of that. What we don't know is whether he had the correct coordinates plotted or the erroneous ones about 5.1 n.m. away. Therefore I can't concur he knew pretty well where Howland was. Secondly, we don't know if Noonan took a sun shot just as the sun came up or if he could even see it. As to figuring out his ground speed he would most likely have done that with several sun shots. Each one would be at a specific time and by measuring the distance between the two he would know how fast he was traveling. We don't know whether he had worked out his latitude or not and if so to what degree of accuracy but all else you said is generally what might have happened. By drawing a line parallel to one of his speed lines and passing it through Howland then measuring the intervening distance he would have a time to reach that line. Upon expiration of that time he would be on his line supposedly going through Howland. I think it is safe to assume the line either did not go through Howland, was somewhat off or they just missed seeing the island. To speculate how far off they might have been is sheer folly. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:30:51 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Speaking on TIGHAR's quest in Maryland TO: Tom King Good luck on your book signing. If they haven't captured the sniper by then, remember to keep low, move fast, don't stand still and don't stand in front of windows. Make sure your signing table isn't near the window. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:31:36 EDT From: Ed Croft Subject: Re: navigational logic I would vote that all discourse about flight simulators be discontinued in the forum. My opinion that is ridiculous to think that it has any value in helping the search along. 2 cents, Ed Croft #2523 *************************************** Now that's the best idea I've heard all week. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:33:43 EDT From: Mike Hadddock Subject: Re: Test-for-posting What the hell is egalitarianism? Sounds terminal! LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************* "e-gal-i-tar-i-an-ism Function: noun Date: 1905 1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges 2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:34:50 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: navigational logic For Alan, You sound pretty adamant that we don't know really anything about the flight other than they took off from Lae at 1000am local. Are you dismissing the 0720 radio report of the "fix" and their report of an altitude of 7000 ft? Or do you feel that Noonan was in error or reasonably close. Another example is her report she was flying the LOP of 157-337, north and south, at 0843? Not much information, but the fix near Nukumuno Islands tells the world they in flight and were enroute some 740 nautical miles from Lae at that point and thus a measure of the progress. Isn't this some information of the flight direction and progress? Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:35:32 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: navigational logic Alik: The Monte Carlo simulation used as few assumptions as possible. The simulation ended at 0722 local time, when AE said "I must be on you and cannot see you". After that time, we have no information from her as to her intentions, actions, or flight path. If she really thought she was on top of Howland, and ended up at Gardner, my supposition is that she did not fly the LOP down to Howland. She was really 100nm to the SW. Instead, she took a course slightly E of 137* to aim to the middle of the Phoenix Island Chain, where she could maximize her chances of seeing any of the islands. Thus, by being W of where she thought she was, she ended up W of where she thought she was going. A number of folks on the forum have commented on this "catcher's mitt" approach. Any evidence to support this? No. Pure speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:37:13 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alan Caldwell wrote: >...I don't do probables. Then why do you accept the tighar hypothesis? The response could quite well end there, but let me expound. You are arguing against yourself. With all due respect and all sympathies for your personal situation, your post is irrational. I'm sure you understand what I've been trying to say here, but the tighar hypothesis, as with any rational hypothesis, is predicated on probability, whether we consciously realize it or not. Your points are well taken but my point is that we can only go with what is most likely, then do research in areas that will help us disprove that most likely hypothesis. If we can disprove it, then we discard the old hypothesis and move to the next likely hypothesis. That is EXACTLY the methodology I'm employing here on this forum. Richard, in a previous post, indicated that he was well aware of this issue of odds, and he seems to strongly feel that the tighar hypothesis is the most likely explanation of events. I was quite impressed with his understanding and appreciation of this subtle and oft-ignored aspect of scientific research. I'm simply trying to get at that reasoning and see if I can understand his contention. You _seem_, and I emphasize _seem_, to confuse probability with certainty. To state what is most likely, based on the _available_ information to date, has nothing to do with stating and/or asserting what actually happened. It's just a tool for future research. This is exactly what I understand Ric, and tighar as a whole, to be doing. It is the biggest thing going for tighar as far as credibility; e.g. the tighar methodology is scientifically proper and sound. To humor the crowd, Love to Mother Alik ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:37:50 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: navigational logic There is a very wide cloud of probabilities surrounding this area, depending upon the winds (distribution of speed and direction). I do not have the charts and runs in front of me. Again, the Monte Carlo simulation used minimal assumptions and complete Dead Reckoning, and must be taken with several pinches of salt. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:39:11 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: navigational logic Alan Caldwell wrote: >This is a good one for Alik. Take either side, Alik. Daryll may really have >something here at least to start on. ... >I've reflown AE's flight countless time in Flight sim. It's just a game. It >won't tell you what you think it will. From this post, can I safely assume that your assessment is that north-south maximum expected drift cannot be known to us at all (with the available information)? If we can't really get any sense of maximum expected drift, then I have to side with tighar (for now) on this one; i.e. that it would _not_ be unreasonable to make for Gardner. I don't have the hands-on expertise to assess this on my own (for many reasons) so I'll let others address this question of 'latitudinal' drift. As for fuel consumption (see FAQ) how much of the available fuel at the expected Howland location is attributable to AE NOT reaching 10'000 feet to "clear mountains"? Alik ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:46:04 EDT From: Mike Van Holsbeck Subject: An End to Navigational Illogic Is there any way Alik and Alan can get each others addresses and do this fight elsewhere. You know get some gloves and solve your differences. None of this is relevent and for the first time in 2 years I do not look forward to a TIGHAR email. Just my .02 but please guys, enough is enough, reword all you want but its dead ***************************************** I have to agree. I will put up one last mammoth posting that compiles this morning's crop, then no more. Pat Who is awful glad Ric will be back Saturday..... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:47:31 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Stating the hypothesis > From Alik > ... I have to side with tighar (for now) on this one; > i.e. that it would _not_ be unreasonable to make for Gardner. ... If you're going to debate the TIGHAR hypothesis (for or against), you should state it accurately. I believe the hypothesis that flying on the line 157/337 (as reported in the last radio transmission received) was an effort to find HOWLAND first and only secondarily to follow a course that could bring a landfall within the likely range of their fuel supply. TIGHAR does not assert or assume that they knew they had missed Howland when they turned on the 157 heading. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:54:37 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: navigational logic >> In the Monte Carlo simulations, I assumed pure dead reckoning from the 0920 >>report (plus/minus lat/long and time that it actually was made), with the >>assumption that weather forecasts provided Earhart prior to take-off were >>provided to her and that she planned to account for the winds/directions of >>these forecasts. I then ran the same simulation given her ability to >>account for these factors, but then added in the post-take-off winds. The >>difference after 20 hours of flight was about 100+ nm of error. The >>biggest difference: winds aloft at the tail end were much lower and more to >>the east than forecast, "pushing" AE to the southwest. Randy, you and Alik can assume anything you would like but there is NOTHING to support any of your assumptions. If anyone of your assumptions is incorrect your outcome is of no value. And it does not take "remarkable evidence to doubt it." 1. You're assuming dead reckoning from where? The only position known was Lae. 2. As you well know it is not known what weather reports Amelia had so you cannot assume she did and so you cannot decide what corrections she might have taken into consideration. 3. Just how did you determine what her ability to account for anything was? 4. What post take off winds do you have? If you're talking about the forecast made from Hawaii then certainly you don't expect that information to be so accurate for her enroute weather that you could use it for anything. And finally, 5. How did you determine winds pushed AE to the South and then tell me to the south of where? Watch out for the windmills. Alan #2329 ***************************************************** > we must also > point out that Gardner had no landing facilities, another factor > mitigating against such a decision. Again, it seems a remarkable > decision to make for Gardner. From Alan Let me also point out NO PLACE had landing facilities and given they couldn't find Howland I see nothing remarkable about them going any particular place. Why do you? Alan #2329 **************************************************** From Randy Jacobson Ron Bright: Although that is an actual report from AE, our experience is that in all probability, the report is a dead-reckon prognostication from a previous fix (based upon Oakland to Honolulu navigation), and not an actual celestial or landmark fix. Most people also assume that the 0720 GMT time is the time of the fix, and we know from the Oakland to Honolulu flight, that the actual time of the position fix can be from 15 to 40 minutes earlier. Given these additional facts, how good would you like to speculate that AE's report is useful, other than that she is reasonably on her way to Howland? >Are you dismissing the 0720 radio report of the "fix" and their report of an >altitude of 7000 ft? Or do you feel that Noonan was in error or reasonably >close. Another example is her report she was flying the LOP of 157-337 , >north and south, at 0843? > >Ron Bright ***************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Angus, if you will reread the account of the B-29 ditching you will see some interesting things. The accounts of where Fais Island was seen varies from person to person. It was seen off to the right or ahead or on the horizon and no one except the navigator hazarded a guess as to how far away it was. His Loran, radar and sextant were inoperative so he must have guessed. At 1,000 feet which is where they flew the entire search mission the horizon is 38.8 miles away. I think everyone knows by now how to compute that. We've hashed it over enough. Daryll thinks Flight simulator will tell you accurate things so I checked it just in case he is really right. I first spotted Fais Island at 1,000 feet about 18 miles out. In real life with an actual atmosphere out in front the distance would probably be significantly less. Also keep in mind what the view out of a B-29 is compared to the view from the cockpit of an Electra 10E. The B-29 was designed to spot enemy aircraft coming in from any position. Looking out of the Electra cockpit past those two big 1340s is a bit different. The story was a great find though. These guys were really lost. They were about 300 miles South of Guam and they thought they were a little bit North of it. Also in the Yap area where Fais lies are 15 other islands they didn't notice. Yes, they're spread out quite a bit. In checking the story out I found a number of different versions of what happened. Enough I'm not going to buy 35 to 40 miles. What I DID find interesting that you didn't mention was that on the flight of 1,000 feet altitude the navigator was going to use his sextant, at least untill clumsy knocked it off the table and broke it. I wonder how he planned to do that when we have written that off for Noonan. Interesting. Finally you remind us there was a report saying the visability was unlimited at the Itasca that morning. Since you don't believe the Electra was over the Itasca I don't see the point. You also forget there was a scattered CU condition. Are we doing away with that now? Alan #2329 ******************************************************* From Alan Ron Bright wrote: > Are you dismissing the 0720 radio report of the "fix" and their report of an > altitude of 7000 ft? Not at all, Ron. I believe they were at 7,000 feet and I believe Noonan had a fix that told him they were at those coordinates. I just don't know WHEN they were there. I also believe the other position reports were where Noonan thought they were but again I don't know when. AE never told us that. I think they were probably over one of the two ocean vessels around 10:30 that night and that sometime in the night they passed over Tabiteauea in the Gilbert's. IF those reports are correct they suggest to me that our heroes were fairly close to course and the flight was progressing somewhat as planned. For the sake of argument let's say all that is correct. We could even say that they were exactly at the reported positions at the time of the radio calls. I don't think anyone believes that but just say they were. Now what? We don't have a time over the island in the Gilbert's. We could guess based on the time being over some place south of Nauru at around 10:30. Again for the sake of argument we could now say that at X time they were over a known point of land in the Gilbert's. You see I don't have any problem with anything enroute. Anyone can make up what ever they want. The problem lies from the Gilbert's on. And THAT'S what everyone is arguing about using insupportable assumptions. No one discusses the flight enroute. Why? Because it doesn't really matter much -- other than countering the theory they headed straight north to Truk out of Lae. When I say we don't have any information once they left Lae what I infer is that we have NO useful information to help us decide where they were after passing the Gilbert's or what they did in the Howland area or afterward. That's the period being discussed and I claim there is no information on which to base anything being discussed. Anything useful. After passing the Gilbert's what heading or course were they on? What were the winds for that short leg? What altitude were they over the whole of that leg? What navigational information did Noonan have? What was the weather between the Gilbert's and Howland? Did Noonan have the correct coordinates for Howland? No one has the answers to ANY of those questions. Without ALL of that information I defy anyone to plot out their flight path. It cannot be done. All the guys are doing is making assumptions on the missing data and trying to claim that within "reasonable" parameters this or that must have happened. To that they are correct but their answer is necessarily so broad as to be worthless. For anyone who disputes me let them supply the missing information and tell me where it came from. No one can do that. All they are doing is supposing this or that is true and if so then the result must have been "Y." Someone pointed out that the data shows Noonan wasn't all that accurate earlier in the flight. If that's so then how does anyone make an accurate assumption of what he might have done? I think he probably got close to Howland but I don't know that and neither does anyone else nor do they know he didn't. I don't know what he did or where he went after the radio call "we must be on you" and neither does anyone else. There is not one single piece of information to tell us. At 8:44 AE referred to the LOP so what does that tell us? I think it tells us they THOUGHT they were on a line somewhere on their map that was drawn at that angle. We don't know where that line was. We don't know if they were going north then south or south then north. We don't know how far they went in either direction or if they flew down each side a ways just to check. What do we know about them after 8:44? Nothing. Did they stay around searching? Spin in? Turn back to the Gilbert's? Head to Gardner? Or anywhere else? If they did any of those things at what time and place did they start doing it? We know nothing about any of that. All the models, simulators and assumptions in the world will not tell us that. Can we figure how far they could go? No, we don't know how much fuel they had or where they were at start. Our theory is they had about 3 or 4 hours of fuel. Fine. Let's make it exact. Three hours and thirty-seven minutes of fuel. How far could they go on that? If we knew the winds which we do not and we knew where they were starting from and we do not we could tell where they could get to if we knew which direction they were going which we do not. The game being played, Ron is to ASSUME the DR to Howland started at a certain point. By their own description they have to have a known starting point. What was that? Anyone? Alik? Randy? Angus? Anyone? You guys have stated several times you can't navigate to some place from an unknown starting point. You all keep trying to tell me where they must have ended up in the Howland area because they DR'd all that distance. From where? Then, Ron they are going to assume that from wherever they got to they did something else. They assume they did something else and based on an assumed starting point, an assumed wind, an assumed heading and assumed capabilities and assumed fuel reserve and assumed fuel consumption and assumed navigational techniques they either could or could not have got to wherever. Boy does that pin it down. Alan ************************************************* Randy wrote: > A number of folks on the forum have commented on this "catcher's mitt" > approach. > > Any evidence to support this? No. Pure speculation. From Alan Sounds good to me, Randy. If I didn't know where I was I would certainly aim for where I thought my best chances were. So as not to be unclear, although I may not agree with where you think they approached Howland I don't know that you're wrong. That's true of all the assumptions. Maybe they are right and maybe they are not. My continued complaint is only that we don't have any evidence to base any of the assumptions on. As you say it's just speculation. Doesn't get us any where. Alan #2329 Perhaps some day we will find out where they went. THEN we can try to figure out how they got there if anyone is interested. ********************************************************* Alik wrote: > Then why do you accept the tighar hypothesis? > > The response could quite well end there, but let me expound. You are > arguing against yourself. > > With all due respect and all sympathies for your personal situation, > your post is irrational. I'm sure you understand what I've been trying > to say here, but the tighar hypothesis, as with any rational hypothesis, > is predicated on probability, whether we consciously realize it or not. > Your points are well taken but my point is that we can only go with what > is most likely, then do research in areas that will help us disprove > that most likely hypothesis. If we can disprove it, then we discard the > old hypothesis and move to the next likely hypothesis. That is EXACTLY > the methodology I'm employing here on this forum. From Alan I'm not sure why you think I support the TIGHAR theory. I've stated over and over I don't know what happened to AE and FN after they got to the vicinity of Howland. Certainly that tells you I don't support or not support going to Gardner. How many times do I have to say I don't know where they went? I know exactly what you are trying to do, Alik. I've already pointed that out several times. You are trying to disprove a course of action in order to eliminate it and thus come up with the one single answer. You can't do that. Even proving it is unlikely or improbable doesn't get you any where. How could you possibly prove they didn't go to the Gilbert's? How could you possibly prove they didn't go to MacKean or Gardner or any where else. Trying to show what they most likely did or that the odds were they did this or that doesn't go any where. TIGHAR is not doing that. They are not trying to disprove anything. They instead are trying to find evidence of what they DID do. You're far afield but you'll never see it nor will you ever get the result you think you can. Your models and assumptions are for class rooms not real life. Now, prove I'm wrong. Disprove anything. Anything within the scope of our discussion. Alan #2329 ************************************************************ Randy wrote: > Again, the Monte Carlo simulation used minimal assumptions and complete > Dead Reckoning, and must be taken with several pinches of salt. From Alan The simulations and assumptions DO have value to a certain extent, Randy as you well know. We can at least put a box of some size around our problem and some worthwhile information can be surmised. I think we can, to some extent, determine a rough area in which they must have ended up. Unfortunately there is considerable disagreement as to that so the radius becomes too large to be of any value. Yet I think we are all learning something from these exercises even though they may not have any practical use in determining where our heroes ended up. Some are learning a little about navigation. Some about various aspects of flight. Some about investigative techniques. It's a serious game but still fun. Alan #2329 ************************************************************* > From this post, can I safely assume that your assessment is that > north-south maximum expected drift cannot be known to us at all (with > the available information)? If we can't really get any sense of maximum > expected drift, then I have to side with tighar (for now) on this one; > i.e. that it would _not_ be unreasonable to make for Gardner. I don't > have the hands-on expertise to assess this on my own (for many reasons) > so I'll let others address this question of 'latitudinal' drift. As for > fuel consumption (see FAQ) how much of the available fuel at the > expected Howland location is attributable to AE NOT reaching 10'000 feet > to "clear mountains"? From Alan No, I don't think that necessarily, Alik. My point is that even if you can assess a maximum amount of drift you would not know in which direction or how much of that figure to use. Here is an example of what I'm trying to imply. We don't know what the enroute wind was from wherever they started near or over the Gilbert's to wherever they ended up in the Howland area. We don't know that. We can, however determine what the maximum wind might have been. Maybe. Let's say we can reasonably say it was 5 to 10 knots from the SE. We may not have any reason to think it could have been as high as 15 knots. We could be wrong but we might now say the maximum wind enroute was 10 knots. We are saying from SE. Does that mean exactly 45 degrees off due east? I don't know but we DO now need to decide what the maximum error off 135 degrees we should work with. Let's arbitrarily say 10 degrees. Watching my local weather guy and then checking aviation weather I think that's fair. SE is sort of a general direction. We use SE, SSE, and ESE in that quadrant. So you can see the spread. Now let's say the no wind heading from a point we don't know to Howland is 78 degrees. Apply our assumptions. Make a flight path (I don't know how to figure where to start it but arbitrarily pick a place) using mag course of 078 degrees and apply a wind of 5 knots from the ESE, then from the SE, and then from the SSE. Now do the same using 10 knots. What will this give us? If they start at the same point there will be six lines of about 400 miles long or whatever the actual distance is from Tabiteauea to Howland and they will fan out to some degree. That fan is a good sized fan and our troops could be any where within that fan. Now that would certainly help us a little bit except we don't know what the starting point was. Could it have been someplace in a 100 mile circle from Tabiteauea or maybe from some place else if the over flight report is wrong? Bigger? Smaller? Let's complicate the equation just a bit more. What if the wind in the Gilbert's was from the NE instead and changed enroute? Now what does our fan look like? I'm not arguing you can't come up with parameters. I'm saying they don't pin the problem down to a usable result. >As for fuel consumption (see FAQ) how much of the available fuel at the >expected Howland location is attributable to AE NOT reaching 10'000 feet >to "clear mountains"? According to the first position reports AE flew south of New Britain where the high volcanic terrain was so there weren't any "mountains" to climb over. All the fuel exercises use whatever altitudes AE reported to the best of our ability. Here is where you can use parameters, Alik by figuring from the performance charts how little difference the altitudes made. It would be very difficult to vary the fuel consumption significantly from Kelly Johnson's schedule. He well knew when he made the schedule what the plane was capable of. He wrote the charts. When he figured the climb out he knew the plane was not going to level off at 10,000 feet. Johnson was the Lockheed engineer on the design and construction of the plane. Who would know better what it could do or not do. I agree with you we can come up with maximum parameters for each issue but that leaves the pot too big. Can we prove it is unreasonable to make it to Gardner? If we knew where they were at the time the decision to go somewhere else (if they even did that) was made and how much fuel they had and if they knew where they were. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:36:28 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: an end to navigational illogic To paraphrase The Bard: "First, we kill all the navigators . . . ." LTM, who knows her way around Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:14:19 EDT From: Dave Carmack Subject: Re: An End to Navigational Illogic Pat--just read your post asking who would be glad when Ric returned as I was about to post the same thing myself--this is starting to look what happens to an elementary school room as soon as the teacher leaves the room! some of the real rowdy kids take over and the rest cant wait till the teacher comes back! I second the motion. all this north , south , east, west, simulations, assimilations, predications, etc. is going nowhere faster than Amelia was. David *************************************** This is only one of a number of postings submitted thanking me... I guess I shoulda done it earlier, huh? You guys sit down and stop throwing chalk now, the teacher's on his way back down the hall. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:34:12 EDT From: Michael Smith Subject: Where was Howland? I've seen Alan refer to the possibility that Noonan had incorrect coordinates for Howland; approximately 5.1 n.m. off true position. Long indicated in his book that charts available in 1937 showed Howland west of its true position (I recall something like 5 miles), but I did not find his source. (I've seen nothing on the TIGHAR website about this, so hopefully I don't fail the pre-test before asking a question!) How accurate would Noonan's charts have shown true location of Howland, and, if in error, how far off and in what direction? What is the source? Thanks in advance for any info. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:11:50 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: an end to navigational illogic Thanks Alan for sharing your underlying philosophy of the apparent fruitless attempt to pinpoint the Electra's final resting spot because of the intrinsic problems of combining assumptions, inferences, guesses, of Noonan's navigation task. In the end, researchers have taken the Electra to Niku, Gilberts, Saipan and the Pacific ocean depending on their interpretation of the variables. Maybe that is the fun of it all. And think how good the researcher will feel if it is the spot where he predicted. At the present time it is impossible to be conclusive over the route. Undaunted by all these unknowns, TIGAR will present evidence that there was "more than enough fuel" to go an additional 300 miles (Gardner) and that "suggestions of premature fuel exhaustion rely upon conditions... for which there is NO evidence." ( Tighar Tracks, Sep 02,p.5, my emphasis) Well we know from previous facts that Earhart was burning up fuel much faster than she expected on one leg of her world flight. Could that have reoccurred? And do we know that some other catastrophic event didn't occur? Tighar will still have to "assume" facts and conditions based on good guesses along with some better analyses of fuel consumption to conclude without equivocation that the 10E had sufficient fuel to fly 300 plus miles. The equivocation,however, is already stated though in Tighar's theory by stating that the Electra "should have had" enough gas! Are we in for another round of "logic" ? Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric It never ceases to amaze me that so many people still just don't get it. It won't do any good, but I'll go through it one more time. We don't know what happened. Lots of things might have happened. By seeking out and examining facts we can make informed judgements about which things are less likely to have happened and which things are more likely to have happened. If it seems feasible we can then act on our informed judgements to see if we can find further facts to support them. If our judgement is correct the closer we look the clearer the picture will become. If our judgement is wrong the more information we collect the harder it will be to make it fit the picture. What you call equivocation is the all-important recognition that we're making a judgement (a "guess" - if you will) and explaining how we arrived at that guess. It's not an attempt to say we know the answer. It's an explanation of why we beleive it is worth expending assets (i.e. spending money) to see if we're right. >Well we know from previous facts that Earhart was burning up fuel much >faster than she expected on one leg of her world flight. Which leg was that? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:18:55 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Restricting the subject matter. I think it can be counterproductive to restrict the subject matter. If we had a lot of postings on other topics, that might be fair enough, but there were little or none. Those who whinge about endless navigation discussions don't make any useful contributions on other topics. The idea of the forum is not primarily to provide entertainment for lurkers. Its to get to the bottom of the mystery and if that involves long and technical topics which not everyone likes, then so be it. Not long ago the forum was described as being in the doldrums. Much better that we should have some lively discussion by informed people than either nothing or non-contributors whingeing about the size of their e-mail downloads and their boredom with the topic. We had weeks of talk about clams which made very little contribution to our understanding of the mystery. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree with with Angus that we need to pursue complex topics if they materially add to our understanding of some aspect of the case, even if those discussions bore some forum subscribers. I have reviewed the recent navigational discussions and I do not believe they meet that test. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:22:55 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Where was Howland? Michael Smith wrote: >The charted position of Howland was like 5 miles to the east of where it >actually is. This is likely a red herring, as William Miller and Richard Black both had information as to the true location of Howland, surveyed in by the US Coast Guard during their tenure as directors of the Howland Island colonization. William Miller was Earhart's gov't advisor/coordinator, and he worked under Gene Vidal, head of the Bureau of Air Commerce. The only reason why the true location was not public knowledge at the time was that the maps were in the process of being updated, and the US Navy had a policy of not releasing navigational data to the general public prior to map publication. In this case, AE was not the "general public". While we have no documentary evidence that AE was provided the proper location, it would be very unlikely that she was not told this important fact during flight preparation. ************************************************************************ From Ric I'll add that all the information about where AE supposedly thought Howland was is based upon the hand-drawn charts provided to her by Clarence Williams well before the first attempt. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:24:51 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: End to Navigation Logic To: Webmeister Pat, Thank you for allowing the "Navigation Logic" to run as long as you did - provided insight and established credibility levels of participating forum members - understanding the forum participants is as important as the subect matter the forum professes to investigate. Respectfully: Tom Strang **************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent point. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:28:19 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Where was Howland? Hi Pat, Hang in there, you're doing fine keeping the chalk-throwing and spit-wads to a minimum. When Ric's around, there are usually two or three of those threads running at a time. Regarding Michael Smith's question about Noonan's charts, correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that we really don't know whether or not the charts they had on the plane were accurate. There were charts available during that time frame in which Howland was accurately located, as well as charts available with it mis-located. We don't know which they had on board. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric See Randy's posting of this date. Apparently there were no published charts with the correct coordinates but at least two people who were intimately involved with the flight preparations are known to have had the correct location. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:29:25 EDT From: Guus Dekker Subject: First entry It is not very funny in the forum at the moment. Well, let me tell you that I'm verry glad to learn the basic skills of celestial navigation this week from Omar F. Reis. With some advanced selfmade compass reckoning programs I will step into my PC-Elektra and go for Howland, see ya. from Guus Dekker, The Netherlands # 2527 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:36:07 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Where was Howland? Michael, In my notes I have the erroneous position of Howland as 0 degrees, 49 minutes N and 176 degrees, 43 minutes W. That calculates to be 5.87 s.m. or 5.1 n.m. west of what we now show Howland to be (0 degrees, 48' N and 176 degrees, 38' W). Ric can correct me but I think the chart Noonan supposedly was to use on the West bound version that aborted in Hawaii showed the incorrect coordinates. My recollection is that the correct coordinates were known at least by G.P. Putnam at some time prior to our heroes leaving Lae on their ill-fated flight. I believe the consensus is that we don't know if Noonan ever got the correct position of Howland. I'm not sure how significant that would be anyway. Ric, was I roughly accurate? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Roughly. The incorrect coordinates appear on a hand-drawn planform of the island prepared for AE by Clarence Williams well before the first attempt and long before Noonan's involvement with the enterprise. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:39:05 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Where was Howland? To Michael Smith Michael, I searched the TIGHAR web site and found that Ric had posted Rollin C. Reineck's review of Elgin Long's book in which he discusses the "misplot" of Howland. There are a number of errors or at least bones of contention in Rollin's otherwise excellent review. I don't know what the truth is about the coordinate issue of Howland. Maybe Ric knows much more about this since the review was first posted. At any rate here is the excerpt regarding Howland. ************* Now, let's turn to another assumption that is presented in the Long book. This assumption by Long says that Howland Island was mis-plotted. Long claims that Howland Island was actually six miles east of the plotted position on the charts that Noonan used and Noonan was unaware of the true position of Howland Island. Long is totally wrong. In August of 1936, the Coast Guard vessel, the Itasca accurately plotted the Line Islands including Howland. It found that Howland was plotted 5 miles west of its real position. Long would like one to believe that this information was CLASSIFIED and therefore not available to Earhart for her Pacific flight. Ask yourself this question. If this island had been mis-plotted it would have been a hazard to navigation. The United States was not at war at that time and had no declared enemies, therefore why would it be classified? There is no doubt that this information was made available to all mariners (Notice to Mariners) world-wide. It is inconceivable that Noonan would not have received the information that was discovered almost a year before the Earhart flight. The Coast Guard was fully aware of Earhart's plans to fly around the world and to use Howland Island as a refueling stop. They were charged with providing whatever help they could to make the Earhart flight a success. Withholding such vital information is incomprehensible. In a recent book about Amelia Earhart titled EAST TO THE DAWN, Page 408 the author discusses this very point. Ms Butler says "The chart of the area then in use #1198, Published by the hydrographic office within the Navy, contrary to the assertion that it showed Howland Island wrongly placed, in fact was reasonably accurate. According to the last chart correction made by the U.S. Government dating from 1995, the coordinates to the beacon on the west side of Howland are: latitude 00 degrees 48 minutes north. longitude, 176 degrees 37 minutes west. The chart Fred was using showed Howland within half a mile of those coordinates. When years later, emulating Amelia's world flight, Ann Pellegreno used the latitude and longitude that Fred Noonan had used for Howland. She found they were correct." **************************** Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:48:53 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Cat away Mouse at play To the Cat While you were gone one forumite tried desperately to "educate" the masses (forum members). Alan tried equally desperately to claim there wasn't sufficient evidence to do so. A couple massees felt Alan was trying to keep them ignorant of the facts and in a haughty way. A couple more massees rightly pointed out the masses already knew all this stuff and were bored with the nonsensical bickering. The Mouse jumped in (thank goodness) and stopped the fight. Other than that you didn't miss anything. Oh, Oh, Oh, there was something. Angus posted the old B-29 story -- the one that ditched at Fais Island. Although Angus found other interesting aspects the one I noticed was the clumsy pilot knocking the nav's sextant off his table and breaking it. The significance to me was the entire flight was to be and actually was at 1,000 feet and the nav was apparently planning on using the sextant. We had sort of felt Noonan couldn't do that at 1,000 feet but maybe so. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric I suggest that there's a big difference between using a relatively modern instrument from the astrodome of a 100,000 lb B-29 and using a relatively primitive instrument from the window of a 10,000 lb Electra. When Doug Brutlag experimented with his antique bubble octant taking celestial observations from a Beech 18, he found that the awkward ness of the instrument in the confined space, combined with the turbulence, made it extremely difficult compared to sightings he had taken from the cockpit of an airliner. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:49:38 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: Where was Howland For Michael Smith: Michael, Re incorrect coordinates. In her book "Sound of Wings" (Huchinson 1989) Mary. S. Lovell gives the source of the false coordinates as "Lippinscott's Geographical Dictionary of the World" as used by Clarence Williams Amelia's navigation consultant, who also notes them on his Flight Analysis Chart for the earlier east west flight.(Purdue Collection Identifier ix.c.8). Ironically earlier the "Itasca", on survey, had corrected this error but it had not found its way into print when Amelia's flight was planned. Jack Clark ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:51:47 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The best website For Alan, Many thank you's for the post on the Reineck comments and ref. to the Elgen Long book. I didn't know it was there. Further proof that Ric has the best website. Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:52:13 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Cat away Mouse at play Adding my kudos to Pat for maintaining the forum during Ric's absence. She always does a superb job while Ric is out of town. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:52:55 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: an end to navigational illogic Ron Bright wrote: >Thanks Alan for sharing your underlying philosophy of the apparent >fruitless attempt to pinpoint the Electra's final resting spot because of the >intrinsic problems of combining assumptions, inferences, guesses, of Noonan's >navigation task. Ah, Ron, you misquote me and misapply what I said to support your own agenda. Read my posts again and you will not find anything I've said that refers to a "fruitless attempt to pinpoint(ing) the Electra's final resting spot...." I think you will find upon examination I said there was insufficient evidence to determine usable information on AE's arrival at Howland or exactly what they did upon reaching same. I think the guys are doing great work in trying to determine the Electra's final resting place and I think they will be successful. There is a vast difference in trying to pinpoint the plane's location at some point enroute and where it ended up. The former is not possible while the latter certainly is. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:09:07 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: an end to navigational illogic Ric, Yes your explanation of putting together the "best" or most likely probabilities, based on current evidence, is the best I have seen come out of Tighar. Like most scientific hypothese, the are almost impossible to proved conclusively. The science of math and physics is quite well advanced, but throw a rock off a mountain and predict where it will land is virtually impossible! Anyway, sometimes I see these theories thrown out as "absolutes" without the necessary qualilficatons. Tighar's theory may well be the most viable and demonstrative. Glad you're back. LTM, Ron B. _PS The way I read it, p.104 of Last Flight, enroute from Assab to Karachi she wrote that she could have done better if the manual mixture control lever "hadn't jammed". "With it misbehaving, I could not regiulate the quanity of fuel consumed by the right engine, which gulped fuel unconscionalby. I was afraid I would run out of fuel..." That is an example of the one variable noone that is impossible to predict. **************************************************************************** From Ric >The science of math and physics is quite well advanced, but throw a rock off >a mountain and predict where it will land is virtually impossible! Perhaps, but a thorough search can find the rock. Thanks for the Assab/Karachi reference. Yes, if the airplane malfunctions all bets are off. Had there been such a malfunction on the Lae/Howland leg you might think that she would have mentioned it in one of the transmissions to Itasca. She didn't - but that doesn't mean that there could not have been a malfunction. If there was evidence that the airplane ran out of fuel before it should have there would be reason to speculate that there may have been a malfuction, but to say that there may have been a malfunction because she may have run out of fuel is pretty pointless. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:55:22 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Research needed In researching the post-loss radio signals we find that we need to know when and how word of Earhart's disappearance first reached the American public. (Obviously, alleged distress calls that may have been heard before anyone knew that Earhart might be in distress would be very interesting.) Itasca's first notification to CG headquarters in San Francisco that Earhart had not arrived was made at 10:15 local time which was 21:45Z. The message said: EARHART CONTACT 0742 REPORTED ONE HALF HOUR FUEL AND NO LAND FALL POSITION DOUBTFUL CONTACT 0646 REPORTED APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED MILES FROM ITASCA BUT NO RELATIVE BEARING PERIOD 0843 REPORTED LINE OF POSITION 157 DASH 337 BUT NO REFERENCE POINT PRESUME HOWLAND PERIOD ESTIMATE 1200 FOR MAXIMUM TIME ALOFT AND IF NONARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTH WEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLE AREA PERIOD SEA SMOOTH VISIBILITY NINE CEILING UNLIMITED PERIOD UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED TIME In San Francisco the time was 13:45 PST and we have to assume that the press was present at CG headquarters waiting for word of the flight's arrival. If we further assume that a reporter from a radio station immediately made a phone call to his producer, it seems reasonable to assume that the very first word that Earhart had not arrived on schedule and may be missing could have reached the public by 14:00 PST, 15:00 MST, 16:00 CST, and 17:00 EST (or an hour later for anywhere observing Daylight Saving Time such as New York City). On the East Coast that's too late for the news to make the evening papers but it's possible that the West Coast evening papers covered it. Can anyone find a July 2, 1937 newspaper that reports the disappearance? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:19:57 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Research needed I believe Howard Hanzlick and James CArey sent msgs to Honolulu about the time Itasca notified San Franscisco, 1145 Honolulu time, to their respectives newspapers about AE missing on 2 July. Thompson I think was complaining about this kind of traffic. Thus Hawaii was perhaps the first to know. My Los Angeles Times index shows headline " AMELIA LOST! Hunt On", dated 7-2-37. So by press time in LA, evening paper I presume, it was wide spread knowledge. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric It makes sense that the California evening papers would carry the story, but it didn't come from the reporters aboard Itasca. No press reports went out from Itasca until much later. The Itasca's notification to San Francisco that Earhart was believed down was sent at 13:15 local time July 2nd which was 00:45Z on July 3rd. It said: EARHART UNREPORTED HOWLAND AT 1200 BELIEVE DOWN SHORTLY AFTER 0915 AM SEARCHING PROBABLE AREA AND WILL CONTINUE The time was 14:15 on July 2nd in Hawaii and 16:45 on July 2nd in California. That night at 21:39 Itasca time on July 2nd (09:09Z on July 3rd) NBC radio sent the following to Itasca: ARRANGED NBC PROGRAM FROM NRUI SEVEN AM TO SEVEN FIFTEEN AM SATURDAY JULY THIRD PST PLEASE ADVISE WHICH FREQ RECD BEST FOR CONTACT PURPOSES STOP WOULD LIKE CONTACT YOU ON YOUR 3105 KCS VOICE FRQUENCY ONE HALF HOUR BEFORE PROGRAM ADVISE That interview never happened. James Carey's first report to the Associated Press wasn't sent until 03:00 Itasca Time on July 3rd (13:30Z) which would be 04:00 in Hawaii and 06:30 on the morning of July 3rd in California. At the same time a story was sent to United Press copyrighted to "James Christian Kamakaiwi" describing the scene on Howland when Earhart went missing. I think the sender is Hanzlick but he doesn't sign his messages. He sent another report to United Press at 15:45 Itasca time that afternoon. Carey sent another report to AP a minute later. Carey's next report went out at 20:30 Itasca time the night of the 3rd followed shortly by an update to United Press, probably from Hanzlick. And so on... LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:45:58 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Restricting the Subject Matter Angus wrote: >The idea of the forum is not primarily to provide >entertainment for lurkers. It's to get to the bottom of the mystery and if >that involves long and technical topics which not everyone likes, then so be >it. Angus, I disagree only in that the idea of the Forum is >not< to "get to the bottom of the [Earhart] mystery," but to develop support for one particular hypothetical outcome -- a landfall on or near Nikumaroro. That is Ric's choice and it's his Forum. In the Niku context, it's not that the navigation discussion is overly-technical; it's just that it has all been said before, with the same conclusion: We don't know what specific techniques FN used, we don't know what specific problems were encountered enroute -- heck, we don't even know what specific route they flew -- and in the end it doesn't make much difference because (based upon the radio evidence) it is apparent that the Electra came within 50 or so miles of Howland. The key to the mystery is what Our Heroes did >after< they realized they were lost, and that's where opinions diverge -- sometimes violently. As Ron Bright has observed, in the final analysis each of the leading Earhart theories is based upon a certain set of assumptions. Some of these assumptions are as supportable as TIGHAR's. Others are, to put it charitably, as yet unburdened by any physical evidence. As an example, TIGHAR assumes that when Earhart radioed "low on fuel/half hour left" at 7:42 a.m., she was not speaking in absolute terms but meant "I'm almost into my four-hour reserve." I'm aware of no support for this critical assumption except the remarks of one guy who observed that it was common for >military pilots< of that era to carry a 20% reserve. On the other hand, Lockheed's Kelly Johnson estimated that Earhart had enough fuel to cover 1500 more miles after missing Howland -- which puts Niku, the Gilberts, the Marshalls and even Samoa back into the equation. But that would render AE's "low on fuel" message completely nonsensical. Aaargh. My point is not to assume that TIGHAR is out to "get to the bottom of the mystery." TIGHAR is out to prove that >its< hypothesis is correct, and that fact needs to be taken into account when perusing the Forum. More power to 'em, even if some of us think the quest is more than a little quixotic. LTM Pat Gaston ********************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR's search might seem a bit less quixotic if you could get the facts straight. TIGHAR does not think Earhart ever said "half hour fuel left" and I'm aware of no statement by Johnson that she had another 1500 miles after Howland. I do recall a statement in his book to the effect that, in his opinion, she only had 20 hours of fuel (or something like that). Johnson, of course, never knew how much fuel the airplane carried out of Lae. By the time the Chater letter was found he was well into Alzheimer's. TIGHAR's hypothesis is based upon only one assumption - that it was physically possible for the flight to have reached Howland. It really doesn't matter how they got there. The question is whether there is anything to indicate that they did. The answer to that is clearly yes - an unexplained castaway, suspicious airplane parts, etc. Is it proven yet? No. Let's apply the same standard to Crashed and Sank. It relies upon the assumption that the airplane ran out of gas before it should have. Is there any evidence to indicate that it did? No. No mayday call, no floating wreckage, no washed up wreckage, etc. You're correct that this forum is intended to help us test the Niku hypothesis but somehow we end up discussing other theories as well - at length. (How long did we haggle about Plan B?) If intelligent public conversations and debates about what happened to Earhart are being carried on in other forums (fora?) I'm not aware of them. This is where the action is and it's why I try to be as tolerant as possible about digressions. who knows? Maybe somebody will come up with a good reason to support a different hypothesis. Heck, Saipan is a lot easier and cheaper to get to than Niku. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:53:31 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Research needed The earliest paper I have is the Knoxville Journal, dated July 3, 1937. This was reported to them from Honolulu on July 2, 1937. Here are some times listed: Deadline for fuel starvation, 6pm (Knoxville time). One half-hour of fuel left, 1:20pm (Knoxville time). Last message, 2:43pm (Knoxville time). Itasca begins search, 6:30pm, (Knoxville time). The paper also quotes "Fliers" (Manning?) as saying the Electra's radio would still work while the aircraft was floating on the sea if it wasn't damaged during the ditching. **************************************************************************** From Ric That all makes sense. Fuel starvation - 12:30 Itasca time (24 hours and 30 minutes after takeoff) Half hour fuel left - 07:50 Itasca time Itasca begins search - 13:00 Itasca time (when Itasca reported it was searching. They actually began searching at 10:40) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:54:31 EDT From: Michael S. Subject: Where Was Howland? My sincere thanks to Ric, Randy, Jon, Alan, and Jack for their responses to my question. I am always impressed with the forum's ability to provide detailed and documented answers to factual questions. I found it interesting that one Earhart book, East to Dawn, apparently states that the chart that Noonan was using showed Howland within a half mile of its true coordinates, when the consensus of the forum appears to be that there is no direct evidence as to what Noonan's chart really showed. That kind of mistake does not inspire confidence in Ms. Butler's book. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:59:26 EDT From: Michael S. Subject: New Website Material I just noticed that the TIGHAR website has recently added a piece on "The Knob That Wasn't." http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/39_KnobThatWasnt/knob_idbulletin.html My compliments on this fine update. One suggestion: how about an email to the forum alerting us to significant new additions to the website? **************************************************************************** From Ric I try to remember to give the forum a heads-up about new material. The Knob That Wasn't bulletin is the feature article in the new TIGHAR Tracks and we always wait until members have the newsletter in hand before we put it up on the website. The new Tracks also has an article entitled Amelia Earhart and the Loch Ness Monster but if you want to see what that's all about you'll just have to join. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:12:06 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed > In researching the post-loss radio signals we find that we need to know when > and how word of Earhart's disappearance first reached the American public. > (Obviously, alleged distress calls that may have been heard before anyone > knew that Earhart might be in distress would be very interesting.) A reasonable question ("when?"). But keep in mind there were probably hundreds of hams and other radio fans who were glued to their sets BEFORE the loss was made public. Besides the ever-present hoaxers (such as the guy that just reported an - imaginary - sniper in the DC area) most of these folks were well-meaning, and promptly reported what they heard - or thought they heard. Too many "official" monitors heard nothing that could have been attributed to the Electra, and so reported. Admittedly, there have been incidents (think Nobile at the North Pole) when legitimate SOS signals have been received, but in every case the messages provided useful information, "281 north" etc. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Even a HAM can't eavesdrop on a transmission that hasn't been made. Until 21:45Z nobody except the people on Howland and aboard Itasca knew that Earhart was overdue. Hoaxers are not "ever-present". I'm aware of no hoax reports about Earhart during any of her many other flights or on previous legs of the World Flight. In fact, I'm aware of no hoax reports about any long distance flights by any aviator, missing or otherwise. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:14:42 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed Ron Bright wrote: >My Los Angeles Times index shows headline " AMELIA LOST! Hunt On", dated >7-2-37. So by press time in LA, evening paper I presume, it was wide spread >knowledge. The L. A. Times was/is a morning paper. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Then either they had an evening edition or the index is wrong. =============================================================================== From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Restricting the Subject Matter > If intelligent public > conversations and debates about what happened to Earhart are being > carried on in other forums (fora?) I'm not aware of them. This > is where the action is and it's why I try to be as tolerant as > possible about digressions. I think it's "fori", but I digress. LTM (who never took Latin) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************* From Randy Jacobson >TIGHAR's hypothesis is based upon only one assumption - that it was >physically possible for the flight to have reached Howland. Surely, you mean Gardner? ************************************************************************** From Ric Surely. I get wound up. ************************************************************************** From Lawrence Ric said, "TIGHAR's hypothesis is based upon only one assumption-that is was physically possible for the flight to have reached Howland." Rough trip from California, Ric? ************************************************************************* From Ric Blame it on jet lag. ************************************************************************* From Angus Murray > Angus, I disagree only in that the idea of the Forum is >not< to "get to the > bottom of the [Earhart] mystery," but to develop support for one particular > hypothetical outcome -- a landfall on or near Nikumaroro. Whilst I am sure Ric welcomes support for the Niku landfall theory I don't believe it is particularly important to him in the form of various forumites' endorsement. What I am sure is important to him is that the maximum amount of evidence, whether circumstantial or direct, is gathered together to support the hypothesis. Whilst it is a nice idea in theory to draw no conclusions and hold a wholly open mind until such time as the smoking gun appears, in practice this merely complicates and slows progress. There comes a time when one realises that the weight of evidence in favour of Niku is so great that considering alternative scenarios is using up time that would be better spent proving or disproving the Tighar hypothesis. After all, if we can disprove it, at least we can then move on to the next theory. When I first joined the forum I was completely open minded about what the true solution might be. For every piece of evidence that Tighar produced there was always some perfectly acceptable alternative explanantion and the balance of probability was only slightly weighted in Tighar's favour on much of the evidence. I decided to look via my own research at some things which had not been given consideration by Tighar, as far as I am aware, and they point strongly in exactly the same direction ie Niku. All will be revealed in due course. Those who consider the Marshalls a possibility really haven't read the evidence. Radio signal strength, distance and the likely alternate plan of action in lieu of finding Howland all but rule it out. Those who advocate crashed and sank, do so primarily on the basis of 1) stronger winds than anticipated 2) radio silence after the warning of a change in frequency 3) a radio message indicating "gas is running low" and do so although they have no idea if any landfall was nearby at the time of the last transmission. Against this the Tighar hypothesis has a huge dossier of circumstantial evidence which taken as a body is convincing. However, to get back to my particular hobby horse, boring as it maybe to rehash the navigational arguments, what comes out of these discussions is important. For me, the problem of where they ended up is not the end of the road. Air accident mysteries are far more interesting in terms of what went wrong and how they got to their ultimate destination is an integral part of that. The idea that we can never essentially know what went wrong is defeatist and may in any case be wrong. Air accident investigators sift slender evidence everyday but no-one jumps up and says "but we can never KNOW what happened!" The preponderance of evidence, however slight, gives us some sort of closure even if it is not conclusive. Navigation discussions are also useful in terms of a brainstorming approach and ideas which might otherwise have never been mooted have the opportunity of being raised. I agree that it is important not to waste time re-explaining general navigation theory which has already been well covered. However, navigation as a topic particular to the Earhart flight I think is by no means exhausted in terms of what useful information it may provide Regards Angus. ********************************************************************* From Ric I had a hunch you were up to something. Let us know whenever you're ready. ********************************************************************** From Marty Moleski Pat Gaston wrote: > Angus, I disagree only in that the idea of the Forum is >not< to "get to the > bottom of the [Earhart] mystery," but to develop support for one particular > hypothetical outcome -- a landfall on or near Nikumaroro. That is Ric's > choice and it's his Forum. .... Ric replied: > ... You're correct that this forum is intended to help us test the Niku > hypothesis but somehow we end up discussing other theories as well - at > length. ... I'd like to point out and underscore the difference between what Pat Gaston said and what Ric said. TIGHAR is testing the Niku hypothesis. It is not "gathering support" for the hypothesis, except in the sense that nothing has yet been found to rule it out (fuel consumption data, alternative claims to have seen AE & FN elsewhere, discovery of NR16020 on the bottom of the ocean, etc.). TIGHAR is attempting to conduct the evaluation of the Niku hypothesis in such a way that even if someone rolls out the intact Electra from a cave in Saipan and exhumes the bodies of our dynamic duo, we can still say that the time and money invested on Niku were well spent as examples of how historical aircraft recovery should be done. I applaud the way that TIGHAR has fearlessly and fully disclosed the truth about items that have NOT supported the Niku hypothesis. The bottom line, for me, is that it seems reasable to share some of my hobby dollars with TIGHAR so that Ric's Raiders can go back and search for more clues. If the Niku hypothesis is true, there must be more stuff still to be found that will confirm it--some indisputable artifacts. The declaration that "there are no indisputable artifacts showing that NR16020 landed on Niku" would take a vastly more comprehensive search of land and sea than TIGHAR could ever hope to mount. There may come a day when TIGHAR says "We've looked as hard as we can and can't find the definitive artifact, so there's no point in making any further searches on Niku." I don't think we're there yet. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ross Devitt > If intelligent public > conversations and debates about what happened to Earhart are being carried > on in other forums (fora?) I'm not aware of them. ..... fora? Fora? Really? Someone must put together a glossary of all the new words created for the Earhart Forum! TIGHAR may not have proved what happened to Earhart & Noonan, but to their credit, over time they have invented a whole new dialect. Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************************** From Ric I think we'll call our new dialect English. It's fora. You can look it up. ********************************************************************* From Tom King I've got to take issue with the notion that the Forum's purpose, or TIGHAR's, is "to develop support for one particular hypothetical outcome." We have a hypothesis; we think it's probably right; we're trying to test it against facts. Since we think it's the best hypothesis on the block, we focus on testing it, but there's a big difference between testing a hypothesis and developing support for it. ********************************************************************** From Jon Watson > TIGHAR's hypothesis is based upon only one assumption - that it was > physically possible for the flight to have reached Howland. Uh - didn't you mean Niku / Gardner? ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric I was being conservative. ************************************************************************* From Alan > Angus, I disagree only in that the idea of the Forum is >not< to "get to the > bottom of the [Earhart] mystery," but to develop support for one particular > hypothetical outcome -- a landfall on or near Nikumaroro. Well, this ought to be interesting. I'm about to disagree with BOTH Pat AND Ric on this point. Actually, I think Ric will agree he narrowed the theory more than he meant too. Certainly the idea is to determine whether AE made it to Niku and if so what happened. The reason the theory centers on Niku is that's the only place ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND, QUALITY or whatever has been found. No one has totally shut the door on there being other possibilities but no other possibility has shown any rational support. The team has looked at other islands and if good evidence is found some place it will be analyzed just like everything else. There have been many suggestions to look other places but no one has been able to give an adequate reason to do so. Then Pat says, "As an example, TIGHAR assumes that when Earhart radioed "low on fuel/half hour left" at 7:42 a.m., she was not speaking in absolute terms but meant "I'm almost into my four-hour reserve." I'm aware of no support for this critical assumption....." I'll give you support for the fact there was not just a half hour of fuel left, Pat. AE's radio call an hour later ought to tell you that and even then she didn't say she was running on fumes. That was an easy one. Ric, in his response said, "TIGHAR's hypothesis is based upon only one assumption - that it was physically possible for the flight to have reached Howland." I'm sure everyone knows he meant Niku not Howland. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric We started out with a hypothesis that she may have made it to one of the islands of the Phoenix Group. Fourteen years later we find that we've uncovered what appears to be an amazing and tragic story beyond anything the conspiracy crowd could dream up. Ironically, the biggest obstacle to our own acceptance of the tale that is unfolding is that it's too dramatic, and yet the more we continue to uncover the facts the more persistently dramatic it becomes. At this point we're just along for the ride. The story will be whatever it will be. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:16:48 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Do you think it is possible to open the forum to a discussion of Fred Goerner's statements? A distant presidential cousin, Kermit Roosevelt, did in fact go cruising on Vincent Astor's yacht in the Marshall Islands in 1938. They were quite obviously on a spy mission and reported back on Eniwetok and Wotje, ref: Conflict of Duty, Jeffery Dorwart, pgs. 164 and 165. The "spy" party was prohibited form going ashore but evidently they saw enough to conclude that the Japanese were building up military facilities and bases in the mandates. I thought at first some of the Goerner statements were too far out, but then again maybe they weren't. Here's the Goerner statement: "What do I believe after 27 years of investigating? I have no belief. There is a strong possibility that she was taken by the Japanese at a very precipitous time in Pacific history. There is a possibility that, having broken the Japanese codes, Franklin Roosevelt knew she was in Japanese custody. Several times before the war the records that are now available indicate that he asked the Office of Naval Intelligence to infiltrate agents into the Marshall Islands to determine whether Earhart was alive or dead. He also asked his friend Vincent Astor in 1938 to take his private yacht to those islands to seek out possible information, but the yacht was quickly chased away by the Japanese. We do know of Roosevelt's association with Amelia. I do not believe it is a denigration of Earhart that she was serving her government. I believe instead of being categorized as a publicity seeker trying to fly around the world that if she was serving her government in those capacities which are established, that she ought to be celebrated even further." ****************************************** Thank you to Cam Warren and Ron Bright for furnishing information on the above. Fred Goerner, in later correspondence, also expressed a strong opinion that Earhart could have just as easily gone down in the Phoenix Islands as well as the Marshall Islands; however, Chester Nimitz kept pointing Goerner towards the Marshall Islands. The Nimitiz statement ( from the Goerner book) was, "Yes, she did go down in the Marshalls and she was taken by the Japanese." So, Ric, do we have enough to go on that would open the discussion a shade further? I think this is fascinating. The first time I heard about Astor's yacht, I thought someone was blowing smoke. But, just the opposite, evidently it did happen. Carol Dow #2524 ************************************************************************* From Ric I'll be happy to post documented information that shows an Earhart/espionage connection, but I haven't seen any yet. What are Mr. Dowarts sources for claiming that Astor's yacht was on a spy mission to the Marshalls in 1938? What "records" are now available to show that FDR asked ONI to infiltrate agents into the Marshalls to see it AE was alive or dead? Show me the documents. I agree with Goerner that it would not necessarily denigrate Earhart's reputation if she was serving the government, but it would be totally out of character for Amelia and the government. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:26:53 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Research needed Would radio Nauru have sent out any msgs to Austrailia, the World etc.that morning as they may have been monitoring Itasca . Just a possibility. Maybe McNameny and his friend, who claimed they heard the first post loss signals, contacted the press or others. I can't wait until that matrix comes out! Ron B. ************************************************************************ From Ric There is no indication that Nauru was monitoring Itasca but even if they were the most they could have deduced was that Earhart was overdue. Even Itasca did not declare her missing until an hour after the noon deadline when her fuel was expected to run out. I spent last friday with bob Brandenburg in San Diego working on the Post-Loss Radio Matrix and I can tell you that the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) is not looking good for the credibility of Msrs. McMenany and Pierson. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:28:34 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Research needed Would it be worth ordering the 2 July 37 LA Times reporting AE DOWN.... Ron Bright ***************************************************************** From Ric It would be interesting to know what information was included in that first account. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:42:14 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Research needed Ric wrote: > ... Hoaxers are not "ever-present". I'm aware of no hoax reports about Earhart > during any of her many other flights or on previous legs of the World Flight. > In fact, I'm aware of no hoax reports about any long distance flights by any > aviator, missing or otherwise. I think Bob Brandenburg's post-loss radio analysis in the 8th Edition (available from TIGHAR for a donation of $100) accepts the possibility that some of the messages heard were either hoaxes or misinterpretations. For example, he argues that "the signals heard by PAA at Mokapu Point either were spurious or were a hoax" (V.A.10). When and if the final location of NR16020 is found, it will be easier to figure out what the radio traffic meant. If AE & FN crashed and sank, none of the radio messages are genuine and therefore some would have to be classified as hoaxes. If AE & FN made a landfall that would allow recharging their batteries, some of the messages may be authentic and others may be erroneous (whether intentional or accidental). Some humans do incredibly stupid and malicious things. I've heard of a case in which someone was turning off landing lights on small airstrips via radio transmissions as planes attempted to make night landings. "In fiscal year 2001, the latest year in which statistics are available, 22 percent of Coast Guard Group San Francisco?s search and rescue cases were hoax calls." . Here's another way of putting it: I don't think that there are any first principles from which we can deduce that all or none of the radio transmissions of which we have some record were hoaxes or not. It may be that AE's flight was the first or only time in history that some hams decided to play games with the authorities. Humans are capable of doing monstrously stupid and evil things; none of those actions "make sense" to civilized people in their right minds, but humans seem to be free to be irrational. LTM, who taught us to play fair. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric Let me give you (and everyone) a little preview of what we're doing with the Post-Loss Radio Matrix and then you tell me what value it may yield. We start by collecting all reported signals alleged or suspected of being from the lost plane. We use the most contemporaneous source available but, in some cases, the best source is a relatively modern anecdote. So be it. We make no judgement call based on circumstance or content. If a forum subscriber, for example, were to suddenly remember that grandpa in Boise used to claim that he heard Earhart on his shortwave calling for help at midnight on July 4th, 1937 we'd plug it into the master list and run the numbers. What do we mean by running the numbers? Bob has computer-modeled the transmitting antenna on the Electra and has made conservative assumptions about the output of the Western Electric transmitter. We then assume that the transmission originated from the reef at Gardner Island. We then look at the point of reception. If we don't have information about the nature of the receiving antenna we assume "zero gain" - in other words, we assume that the antenna does not provide any measurable advantage in receiving the signal. We then plug all the data - date and time of transmission, frequency, characteristics of the transmitting and receiving stations - into a software package called "Icepack" that assesses the radio propagation environment for that particular circumstance and gives us a conservatively estimated Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR). What we end up with is an assessment, expressed in decibles (db), of how good the signal would be at the point of reception if it originated from the Electra at Gardner island. We know how good a signal has to be for code to be reliably understood (31 db) and how good it has to be to reliably understand voice (46 db). The degree to which the signal in question exceeds or falls short of that standard gives us a probablity for the possibility that the signal was genuine. Note that we cannot say that any given signal was or was not genuine. What we CAN say is whether a particular signal is more or less credible based purely upon its calculated SNR at the point of reception. The probablity has been computed out to eight decimal places. Using this method we find that we can eliminate a great many of the alleged Earhart transmissions (unless you want to say that less than one chance in 10 million is good odds). Whether they were hoaxes or misunderstandings is irrelevant. There is just no reasonable way they could have been genuine. Again, this is a purely quantitiative process and takes no account of who reported it or what it said. A few of the messages, however, are coming in with fairly high probabilities - 41 percent, 58 percent, 65 percent, 95 percent - and even a 1 percent chance is a real chance. That doesn't mean they are genuine distress calls from the Electra. It merely means that they can't be eliminated based upon their basic properties. Next we take all the signals, regardless of SNR, and plot them according to our hindcasting of the tidal conditions on the reef at Gardner. What we're looking for are patterns. Do any of the signals that COULD reasonably be genuine occur at a time when an engine COULD have been run to charge the battery? Once we have identified which, if any, of the alleged signals fit the criteria we can then look at their distribution and content to see if they fit any other pattern - such as apparent attempts to communicate similar information. For a signal to be genuine it will have to be like a key that fits the very specific lock represented by the Electra on the reef at Gardner at a particular moment in time. Of course, a random key can fit a random lock, but what if a whole bunch of keys were to fit a whole bunch of locks? In the past, everyone has taken the post-loss signals individually and tried to assess their credibility by qualitative judgements about their circumstances and content. We're taking the entire body of data and subjecting it to quantitative analysis. I think you'll find the results interesting. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:50:23 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Research needed Short summary of Oakland Tribune news reports. July 1 - "In a radio message to Putnam, Miss Earhart advised him she would leave Lae at 21:30 Greenwich Meridian time, which is 7:30a.m. Friday in Lae and 1:30p.m. today on the Pacific Coast...As soon as the flight starts from Lae, Miss Earhart will make hourly reports to the...Itasca...which will be relayed to Putnam." July 2 - Headline: "Earhart Is Believed to Be Nearing Howland Isle." "The last direct word from the Itasca was at 6:10a.m. today (P.S.T.) when it radioed it was picking up signals from the Earhart plane." This Chronicle edition also carried AE's article from Lae which starts with the "Denmark's a prison..." line. July 3 - first day paper reports them missing. I think, not sure, the Trib was a morning paper. blue skies, jerry ************************************************************************** From Ric At 1425Z (02:55 Itasca time, 06:25 PST) Itasca reported to CG headquarters in San Francisco: ITASCA HEARD EARHART PLANE AT 0248 That was the entire message. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:51:19 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Where Was Howland? > when the consensus of the forum appears to be that there is no > direct evidence as to what Noonan's chart really showed. It's kind of more than a consensus, Mike. The chart's still in the Electra. Another easy answer. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:53:56 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Carol Dow wrote: >Do you think it is possible to open the forum to a discussion of Fred >Goerner's statements? A distant presidential cousin, Kermit Roosevelt, >did in fact go cruising on Vincent Astor's yacht in the Marshall Islands in >1938. Where are the yacht's logs? >They were quite obviously on a spy mission and reported back on >Eniwetok and Wotje, ref: Conflict of Duty, >Jeffery Dorwart, pgs. 164 and 165. The "spy" party was prohibited >form going ashore but evidently they saw enough to conclude that >the Japanese were building up military facilities and bases in the >mandates "War Plan Orange" notes that the Japanese military buildup in the Mandates was started after the flight. There was some construction there for seaplanes and small ships, but serious work started after 1939, to the best of my memory of the book. I do recall -- from that book -- that after the War, the Japanese said that the reason they kept everyone out of the islands was because that had failed to live up to their side of the gift of the Mandates: that Japan would build up the education, economy and culture of the islands. > Chester Nimitz kept pointing Goerner towards the >Marshall Islands. The Nimitiz statement ( from the Goerner book) was, >"Yes, she did go down in the Marshalls and she was taken by the >Japanese." Why would Admiral Nimitz do this? Why would he lead someone to what might be seen as a rather spectacular Navy screwup? Ric wrote: >I agree with Goerner that it would not necessarily denigrate Earhart's >reputation if she was serving the government, but it would be totally >out of character for Amelia and the government. Yes, it would be, but not in the minds of those who grew up reading Graham Greene and Ian Fleming novels. However, FDR did have a fascination for spy stuff and secrecy, and he very well might have been induced to give the idea some thought. There's a dissertation in this! Michael Holt ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:56:57 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht FDR didn't send his friend Astor and cousin Kermit out to the Central Pacific in 1938, mostly in the Marshalls, for a vacation cruise. He went there, see p. 165, Dorwarts book, "gathering data on docks, fuel stores, and airstrips..." I would define that as "low level spying"! Dorwarts cites Astors cable to FDR that " the information gathering side of our cruise has proved interesting, instructive, and I hope , will be helpful." His footnote 8, cites the cable from Astor to Roosevelt,"n.d. 13 Jan 38, PSF, FDRL. Dorwarts provides numerous other cites and references to the "spy" work. I think Ron Reuther has obtained that cable and the Ship's log. I can check. It is only conjecture that included in this trip was FDR's request to be on the lookout for AE. I spoke with Dorwarts about AE and any information he may have developed while persuing through tons of material for his book and he said nothing pointed to any spy mission on the part of AE. And he found nothing regarding the fate of AE. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Ah for the good old days when espionage was carried out by the President's rich friends and relatives. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:43:02 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Knoxville Journal reports Lawrence said: >The earliest paper I have is the Knoxville Journal, dated July 3, 1937. This >was reported to them from Honolulu on July 2, 1937. Here are some times >listed: > >Deadline for fuel starvation, 6pm (Knoxville time). >One half-hour of fuel left, 1:20pm (Knoxville time). >Last message, 2:43pm (Knoxville time). >Itasca begins search, 6:30pm, (Knoxville time). > >The paper also quotes "Fliers" (Manning?) as saying the Electra's radio >would still work while the aircraft was floating on the sea if it wasn't >damaged during the ditching. Ric commented: >That all makes sense. > >Fuel starvation - 12:30 Itasca time (24 hours and 30 minutes after takeoff) >Half hour fuel left - 07:50 Itasca time >Itasca begins search - 13:00 Itasca time (when Itasca reported it was searching. >They actually began searching at 10:40). Lawrence's reports from the Knoxville Journal may be suspect simply because of the time differences. We went 'round and 'round here on the forum several months ago converting Itasca time to other times. For several days we couldn't even agree on converting Itasca time to Zulu time. If I remember correctly, getting the time zones straight was easy but accounting for the various Day Light Savings time zones caused a real problem until we got it sorted out. Not to cast aspersion on my former career, but is there any reason to believe that some reporter or editor working under deadline in Knoxville in 1937 got the conversions right the first time (or any time) around? Even if the story originated from the wire services and not Knoxville, the same problem would have existed. LTM, who has no time on her hands these days Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:50:01 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Alan's Evidence Alan C. posted that "the reason the theory centers on Niku is that is the only place ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND,QUALITY (sic) or whatever has been found." [ Alan's emphasis] Alan the Niku hypothesis is excellent but where in the world have you been in the Earhart research arena? If you consider witnesses and their testimony as "evidence", which is pretty standard in historical research, you may well want to read Don Wilson's book , summarizing all of the witnesses from Mili, Jaluit, Majuro, and Saipan that report seeing AE/FN and or the Electra. Now you and myself may not accept them as "credible" just as many non-Niku researchers, and there are many, who do not accept as credible the stuff found on Niku or the native witness recollections. But to say that Niku is the only place any kind of evidence is erroneous and misleading. Unless you consider evidence as only "physical", hard objects, such as the dado. Maybe your key word "quality" tacked on after "kind" is your way of saying that Niku's artifacts are the only ones worthy of consideration. Poor old Buddy Brennan would certainly disagree with you since he found the "blindfold" the Japanese used when they shot Amelia at Saipan. (His son still has it).One more example. Bilermon Amran, a highly respected businessman on Majuro and former medic for the Japanese, recalled treating Fred Noonan and Amelia aboard the Koshu at Jaluit a week or so after she disappeared. Lest you think I am a Marshall Island survivor believer, rest assured that I have reviewed carefully the evidence of eyewitness testimony in an unpublished monograph , "The Marshall Island Evidence", that refutes or casts grave doubt on the Mili witnesses, Amran at Jaluit, and others. My opinion only. Others in this business are quite serious that AE ended up on Saipan, and I shall let them argue with you about "evidence". Others of course think that looking on Niku is an utter waste of time since she crashed and sank! LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric The very first thing we did when we took up the Earhart torch 14 years ago was to declare that "anecdote is not evidence". Stories may lead you to documents, photos, or artifacts (i.e. hard evidence) but until then they are just stories. Today we talk about the "body of folklore" that describes a pre-settlement airplane wreck at Gardner but we don't tout it as "evidence." Take away the anecdotes from the Conspiracy Crowd and you're left with Buddy Brennan's Blindfold. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:52:30 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Ahh yes, in the good old days almost everyone was a spy or a communist. Some even think that master spy Sorge, who was in Japan late 30's, fathered Amelia's love child "Dawn". And there are reports she is still around, I think in Virginia, LTM, Ron Bright, former spy chaser with ONI. ************************************************************************* From Ric Sheeesh. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:55:19 EDT From: Michael Craig Subject: Re: Research needed I think the radio matrix is an excellent idea, and will hopefully clarify some of the anomalies that exist in this area. I really just have one suggestion to make - perhaps you should also run the matrix against other possible landing sites? This would, apart from anything else, enable you to some extent to measure the integrity of your matrix. I realise this idea probably represents a huge amount of additional work! Keep up the good work Michael ************************************************************************** From Ric The tricky part would be getting tidal data. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:32:00 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: In-flight malfunction. Ric wrote: > Thanks for the Assab/Karachi reference. Yes, if the airplane malfunctions > all bets are off. Had there been such a malfunction on the Lae/Howland leg > you might think that she would have mentioned it in one of the transmissions > to Itasca. She didn't - but that doesn't mean that there could not have been > a malfunction. She could -just - have mentioned it. The very first distress message was at 11.15Z "KHAQQ SOS SOUTHWEST HOWLAND". This was 23.45 on July 1st Howland time at a time when the aircraft was still maybe nine hundred miles from Howland. If the time of this message is correctly recorded, this could be evidence of an in-flight emergency. Note the direction given is southwest Howland. Had this message been sent after their arrival in the Howland area, the direction given would have been southeast or northwest from what we can glean about their likely movements. The reason this may not be true is that it is unlikely that Howland would have been given as a reference point as it is so far away. Nauru would be much more likely. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric The date of the alleged reception is almost certainly wrong. The source of the account is the NY Herald Tribune, July 9, 1937, Page 5, pt. 1 of 2. The date line on the story is July 7, Wednesday, and it tells of Walter McMenamy in Los Angeles hearing AE "at 3:15 a.m. early last Friday morning" (July 2). McMenamy and his buddy Karl Pierson claimed to have heard Earhart on several occasions after she disappeared and they got a tremendous amount of media attention. But this is the only article that puts the first reception BEFORE the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:11:05 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: The Post-Loss Radio Matrix Sounds like a reasonable approach. I hope you will broaden the research to consider other locations besides "the reef at Gardner Island." I'm as yet unconvinced the Electra reached dry land, but Canton or the Gilberts (and other possibilities) shouldn't be ruled out. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree, in principle, that it would be good to test other possible locations but there are some practical limitations. I don't know, but I would expect, that the SNR for the various signals would be pretty much the same for any location in the Central Pacific. The most intriguing pattern to look for will be whether and how the "reasonable probability" signals match the water depth on the reef at Niku in the specific area where the available information suggests the landing was made (just north of the shipwreck). Unfortunately, we don't have those data for other reefs because reef heights differ, not only from island to island but also for different locations on the same island. For example, Niku's reef in front of the main passage is significanlty higher than it is half a mile further north at the Norwich City. There's also the question of reef slope. The reef edge at the Norwich City is several inches lower than it is 100 feet back from the edge and every inch is important when you're trying to calculate whether a Lockheed 10 parked on the reef has enough prop clearance to run an engine. Bottom line: We can run the numbers for Niku because we have the data for Niku, but even if we show a strong correlation with Niku we can't say that there is no other place on any other island in the region that would show the same match. To do that we'd have to collect reef height and slope data for every section of every reef in the Central Pacific and that's just a little bit beyond our capabilities at the moment. On the other hand, we may be able to show a very high probability that some of the alleged post-loss signals were genuine and that the airplane was, therefore, on land - and that that land could have been the reef at Gardner Island. Not a Niku Smoking Gun, to be sure, but further support for the hypothesis and bad news for the Crashed and Sankers (not that they'll pay any attention). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:14:54 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Knoxville Journal reports In 1937, there was no daylight savings time. Itasca was at +11.5 time zone (or is that minus???), while Knoxville, Tenn is likely at +5 (Eastern). *************************************************************************** From Ric In 1937 there was no Daylight Savings Time as a national standard but it was observed by some cities and counties in some states, and had been for many years. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:16:43 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Alan's Evidence Yes if stories or recollections are considered folklore rather than "evidence" as used in the conventional sense, you are right and have clearly defined what is or what isn't evidence. Yes, Buddy B. did find the 'blindfold" but did little with it from a forensic examination analysis. A couple of us guys were going to chase it down, but ran out of gas and money. We forgot the letters "FN" written in red on the wall of the Garapan jail, and the words "July 29, 1937 A. EARHART scratched on a metal cell door at Garapan. As I understand it from the News lipping, Devine still has the metal cell door. Now that is evidence!!!! [ Of what, I am not sure] Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric We gotta find that tree. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:29:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > Take away the anecdotes from the Conspiracy Crowd and you're left with Buddy > Brennan's Blindfold. If we take anecdote away even the blind fold goes away. There is nothing but insupportable anecdote to connect the "blindfold" to AE. It's a piece of cloth. I don't even see support that it was a blind fold to begin with. Anecdotes are OK if they can be supported somehow. Sheer number of reports in and of themselves are not necessarily indicators of validity. For example, here in Austin a child in day care reported (supposedly) to his Mom he was sexually abused by a day care staff member. This case was investigated and reported by the media. Many, many kids then reported the same thing. The day care staff were arrested. The kids said they were sexually abused, babies were killed and they were flown around Austin in a helicopter. Even then the lady prosecutor would not back off. Eventually the case fell apart for sheer idiocy and all were exonerated. In the Marshalls those folks knew what the investigators were looking for and my guess is they provided it. Not good evidence but certainly enough to go looking for hard substantive fact. Unfortunately none was ever found. Oops! Not true. Stuff was found but it was all confiscated or burnt up or something along those lines. Yes, there is an actual piece of cloth surviving but how would anyone connect it to AE or prove it was used as a blind fold. I have an old piece of cloth too. Once it was a little piece of clothing my daughter wore. Could I even prove that? Not a chance. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:33:08 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Spies in the Marshalls Fred Goerner wrote: That the USN believed there was a Japanese involvment in the Earhart disappearance is without doubt. In 1938, ONI asked one Kilsoo Haan, a Korean-American agent who had connections in Japan and the mandated Islands, to infifltrate an agent of agents into the Marshall Islands. The deal fell through because ONI didn't have sufficient funds..." Goerner letter to Gordon Vaeth, April 19, 1993. Goerner didn't list a cite/reference document, but knowing Goerner, he must have had something in hand. Maybe Cam Warren who has looked thru the Goerner stuff at the War in the Pacific museum can find it. If you could find that document it would be evidence that ONI was interested or had some basis for the interest. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric If such documents existed (where are they?) the key would be the "basis for the interest". As we all know, military intelligence is an oxymoron. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:34:51 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Ron Bright wrote: >Ahh yes, in the good old days almost everyone was a spy or a >communist. Some even think that master spy Sorge, who was >in Japan late 30's, fathered Amelia's love child "Dawn". And >there are reports she is still around, I think in Virginia, *sigh* Love child? Is this a serious part of the legend? I'm in Virginia. Want me to see what I can find? I was adopted, and Dawn might easily be the same age as my biological mother. Hmmmm ........ Michael Holt **************************************************************************** From Ric Are you tall and thin and do you have a gap between your front teeth? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:46:46 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht >FDR didn't send his friend Astor and cousin Kermit out to the Central >Pacific in 1938, mostly in the Marshalls, for a vacation cruise. He went >there, see p. 165, Dorwarts book, "gathering data on docks, fuel stores, >and airstrips..." I would define that as "low level spying"! Have been tied up with the stockmarket all day and E-mails (bought Southwest Airlines @12.75...need any tips?). Would take issue with Ron on the above. I got the impression from pg. 165 it was Kermit and Vincent Astor. The footnote reads #8, Chapter 15 Vincent (Astor) to Franklin Roosevelt, n.d. 13 January 1938, PSF 116, FDRL (FDR Library?). Further comments on alternate searches, ref: the Marshalls and Saipan, the part that caught my eye was the supply of natives who saw things. I believe that is worth tracking down. Also, Tom Devine believes he has a witness to what he saw on Saipan (Earhart's plane)... that would be a hand-me-down from Ron Bright, I believe. The nice thing about it.... the man is still alive. How did the airplane get to Saipan? Was it the Koshu or the Kamoi? Who knows? Not me. Ric, you're the investigator. Were the Japanese busy hi-jacking airplanes? Uh., huh. Try the web for the hi-jacked Pan American Clipper. It's there. Like it or not. What were they after? If I had to guess I would gues it was those engines. But I don't know. Well, late at night here. More later on. Carol Dow *************************************************************************** From Ric Gullibility, thy name is Carol. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:48:57 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht For Michael - > Yes, it would be, but not in the minds of those who grew up reading > Graham Greene and Ian Fleming novels. Careful, I'm one of those people who grew up reading such stuff. Went on to do a little of it in the real world, as well, but that's neither here nor there, except to say that when I first read Goerner's book I was fascinated and it got me interested in the mystery. But it hasn't blinded me to the logical arguements from the forum and the Tighar website. > However, FDR did have a fascination for spy stuff and secrecy, > and he very well might have been induced to give the idea some > thought. Somehow I don't think so. At least not seriously. That would be like putting Harpo in charge of the OSS. It might be amusing for a little while, but counter productive in the long run. ltm jon 2266 ********************************************************************* From Ric I know I've seen a photo somewhere of Harpo with Amelia. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:30:39 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Dawn, was: Astor's Yacht Ric wrote: >Are you tall and thin and do you have a gap between your front teeth? Oh, well. All I have from that list is "tall." What do you know about Sorge? Sorry .. But, has that legend of the child been, uh, handled? What started it? Mike H. *************************************************************************** From Ric It sure hasn't been handled by me. Lord knows how these things get started. Just part of the Wonderful World of Amelia. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:36:44 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Evidence Alan wrote: > Anecdotes are OK if they can be supported somehow. Sheer number of > reports in and of themselves are not necessarily indicators > of validity. > > For example, here in Austin a child in day care reported (supposedly) > to his Mom he was sexually abused by a day care staff member... In _Candle in the Dark_, Carl Sagan tells of an even greater horror: a man who was persuaded to confess to crimes he never committed because he believed his daughter's "recovered memories" more than he believed his own memory. He, too, was eventually exonerated, but only after doing some time in prison. > I have an old piece of cloth too. Once it was a little piece of > clothing my daughter wore. Could I even prove that? Not a chance. Well, in my view, you have the right to testify to what you know about the cloth and its relationship to your daughter. All of our knowledge of history depends upon the testimony of witnesses. When and if TIGHAR finds more definitive artifacts on Niku, those of us who were not present will have to take the words of the TIGHAR team that: 1. The things were found in situ. 2. The things were not planted by anyone from the organization. We also would have to suppose that neither Japan nor the U.S. government dumped the artifacts on Niku after imprisoning, killing, or hiding AE and FN. I predicted years ago on the forum that the conspiracy theorists would never accept any artifact as proof of the Niku hypothesis. In historical research, there is always room for doubt; it can only be set aside by a reasonable act of faith in the witnesses to the evidence. All of my knowledge of Sagan comes from the reports of witnesses. I cannot prove that Sagan existed. I can only point to some artifacts (photos, movies, recordings) that are only as good as the witnesses who say that they are authentic. Those witnesses do for those artifacts what you can do for the relic of your daughter's childhood. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric Likewise, I can not prove that Marty Moleski exists. I have met a man who claimed to be him but I have no way of knowing whether that was an impostor or whether there even is such a person. I'm not even completely sure that I am me. Has anybody seen that bottle of Scotch? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:39:49 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Evidence The blindfold or any piece of cloth worn by someone would contain exfoliated skin cells which might still yield enough dna to make a match or at least rule out sex and race. LTM, Dave Bush ********************************************************************** From Ric And if it didn't contain exfoliated skin cells after having been buried for fifty some-odd years would you then conclude that it had never come in contact with a person? We've all been watching too many episodes of "Investigative Reports". It's a lot tougher than the TV people would have you think. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:55:30 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Jon Watson wrote: >For Michael - > >> Yes, it would be, but not in the minds of those who grew up reading >> Graham Greene and Ian Fleming novels. > >Careful, I'm one of those people who grew up reading such stuff. Went >on to do a little of it in the real world, as well, but that's neither >here nor there, except to say that when I first read Goerner's book >I was fascinated and it got me interested in the mystery. But it >hasn't blinded me to the logical arguments from the forum and the >Tighar website. It was Goerner's book that got me interested, too, and I read the Greene and Fleming books. It's easy to get caught up in the idea of privileged secrecy of government; I see it on the forum. >> However, FDR did have a fascination for spy stuff and secrecy, >> and he very well might have been induced to give the idea some >> thought. > >Somehow I don't think so. At least not seriously. That would be like >putting Harpo in charge of the OSS. It might be amusing for a little >while, but counter productive in the long run. My feeling was that FDR might have given the idea enough consideration to have generated some written material. Some of that written might have been quite unofficial, but he was the President, and their fantasies sometimes have devoted them a lot more resources than the fantasy deserves. But, no, none of this will ever find Amelia. >********************************************************************* >>From Ric > >I know I've seen a photo somewhere of Harpo with Amelia. Now, there's a potentially marketable poster .... Mike H. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:00:55 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: "Final Approach" art auction Now up on the TIGHAR website homepage is a link you can use to place your bid for a low-number limited edition art print of the new painting "Final Approach" by aviation artist Scott Albee. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:20:38 EDT From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Why if the Japanese captured AE/FN did they not use this for publicity to either-- 1. embarrass the US regarding spying or 2. gain credibility for rescuing AE/FN Surely they could have used either of these two options to get 'leverage on the US' and support from the world community. What would the advantage be of keeping it all quiet? Chris Johnson Manchester UK ************************************************************************** From Ric You're making the mistake of trying to apply logic to a theory that's rooted in racism and paranoia. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:21:59 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Pssssst... Hey Carol... I got a report that George Harrison's burial shroud is locked up in a church in Turin, Italy... At least that's who the natives said it looked like... LTM, Dave *************************************************************************** From Ric Now c'mon, you know the rules. No picking on Carol. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:31 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: What's up with Fred I'm not trying to stoke the navigational debate (although it does make for interesting reading), but there have been several asides lately about Noonan's navigational ability that lead me to suspect TIGHAR has something up its sleeve - another research paper perhaps? Inquiring non-navigators want to know. LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ************************************************************************** From Ric Nothing up our sleeve and eventually it will get written up, but it's clear from an analysis of charts used on previous flights that Fred was not the hotshot navigator he was cracked up to be. He made mistakes, such as misidentifying stars, but nobody's perfect. Of more concern was his sloppiness in keeping the airplane on track for the destination. Pan Am's system relied upon DF for fine-tuning the last few hundred miles of the flight. As long as Fred got them in the ballpark the DF would do the rest. As an example, Earhart's Oakland/Honolulu flight would have missed Oahu by 50 miles if it weren't for DF. Fred's fame as a navigator, like AE's fame as a pilot, was the product of a deliberate PR campaign. In Fred's case it was PAA hyping their new Pacific Division. In AE's case it was Putnam's usual hucksterism. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:58:46 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Research needed Ric wrote: > Note that we cannot say that any given signal was or was not > genuine. What we CAN say is whether a particular signal is more > or less credible based purely upon its calculated SNR at the point > of reception. The probablity has been computed out to eight > decimal places. The number of decimal places to which you compute a probability bears no relation to the validity of that probability. Only significant figures are important and this depends on the validity of the input data and the accuracy of modeling of the software. There are so may imponderables like antenna design and gain, orientation, the frequency of the harmonic (not always recorded) ionospheric conditions etc that you would certainly be right to regard the results only as ruling some signals in (in terms of credibility) rather than ruling others out, even for very low probabilities. Dx-ers pick up transmissions from unlikely distances every day but because the probability was low, it didn't mean they couldn't happen. > Next we take all the signals, regardless of SNR, and plot them > according to our hindcasting of the tidal conditions on the > reef at Gardner. What we're looking for are patterns. Do any of the > signals that COULD reasonably be genuine occur at a time when an engine > COULD have been run to charge the battery? The time of transmission may well be different from the time of charging by the amount of time it takes the battery output to fall to a point where transmission capability is judged to be compromised. Even with the high power drain of transmitting, this could be some hours and from the times and lengths of many transmissions received, it would appear that AE transmitted in relatively infrequent short bursts, lengthening the time before recharging was necessary.It would make sense not generally to transmit when charging as it would be difficult to hear any response above the noise of the engine and the transmitted signal would also have a higher background noise. We do have a few instances where engine noise in the background is evident and these are the only reliable instances where tide height may be significant in determining the credibility of the transmission, always assuming that the aircraft was indeed properly positioned on its landing gear. From the radio messages it seems likely that the aircraft suffered damage and it could well have had eg a collapsed leg on one side if we are to believe "one wing broken" is a valid message. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric I didn't mean to imply that more decimal places has anything to do with probability of credibility. It merely allows us to see the difference between, say, one chance in a hundred thousand and one chance in a million. As you say, improbable things happen all the time. It's just nice to know how improbable they'd have to be. As to running the engine or not when transmitting: This is, admittedly, a judgement call but the reasoning goes like this. Anyone who has flown behind radials knows that they can be a b---- to start, especially if they're hot. There's a rather informative "outake" from newsreel footage shot during AE's preparations for the first World Flight attempt in which the cameraman was trying to get a picture of AE firing up the engines of the Electra. She climbs up into the cockpit, flips the appropriate switches and starts cranking the left engine. Screee, screee, screee, screee - round and round it goes. Nothing. Take two. Screee, screee, screee, screee - still not a burp. Take three. She has apparently given up on the left engine and now she's cranking the starboard engine. Same deal. Screee, screee, screee, screee - zilch. Take four. The starboard engine is running. The camerman missed it while rewinding the camera or reloading film. Left engine is cranking again. Screee, screee, screee, screee - nope. Take five. Both engines are running. Damn! Missed it again. The point is, whether AE was inept or the engines were cantankerous, or some combination of the two, the fact is it would be real easy to run down the battery trying to get the thing started. At an airport where you can just plug in a battery cart it's an inconvenience. On the reef at Niku it's the end of your only way to call for help. If it was me, I sure as heck wouldn't risk transmitting (which puts a real drain on the battery) without the engine running and the generator charging. In any event, it will be interesting to see if we have any decent-probability signals at a time when the water was too high to run an engine. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:59:44 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Spies in the Marshalls > That the USN believed there was a Japanese involvment in the Earhart > disappearance is without doubt. The fact that there was several investigations during and after WW2 is often claimed as evidence that the government knew Amelia somehow survived beyond July 2. I think a more reasonable assessment is that, even though they officially believed in her loss, they felt obliged to check out the more persistent rumors to the contrary. So Goerner's statement, as quoted, is an inaccurate one. (Unless you consider the rather feeble effort to aid in the search qualifies as "involvement".) Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:03:18 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence From Alan Caldwell > Those witnesses do for those artifacts > what you can do for the relic of your daughter's childhood. Not quite, Marty. I can testify first hand. As to the "blindfold" you would need a witness who could testify he personally saw that particular piece of cloth on AE and could positively identify it as the same cloth. I don't know how he could substantiate his story, however. In my case I have an old photo of my daughter in that dress. Not absolute but more than the blindfold story. You carried this off the edge of reality. If you do not know by now how to show substantiation and chain of custody little I can say will help. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric For what it's worth, Brennan was led to the site by an old lady who claimed to have seen AE wearing the blindfold which was ripped from her eyes just before she was shot (a novel execution technique). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:04:30 EDT From: Alan Caldell Subject: Re: Alan's Evidence > We forgot the letters "FN" written in red on the wall of the Garapan > jail, and the words "July 29, 1937 A. EARHART scratched on a metal > cell door at Garapan. As I understand it from the News clipping, > Devine still has the metal cell door. Now that is evidence!!!! > [ Of what, I am not sure] You're right, Ron. That is evidence. The procedure, if you were to follow up on that, would be to first determine if in fact there is "FN" existing on the wall. Take a photo and a scratch sample for forensics. Call Devine and go look at the door. Take a picture. Now all you have to do is prove who made the markings. I don't know how you would do that. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:10:04 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Newspaper Report from 1937 Ric asked: "...Can anyone find a July 2, 1937 newspaper that reports the disappearance?" Last year, I obtained microfilm archive photocopies from my local newspaper "The Daily Reflector" reporting about the flight, the disappearance, and the subsequent two week search period. The earliest article was unfortunately from July 3, 1937. (Ric...recall that I sent you copies of these and other articles last year). Don't know if this any help but, for what its worth, here is the news article: ---------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL CALLS ARE IDENTIFIED Ferverish Sea and Sky Hunt Waged for Famous Flyer Honolulu, July 3, (AP) Distress signals signed with the call letters of Ameilia Earhart's monoplane flashed over the Pacific today in the midst of a feverish sea and sky hunt for the famed aviatrix, missing in equatorial waters surrounding tiny Howland Island. Radio operators in Los Angeles heard repeated calls of "SOS-KHAQQ" shortly before 1:30a.m. Pacific time (4:30 a.m. EST). This was more than 14 hours after the flier said her gas supply would last but 30 minutes on her flight from distant New Guinea. The amateurs Walter McMenamy and Carl Pierson said the signals were so weak they could hear them through dense static and once they caught the letters "LAT" for latitude, the signals were blotted out by interference. KHAQQ is the call for Miss Earhart's plane, last heard from the air yesterday at 2:12 p.m. EST, when she reported she and her navigator Fred Noonan could not sight land and were nearly out of gas. Another message signed with the plane's call letters and seeking radio contact was picked up in the South Seas earlier. Reports that the voyage of tousel-haired famous flier had been picked up calling "SOS" from the mystery spot where she is lost in mid-Pacific buoyed hopes for her ultimate rescue as the U.S. Navy ordered a battleship to the search. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:11:33 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Research needed Is this the same Mc Menany from Los Angeles who claims he heard a post lost message from Earhart? What about Betty in Fla.? *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. That McMenamy. What about Betty in Fla.? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:13:24 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Evidence >We've all been watching too many episodes of "Investigative Reports". >It's a lot tougher than the TV people would have you think. Really! Ida never thunk it! Another dream bites the dust. But, really, Ric, I was just trying to point out that if these people have something that they think is the real thing that they should get it tested. Sort of like the "Shroud of Turin". Off topic, but my belief is that if a great "life force" penetrated the shroud to re-animate the body, then it could have affected the readings on the "age" of the material, causing erroneous readings of its actual age. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:23:50 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Evidence Alan wrote: >If we take anecdote away even the [Brennan] blind fold goes >away. There is nothing but insupportable anecdote to connect the >"blindfold" to AE. It's a piece of cloth. I don't even see support >that it was a blindfold to begin with." Unsupported anecdote? Good Lord, the "blindfold" itself supports the anecdote. Witness says she saw a blindfolded white woman executed at a certain spot. Witness goes to spot (now a parking lot) 50 years later, says "dig here." Brennan digs (with a backhoe, yet) and unearths a most unusual piece of cloth. In case anyone hasn't seen the cloth, it's not a mere scrap o' hankie. It's a strip of fabric that has been cut to a specific shape -- full width in the middle, tapering gradually to a point on both ends -- presumably for a specific purpose. One such purpose would be to cover the eyes, with the tapered ends fitting over the ears and then tied in the back. I'm sure the Forum can come up with other possible uses, but a blindfold cannot be ruled out. Apparently the artifact is now located in the office of Brennan's son, a Texas attorney, pressed between two pieces of glass (the cloth, not the attorney). I find the whole Saipan scenario hard to believe but ... the "blindfold" needs to be tested for blood and DNA. Perhaps Alan can contact Brennan Jr., a fellow Texan, and see if he will turn loose of it for awhile. But really -- "insupportable anecdote"? If TIGHAR found a hunk of aircraft metal sticking up from the reef flat in the exact spot where Emily Sikuli told them to look, would you consider Emily's anecdote unsupported? LTM (who wonders what Buddy may have missed when he tore into that parking lot ...) Pat Gaston ************************************************************************* From Ric It could be a blindfold - but archaeologists who live and work on Saipan say that in building the parking lot the whole area was thoroughly bulldozed. You could probably dig anywhere and come up with various scraps of cloth. Nobody is going to test the thing for blood or DNA. It's too much fun to have it as a tantalizing clue. We're the only ones who spend time and money debunkng our own tantalizing clues. If TIGHAR found a hunk of aircraft metal sticking up from the reef flat in the exact spot where Emily Sikuli told us to look, we would consider Emily's anecdote to be supported but we wouldn't conclude that it had any connection to the Electra unless that could be shown to be the case by analysis of the artifact itself. I do, however, like the idea of pressing attorneys between glass plates. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:25:03 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Battery Power I'm still a little perplexed as to why an engine would HAVE to be running to use the radio. When AE went down her batteries would have been fully charged. These are the same batteries that start those big engines right? I know tube radio sets suck a lot of juice but surely they would have at least initially sent off some distress calls, engines off. Has anyone tested this under similar conditions? There must be info on what power her transmitter would have drawn, and what amperes the batteries were rated at? Chris#2511 ********************************************************************** From Ric See my earlier reply to angus on this subject. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:25:55 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht They could have also offered to deliver her to Pearl Harbor, and have a little "look see" while steaming past the facilities. What an opportunity missed! Don J. Merced, CA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:29:31 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Earhart would have been a tremendous liability to the Japanese. If AE or FN were mistreated, saw things they weren't supposed to see, i.e., Japanese preparations for war, or were not given medical attention (AE was believed to have developed dysentery) it would have enraged the American public. So, what would be the logical conclusion? Theoretically, if the truth were known it could have been just as bad as the sinking of the Lusitania. To say the least, the Japanese Ambassador would have had a problem. Carol Dow #2524 *************************************************************************** From Ric There were no preparations for war against the U.S. in 1937. Japan had its hands full in China. And there is no evidence that Earhart had dysentery. You've been reading those books again. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:36:24 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Re Don Jordan's comment about steaming past Pearl Harbor: The Japanese didn't need any subterfuge to inspect Pearl Harbor. They had a consulate their that did all of their spy work for them -- very effectively, as it sadly turned out. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric But, of course, in 1937 Pearl was not yet the home of the U.S. Pacific fleet so there wouldn't have been much to see, and the militarists in Japan were not yet seriously contemplating an attack on the U.S., so the whole question is kind of dumb. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:39:18 EDT From: Ed Croft Subject: Re: Evidence At the risk of continuing this thread and also introducing new words into the TIGHAR vocabulary, the word is solipsism - the theory that only the self exists or can be proved to exist. I can guarantee you that things disintegrate very quickly once you go down that road. :) LTM, Ed Croft #2523 ************************************************************************ From Ric How do I go about proving to myself that I am not a figment of my horse's imagination? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:42:23 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Evidence Alan Caldwell wrote: >> Those witnesses do for those artifacts >> what you can do for the relic of your daughter's childhood. > > Not quite, Marty. I can testify first hand. Yes. And if you write down your testimony and leave it in a box with the remnants of the garment, it will have evidentiary value a century from now. > As to the "blindfold" you would > need a witness who could testify he personally saw that particular piece of > cloth on AE and could positively identify it as the same cloth. I was not then and am not now defending the story of the blindfold. > I don't know > how he could substantiate his story, however. In my case I have an old photo > of my daughter in that dress. Not absolute but more than the blindfold story. The photo can only show a similar dress, not the same dress. The testimony you give is what connects the photo with the garment in hand. > You carried this off the edge of reality. If you do not know by now how to > show substantiation and chain of custody little I can say will help. We are agreeing with each other. In order to know the truth about the past, we have to take the word of witnesses (whether the word is given orally or is cast into some other fixed form by writing or recording). The difference between the alleged blindfold and your daughter's dress is that you are a contemporary and reliable witness about the history of the dress. That is why your example of your daughter's dress did not make the point you wanted to make about the worthlessness of the blindfold as a piece of evidence. Whether I was being realistic in predicting that no artifact from Niku will silence the spy mission fantasists remains to be seen. From a logical point of view, just finding identifiable aircraft parts on or around Niku does not mean that AE and FN landed on Niku. TIGHAR has proven pretty conclusively that there are aircraft parts on Niku from planes that crashed or were broken up on other islands. There is no SCIENTIFIC reason why the U.S. government or the Japanese government could not have dumped NR16020 on Niku; no law of science would be violated by such conduct; no scientific tests could show the difference between remnants from an aircraft that landed on the reef and remnants from an aircraft offloaded on the reef by a spy ship. Please note that I do not for a moment think such a view would be reasonable. On the contrary, I think it is absurd. What I am pointing out, in agreement with your first point yesterday, is the limits of using scientific techniques to prove or disprove historical claims. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:12:30 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Ric wrote: > But, of course, in 1937 Pearl was not yet the home of the U.S. Pacific fleet > so there wouldn't have been much to see, and the militarists in Japan were > not yet seriously contemplating an attack on the U.S., so the whole question > is kind of dumb.> I am sure that Don meant his comment in jest, as did I, but in the name of historical accuracy, while the U.S. Did not maintain what was later called a "Two-Ocean Navy" in 1937 (it was one United States Fleet until May 1940 when FDR ordered that the "Pacific Fleet be officially headquartered at Pearl Harbor), there was a substantial naval base at Pearl Harbor at the time, and had been for many years. According to historians Prange and Goldstein, whose research into the attack at Pearl Harbor is considered by their peers to be, well, peerless, the Japanese had evinced a strong interest in reconnoitering U.S. Naval strength at Pearl Harbor as far back as the 1920's; U.S. Naval intelligence experts recognized the potential Japanese threat to Pearl Harbor as far back as the early 1930's. With respect to espionage at the Japanese consulate at Pearl, there is evidence that it began in an organized manner as far back as 1935. Of course, NONE of this has anything whatever to do with our heroine, but it's an interesting diversion nonetheless. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric I've always found it interesting that the only capital ship available to search for Earhart was the USS Colorado which just happened to be in town on its annual ROTC training cruise - and it wasn't even at Pearl. It was moored at Pier 2 in Honolulu while the crew had liberty. The airplanes had been flown over to Fleet Air Base at Pearl where they were beached, hangared, and torn apart for maintenance and inspections. It took a full day to get the crew back aboard, get the airplanes put back together (they never did do the inspections), and move the ship to Pearl Harbor for refueling before heading south. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:14:23 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Solipsism Ric asked: "How do I go about proving to myself that I am not a figment of my horse's imagination." If you're not successful in convincing yourself maybe we'll see you at the Preakness this summer -- two bucks to show on the gray gelding. :-) LTM, who's been around the track a couple of times herself Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ******************************************************************** From Ric I don't think his imagination that good. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:15:59 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: What's up with Fred Gee, I'm surprised to hear you playing down Noonan's abilities, since that seems to be the cornerstone for your theory of him insisting AE fly several hundred miles down the 157=B0 line to the Phoenix Islands. My theory that Amelia took the bit in her teeth and headed back to the Gilberts (as she said she would) suddenly acquires more validity.... Thank you! Cam Warren ********************************************************************** From Ric Anytime. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:26:59 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Evidence Ed Croft wrote: >At the risk of continuing this thread and also introducing new words >into the TIGHAR vocabulary, the word is solipsism - the theory that >only the self exists or can be proved to exist. I always wondered about that. To whom can one demonstrate that the only the self exists? If one is doing that for oneself, does not oneself become a different entity, for the purposes of the discussion? >I can guarantee you that things disintegrate very quickly once you go >down that road. :) Hmmm ..... I think I just disintegrated myself. Ric wrote: >How do I go about proving to myself that I am not a figment of my >horse's imagination. Communication is the answer. Talk with your horse; learn which one of you exists. You may find that Pat is what defines the existence of you and your horse. Speaking of existance, was the blindfold an item issued by the Imperial Army Quartermaster Corps? Was there a standard issue blindfold? Mike H. ********************************************************************* From Ric I asked him. He said that if the carrots stop, I cease to exist. I was afraid of that. As a matter of fact, there are (unfortunately) a number of photographs of people about to be executed by the Japanese military. In most cases no blindfold is used. When there is a blindfold it seems to be just a strip of black cloth. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:30:31 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: > How do I go about proving to myself that I am not a figment of my horse's > imagination? The classical answer is "Si fallor, sum": If I am deceived, then I am (St. Augustine, City of God, XI, 26; from around 425 AD). ;o) To drag this post, kicking and screaming, back towards the topic, let me explain why I care about the question. TIGHAR is in the business of evaluating evidence using the best available standards of the relevant disciplines. TIGHAR intends its work, both in the Forum and in its various publications, to stand as an example from which others may learn. Despite some rhetoric from various philosophers of science, it is not in fact reasonable to "doubt everything." Doubt is a tool in the researcher's toolkit. It needs to be used appropriately so that we do not build castles in the air, but it is not an absolute. When there is sufficient evidence to make a case, the job of the scientist or researcher is to cease to doubt and make the case for a conclusion. I do not doubt that the earth is in motion around the sun. It would be foolish to doubt that fact and to try to prove the contrary. Galileo was right and the geocentrists were wrong. In evaluating the data assembled by the backers of the spy-mission hypothesis (SMH) we must be careful not to set standards so high that no hypothesis can ever be established. That would to practice unreasonable doubt. LTM, with all due respect and no undue disrespect. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:41:19 EDT From: Ronald Reuther Subject: FDR secrets From Ronald Reuther A HISTORY OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE 1882-1942 http://www.geocities.com/furrylogic2/oni7.html ROOSEVELT AND NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ************************************************************************ From Ric The link is to an article describing Roosevelt's pre-war intelligence gathering activities and expands upon how Vanderbilt's yacht fit into the picture. There's nothing to suggest an Earhart connection but it's interesting reading. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:42:50 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Post-loss Radio Matrix Impact? What impact does the sun spot activity of July 1937 have on the "Post-loss Radio Matrix"? - For that matter what impact did sun spot activity have on July 1937 post-loss voice radio traffic in general? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************** From Ric The short answer is "not much" but it's a factor taken into account by the ICEPAK software. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:45:27 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Evidence Saipanese nataive Nieva Blas's videotaped testimony(thru her daughtger as an interpreter) is rather chilling if you will. Brennan is still selling copies. Thirty eight years later Blas goes to the base of a breadfruit tree, a unique large one near Garapan,pointing at the ground where she saw the grave and "AE" shot and fall into it with the blindfold is amazing stuff!! I still don't know why some bones, or watches or other artifacts weren't, which puts a hole in the story. If you were going to prosecute the Japanese soldier for murder, I would bet you could get her videotape admitted in today's court, with Brennan and daughter authenticating, and most likely the "blindfold". An interesting evidence question for you lawyers. Wow what a trial. Prosecution to lazy to test for AE's DNA, although early incomplete tests indicate it came from a cotton fiber consistant with the 40s. [ Maybe she identified Hirota in a lineup] Alan we will appoint you Defense counsel for Hiroto, and Gaston will prosecute . A would make a great mock bench trial with Judge R. Gillespie, Presiding. Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric I'd have to recuse myself for inability to keep a straight face. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:54:06 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Astor's Yacht Rear Admiral Layton, in his book "And I was There", writes on p. 64 that the Director of Naval Intelligence wrote a letter to the Naval Attache at Tokyo in early 1938 and directed him to " obtain information about the possibilties that Japan was militarizing these atolls, especially the Mariannas (Saipan), Carolines, and the Marshalls, ..." Layton says he tried to get to the Marshalls but never made it due to Japanese restrictions on foreign trave. As you know he was buddies with Adm Yamamoto in Japan in July 37 and asked for assistance to search the mandates for AE.. Thus, contray to maybe Mark Peattie downplaying our interests in the Marshalls, no doubt the US wanted to know what the heck was going on. Maybe nothing, but like Iraq, they would like to check up. Ltm, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric Let's assume U.S. curiousity - even paranoia - about what the Japanese might be up to in the Marshalls, even though there was really nothing to get excited about in 1937. Let's also recognize that the Roosevelt administration was not above using private citizens for espionage operations. There's still no evidence that Earhart was involved. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:55:13 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Alan's Evidence Well, just for the halibut, I'll try to get a picture of the jail cell when I'm on Saipan weekend after next (Giving a talk about the Niku hypothesis -- should be interesting to see what that elicits from local folk). I'll try to shoot the blindfold site, too, though it's probably by now under a high rise hotel. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:56:40 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > Apparently the artifact is now located in the office of Brennan's son, a > Texas attorney Pat, if you knew how many such stories and "artifacts" reside here in Texas you would not pay any attention to this one. Our former Attorney General is a big Jessie James buff and gave a talk to us about the old outlaw and showed his collection consisting of James' hat, holster and belt and a few other things all taken from the "real" Jessie who supposedly lived to old age and died in Dallas. Unfortunately DNA evidence on the exhumed body of James in Missouri proved the real Jessie died in 1878 or whenever just like all the old accounts said. Ric is right. That "blindfold" will never be submitted for testing. That would kill the great story. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:57:33 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > Unsupported anecdote? Good Lord, the "blindfold" itself supports the > anecdote. Sorry, Pat. As a judge I wouldn't let it in. There is no way to show it is the same piece of cloth she claimed to have seen 50 years prior nor any way to connect it with AE independently. It proves nothing more than her testimony does. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:30:48 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Spies in the Marshalls > they felt obliged to check out the more > persistent rumors to the contrary. Cam, or anyone, I haven't paid a lot of attention, I admit, on rumors so forgive me for not being up on that. I would be interested in when rumors started and what the contemporary sources might be. That's not very clear. What I mean is, are there any 1937 newspaper accounts showing folks thought there was something fishy or there was really a spy mission or that the Japanese had AE? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric On October 16, 1937 an Australian tabloid called Smith's Weekly publushed a cover story entitled "U.S.A Does Australia a Secret Service" alleging that the U.S. Navy used the Earhart search as an excuse to overfly the Marshalls. No suggestion that AE was involved in the plot. AE does not seem to have been implicated until after the 1943 release of "Flight for Freedom" when Georgia Tech president M. L. Brittain suddenly remembered that while he had been aboard the Colorado during the Earhart search he "had a very definite feeling that Amelia Earhart had some sort of understanding with officials of our government". In 1949 poor old Amy Earhart (to whom we daily express our affection) told the press that she thought her daughter had been working for the government. In response, an Army G-2 investigation and a United Press inquiry tried and failed to find any evidence that Earhart had been in the Marshalls. Secret Agent Amelia receded from view until 1960 when Fred Goerner began his high-profile investigation just weeks after an American spy-pilot (Francis Gary Powers) really was brought down and captured by the enemy. That the evolution of the Earhart Spy myth is so easy to trace has not kept it from becoming entrenched in the public consciousness. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:34:16 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Evidence >Brennan digs (with a backhoe, yet) and unearths a most unusual piece of >cloth. In case anyone hasn't seen the cloth, it's not a mere scrap o' >hankie. It's a strip of fabric that has been cut to a specific shape -- >full width in the middle, tapering gradually to a point on both ends -- >presumably for a specific purpose. One such purpose would be to cover the >eyes, with the tapered ends fitting over the ears and then tied in the back. >I'm sure the Forum can come up with other possible uses, but a blindfold >cannot be ruled out. Ric: This sounds like a Boy Scout neckerchief. Did it have any emblems on it? LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric Just a little Rising Sun emblem and some characters that translate: "Fold, Blind, 1 ea. This side toward firing squad" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:37:43 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: > How do I go about proving to myself that I am not a figment of my horse's > imagination. You have a horse? It's not a dead one that you beat frequently is it? Actually, if you are worried about this, don't you first have to make a basic assumption that your horse is real? I "think" I will stick with Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"). Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************** From Ric He regularly beats me, which may further suggest that I have been dead for some time. The beatings are real so it sort of follows that the horse must exist. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:41:21 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: In-Flight Malfunction Earlier, Ric wrote: >Yes, if the airplane malfunctions all bets are off. Had there been >such a malfunction on the Lae/Howland leg you might think that she would have >mentioned it in one of the transmissions to Itasca. She didn't - but that >doesn't mean that there could not have been a malfunction. Not only did AE not broadcast any messages about in-flight malfunctions, but also based on radio signal strengths received coincident with the approximate time when the Electra should have arrived, we know the aircraft was mechanically and aerodynamically sound enough to fly thousands of miles and make it very near to Howland island. For what its worth, Long's book mentions numerous malfunctions and repairs performed on the Electra's fuel flow system and radio during various legs of the world flight. The following Associated Press newspaper article was published in my local newspaper after the Electra departed Lae. The article mentions some "slight mechanical troubles" delaying their departure for Howland. Whatever the nature of these "mechanical troubles", it seems apparent they were not serious enough to prevent the Electra from flying all the way to Howland. Here is the article text: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Hopes End of Flight in 18 Hours Sydney, Australia, July 2 (AP) Amelia Earhart sped across 2,550 miles of the South Seas today toward Howland Island on what she described as "the worst section" of her leisurely flight around the globe. The slim American hopped off from Lae, New Guinea at 7 p.m. (EST) yesterday for the distant American-owned outpost which she said she hoped to reach in 18 hours. Weather conditions were perfect as Miss Earhart lifted her plane into the air. A run of nearly 900 yards was necessary before the plane left the ground with its heavy load of gasoline. Her ultimate destination with her navigator, Capt. Fred Noonan, is Oakland, Calif. When she arrives she will have circled the globe, "just for fun". Miss Earhart had been delayed at Lae several days, postponing the flight because of slight mechanical troubles and bad weather. *************************************************************************** From Ric Fortunately we have Chater's letter which describes in considerable detail what maintenance was performed on the airplane in Lae. Look in the documents section on the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:46:21 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Research needed Re: hoaxers, weren't most ham (and for that matter, commercial) radios crystal controlled in 1937? Since the ham frequencies did not include 3105 or 6210 it seems very unlikely that any ham would have a crystal for these frequencies and so would not be able to transmit on these frequencies. Isn't it true that those two frequencies were used only by aeronautical stations both in the air and on the ground so only those types of stations would have been able to transmit the messages attributed to AE? gl ************************************************************************* From Ric Good question. Who would have the means (transmitter, frequencies, knowledge) to perpetrate a hoax? Almost seems like it would have to be someone in aviation. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:51:04 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Battery Power You didn't really answer my question. How long would fully charged batteries last if transmitting such short distress messages so sparingly? Also, if it were you and regardless whether you could run an engine, would you leave the receiver on all the time, or only a few minutes after transmission? Not being a pilot (and therefore no credibility), I would have to say I might choose NOT trying to start the engine to transmit. After your comment about how finicky those radials were to start, and they don't start, that tremendous drain on the batteries would do you in for sure and you lose. I might go the route of sparing the batteries for transmitting because that would be a sure way of getting transmissions out there. My question above still stands. Chris#2511 **************************************************************************** From Ric Back on Sept. 19, 1999 we discussed this topic and Harry Poole wrote: The life of the two batteries depends on the state of charge, and the percentage of time transmitting. The battery was rated at 85 amp-hours (two Exide 6-FFHM-13-1). The Westinghouse transmitter required about 50 amps, and the receiver about 5 amps. Thus, if transmissions occurred once an hour for 6 minutes, while the receiver remained on constantly, battery drain would be about (50 X 0.1)+5 or 10 amps per hour. This results in a radio life of about 8.5 hours. If they tried to transmit for 15 minutes per hour, the drain would be more like (50 X 0.25)+5 or 17.5 amps per hour, with radio life shortened to about 5 hours. Finally, if they shut the receiver off (especially if they could not hear Howland), and restricted transmissions to 3 minutes per hour, they could continue to transmit for 85/(50 X 0.05) or as long as 36 hours. LTM Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:08:17 EDT From: Mike Harris Subject: Re: Evidence I took Buddy Brennan to Saipan and was in the hole when the blindfold was found. Besides the blindfold, we found pieces of animal bones, medical ampules, pieces of aircraft wreckage. The place we dug was obviously in a dump area on the edge of the WWII Japanese airfield. We dug where Mrs. Blas said a large Breadfruit Tree was located and did find the remains of the Breadfruit Tree roots. I've always thought this was a mistake, because we should have dug 10-feet out from where the main tree trunk was located. If you want any additional information on film footage I've taken from eye-witness accounts over the years in the Marshall Islands and Saipan, please let me know. Mike Harris ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Mike. You had someone there who could identify Breadfruit Tree roots from other tree roots? Sounds like the Japanese may have executed a drugged-up animal for stealing and wrecking an airplane. Hey...it could happen. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:11:16 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: > I'd have to recuse myself for inability to keep a straight face. Ditto. ************************************************************************* From Ric In the light of recent disclosures involving what was actually in the hole I may need to reconsider. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:12:31 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Alan's Evidence For: Tom King Tom, I'm told that a former WWII hero still lives on Saipan, Guy Gabaldan. He was the subject of a movie called "From Hell to Eternity" played by Jeffery Hunter. I have also heard that there is a movement afoot to get him the Congressional of Honor for his exploits on Saipan. He was referred to as the "Pied Piper of Saipan" because he spoke fluent Japanese and was able to talk hundreds of Japanese soldiers into surrendering. I mention this because I suspect Gabaldan is well versed in the history of the island. He was raised by Japanese foster parents in Los Angeles prior to the war. He might be an interesting contact for you and shouldn't be hard to locate. Anyhow, thought it might be of interest to you. Have a safe trip. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:14:07 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > In evaluating the data assembled by the backers > of the spy-mission hypothesis (SMH) we must be > careful not to set standards so high that no > hypothesis can ever be established. That would > to practice unreasonable doubt. Good point Marty. It is quite easy to dismiss stories because the support is either missing or too weak to consider but I don't think the stories themselves are or should be dismissed out of hand. The problem is what to do with them. If you will notice carefully in all such stories there are references to letters sent or some official asking another to do something but there is never any documentation. There are intriguing stories that don't connect any where except by inference. As to the supposed execution of AE we have no executor to accuse or defend and no usable evidence it even happened. The case would never even be indicted let alone be prosecuted. What people write in books about what folks long dead have or have not done doesn't get anywhere except book sales or blind fold video sales. The video would never get into evidence in the first place without corroborating evidence. The claim she saw someone shoot someone is worthless without being able to prove who those someones were. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:15:27 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Spies in the Marshalls > That the evolution of the Earhart Spy myth is so easy to trace has not kept > it from becoming entrenched in the public consciousness. Thanks, Ric. why am I not surprised. Memories surfacing so long after the fact are SOOO convenient. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:16:52 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's Evidence > I'll try to > shoot the blindfold site, too, though it's probably by now under a high > rise hotel. A high rise would be good enough for me, Tom. Take a picture and video tape someone saying, "Underneath that building is where Amelia was shot." I'll buy it. The story not the video. If anyone thinks I'm being unreasonably hard on the "evidence" I am. As a criminal defense attorney here in Austin I deal with evidentiary issues all the time. It is not easy to introduce things into evidence in court. I recognize non lawyers will not see that difficulty but I can assure you "it ain't easy." Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:19:11 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: FDR's secrets > and expands upon how Vanderbilt's yacht fit into the > picture. Ric, It refers to the Nourmahal, Vincent Astor's yacht. Ron Reuther *************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. Wrong rich guy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:25:29 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Evidence Mike Harris wrote: > I took Buddy Brennan to Saipan and was in the hole when the blindfold was > found. Besides the blindfold, we found pieces of animal bones, medical > ampules, pieces of aircraft wreckage. The place we dug was obviously in a > dump area on the edge of the WWII Japanese airfield. ... And therefore the piece of cloth could have been a bandage from a first-aid kit or an infirmary, among many other possibilities. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric Just to be difficult...when is the last time you saw a black bandage? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:28:47 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Brennan's blindfold Yes, the piece of cloth Mr. Brennan found does resemble a typical blindfold, too typical in fact. From the photos I have seen of field executions, most blindfolds are not triangular in shape, but rectangular. Besides, what possible advantage could the Japanese have gained by executing Earhart? Surely she would have been more valuable alive and used as an embarrassment to the United States. December 7, 1941 is over four years away, and Japan is deeply committed in China. Certainly a war with the U.S. in July of 1937 would be an extreme hardship for Japan. It just does not make any sense. ************************************************************************ From Ric The bottom of the piece of cloth is not pointed like a Boy Scout neckerchief. It's straight across. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:27:11 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Alan's Evidence Tom, The last I heard is that Guy Galbaldon, formerly of Saipan, lives now in Modesto, Cal and I have asked someone to look him up. Ron B ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:29:05 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Evidence Dave Bush wrote: >Ric: This sounds like a Boy Scout neckerchief. Did it have any >emblems on it? > >*************************************************************************** >From Ric > >Just a little Rising Sun emblem and some characters that translate; >"Fold, Blind, 1 ea. >This side toward firing squad" Ah, HA!!! So there really *was* a Imperial Army-issue blindfold! But, please read on: >From Alan >As to the supposed execution of AE we have no executor to accuse >or defend and no usable evidence it even happened. Just out of curiosity, did the Japanese keep records on dates, names and justification for that sort of execution? To shoot a civilian, especially one who might be known in government circles, seems -- to my Western understanding of Eastern minds -- to have demanded permission from The Top. Is there any reliable and official record of any execution in any communication with Tokyo? LTM (who blindfolds for nothing unpleasant) Mike H. **************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I'm aware of. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:34:00 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Battery Power The likelihood is that AE transmitted whilst charging from time to time but if she was not transmitting continuously there was enough spare capacity to bring the battery up to full charge. It would be a difficult judgement unless they had a voltmeter as to when the battery subsequently needed charging but as they had an auxilliary battery, it would be quite possible to always keep one at full voltage for starting the engine by disconnecting it from the radio after it had been recharged.. The batteries were I think maybe Exide FHM 13s rather than FFHM 13s. These were 12 volt batteries, probably in parallel as the second battery is described as an auxilliary battery. 24 volt systems were used on later aircraft but my guess is that the electra would have been 12 volts. I also note that the Luke Field inventory lists a 12 volt lamp. The capacity was more probably 88 Ah than 85. Capacities were once stated at both the 10hr and the 20 hr rate. These days the 20 hr rate tends to be more often quoted but nevertheless if a battery is discharged quickly its capacity is less. At the 10 hr rate the capacity might well be only 78Ahr and correspondingly less at higher discharge rates. Since there were two batteries, one can also double all the calculated times for how long the batteries may have lasted without charging giving 68 hours in the "longest" scenario. Also we have to take account of the fact that they may not have transmitted or received much during daylight hours as they would know that distance transmission or reception was not better than a few hundred kilometers (due to daytime D-layer absorption). Certainly not much was received purporting to be from them during daylight at Gardner, according to the times of the post-loss messages. If they only transmitted during darkness we can double the "longest" time again to 136 hrs or 5 1/2 days. If we throw in only a couple of charges we can see that it was quite possible to both receive and transmit quite regularly. The charging control circuit would have allowed recharging at very high rate immediately the discharged battery was put into circuit and the load would be sufficiently small that not much fuel would be expended. Ric seems to be of the opinion that only the messages of the first two or three days are very credible. In this scenario it would be quite possible for them to transmit and receive without charging. However there are indications from the messages themselves that the engine was running at times (motors heard in background) and a post loss reference to low fuel would only have any meaning in a battery-charging context. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric It will be interesting to see how many, if any, of the higher-probabiity SNRs occur during periods when an engine could not be running due to tidal height. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:34:56 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: > Just to be difficult...when is the last time you saw a black bandage? DOH! I have just been imagining the thing found in Saipan and now preserved under glass in Texas as a WHITE thingy. My mistake. I made an unwarranted assumption. Not for the first time in my life, either. :o( LTM, who woulda worn white if she could've. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:36:36 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Evidence Re: The Blindfold You have a reportedly competent witness testifying that she saw AE wearing handcuffs and blindfolded. Japanese soldiers take her to a hole already dug, tear the blindfold off and throw it into the hole, then shoot her. She falls backward into the hole. This occurs in the spring of 1944. Pretty vivid description. And the witness had prior knowledge of Amelia as she reports that she had seen the two fliers (Noonan also) prior to the WW near Garapan and the Japanese had identified her as "Amelia Earhart". In 1984 (?) Mike Harris and Brennan dig in the exact spot the witness has identified and they find a black blindfold, but nothing else relating to AE. Mike Harris is seen holding the blindfold in the hole, p. 138. The witness, Nieves Blas, looks at the cloth and through a translator says "she believes that is the blindfold Ameia was wearing...". Sort of a positive identification but of course she wasn't cross examined on that fact. Questions are what happened to the handcuffs? Remains of AE's skeleton? Was it AE or some other white female. The rest of her clothes? Why didn't the blindfold rot away? Why hasn't the cloth be forensically examined? Brennan furnishes answers to those and many more in his book. The "Shroud of Saipan" will offer many different interpretions as has the other Shroud. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:38:14 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Alan's Evidence For Mike Haddock -- Thanks; I've passed your note on to my contact on Saipan, and will see if there's an opportunity to talk with Gabaldan. I'll only be on-island one day, however. Incidentally, re. all the stuff associated with the blindfold -- one needs to remember that Garapan was seriously leveled by the invasion and its aftermath, and all manner of stuff was mixed together as a result. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:40:59 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Alan's Evidence For Alan and Ron. > You're right, Ron. That is evidence. The procedure, if you were to follow up > on that, would be to first determine if in fact there is "FN" existing on the > wall. Take a photo and a scratch sample for forensics. Call Devine and go > look at the door. Take a picture. Now all you have to do is prove who made > the markings. I don't know how you would do that. > > Alan > #2329 Regarding the prison cell, it might be possible to fume the interior of the cell with iodine or ninhydrin (both very dangerous to work with, health-wise) and thus develop any latent prints that might be present on the walls. If there are any. While they have raised fingerprints chemically from the interior of the pyramids in Egypt, they haven't been exposed to the kinds of climate or abuse that Garapan Prison received. Then, of course, you need to have prints of your subject to compare the lifts with. I know we have copies of Amelia's hand-prints, but what about Fred? ltm, jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:42:50 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: > > We're the only ones who spend time and money > debunkng our own tantalizing clues. > > I do, however, like the idea of pressing attorneys between glass plates. And this is why we love you guys. ltm, jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:45:20 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: > How do I go about proving to myself that I am not a figment of my horse's > imagination. We've discussed this before - no one, not even your horse, could possibly have imagined you. It would be entirely too hard to believe. Ergo, you must be real. ltm jon *********************************************************************** From Ric That's me ----- stranger than fiction. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:45:58 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence I also heard a story recently that Jesse's mom (after his demise) would get old guns from the local version of the hock shop, and when souvenir hunters would knock on the door, for a price she would reluctantly part with one of his guns... ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:53:03 EDT From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Evidence Hope all are well and happy, I have been a member of Tighar almost two years now. When I joined Tighar, I had never believed FN and AE went down on Niku. I have been a student of the AE mystery for eight years now and have come up with my own conclusions about what happened to A and F on July 2nd 1937. To me in my own mind I have put it to rest. Why I am writing this is because I am getting upset about you folks making light or fun of Buddy Brennan,this includes you Ric. Buddy was a great human being, a very fine man who deserves our respect as does Fred Gorner. I had the privilege of talking to Buddy several times before he died, the last time we talked he called me from his death bed. I feel honored to have conversed with such a person. Buddy believed in his quest with all his heart. He passed on believing he had found where AE died. I have seen on TV Buddy's words changed..B.B. said," If this is the blindfold AE was wearing, I cannot say.---" On TV it said," This IS AE's blindfold." Then people make light of the backhoe. Ric has called it "BACK HOE ARCHAEOLOGY". What he doesn't tell you is Buddy and his team only had one day to dig{daylight hours] This was the time alloted to them by the local govenrment. Folks, let us as Tighars give previous researchers the respect they deserve , Ric Included. They only went where the evidence led them. I have read the Tighar Forum every day for two years this Jan. I have learned so much and want to thank all of you. I don't say much as far as postings because its hard to compete with the intelligence that is on this forum. Ric, I think to broaden the search is to broaden the mind. It's like you got blinders on man or tunnel vision. You got something going here. Buddy followed behind Fred Gorner and that led him to where AE died. You could go from there and be the one to finish this mystery once and for all. Of all the witnesses in the Japanese and Saipan scenerio, are all of them lying? Ric, I don't believe you're looking in the right place, but I belive in Tighar and I belive in you. Terry Lee Simpson Port Huron,Mi{#2396} LTM .........[ LOOK TOWARDS MILI] ************************************************************************* From Ric Terry, I have no idea how to repy to you except to say that I have nothing personal aganst either Fred Goerner or Buddy Brennan, may they rest in peace. I'm sure they were both fine gentlemen but I think their investigative methodologies were deeply flawed. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:56:23 EDT From: Richard C Subject: starting and running an engine on the reef Although the propellor functions as a flywheel for a radial aircraft engine, it actually provides more rotational mass than is needed. Numerous WWII aircraft, most notable the B-17 "My Gal Sal", cleared an engine to run after crash-landing by sawing most of the propellor blades off, leaving only a stub slightly larger in radius than the engine itself. Under these conditions, successful engine runs to provide electricity for radios were made. Does any inventory of the Electra's contents include a hacksaw and/or blades? Is the reef material soft enough that a trench to clear a propellor could be dug in it? Did the Electra have a pick, shovel, or crash axe? Lastly, is an R-1340 too large to "prop" start by hand, if need be, under "dead battery" conditions? I've seen film of F4U corsairs being hand-propped, but it took a whole team of men pulling on a rope attached to a boot to do it, said boot being slipped over the end of a propellor blade. ************************************************************************* From Ric No hacksaw, no pick and shovel, no crash axe. The reef is far too hard to dig a trench. Although it is probably possible to hand-prop an R1340 it would be quite a trick standing on that slippery reef. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:58:41 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Fred Noonan and the Oregon Connection Recently I was contacted by the individual who has extensively researched the guestbooks of the Crown Point Chalet, a resort near Portland overlooking the Columbia River. It has an interesting history and had many famous guests including Henry J. Kaiser, F.W. Woolworth, Samuel Hill, Fatty Arbuckle, Mrs. Marshall Fields, Isoroku Yamamoto, Eddie Rickenbacker, Ronald Coleman, Marshall Foch, Charlie Chaplin, Barney Oldfield, Pola Negri, and many others. His specific interest in contacting me was he had found the signature of F.J. Noonan and asked if I could verify if it was indeed the Fred Noonan. He sent a scan and I am comfortable that it is our Fred. I sent it to Tighar Jerry Hamilton for more analysis but have not heard back yet. If indeed it was our Fred, he was there on September 23, 1921 and listed his residence as Vallejo, California. Jerry's maritime research has him as First Mate of the Eastern Victory during that time period, however, it is possible he was in port at Seattle or Portland on that date. Another interesting fact is that the Chalet was visited by George Palmer Putnam in 1916 and again in Sept. 1922. We know that GP was involved with the newspaper in Bend, OR, prior to W.W.I, if memory serves me. Fred, in September of 1921 would have been 28 and would have come a long way from the youngster who shipped out at age 15. Was Fred, by age 28, already becoming a bon vivant and rubbing elbows with the famous and near famous? I asked for the names immediately before Fred's in the guestbook and they are as follows: W.E. Ryan, Redwood City C.A. Taber, San Francisco L.W. Schneider, San Rafael C.W. Culver, Emeryville,CA R.B. Hawcroft, Reno, NV C.E. Kencrae, Hanford,CA Roy Lemoier, Richmond,CA. If anyone recognizes these names, would appreciate any email. Does this add to our picture of Fred? I don't know yet. It is interesting to note that 3 people now have Oregon and Hollywood connections to one extent or another: Fred, GP, and Eugene Pallette. May be just coincidence. The website for the Crown Point is http://crownpointchalet.com The Guestbooks of Crown Point Chalet Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:03:42 EDT From: Art in Maine Subject: Re: Battery Power So, if I follow this correctly, is it true that there isn't an absolute requirement that the engine be able to run to support the post loss messages? I forget, do we know what the duration was of the "Betty" transmissions and is it consistent/not consistent with strict rationing of battery power? ************************************************************************ From Ric Although we don't know for sure what day it was (but we may be able to figure that out), Betty's notebook indicates that she heard the transmission from 16:30 local time in St. Pete to 18:15. That's an hour and three quarters of pretty much constant transmitting - much longer than most of the other alleged transmissions. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:49:20 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > We're the only ones who spend time and money > >debunkng our own tantalizing clues. Someone has to. This story is only an anecdote so I hesitate to pass it on but it was told to me by an old friend who has since passed away. He got it from a well known Navy Admiral who has also passed away. There is no documentation but who knows, perhaps it is true. The Admiral said AE and Fred WERE picked up off of a Pacific Island and returned to the states. Fred changed his name to Elgin and had a good flying career. Amelia settled in Wilmington, Delaware and wearing a sandy colored mustache as a disguise went into a profitable Internet business. I can't vouch for this story, of course but maybe it needs to be pursued. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric Could you please put me in touch with her? I'd sure like to learn how to run a profitable Internet business. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:55:20 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Evidence Ok, you say the blindfold was thrown in the hole first, then AE was shot and pushed into the hole. Thus, the backhoe should have found a skeleton BEFORE it got to the blindfold. So, did they miss and she feigned death, laid in the hole in a way to create an air pocket, then dug her self out after everyone had left? So, where is she now. Pat (Gillespie), how old are you? LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric Pat uses the name she was born with (Thrasher). Amelia did the same. Pat claims she was born in 1954 but she looks quite bit younger than that. She's shorter, prettier, and a whole lot smarter than AE, so I don't think the hypothesis holds up very well. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:56:25 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Evidence White bandage goes in hole in ground, exposed to dirt, elements, etc for 60+ years, comes out black. No mystery here. LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************************ From Ric Try it. We'll wait. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:57:45 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Evidence I don't know about the drugged up part, but a buddy of mine was in the AF stationed at a base that will remain nameless, tho I know it well. Claims he was out on the edge of the base one day with a 22 rifle plinking varmints, etc. when he spied a large bull. The poor beast was pointing the wrong way and he got shot in a, ur, vital area. He says (tho I find it hard to believe), that the bull went wild, crashed thru the fence surrounding the runway, ran directly into the path of a jet fighter that was landing and collapsed the nose gear. That's pretty close to the scenario described below, but it was in Texas, not the Solomons. So, maybe that's what happened. AE shot some islander's bull after it ran into her airplane (don't you hate it when they shoot the bull), and was executed for her actions. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:02:06 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: Evidence Ron Bright wrote: >Saipanese nataive Nieva Blas's videotaped testimony (thru her daughter as an >interpreter) is rather chilling if you will. Brennan is still selling copies. When viewing the video made in the late 1980s, you may notice Buddy Brennan's speech is somewhat slow. He was in poor health and had a stroke just before the videotape was made and it affected his speech. I believe I read somewhere Mr. Brennan passed away quite a few years ago. The videotape was produced in conjunction with the EAA. I think EAA still distributes the book/video. Tom Riggs #2427 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:16:05 EDT From: Christopher Rehm Subject: Re: Evidence the key to running a profitable internet business is having an endless suppply of venture capitalists to supply capital, and using enron style accounting techniques... it should be a snap to make a profit! ( at least thats what ive been told....) Christopher Rehm Validation Engineer intel *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll settle for the endless suppply of venture capitalists who need tax deductions. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:18:44 EDT From: Eric Subject: Amelia as a "guest" of Japan It seems to be a general consensus that, IF AE and FN ended up in territory controlled by Japan, they were automatically considered as spies and were dealt with as such. But isn't it also possible that IF they did end up in territory controlled by Japan, that they might have fallen victim to the Japanese bureaucracy? Consider the following: two survivors are brought in from some outlying island suffering from sleep deprivation, hunger, dehydration and any injuries they might have sustained in the crash of their plane. They have no identification or passports. The woman claims that she is Amelia Earhart, but the U.S. Navy has just announced that Amelia Earhart was lost at sea. The local Japanese officials do not know what to make of this pair and put them into protective custody until they can obtain instructions from those higher up their chain-of-command. These higher-ups (in Tokyo or wherever) receive the report and are equally baffled, since the world now knows that AE was lost at sea. They ask for more details, requesting that all communications be kept secret. (Gallagher would later receive similar instructions from his superiors regarding the bones he found.) Thus tasked, local officials again question AE and FN, who by this time may or may not be providing coherent answers. This new information is forwarded to Tokyo where it is decided not to make public any information about the survivors. After all, if the woman is merely a nut case claiming to be AE, Japan would look extremely foolish if they announced to the world that they had rescued Amelia Earhart without first making a positive identification. Tokyo contacts the local officials and asks for finger prints, photographs, etc. By this time, it is quite possible that one or both of the survivors had succumbed to their physical ailments. When news of this reaches Tokyo, top officials now realize that they have a possible diplomatic disaster on their hands. If the woman IS AE, how will they explain to the world that she died while in Japanese protective custody? A decision is made to destroy all physical evidence and to keep the entire affair secret without making a positive identification of either of the two survivors. After all, it is now accepted that Amelia Earhart was lost sea, so why look further into something which might prove embarrassing for Japanese national honor. The above scenario is provided for the sake of generating discussion. Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ************************************************************************* From Ric You've been working for the federal goverment for too long. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:24:47 EDT From: David Subject: Re: Evidence In regards to an internet business---my wife has a hugely successful one on Ebay--if that counts--but I dont even pretend to know how she does it. All I know is much of my free time is spent going to the bank, buying packing material, and shipping packages out. Heck, now instead of hiding my old comics , cards and stuff from my mother, like when we were kids , to keep her from throwing them out----I have to hide them from my wife to keep her from selling it all!! David ********************************************************************** From Ric This is getting pretty far off-topic ... but I wonder if we're missing a bet by not peddling our wares on Ebay. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:31:40 EDT From: Scatman Subject: Re: Amelia as a "guest" of Japan Where's the paper trail and eyewitness accounts? Tough secret to keep if it went up the bureaucratic ladder. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:45:03 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: TIGHAR on Ebay? Ric wrote: > This is getting pretty far off-topic ... but I wonder if we're missing a bet > by not peddling our wares on Ebay. Can you spell "sales"? ************************************************************************ From Ric Sales are good. We like sales. One of our problems has always been that we have a relatively small audience to sell to. It's a very nice audience, mind you, and very dedicated, but it is small. Offering TIGHAR publications, wearables and artwork on Ebay would be labor intensive. It takes time to set up and administer a marketplace on Ebay, but if it resulted in significant sales it would, of course, be worth it. Is there a downside? Would it cheapen our image? What do you guys think? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:04:24 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? It's not that hard to sell on Ebay once you catch on to it. I sold a copy of Macromedia Flash 8 for about twice what I paid for it some time ago (it was a school copy). I was really stunned. The transaction went very smooth. You can establish a "reserve" or a minimum price, and the price has to come up to the "reserve" or higher. Good luck. I would encourage anyone to try it. Carol Dow #2524 ************************************************************************* From Marty Moleski Ric wrote: > This is getting pretty far off-topic ... but I wonder if we're missing a bet > by not peddling our wares on Ebay. I think we are. The costs of creating an Ebay store are low. The volume of customers is high. Try it for a year and see if it pays for itself. If so, great; if not, then cancel the storefront. > Is there a downside? No. > Would it cheapen our image? No. > What do you guys think? Go for it. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************* From Lawrence Selling on ebay is very time consuming (lots of work) if you plan to make any decent money. Also, Remember ebay is an auction house and you sell your items to the highest bidder. You may not always get the price you want unless you put reserves on the item being sold. Reserves, however, tend to turn buyers off. **************************************************************************** From Pete The only downside I see is dealing with the corporate entity that merchandizes AE in the name of her estate, as in the "offical Amelia Earhart website.'' Agree with the small client base though, and suggest you talk with Craig Fuller IRT expeditions that were done for other birds, so maybe the aviation archaeolgy folks would chime in for pics and such of the sites TIGHAR used to get C and E ratings on the membership number. I don't see cheapening the image with wider exposure via e-bay. TIGHAR gets some funding for all the projects from AE, to White Bird, to mushrooms for fighters. Interested folks find out about the website, maybe become Forum lurkers, and eventually like me end up with a membership on a drive like the one that got Drew his nickname for NIKU IIII. You've made it clear about the project goal of finding AE on NIKU or proving a negative that she was never there. If e-bay is the route that gets our favorite Fijian dive-boat standing by our favorite Pacific island, then fine. I'm no salesman, I'm educated to be what we called in the Navy a "twidget", and what TIGHAR taught me about doing research I give full credit for my graduating with Honors with a Bachelor's degree in September. You are the one in charge with this, but I support you and Pat as best I can. You know Nikumororo better than I ever will. "Courage is the price..." Love To Mother Pete #2419 ************************************************************************** From Ric That's one of the nicest compliments we could hope for. Thanks. As to not getting crosswise of Curtiss Management Group (CMG Worldwide) who police the Earhart estate's supposed lock on cashing in on Amelia - we're careful not to market Amelia Earhart. Our "product" is TIGHAR's search for Amelia Earhart. You'll note that our T-shirts don't feature a picture of the sainted flyer and the name Earhart only appears as part of the project name. Likewise, the artwork presently being offered does not depict Amelia herself but depicts the Electra in the context of our hypothesis. In short, we don't cash in on Earhart's reputation. If anything, we tend to debunk it. We solicit contrubutions based upon our own reputation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:08:18 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Evidence > This is getting pretty far off-topic ... but I wonder if we're missing a bet > by not peddling our wares on Ebay. Well, now that we know what the "knob" really is; we don't need it any more, do we? Or was that not the kind of wares you had in mind? LTM (who used to tell me to take my tongue out of my cheek) Kerry Tiller ******************************************************************* From Ric Maybe our Ebay storefront should be called the "Gardner Co-Op Store". I think most of the original contents of that establishment must be in our artifact storage cabinets. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:11:41 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence From Alan > a profitable Intenet business. OK, so I got carried away. Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric ....as you sometimes do, but this time you sparked an interesting thread. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:16:11 EDT From: Herman De Wulf #2406 Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? It may be true that the Ebay thing is off topic but it is interesting information. The forum is a meetig place where people share information on Amelia Earhart's historic flight. But if this also leads to better understanding how Ebay works, why not ? LTM (who has a house full of books en pix and things fit to get rid off) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:20:04 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Evidence Aren't any artifacts found on Niku the property of the Government of Kiribati? ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course they are. Randy, you know me better than that. We'd never sell anything we collected from the island, even if we could. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:12:08 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence It couldn't hurt. There's a truckload of (mostly irrelevant) AE stuff on there every day. Lots of repro pictures, etc. Every now and again there's something interesting. ltm jon ****************************************************************** From Ric A truckload of irrelevant stuff implies a truck-sized market that might be interested in something relevant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:15:27 EDT From: D.W. Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? Off topic, but I thought I'd mention that most of the Earhart books and things I own, I bought through eBay. It's a good place to find things and it's quite easy, and you'd be surprised at how much business goes through there. If I happned to see a TIGHAR cap on eBay, I would buy it. LTM, D. W. *************************************************************************** From Ric Well that's pretty interesting. You would buy a TIGHAR cap on eBay but you haven't (I presume) bought one from TIGHAR. Apparently there's a perception that anything on eBay is probably offered at a bargain price. Buying on eBay is perceived as somehow beating the system. Fascinating. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:17:44 EDT From: Eric Subject: Re: Amelia as a "guest" of Japan > From Scatman > > Where's the paper trail and eyewitness accounts? Tough secret to keep if it > went up the bureaucratic ladder. There seems to be no end of eye witnesses who claim to have seen what they thought were AE and FN in Japanese custody. (They were just unaware of the circumstances.) As for the "paper trail," anything that wasn't destroyed as per instructions might still exist in those tons and tons of Japanese files which were collected after the war and which seem to have disappeared. (But then again, with all those eye witness accounts, we don't need no stinkin' paper trail!) 'nuff said. Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ************************************************************************* From Ric Indeed, 'nuff said. The great fallacy of the "eye witness". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:30:09 EDT From: Jeff Bolen Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? Ric wrote: > Well that's pretty interesting. You would buy a TIGHAR cap on eBay but you > haven't (I presume) bought one from TIGHAR. Apparently there's a perception > that anything on eBay is probably offered at a bargain price. Buying on eBay > is perceived as somehow beating the system. Fascinating. he means TIGHAR selling on e-bay ****************************************************************** From Ric My point is that he can buy a TIGHAR cap on-line right now from TIGHAR and yet he says, << If I happned to see a TIGHAR cap on eBay, I would buy it.>> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:32:02 EDT From: D.W. Subject: Re: TIGHAR on eBay I don't need to bother the list with this, but I merely meant that a lot of people are signed up for eBay already and it is easy for them to buy TIGHAR items. You just bid. You don't need to send credit card info or have your CC info online to buy items. It's a great place to sell TIGHAR wares and also spread the word about the group. LTM *********************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I see your point. Interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:24:15 EDT From: Eric Subject: Re: Earhart as "guest" of Japan > Obviously a "lifer" (it takes one to know one, Eric) > Kerry Tiller Working for any Government agency provides great insight into the bureaucratic mindset. Much of what we think is the footprint of some giant conspiracy is really the result of bureaucratic bumbling. (The missing bones from Gardner is a good example.) Which gets me back to my original point: IF AE and FN ended up in territory controlled by the Japanese, it is more likely that they were victims of the (Japanese) bureaucracy rather than being executed as spies. Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. **************************************************************************** From Ric But the same bumbling should prevent the efficient erasure of a paper trail. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:32:30 EDT From: Chris Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? personal experience tells me that many things sell on ebay for more than their real worth, sometimes for more than what you can buy them in a store for. people think that because its on ebay it must be rare/valuable etc you need to know what you are buying. on the other hand mabye you can get more for those tighar caps on ebay than on your own website..... chris ******************************************************************* From Ric There should always be a discount for TIGHAR members and we'll make that clear on the eBay storefront, thus encouraging people to come to the TIGHAR website and join. ********************************************************************* From Amanda The things that seem to sell the best on Ebay are things that are perceived as "collectible." So Niku videos might do better than t-shirts or ball caps. Maybe you could auction off seats for an aviation archaeology class; but I wouldn't take a bunch of bidders into the field. What might sell best is this: get a bunch of t-shirts in various sizes before the next Niku expedition and get all the team members to sign them in permanent ink. Then auction off the signed shirts when you get back. Speaking of which, I ordered a tee on the website on the 18th -- did it go through? Just curious LTM who's OOAK herself, Amanda Dunham #2418CE ************************************************************************* From Ric Yes. The order is being filled today. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:41:18 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Earhart as "guest" of Japan Eric wrote: >Working for any Government agency provides great insight into the >bureaucratic mindset. Much of what we think is the footprint of some >giant conspiracy is really the result of bureaucratic bumbling. > >**************************************************************************** >>From Ric > >But the same bumbling should prevent the efficient erasure of a paper >trail. Most bureaucrats seem to take better care of their careers than they take care of their work. Leaving a paper trail concerning the death of a foreign celebrity would be a huge mistake in terms of career. LTM (who keeps all her receipts) Mike in Richmond VA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:44:01 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: TIGHAR on eBay Also, with E-Bay, you can have an on-line store and place only one or two items in the "auction" area which then lead people to your store where they can buy "direct" without the auction process. I use this method myself. To check out my EBay store go to: http://www.stores.ebay.com/wildblueyonderaviationshop I occasionally put an item in the auction area and include a "Buy It Now" feature which takes them to my store, where they will see other items. LTM - Love To Market, Dave Bush *********************************************************************** From Ric We'll probably go the eBay store route. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:44:49 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? It doesn't take that much to set up an EBay Storefront - you don't have to put items up for auction - they can be sold at a fixed price - the auction just "lures" buyers into the store. The price is minimal and is actually based on how many items you market and sell. Not that hard to do once you get set up. LTM Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:49:26 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Tom Devine I E-mailed with Don Wilson recently and was informed that Tom Devine has a second witness to the sighting of Earhart's Electra at Saipan. How it got there is a guess - possibly on board the Koshu or the Kamoui. Sadly enough, if the Electra was destroyed at Saipan, it would be the end of the evidence trail. But it does confirm more stories coming out of Saipan than, possibly, any other source. Does anyone have any comments on the foregoing, Re: Tom Devine? Also, there is lacking any real reason why the Navy would want the airplane destroyed. Or, better yet, what happened to Earhart's briefcase? If I remember the briefcase was also a Saipan story. One nice thing about Tom Devine....he's still alive (I believe). Carol Dow #2524 ************************************************************************* From Ric I don't care how many people Tom Devine can find who now remember seeing Earhart's Electra on Saipan. I can probably find an equal number who have been abducted and examined by space aliens. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:50:39 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Earhart's briefcase and passport After thoughts...so did anyone set fire to Earhart's briefcase? Not hardly. If that could be tracked down, what a find it would be. Wouldn't it be nice if it was sitting in some naval warehouse or better yet, on file in somebody's library? Maybe even a private collector. Carol Dow #2524 ******************************************************************* From Ric Maybe you could write a play about it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:01:17 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? Ric said: >There should always be a discount for TIGHAR members and we'll make that >clear on the eBay storefront, thus encouraging people to come to the TIGHAR >website and join. Good idea, but, eBay does not allow you to promote your site from the actual auction item page. Their fear is that the item page will be a lure to sell wares from your TIGHAR site, thus avoiding the eBay listing and sales fees. They do allow you to mention your site on their "About Me" pages. The majority of buyers never look at the "About Me" pages, which is available from a small icon on the item page. So, no URLS or promotional information about TIGHAR where it would do the most good. More here: http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/index.html You would not have to start an "eBay storefront" to test the waters. All you need to do is sign up for a free eBay seller account, and put up a few items to see if there is any interest. In spite of Chris' comment that "personal experience tells me that many things sell on eBay for more than their real worth", I feel that this is not the majority of items. At the current point in time, eBay has 8 million items for sale. The vast majority of these items sell for below market value, or don't sell at all. In the case of new items, they usually do not go over the retail price available on the net. People who shop on eBay are computer-savvy to start with, and have the ability to look up prices online before making the eBay purchase. Of course, there are always exceptions. For example, during the winter Olympics, Roots (brand) caps were selling for hundreds of dollars when Roots was selling them at their site for $20. Why? Because the Roots site items were on backorder, while the eBay sellers had the item in hand. A search of completed auctions with the words "Amelia Earhart" will give you an idea of the current market: http://search-completed. ebay.com/search/search.dll?ht=1&query=amelia+earhart&SortProperty=MetaEndSort Of the six pages, the majority of items received no bids at all. I'm not trying to discourage you, just adding more food for thought. Suzanne ************************************************************************** From Ric That's okay. We need an accurate picture. It doesn't surprise me that most Earhart itiems received no bids. It has been my experience that a lot of people assume that Earhart memorabilia (usually autographed photos or just photos) have commercial value, and, by and large, they don't. What TIGHAR has for sale falls into two general categories: - accurate information about the Earhart disappearance (a truly rare commodity) - TIGHAR wearables and artwork. Whether there's a market for that sort of thing outside the ethereal world of TIGHAR members remains to be seen. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:09:07 EDT From: Brent Subject: Re: Evidence Are their any upcoming Expeditions planned for for Niku and what would you be looking for specifically. Thanks, Brent Brisbane Australia *************************************************************************** From Ric Our seventh expedition to Niku, known as Niku V (our numbering system got kind of screwed up), is schedued for the summer (northern hemisphere) of 2004. We'll be looking for further evidence at the location we call the Seven Site that may help us identify the castaway(s) known to have died on the island, and we'll be searching for aircraft debris on the west end of the island that we suspect was washed up and buried by storm activity. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:11:15 EDT From: John Harsh Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? My 2 cents. I have a Tighar Vega that I got from Ebay for about $5 plus $5 shipping. I missed them the first time around and was glad to get one, especially at this price. As of today, there are two of these banks on Ebay, with the least expensive starting at $9.99. One was listed a week ago at $9.95 but did not get a bid. A few weeks ago, a copy of "Shoes" went for around $5 (plus shipping). I have sold a few small items on Ebay at a monetary profit, but after boxing them up and mailing them, the profit didn't make up for the hassle. On the other end, I typically buy things that I either can't find locally or (more often) can have delivered to my doorstep much cheaper than I can buy at the store. I buy a lot of bargains on Ebay. Collectibles and "sets" seem to be the drawing card. Some people are making a living at buying yardsale items and Salvation Army finds and selling them at a profit. To me it just isn't worth the effort, unless you can clear enough dollars to justify the time. My vision of the ideal Ebay situation would be a person who has a small retail shop with dedicated employees who uses slack time in the day to list slow moving stock, answer the emails, and ship the product. Ebay is fun. My advice to Tighar is to try it and see, but I would not invest money in new items for resale until you prove the value. I recommend carefully wording the listing to maximize returns on searches and generate some curiosity. Marketing is key and you want at least two interested parties bidding against each other to drive the price up. I think project exposure to the masses is a possible opportunity here. I'm wondering if Ebay has some provision for charities. Best of luck. LTM (who's running out of horizontal space for all this junk I buy) -JMH 0634C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:35:57 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bureaucrats Mike in Va said: >Most bureaucrats seem to take better care of their >careers than they take care of their work. Leaving a paper trail >concerning the death of a foreign celebrity would be a huge mistake in >terms of career. I have to disagree. As a career bureaucrat in state and federal service I can attest to the care most of us take in documenting our work. We protect our careers by protecting our ass and we do that by documenting everything that crosses our desk. We ain't dumb. I also spent 10 years at a major U.S. intelligence agency and their records are even more detailed. If there is a plan afoot in a government (or state?) agency you can bet your bottom dollar there is also a file on it somewhere. How do you think we were so successful in prosecuting all of the Nazis at Nuremberg (sp.?) -- those guys kept GREAT files and basically convicted themselves. The First Commandment of all conspiracy buffs is" "The absence of evidence is evidence of a cover-up." And as for destroying files -- don't bet on it. There is a separate bureaucracy set up just to document your files and it creates more files to document the new files; and there is a review process that takes about two years requiring everyone from the First Lady to the janitor to sign off on destroying the stuff. The law allows for early destruction of certain working papers, drafts etc. within the first few months of their creation. So the smart ones clean their files every month or so to get under the time line and avoid documenting memos from six years ago about projects no one remembers. LTM, who maintains minimum files Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:37:54 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Earhart's breifcase and passport The play as suggested by Ric could start with the unknown Marine giving the briefcase with the "Earhart " papers to a officer, getting a receipt, but then losing the receipt. And later can't recall the Officers name. All with shells bursting in air, muddy beaches...etc. fade back to Lae with AE getting into the Electra with her briefcase.... LTM, Ron *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure Carol can figure out some way to have a "fade" in a stage play. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:38:46 EDT From: David C. Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? Maybe I should have never mentioned Ebay! Now my wife thinks you will take away some of her business!(she likes the monopoly system of free enterprise) Just kidding! It would be good for Tighar exposure and fund-raising. You might be surprised how many closet Earhart and aviation enthusiasts there are out there. David C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:39:56 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Tom Devine Ric wrote: > I don't care how many people Tom Devine can find who now remember seeing > Earhart's Electra on Saipan. I can probably find an equal number who have > been abducted and examined by space aliens. Does this lead us back to the Twilight Zone episode thread? ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric Did we ever leave it? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:44:14 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Tom Devine > if the Electra was destroyed at Saipan, it would be the end of the evidence > trail. But it does confirm more stories coming out of > Saipan than, possibly, > any other source. Carol, have you noticed that how all the Marshall evidence disappears? Someone saw it but now it's gone. That's how the story stays alive -- by destroying evidence or not testing it or having nothing tangible in the first place. If you look carefully at ALL the Marshall stories and "Evidence" absolutely nothing can be verified or tested. How convenient. Does that not make you suspicious? I know it doesn't and instead you are suspicious of all the TIGHAR information that DOES still exist and CAN be tested. Is that not backwards? Whatever you may think about the finds on Niku they don't burn up or otherwise disappear. AND they are all tested as thoroughly as possible. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric Well...to be fair, the NTSB lab did lose a couple of artifacts for us. An apparent B-24 part (with partial serial number), and the fragment of kapok insulation with woven blue fabric from the Dado (THAT was very disappointing). Bureaucrats! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:47:37 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Earhart as "guest" of Japan > But the same bumbling should prevent the efficient erasure > of a paper trail. There is certainly adequate evidence this is true. Nixon's tapes, Enron's internal memos, Hilliary's case files, Monica's blue dress, and one could go on indefinitely. It would almost suggest the complete lack of evidence might mean there was none in the first place, except, of course, the super efficient folks involved in the great Marhall Island cover up. Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric It's very tempting to enumerate some records that DO seem to have conveniently disappeared - but they're off-topic. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:42:38 EDT From: J.R. Neumiller Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? I'm new to the list, but your comments about eBay are interesting. Not only can you offer specific physical and informational products, but you'll also be raising a good deal of awareness for your project. (I started off selling batteries on eBay, and now its my full time job.) Another reason to get involved with eBay is as a source for the clues you are seeking. This link is an excellent illustration of what I mean: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=726180923 Here you have a person selling off a personal artifact of a picture taken of AE by a private individual. TIGHAR's archives must be full of pictures by now, but you never know what something like this could reveal. And this is just one instance. What other kinds of ideas or data might be discovered in some of these auctions? Its definitely worth keeping an eye on. Thanks! J.R. Neumiller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:53:42 EDT From: Warren Subject: More Canton Info. I hate to distract you from the wildly popular subject of EBAY with an actual AE related question-please forgive me. I was curious about the progress on a couple of "behind the scenes" items that you mentioned a short while ago. The first-was regarding some research that was going on with an additional plane (or engine?) photo that had materiaized. (Would love to see the photo!) The other had to do with verification of engine stories with helicopter pilots from Canton. Thanks, Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric No new photo has materialized. We have another anecdote about an engine seen by one of the SAMTEC helicopter pilots. He's sure he was on Hull and the engine was back in the coconut jungle (so it's not Bruce's engine). No other wreckage around except an intact hatch of some kind that doesn't seem to fit the description of anything on an Electra. Neither the engine nor the hatch was recovered and nobody else we've talked to remembers seeing anything like that. At this point it's just one more uncorroborated anecdote. Our tracking down of various veterans from the SAMTEC operation on Canton has, so far, resulted in several mildly conflicting accounts of some kind of old airplane engine in the shop for a brief time, but nobody recalls for sure what kind of engine it was and we're getting universal agreement that not only does no one remember any engine being slung in from any outlying island, but that such an event should have been well known had it have happened. The most likley explanation for an old engine in the shop seems to be that it was brought in from one of the wrecks on Canton - particularly a derelict PBY with the name "Big John" on its nose. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:56:38 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Earhart's briefcase and passport Oh Lord, more plays. I think I'm played out. The only trouble is someone needs to find the briefcase. Anyone have any spare briefcases? Not enough to go on. That would make a great scene, Ron. Ric, this blasted mystery is flubbergasting (new word). It goes on and on and on. Alan, there isn't enough evidence at Niku unless someone can up with more. The only thing you really have (plus a few more items) is the shoes and the sextant's case. Maybe Niku 5 will turn up something. Also, Ric, as long as we are talking, why can't someone go over the side at the reef on Niku 5 and scuba dive around with searchlights? The cost would be minimal. What have you got to lose? If there's nothing there, there's nothing there. But at least you can try. Cold and rainy here. No tennis today - sub. the exercise room. Enjoy the conversation. Carol Dow, who likes to write plays (sometimes). ************************************************************************ From Ric There will be some scuba work off the reef during Niku V but I suspect that, at least for you, the mystery will go on and on forever. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:34:23 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? > Sales are good. We like sales. One of our problems has always been that we > have a relatively small audience to sell to. I expect the "wearables" would sell. There always seems to be a market for strange/different T shirts and caps. I don't feel as confident about the other stuff. > Is there a downside? Would it cheapen our image? What do you guys think? If you do it "classy" I don't think it would harm the image, and it might well attract some attention. If the web site URL isn't on the clothes now, include it in the next printing. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:41:30 EDT From: Herman De Wulf, Brussels Subject: Re: Bureaucrats Dennis left out one technique. If things are getting too hot the paper trail will travel. The files will be moved from one place to another, preferably to a faraway city "where it will be taken care off by people who have more experience in the matter". As anyone knows it will later appear that in the process some of the documents got lost. When this will be discovered this will then be taken for granted. No real bureaucrat will ever want to try and find the lost documents. That's how secret services cover their ass where I live. But I'm sure the technique is in use internationally. LTM (who could cite a few examples) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:20:10 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? Bill wrote: > If the web site URL isn't on the clothes now, > include it in the next printing. It shouldn't add anything to the cost of the merchandise, and it would really add to our visibility. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. It's a good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:24:53 EDT From: J.R. Subject: Engine on Niku Here is something I don't quite understand about the engine supposedly found on Niku and taken to Kanton. I've read a lot of material on the website concerning this. The last I heard is that the engine was supposedly taken to Kanton where it was ultimately buried in an unmarked scrap heap. Have the previous expeditions gone to where the engine was supposedly found and done a cursory examination? I have trouble believing *only* an engine was found with no scrap related material to verify the location. (Or were the natives that thorough in scavenging?) Therefore, either the "collateral material" is there or the event did not occur at this island. Or has this been addressed previously? I'm a newbie to the list, so sorry about that. (Your list archives are, for what its worth, basically unsearchable for anyone having not having reams of idle time to plow through them.) J.R. ************************************************************************** From Ric We don't know where the engine was supposedly found. The finder doesn't know where he was. It's possible that an engine may have separated from the main body of wreckage and ended up alone on a reef while the lighter material was swept away. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:32:37 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Earhart's briefcase and passport > Alan, there isn't enough evidence at Niku unless someone can up with > more. The only thing you really have (plus a few more items) is the shoes > and the sextant's case. Carol, we can probably find the real smoking gun -- a piece of cloth laying around. I know that will convince you. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:03:28 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Picts. The "Wreck Photo" that you have made an enlargment of just the nose section, shows a mysterious oblong door or panel. I call it a door because it apears to be on hinges, and is in the open position. Under extreme magifacation there seems to be something like a lense just inside the outside skin of the aircraft. I have looked at a lot of Lockheed Electra's and none of them has this type of door ,or panel. I Don't know what it could be used for, maybe sight seeing pictures. Does anyone have an idea what this strange oblong door or panel is? ************************************************************************ From Ric For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with Ron's interpretation that the photo shows any kind of mysterious door or panel, let alone a lens. There appears to be a rectangular section of skin missing from the nose, that's all. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:07:26 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: "Big John" Ric sez: > Our tracking down of various veterans from the SAMTEC operation on Canton > has, so far, resulted in several mildly conflicting accounts of some kind of > old airplane engine in the shop for a brief time, but nobody recalls for sure > what kind of engine it was and we're getting universal agreement that not > only does no one remember any engine being slung in from any outlying island, > but that such an event should have been well known had it have happened. The > most likley explanation for an old engine in the shop seems to be that it was > brought in from one of the wrecks on Canton - particularly a derelict PBY > with the name "Big John" on its nose. It is a long long way around the island, on a very bad trail nowadays, to the Big John beach. Don't know how good that road was in the seventies. Not much of a beach access for what I can remember, and then how to load the thing in the back of a truck? Could a helo on a test flight etc have been used to take it to the shop, just accross the channel? "Different beach on another island"? Is this confusion likely in someone's memory? A quick short routine test flight, not noticed by too many people... Of course no Norwich City in the area -but then, also, there is the President-whatever wreck just nearby.... Regards. Christian D *********************************************************************** From Ric We've wondered about that. Seems like a possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:10:15 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Engine on Niku J.R. wrote: > ... (Your list archives are, for what its worth, > basically unsearchable for anyone having not having reams of idle time to > plow through them.) Google is a great help: Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Marty. We intend for people to use Google to search the archives. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:28:40 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Picts. This "oblong door" can be seen in another photo on the Fred Noonan.com. There is a picture of AE, FN, and Harry Manning, if you just look at the picture it looks like AE is having a bad hair day, but a close and careful look shows a door or panel sticking out on each side of her hair. This is where I first saw the panel, then on close inspection of an enlargment of the nose section it can be observed close to the ground at the front end of the cabin. *********************************************************************** From Ric Once again, I disagree with Ron's interpretation of the photos. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:30:32 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Engine on Niku You can actually set up a google search customised to search TIGHAR's site (provided TIGHAR is listed on google). This places a button on a page (you choose where) and you can have the thing default to search TIGHAR first, then the web. Might be worth looking at? Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************************** From Ric We'll look into it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:32:44 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: TIGHAR on Ebay? Ric, I'm sure you've thought about it: so that legalities can't prevent you from having the url on ebay, you may want to officially change Tighar's name to: "TIGHAR.org". Then any item displayed on ebay will show a self evident url. Christian D ********************************************************************** From Ric We'd have to see a big response from eBay before we changed the name of the organization just to get around their rules. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:37:15 EST From: Monty Fowler Subject: Restoration vs. Rebuilding - sort of off topic Amazing what you can do with an unlimited amount of money ... ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plane Stuck in Glacier Flies Again By ROGER ALFORD Associated Press Writer October 26, 2002, 10:45 PM EDT MIDDLESBORO, Ky. -- Hibernation is officially over for Glacier Girl. After spending a half-century in the heart of a Greenland glacier, the World War II fighter plane flew Saturday for the first time since it was pulled piece by piece from beneath 268 feet of ice and snow. -------------------------------------------------------------- ...and this begs the question, what have these guys really accomplished? Yes, they now a a flyable P-38 Lightning. I'm happy for them. But to say they have "restored" it, when it is obvious that what they really did was take the bits that were left, salvage what they could and then recreate most of an airplane, is very misleading I think. What they could have had was an authentic, unique, living history time capture of a particular and (for the men involved) very desperate moment in WWII. What they ended up with is a few bits of WWII militaria that are now capable of flying in loose formation. If you want more information, go to: http://thelostsquadron.com/museum.html or for a story of the "historic" day: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-glacier-girl1027oct26,0,6516963.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ************************************************************************* From Ric "Glacier Girl" is the poster child for the need for public education about historic preservation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:43:30 EST From: Brent Stringer Subject: Re: Photek In one of the earlier archives it was mentioned that some old Photos taken of object by Norwich City were being looked at by Photek. Any further news on these ? Brent Stringer *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. We were able to establish that the object in the photo that we suspected might be airplane wreckage was, in fact, debris from the shipwreck. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:30:15 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Evidence For what it's worth, I'm just back from Saipan where I visited the "blindfold site" with Scott Russell, formerly Deputy CNMI Historic Preservation Officer, who says he witnessed the discovery. Apparently Brennan and Harris hadn't bothered to get an excavation permit from the government, and Scott came across one or the other of them sitting atop a pile of backdirt looking at the "blindfold," chided him for digging illegally, and left it at that. The site is now the paved parking lot of the CNMI Public Works Department. The area is one in which there's lots of junk scattered about resulting from pre-war use, the invasion, and post-invasion land-modification, though apparently it's not entirely churned up; Scott reports that prehistoric burials were recovered in a salvage operation in advance of construction about 50 meters northwest of the "blindfold" site. This is pretty typical of the lee side of Saipan, which was heavily occupied in prehistoric times, the center of the sequential Spanish, German, and Japanese administrations of the Northern Marianas, then bore the brunt of the 1944 U.S. bombardment and invasion, then was modified considerably by the Seabees, and since then has developed into something vaguely akin to Waikiki, complete with Hard Rock Cafe and 20-story hotels. There are pockets of undisturbed pre-war ground, but there are also vast areas of great ground disturbance, and the locations of the undisturbed areas are pretty unpredictable. While it's not inceivable that the site of a given historic burial could be found, it would be a real long shot. As for a given piece of cloth representing a given execution-and-burial event, I think you're talking astronomically long odds. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:19:06 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Restoration, rebuilding, reconstruction Having participated in two C/Es, I am well acquainted with TIGHAR's position on historical preservation. I also have a BA in Military History, specifically 20th Century American Military History, as well as an MA in Historical Preservation. I agree with TIGHAR's position that there needs to be a universal standard when using the terms "restored, rebuilt, reconstructed, original," or whatever term may be used when discussing aircraft, or anything historical, for that matter. Certainly license is taken with the application of these terms when describing aircraft and resistance is expected when one seeks to generalize terms which would lead to the devaluation of an artifact. However, in certain situations it is difficult to decide what would be the proper course for preservation of an aircraft. Certainly no one was more upset over the fate of the "Lady of the Lake," than me. (Please see http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/courses/ID2000/loonlake.html If I am to correctly understand the situation of "Glacier Girl," it was obvious that the only possible way to salvage any of this plane was to do so one piece at a time. Currently the technology does not exist to salvage the aircraft as a whole in a financially prudent manner. Perhaps at a later date it may be possible to do so. The remaining aircraft remain in the ice for future recovery. I am not advocating resurrection of all aircraft a piece at a time for rebuilding, or using parts as patterns for this purpose, but in this situation it was perhaps the best thing to do at the time. For now, I think it is important to view each wreck site salvage as an individual case, and decide the appropriate course of action. In some cases, the best thing to do may be a "wait and see" approach. Whatever the course may be, I firmly agree that it should be labeled accurately as to the state of the finished product. (For example, original to when?) Having spent thousands of hours interviewing all types of WWII veterans as part of an ongoing project at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville to preserve their stories, I have come to appreciate their point of view. As a historian, I am a great believer in the power of oral history as passed from generation to generation, in the proper context. I think the following quote taken from the "Glacier Girl" article cited sums up a great deal: "That plane means something to me, because it has had it as tough as I have," Miller said. "We've both survived." Historical preservation is, at best, a series of very difficult decisions. The first thing I was exposed to in the field of historical preservation was a criteria of deciding "what to keep and what to throw away" when establishing an archive. Historical preservation is a very fluid science and it is difficult to make sweeping, across the board standards that apply to all aircraft in all situations. The best preservationists try to be flexible in making the best decisions as possible at that time. Certainly mistakes have been made as in the case of the Spirit of St. Louis, but it is important not to judge the decisions of those in the past by the standards of today. Historical context is vital when considering the actions of others. This applies to all aspects of history. I had an extensive, heated discussion with Roger Kelley while in Idaho along these very lines. He argued the extent of power allowed to President Roosevelt during the Depression and early days of WWII was excessive and should not have been allowed. My argument was he was judging the past by the standards of today. We agreed to disagree and parted friends. My point in this overly long posting is to make the best decision possible based on the situation, information and technology at the time. Once done, be sure your descriptive terms are accurate and truthful without being misleading. Absence of truth is, in my opinion, a lie. My apologies for the length, but this is an issue I feel very strongly about. I commend TIGHAR for their somewhat controversial stand on the accuracy of historical terms. LTM, (who can see the veins standing out in Ric's neck from here) MStill, #2332CE ************************************************************************** From Ric Actually, I agree with most of your comments, but the truth is that the P-38 never had a chance. There was no difficult decision made about whether to reassemble the airplane and preserve it or use it as the starting point of an airworthy-rebuild project. It's all about money. The Greenland Expedition Society was a commercial venture that hoped to salvage an airplane, return it to airworthy condition, and sell it at a profit. There wasn't, and still isn't, a market for a preserved P-38. The aviation public values airplanes, not artifacts. The naivete of the original organizers of the project is almost beyond belief. They fully expected to uncover the aircraft, change the props, and fly the airplanes off the ice. Once they discovered that the airplanes were far deeper than anyone imagined, and somewhat squished, they lowered their sights to recovering one airpane that could be rebuilt. In the end I'm sure the project was a financial disaster but they've finally got their phoney Lightning. ===================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:39:31 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Glacier Girl I think Ric's point about "Glacier Girl" is that there was nothing to restore. Hundreds of tons of ice accumulated over the past 50-pus years had flattened the aircraft to the point where there were no straight pieces left, according to the pictures I've seen. Some major components had survived -- landing gear, engines, some instruments etc. but every single piece of skin was bent or damaged in some way. It's like the story of my grandfather's hammer -- my dad replaced the handle and I replaced the head. LTM, who has a handle on things Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric On the contrary. The airplane was NOT "flattened". The skins were dented in on the upper surfaces but the structure was essentially intact. The canopy frame, for example, was undamaged. The aircraft looked like exactly what it was - a P-38 that had sat under 260 feet of ice for several decades. It had to be disassembled to get it to the surface but there is no (physical) reason it could not have been reassembled and preserved as the time capsule that it was. Something that was authentic was destroyed for the sake of creating something that is phoney. **************************************************************************** From Dan Postellon Margot Still writes: >If I am to correctly understand the situation of "Glacier Girl," it was >obvious that the only possible way to salvage any of this plane was to do >so one piece at a time. Currently the technology does not exist to salvage >the aircraft as a whole in a financially prudent manner. For comparison, if this were a ship, instead of an airplane, and in the Great Lakes, instead of Greenland, it would be illegal to remove any part of the wreck, and illegal to disturb it in any way. It does make you wonder why different standards are applied to aircraft. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR # 2263 **************************************************************************** From Ric All of the "Lost Squadron" belong(ed) to Denmark. The original deal was for two P-38s to be recovered - one for Denmark which would be preserved, and one for the Greenland Expedition Society which woud be rebuilt. The recovery operation became so expensive that it was apparent that only one airplane would be recovered. The GES was not about to spend all that money and not get an airplane so, ultimately, Denmark caved and the one airplane that was recovered went to the GES. **************************************************************************** From Don Robison Glacier Girl may be a "phoney Lightning", but she looked pretty damn good as she buzzed the field last saturday. I was there, but couldn't get close enough to make a good inspection. Maybe rebuilding is OK when you consider knee replacements, hip replacements, heart transplants, bipass surgery etc. Don Robinson **************************************************************************** From Ric I guess it's time for my Historic Preservation 101 lecture: The point of all historic preservation is to hang on to the physical material that was there then, and is here now. Man is a tool maker. We build tools and use them for specific purposes. If a tool lasts long enough it will no longer be useful for its original purpose but it may take on a new value as a tool to help us understand the people who built it and used it. An Egyptian pyramid is no longer much use as a cemetery but we value it as a source of information about people who lived 5,000 years ago. A suit of armor is of little use to a modern soldier but we carefully preserve it in a museum because it helps us feel a connection to people who lived 500 years ago. A P-38 is now a woefully an obsolete design, but an example recovered from under the ice could be a tremendous source of information about, and connection to, the people who built it and flew it 50 years ago. We wouldn't dream of repairing the Great Pyramid and using it as a tomb (even though I imagine you could charge a pretty penny for the burial plots). Pulling an authentic suit of 15th century armor out of a museum, replacing the worn and rusty bits, installing new leather, and using it in a choreographed re-enactment of a tournament would bring howls of outrage. Why is it then, that we applaud the identical violence done to a priceless relic of WWII? The answer is simple. It's not old enough. The P-38 was built as a military flying machine. It is no longer useful for that purpose but it has a new value as an entertainment vehicle, so it was repaired and returned to service in that capacity. Eventually, WWII aircraft will be so old and so rare that they are valued in the same way we value suits of armor and Egyptian pyramids. When that day finally arrives it is likely that the only authentic examples will be aircraft like the other Lost Squadron aircraft that remain buried under the ice. Replicas like Glacier Girl (and other 'warbirds") will be seen as products of a late 20th century/early 21st century fashion for romantic recreations of WWII, very much like th early 20th century fashion for Wild West shows that staged romanticized recreations of events in the late 19th century. *************************************************************************** From Terry Daniel In light of the comments made in response to Margot Still's letter, where is there an example of an aircraft that has been located(discovered) and historically preserved* by TIGHAR? *"Historic Preservation(http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/HistPres.html) TIGHAR has been active in supporting the development of new materials conservation techniques and has sponsored two major international conferences on aviation historic preservation (at the Royal Air Force Museum in 1990, and at the Netherlands Military Aviation Museum in 1993). Through regular articles in the foundation's quarterly journal TIGHAR Tracks, and other special publications, TIGHAR has been a leader in creating an informed and discriminating aviation enthusiast community. TIGHAR also holds courses and training expeditions in locations all over the United States which are open to any interested person." *************************************************************************** From Ric The Dover AFB Museum preserves and exhibits components of a Republic P-47 Thunderbolt discovered and recovered by TIGHAR in a series of field operations in 1992. Dover was a testing site during WWII for the arming of P-47s with air-to-ground rockets. The museum wanted an exhibit to commemorate that part of the base's history but, to their credit, they didn't want to find some generic Thunderbolt and paint it up to represent an airplane that had been at Dover. They felt that the real thing, even if it was only a few decrepit components, was better than a "stage prop". There was an old story about a Thunderbolt that had bellied-in out on the firing range (a wild expanse tidal salt marsh, now the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge) and seen by duck hunters for many years. We went looking for it and eventually found it, completely buried in stinking black mud. Excavating and recovering dozens of components and most of the left wing was such a difficult and miserable operation that the aircraft became known as the Beast of Bombay Hook. The recovered pieces became the subject of several conservation experiments and are now on display at the museum. They're not pretty, but they're real. We would do more recovery/preservation work but most air museums are not interested in historic preservation; they're interested in giving the paying public what it wants - pretty airplanes. You can't blame the museums, and you can't blame the public. It's an education problem. We do what we can on the website and in the courses we offer, but we're a voice in the wilderness. Meanwhile, we concentrate on projects like Earhart where historic preservation is not an issue. The artifacts we collect are well cared for and when conclusive wreckage is found there is not likely to be any discussion about whether to build a Lockheed Electra around it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:40:34 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > who says he witnessed the discovery Tom, would it be more accurate to say Scott witnessed Brennan and Harris with the "blindfold" rather than witnessing the actual discovery? I think that is what you were saying. You can see there is no telling where that piece of cloth came from. I'm speaking legally not trying to impune the characters of Brennan and Harris. Who knows, perhaps it is a PREHISTORIC blindfold. Does anyone know whether Neanderthals blindfolded their victims before killing them off? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:50:26 EST From: Brent Subject: Re: Shoes - AE From what I have read from your archive records, etc would you agree that the most conclusive evidence (being shoe, Soul) and the match in realtion to AE as the biggest piece of evidence or have other items surfaced ? Brent PS. You probably feel like a broken record repeating the same thing to Different people. *************************************************************************** From Ric Heck, we have a whole generation of people for whom "sounding like a broken record" is a meaningless idiomatic term. To answer your question, no. There is some debate with research team but my feeling is that the shoe parts we found in 1991 are not related to the Earhart disappearance. Our "most conclusive evidence" is not any one artifact but a much stronger panoply of archival and physical evidence that lends credibility to anecdotal accounts of an otherwise unexplainable aircraft wreck and castaways (apparently a western man and woman) on Gardner Island prior to World War Two. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:54:10 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Glacier Girl I have never understood the fuss about the "Glacier Girl" P-38. There are a lot more famous aircraft from WWII such as the P-51, arguably the greatest piston driven airplane ever made. I suppose the P-38 has some notiriety since our top ace of WWII, Major Bong with 40 victories, flew the P-38 in the South Pacific. Ironically, he was brought back to the States to sell War Bonds and was later killed at Edwards AFB as a test pilot. Oh well. By the way, how was the Palmdale trip & did you recover any parts from the "Flying Wing"? (wish I could have been there) LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric The fuss about that airplane is that it was a perfectly preserved 1942 P-38F. There was nothing like that in captivity. Now there is, once again, nothing like that in captivity. The Flying Wing course and field school was a big success. Our mission was not primarily to recover parts (although some artifacts were collected for the purpose of documenting the survey). There is a great deal of material present at the site but it's mostly in very small pieces. Our job was to define the site as part of the Bureau of Land Management's nomination of the site for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The objective is to protect the site by giving some teeth to BLM efforts to stop looters from stealing artifacts and selling them on eBay. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:55:12 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Evidence Alan's right; as Scott Russell recounted it to me, he saw the putative discoverer sitting on the backdirt pile with the piece of cloth in his hands. Since the excavation was apparently done without archeological controls, there's really no certainty about where it came from. As far as we know, there have never been Neanderthals on Saipan, blindfolded or otherwise (Wipe that grin off your face, Ric!), but who knows what the ancient Chamorros may have done? They've been on the island for several thousand years, and are one reason there's human bone scattered through large parts of the Garapan area. Another, of course, is mass WWII graves, and it's all complicated by a great deal of wartime and post-war earthmoving. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:09:09 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Glacier Girl Ric makes a very important point regarding the passage of time being a factor in the preservation perspective. It is well documented that for the majority of veterans, time must pass before they feel comfortable about discussing their wartime experiences. I have seen a substantial shift in the type of stories I have heard from Vietnam veterans in the past twenty years. Another significant variable in the argument over preservation of aircraft is the emotional attachment veterans feel for their plane. It is a reminder for many of their youth or for some their close brush with mortality. This type of bond is not limited to veterans, or to the male population. My original flight instructor who taught me the basics has held onto an ancient Cherokee, his first airplane, despite the fact it no longer fits into his fleet and is not financially profitable for him to fly. Despite several good offers to buy it, he has refused to sell even though it is barely airworthy. I have a special soft spot for 04Whiskey, the old Piper I trained and eventually soloed in. Every pilot I know has an old airplane story to tell. It is an emotional bond that cannot be broken. For some, it is not an airplane they are attached to but a car. My dad, for example, owned a 1948 Buick convertible in the early days of his marriage to my mother. While in the service in MA, he had to drain the water out of the radiator in route to Tennessee to heat my bottle. There is no doubt in my mind he would willingly trade me off to have it back. LTM, MStill #2332CE *********************************************************************** From Ric What Margot is describing is nostalgia, which requires some kind of personal attachment. That's very different from historical significance in the larger sense. 04Whiskey may be "historic" to an individual who has fond memories of learning to fly in it. If, for example, 04Whiskey was the very first production Piper Cherokee or the very last surviving example of a Piper Cherokee it might have historical significance to society in general. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:44:59 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > there's really no certainty about where it came from. And so the "Blindfold" slowly sails off into the setting sun. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:51:24 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Nostalgia and good feelings toward airplanes I've always wondered if one had feelings for the aircraft in which one had experienced some special passage (or rite thereof, as the case may be). All of this makes me wonder about how AE felt toward her airplanes. Did she have any special feeling for any of them? Did the ones she crashed ever get more sentiment than a check to see if she left her lipstick case in the cockpit? LTM (who will never forget her first Spitfire ... the one by Triumph) Michael Holt ***************************************************************** From Ric AE sometimes referred to her transatlantic Vega as her "little red bus" but, in general, she doesn't seem to have been very sentimental about her various airplanes .... and she didn't wear lipstick. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:52:26 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Evidence Tom, I can't believe you doubt the actual find. Check out p. 146. Mike Harris was on his "hands and knees examining something that was clearly not dirt. I (Brennan) scrambled down...Together we started separating our find from the clinging damp soil..." They returned to the parking lot surface and found that the scrap of cloth was the "blindfold" as they later described it. One would have to accuse them of planting the evidence. Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:54:13 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Broken record > Heck, we have a whole generation of people for whom "sounding like a broken > record" is a meaningless idiomatic term. The new term, I suspect, is going to be "stalled MP3." I had this happen the other day while my son was in the room. I said it sounded like a broken record. He said "Huh?" Oh, well. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:56:42 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Sextant box update I had some time to kill on the way to meet my wife today and happened to notice a sign that said "Maritime Museum". So, I thought I'd see what they have in the way of sextants. No Ludolphs, but they did have one with a different type of clasp. I remember reading about some of the artifacts found on the latest expedition and one of them was described as a cam action that might be found on ammo boxes of the WWII era. The clasps on this particular sextant box also appeared to be a hook and cam arrangement and very different from the other hook and pin types like the one on the TIGHAR website. I don't know if I can adequately describe them. I didn't have a camera and wasn't sure that a photo would work thru the glass of the cabinet (the caretaker was definitely NOT going to open the cabinet). The owner of the museum wasn't there, so I left my card and that I was interested in more info on sextants - also gave the TIGHAR website. Anyway, the cam portion was on the lower portion of the hinged lid and was built this way - a washer back, some type of cam or locking piece next with another washer looking device with a countersunk screw in the center. The hooks, located on the top (case open - I had to view them in the mirror on the back of the display), were flat, about 1/2" wide with a round head and a slot which fitted into the cam arrangement - completely unlike the others which appear to be a wire or rod formed into a hook. Also, the swivel or hub that is attached to the box was rounded up almost like a dome with a countersunk slotted screw in the center. To further describe the cam, it was sort of like a car's tire rim and the hook fitted into it and over the "axle" in the center. Except that this "rim" had one place on it that was like a small tab. Not being able to put them together and work them, I'm not sure exactly how the cam worked except that it may have "locked" against the hook to hold it in place. I don't know how good a job I did describing this. I drew a diagram of them, but I'm a lousy artist and only drew it to help me keep in mind what they looked like. The case is marked: MFG A. Johannsen - London Circa 1870. I will continue to try to contact the owner. You can also check them out on-line at www.houstonmaritimemuseum.org LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:16:42 EST From: Brent Subject: Re: Shoes - AE Why do you think the shoe found in 1991 are not related ? Werent they of a type that was made in the 1930 's and photos of AE showed her wearing the same Brand of shoe!. So if the shoes weren't from AE they couldn't have come from The Norwich as that ran aground in 1929! Brent ************************************************************************* From Ric Remember, all we found were two heels and the fragments of a rubber sole. One of the heels was a Cat's Paw replacement heel of a type that dates from the mid-1930s. However, further analysis of photos of Earhart's shoe heels shows that they were an unusual two-tone color and not at all like either of the heels found on the island. It also appears that the length of the reassembled sole is greater than the length of Earhart's shoe. The stitching holes ins the sole fragments indicated that the shoe was of "blucher oxford" design but that's not a "brand" it's just describes the way the uppers are made. Earhart wore blucher oxfords, but so did a lot of people. The tightness of the stitching holes and the small size of one brass shoelace eyelet we found suggest that the shoe was a woman's shoe, but there's no way to be sure. Whoever's shoes they were they probably did not come from the Norwich City but there are many other possible origins (the 1939 USS Bushnell survey, for example) if we say that the judgment that it was a woman's shoe is in error. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:41:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes - AE > However, further analysis of photos of Earhart's shoe heels > shows that they were an unusual two-tone color and not at all like either > of the heels found on the island. Then that means we KNOW she did not have any other shoes with her in the plane, right? Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric Actually, we're pretty sure that she DID have other shoes with her. It's all documented in the (now outdated) research bulletin on the website entitled "Shoe Fetish, Part 2". All we can say is that neither of the shoe heels we found on Niku in '91 look like the heels on the shoes we know Earhart had with her. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:44:41 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > I can't beleive you doubt the actual find. Ron, I'm sure Tom doesn't doubt the find nor do I. What we were saying in those few exchanges is that there can never be any support for the find, only the word of two people who have a vested interest in it. It was not documented in any way that could be usable. I'll give you an example. In this country an early man was called Folsom Man. He is evidenced by arrow points shaped and made in a very distinctive manner. He lived during the last Ice Age era. No Folsom man's remains has ever been found. Oops! Not exactly. Such remains WERE found in the bank of a dry creek bed BUT the rancher who found them dug them out and carted them into town. The connection was lost and therefore cannot be authenticated. The search goes on. Did the guys actually dig up a piece of cloth? I have no doubt. No one saw them do it. It was not filmed or substantiated at the time. That's problem one. Problem two is there is no way to connect that piece of cloth to one supposedly seen on a woman who cannot be proven to be AE. Does anyone doubt any of this? I don't. I just don't have any idea who the woman was or if there was a woman or if there was a blind fold or if there was an execution or if it was AE. Blind faith doesn't get us anywhere. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric But this raises a question. How do you document a find? Must the cameras be rolling at all moments during a search for a find to be credible? And if they are, how do you the find wasn't staged? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:57:34 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence Ron, as a follow up, I'm not impugning YOUR belief. I understand you believe every bit of this and it may have happened just as it is written. You understand that that piece of cloth HAS to be analyzed for AE's DNA to get anywhere. Without that it is just a story and of no usable significance. Wait, that's too harsh. The significance I see is that if it can be proven to be connected to AE OTHER than by decades old "witness" testimony then there should be some type of follow up. I'm not sure what that could be though. I would be open to rational suggestions. What I'm trying to point out is that anecdote won't do it. Anyone can say anything. Exploring possibilities takes a lot of time and horrendous amounts of money. There HAS to be something of substance. So far we don't have that. No, the "blindfold " is not substance until it can be connected to AE by other than just more anecdote. I'm not trying to be stubborn but give me something to run with. I say this in spite of my long held position that no one can get AE or the Electra into the Marshall's. No one has accepted my challenge to show support for that contention. I can do it but it takes an unreasonable and irrational if not impossible scenario. If anyone can show some actual evidence other than anecdotal that AE was in the Marshalls I'll accept it and worry about why I was wrong some other time. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric It seems to me that there are some parallels between the Buddy's Blindfold and the Aukeraime Shoes. Both involved the discovery of physical material that could be construed to support an anecdote (in 1991 the discovery of a castaway's bones and shoes on Niku was still just anecdote). In each case there was very little material to work with and the connection to AE relied, to a high degree, upon various assumptions. In such cases it's very easy to see what you want to see and think that you have more than you really have. In the case of the blindfold, the "intriquing possibility" was presented and touted, but that's where it ended. The shoe parts were similarly presented and touted, but we then continued to investigate their possible authenticity until we learned "too much" and had to accept that they are probably not what they at first appeared to be. Disappointing, but that's the way it goes in this business. You have to go wherever the evidence takes you. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:13:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence Sorry, Ron, but one more comment. You're going to always get grief when you refer folks to a page number ("Check out p. 146") as though that is some kind of documentation. We've read all the books and someone's book is not evidence no more than the contention that Irene Bolam was AE. That was in a book on a page number too. We're at cross purposes, Ron. We're dealing with different substance. You're dealing with narrations in books and that's fine. Maybe there are many things in those books that need checked out. TIGHAR is not checking out books but methodically looking at minute bits of "finds" to see if they are of value in solving the mystery. The "finds" are in an area of rational possibility it is believed. The "blindfold" is not but I see no reason it shouldn't be examined for DNA to see if there is reason to look at it further. Have you considered contacting the present owner to see if that is feasible? Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric Assuming for a moment that the piece of cloth was used as a blindfold 60-odd years ago - the chances of their being surviving, recoverable DNA attributable to the putative blindfoldee present are about as remote as anything could be. For one thing, if by some chance DNA was present at the moment of recovery, it has now been overlaid with the DNA of everybody who has handled the artifact since then. Extracting a complete strand for comparison would almost certainly be impossible. I speak from experience. We went through a very similar exercise with the FBI lab on a button found at the Seven Site which has some discoloration that we thought might be organic in origin (blood or decaying flesh). There FBI found plenty of DNA present on the button but it was all incomplete strands and there was no way to sort out whether or not all of it was attributable to the many people who had handled it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:14:26 EST From: Gary Subject: Re: Evidence Why would anyone assume that a scrap of cloth recovered from an excavation was a "blindfold". Do blindfolds have a certain size and shape? I wouldn't have thought that there was such a demand for blindfolds that someone would manufacture a specialty item! I would think that a blindfold would be fashioned from whatever material was at hand, regardless of shape, size or color. A scrap of cloth found in a hole, lacking any other artifacts, is just that, a scrap of cloth. Gary ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:15:29 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Evidence Ron -- I don't personally doubt "the find." I personally think that they undoubtedly found a piece of cloth. Just like I repeatedly found human bones, bits of cloth, chunks of shapnel, etc. in the yard of my home in Chalan Kanoa when I lived there a few years earlier. I think what you're objecting to is my acknowledgement of the fact that my informant, Scott Russell, did not actually see them find the thing. That is simply a true fact as I understand it; it doesn't mean that I doubt they found something. Considering where they dug, I'd be very surprised if they DIDN'T find something. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:16:28 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Shoes - AE Ric wrote: >Whoever's shoes they were they probably did not come from the Norwich City >but there are many other possible origins (the 1939 USS Bushnell survey, for >example) if we say that the judegment that it was a woman's shoe is in >error. There's a lesson in this for all of us: never leave any shoes behind when travelling. Sixty ODD years later people might start wondering whose shoes the were and why and how they were left behind. What if AE had two pairs of shoes: a comfortable pair for flying and an better looking pair to get out of the plane? By the way, I forgot a pair of shoes in a Boston hotel one day in the Seventies. If anyone ever finds them: they are mine. But they can keep them. They were old anyway. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:29:02 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: >But this raises a question. > >How do you document a find? Must the cameras be rolling at all moments >during a search for a find to be credible? And if they are, how do you the >find wasn't staged? You don't. Look at Piltdown man. You do lose credibility if you do not have a permit to dig, or lack the expertise to do so. Context is everything. The cloth would be more credible if it was found with human bones, a bullet or fragments, and shell casings from Japanese rifles. On the other hand, if it was found with birthday candles and a poster of a donkey, you could dismiss it right away. Dan Postellon TIGHAR# 2263 ************************************************************************* From Ric That's very good. ************************************************************************* From Tom King This is a constant problem in archeology, and I don't know of any way to deal with it other than with a variant on the "preponderance of evidence" theme. Had Scott Russell, an independent and presumably impartial observer, actually seen the finding of the cloth, it would have upped the credibility of the find (though not its interpretation). Had the discovery been made by trained archeologists, and recorded properly, that would have upped its credibility further. But there'd always be some uncertainty -- if nothing else, the possibility that everyone had been duped by a clever bit of falsification. Of course, those of us who are not Ric face this problem all the time with the Niku project; we are, I think, widely thought to have been duped by Ric into believing the unbelievable. All we really have to fall back on are (a) our reputations and experience; (b) the fact that there are several of us who've taken part in review of the evidence; (c) the demonstrable quality of the analysis; and (d) the quality of the evidence itself. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:24:04 EST From: Eric Subject: Re: Amelia's Shoes Ric wrote: > However, further analysis of photos of Earhart's shoe heels > shows that they were an unusual two-tone color and not at > all like either of the heels found on the island. We must not rule out the possibility that Amelia had more than one pair of shoes in her luggage. The shoes with the fancy two-tone heels might have been worn for photo ops at arrivals and departures. A second pair might have been worn while flying, where comfort was more important than style. (These could well have been a size or two larger to accomodate extra pairs of socks to keep her feet warm.) I don't imagine that she would have changed into her "photo op" pair to wade ashore on Niku. Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. *************************************************************************** From Ric Nice speculation but we actually have quite a bit of information about what shoes she had with her from the many photos taken during the World Flight. Read the research bulletin. We know she had two pair of oxfords, which she apparently wore when she was flying (at least that's what she's always wearing when she's getting into or out of the airplane) and a pair of two-tone shoes with a light-colored one-piece sole and heal that she wore when sight-seeing and hanging around the hangar watching maintenance on the airplane. That she had another pair of shoes she wore for flying and that she always changed into her oxfords before climbing out of the cockpit hatch is possible but hardly seems likely. For what it's worth, my suspicion is that it was part of the combined sole/heel of one of the comfy sight-seeing pair that Gallagher found and described as being from a woman's "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:25:44 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence Ric > But this raises a question. > How do you document a find? Must the cameras be rolling at all moments > during a search for a find to be credible? And if they are, how do you the > find wasn't staged? These are good points. I believe part of it goes to integrity, both that of the individual/s and part to the organization/agency/sponsor/etc. Another part goes to methodology. Anybody can go dig. Doing it right (ie: the scientific method) takes training and discipline. As indicated, documentation is crucial - but I don't think documentation requires photographs. Photos are nice, don't misunderstand, but we all know how easy it is to fake photographs. Meticulous field notes, accompanied by supporting photos and video, are ideal. I for one would tend to be suspicious of anyone involved in this kind of endeavor who just happened to have the cameras rolling for each and every discovery. ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:26:56 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: > You have to go wherever the evidence takes you. Acually, Ric, you really don't. It is the fact that you DO that provides the foundation for TIGHAR's integrity. ltm jon