Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:24:08 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Tech Trive (radios)

Mike Everette wrote:

> I believe Hue has a little too much faith in the "cleanliness" of this
> transmitter's output signal.

Not quite my position. As i tried to point out, it is the transmitter + the antenna characteristics which determine, which harmonic number gets out. This antenna characteritic i'm talking about is electrical, like your CB base antenna is 50 ohms, supposedly resonant, without off resonance reactances that prevent it from taking power from a 50 ohm line ( just for an example. )   Whether the antenna is good, or effective, in "getting out", that is a whole different question, to be solved after the first.

> This scenario says, that if the antenna's physical length was altered, the
> result may well have been (yeah, yeah, I know, speculation, but bear with
> me) that the antenna's new parameters fell outside the normal range of
> adjustment, for the "book values" of inductance and capacitance in the tuned
> circuitry.

Mike, how much altered? 100% ??  The discussion of the schematc, in the tech book, describes a series capacitor for antennas longer than resonance. Because of the recurring cyclical  impedances of antennas as you extend them, for example, the point is: there is NO antenna too long! You put a series capacitor in it and presto, the transmitter sees an antenna with a workable characteristic. You cannot have an antenna too short ( from a matching perspective, i do NOT mean, you can have an antenna very  short and it still gets out! )

With a quite short antenna, say 10 foot, the antenna goes right to the top of the tuning coil, that's it! This is precisely the way the US Army's armored car radio BC-1209 had its circuit - the vehicle whip antenna went right to the coil top. (This was very bad for harmonic standpoint - radiated everything - but understand - the situation changes when you have a longer antenna, like on an aircraft- around 40 foot, say - because then the antenna impedance is not necessarily a static high impedance - but cycles thru a range of high/ low impedances, for different harmonics - meaning some "work", some don't. Clear as lentil soup? ) I note also that the Navy's type GF aircraft transmitter uses basically a similar type of circuit as the WE, and it was used with everything from trailing antennas to short whip antennas in vehicles. Please forget the "altered antenna was wrong" idea!

> (And yes, I am aware that Cam Warren is of the opinion that the antenna was
> reworked by PAA in Miami and the length returned to something near normal...
> maybe so; but he doesn't have any definitive proof of this being done. I've
> asked.  For now at least, I choose to assume the Gurr modification, which
> had lengthened it, stayed intact.)
>
> Of course it was "made it work," but the "fix" may have employed component
> values resulting in an incorrect L-C ratio (amount of inductance, vs.
> capacitance) in the circuit.  While resonance could be attained, the
> incorrect L-C ratio could enhance the potential for harmonics to make it to
> the antenna and be radiated.

You need to forget the footage change and we need (maybe) to figure out the antenna resonances. ( In a complex antenna like this, i think there will be several.).

What i'm saying is, the antenna characteristics the harmonics face, if they're similar to the characteristics the fundamental channels face, then the harmonics have a prayer of distance range. Otherwise, they are going to be strictly local near-field phenomena. If  the antenna is low impedance resonant, and the tuning circuit of the transmitter for that corresponding main channel is high impedance setting, the harmonic will be so far mismatched that you can forget any path loss calculations, there's practically nothing to start with. Okay, so continue to believe something was "wrong with the antenna", "transmitter set to a harmonic", etc. Don't believe me - i'll prove it to you (but you'll have to be patient :-)

When Pacific aircraft were heard on the west coast USA, this is how  likely how it happened, with the simplest explanation, and one that follows my reasoning above. The aircraft reeled out a resonant length antenna, because this was easiest to load up into the transmitter - At 3x  the frequency, i.e. the 3rd harmonic, the antenna impedance is practically the same - and the same transmitter coil setting is "approximately right" for the harmonic, too. It gets radiated. 

> This scenario didn't consider the possibility that the transmitter MIGHT
> have been so maladjusted that it could have been dumping more of its power
> out on a harmonic, than on 6210 (especially).

You're saying "put out more harmonic than fundamental" ? Pretty radical idea, if i got it right. I'd say even , far out. As in too far out.

>  Not saying this DID happen; I
> am suggesting it MIGHT have, though the probability of this being the case
> and going unnoticed does seem kind of low... maybe.  But it is a
> possibility, and could offer an explanation for why she was not heard on
> 6210 at the critical moment.  Wonder how much she had actually used 6210,
> prior to this; and with what results?
>
> The matter of the condition of welds within tubes, condition of solder
> joints and grounds, component tolerances etc inside the transmitter is most
> assuredly not "grabbing at straws."  Rather, it was brought up in an effort
> to illustrate why apparently identical radio equipments, of the same design
> and off the same production line, can behave very differently in operation.
> Been there, done that, seen that many times over.

Okay- but we are not talking Heathkit quality here. Bad solder joints, bad tubes anything, still has to meet these antenna constraints.

> But look at how Bob Brandenburg's SNR analysis has been disdained.

I think Bob can defend his SNR work himself. I don't think either you or Bob have made any convincing case that sufficient power was supplied to the antenna to even take seriously a consideration of signal over distance. Wishful thinking doesn't do it either.

> It appears that the only "acceptable proof" would be a spectrum-analysis of
> one of these Western Electric transmitters, loaded into an antenna identical
> to what AE used.  Even that would not be 100 per cent conclusive, but it
> would come darn close.

Yes- either analyzer, or poor man's method, frequency selective voltmeter.

> Any other test conditions (different transmitter, different antenna etc) will
> show some interesting things; but those results will necessarily reflect a
> different set of conditions from what we are really interested in.

Depends whether you need an absolute re-creation, or a go/ no go test.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:35:32 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      antenna

I admit I do not understand a lot of the talk about radios, but I would like to bring up something that keeps popping up in my mind.  On the final take-off part of an antenna was lost off of the aircraft. My questions are first, could the trailing antenna have been left in a position so that part of it was extended and as a result broken off during the take-off roll? Then if this did happen could an adjustment be made in flight to compensate for the length of the wave emitted by the broken antenna? Could this be the reason that AE could not receive on 6210  or what ever the correct wave was? We know that an antenna part was found on the runway after their take-off. It was later proved that the suspected belly antenna was still intact.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The airplane had no trailing wire antenna during the second World Flight attempt.  If it was later proved that the belly antenna was intact, I'm not aware of such proof.  We do not "know" that a length of antenna wire was found on the runway. We have only a second-hand anecdotal account of such a discovery. The antenna that was lost during the takeoff was the fixed belly antenna.  There really isn't much doubt about that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:44:12 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Weather info

I didn't mean to intimate that the actual storm that the PBY's flew into had anything to do with AE and FN. It just struck me that someweather *could* be a cause for a navigational error. I am just trying to put the castaways on Niku by following the 157/337 LOP logic; not finding Howland/Baker and yet finding Niku a few hours later.

An excellent navigator, a decent pilot, no known mechanical or human problems -- reports of decent weather -- a difficult leg that should motivate the sharpest of senses -- and yet a problem. I think I will look into this a bit more. I'll also budget for membership and the CD.

Thanks Randy. Ric, great forum. Look forward to more participation.

Bob Lee
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Bob.  You might want to take a second look at your asumptions: 

>An excellent navigator

 with a demonstrated tendency to be "loose" in his navigation .

>a decent pilot, 

who was apparently clueless about radio navigation

>no known mechanical or human problems

 except a missing antenna and the Coast Guard's refusal to heed Earhart's admonitions about only sending voice and using Greenwhich time.

>-- reports of decent weather

 yes

>a difficult leg that should motivate the sharpest of senses

indeed

>and yet a problem.

Several in fact.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:50:01 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Weather info

Randy,
As I understand the convergence zone, the weather is coming in at both sides of the equator would you agree with that statement? Northern zone is clockwise circulation, southern zone is counter clockwise. Where they meet is the problem, the circulation pulls the hot humid air into a turmoil with reverse flows and all that jazz. That's all I know about it except that the weather forecast out of Honolulu was for a dangerous local rain squall about 300 miles out of Lae and scattered heavy showers remainder of the route. A transmission by Earhart, the first of Amelia's hourly broadcasts heard at Howland on 1415/2 GCT, produced only the intelligible words of "cloudy and overcast," so I understand, but I'm not so sure Ric would agree with that statement, knowing Ric, because I have a habit of quoting from books, for lack of any better information (Ric cringes). Have to run. It's New Year's. Have a blast everyone. Stay safe. Better things ahead in 2003.....no more Iraq or something or other. I have a nephew who flies F-16s for the AF and formerly was based on the USS Abraham Lincoln(F-18s). Got news for you, we're already at war. Ask the pilots. That's an experience seeing a SAM missile coming up off the ground aimed at yours truly. Time to go dancing. Okay Ric you can now shoot at Carol (again).

Toodles.
Carol Dow
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Just one tiny correction.  "Cloudy and overcast" does not appear in the original ITASCA log.  It was added by Commander Thompson when he wrote his butt-covering "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" report.
================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:50:59 EST
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: More Signals - worth another look

Hopefully someone can determine Achilles accurate position and movements on 9 July 1937 and surrounding dates.

Ron Reuther
================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:52:14 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Weather info

Ric wrote:

>My point was that the weather encountered by the PBY should have had no
>bearing on the Earhart flight.  Would you agree?

Oh, absolutely!  The ITCZ was at least 250 nautical miles north of Howland, and had  no effect upon Earhart's flight whatsoever.  What is interesting to speculate is that it may have had an effect upon her next leg to Honolulu, if she ever landed on Howland.
================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:58:41 EST
From:         Dick Greenwood
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo //   ACCESSIBLE L10

BRADLEY AIR MUSEUM, WINSORLOCKS , CT..    NOT AWARE OF COWLING AUTHENTICITY, HOWEVER.  BUT APPEARS TO HAVE HAD METICULOUS ATTENTION.

DICK GREENWOOD(NON MEMBER)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We're on fairly intimate terms with c/n1052 at the New England Air Museum on Bradley Int'l.  The airplane is a 10A and therefore has smaller cowlings than the larger-engined 10E.
================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:14:30 EST
From:         Edgard
Subject:      cowling size of E-model

Does anybody know what model is the Lockheed 10 on the basement floor of the Science Museum in London, and from where does it come. This is not indicated in the museum, as I was there 3 days ago. It is of course in perfect shape, but I have no idea about the various changes it underwent during it's life.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

C/n 1037 is the only known Model 10B (Wright R-975 engines) and was delivered to Eastern Airlines on Sept. 24, 1935 as NC14959.  It had a long service life flying for a variety of operators in the U.S. until it was acquired by the Science Museum in the early 1980s.
================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:17:25 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      Re: ON BEING LOST II

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>.......Don't be confused by my "not as lost" comment. I just mean I
>don't think they were as horrendously far away as some would like to
>place them. The Marshallites want them to be so far off course to the
>north that Mili Atoll would be just a hop and a skip."

Alan, you just keep poking the stick into the cage......

I'm just not going to let you make that off-handed comment concerning an opposing AE theory unchallenged.

You have continuously asked for supporting evidence concerning the Marshall Island theory on a Forum that doesn't permit that topic.

I have AND will send to you a VHS tape (for a VCR) of my 281 flight simulation experiment. Length about an hour and forty min. I call it an experiment because it is reproducible on a home computer.

I will take you along and show you how the Mili Atoll splash-down could have occurred.

1. The tape (simulation at normal speed) will show you Howland island at 1000 ft., with a 20 mile visibility setting I will take you out-of-sight of Howland (about 25 nm NW) on the 337 LOP.

2. I will enter a circling holding pattern at 2X normal simulation speed, ("we must be on you") and set the GMT clock at 19:12 GMT and hold until 19:30. The time spent at this holding point accounts for Itasca log entries 07:42, 07:58, 08:00.

3. At 19:30 I fly 337 until I reach "point AE", at which point I turn to 281 and proceed to Mili Atoll at 8X normal simulation speed for a dead stick landing.

I want to point out to you, that I start PLAN "B" about 25 nm NW of Howland. Is that TOO far to you in your terms of being lost??

I would also like to point out that the arrival at Mili in this experiment was 6.1 hours later (130 TAS) in real time. Giving a total flight endurance time of 25.1 hours from Lae. One hour more than the Itasca thought they had, within Oscar's long range numbers and reinforced by Kelly Johnson's memory years later when he said they should have had 1500 miles left in endurance when they got to Howland.

I will submit this tape as evidence based on the fact that it is independently reproducible and using the hind-casting process that is used in air-accident investigation and post loss messages points to Mili Atoll.

You can subscribe to the Chaos theory if you like, it is really the only defense that you have. Don't ever say that "us/we" conspirators never offered any evidence to support our position.

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:25:03 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Ron Berry wrote:

> The idea is a good one but you do not need an E-model. All other
> measurements of the aircraft were the same just line up on any points that
> are present and in sight of any model of that time. Then it would be plain
> to see the difference. Take into account the model, so that if the cowl is
> larger or smaller the difference would be easy to spot. Model airplanes are
> not the real thing, and any measurements off of one would be suspect in my
> book.

What Ron says is true. It does not require a 10E cowl to make the comparison because the apparent prop length can be used as a means of establishing distance, (as the 10A has the same prop), even though a 10A cowl is a different external diameter from the 10E. Of course apparent prop length is affected by angle, especially the height at which the wreck photo was taken and the relative angle of attack of the wing. Getting the angle right will not be quite so easy but it can be got close enough for our purposes because the differences in cowl opening seems to be more than slight. Once one had established the difference in size relative to a 10A it would be easy to decide if  the difference corresponded to that between a 10A and a 10E or not. I agree with Ron on the dangers of relying on accurate dimensions from a model, however good it is.

Regards Angus.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Tell ya what I'll do.  I'll run the original comparison you did past Jeff Glickman at Photek and ask him if there's any way that such a glaring discrepancy in apparent opening sizes could be an optical illusion.  If he says yes we'll spend some time getting a more precise comparison.  If he says no, that's good enough for me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:34:39 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: Betty

In response to Tom Byer's suggestion that Betty may have heard a 1937 radio program dramatization, Ric wrote:

>There were two March of Time broadcasts that dramatized an imagined radio
>conversation between Earhart and the ITASCA.  The first show was broadcast on
>July 8, long after most of the reported post-loss messages were received.  We
>don't know what day Betty heard what she heard but we do know that March of
>Time was a half-hour show and Betty heard sporadic transmissions for an hour
>and three quarters.

It is possible the producers of the March of Time radio show (Time magazine??) may have recorded the July 8, 1937 and subsequent broadcasts, or created scripts used by the actors to read their character parts. If any such documentation still exists in their archives and could be obtained, it would be simple to compare the radio show script to what Betty wrote in her notebook to see if there are any similarities.   However, my opinion is that if the broadcasts were dramatized radio conversations between AE and the ITASCA, the dialog most probably would have contained numerous direct references to obvious words like "ITASCA", "Howland", "airplane","gasoline", etc.  I may have missed something, but I don't recall anything Betty wrote in her notebook using any of these obvious words that logically would have been included in a dramatization.  In addition, what Betty heard seems more to be dialog between two people (e.g. AE and FN) interacting with each other at the same location, not dialog between people located in different locations (e.g. AE and ITASCA).  Therefore, it seems improbable to me that Betty was hearing the March of Time broadcasts.

Tom Riggs  #2427
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Some time ago several of our researchers made a considerable effort to obtain a transcript of the March of Time broadcast from a private collector ( I don't believe the show was in any way affiliated with Time magazine) but, as far as I know, they were not successful.  I agree with you.  There is nothing about Betty's notebook that supports the notion that she heard the March of Time broadcast and much that argues against it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:36:46 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Weather info

Randy wrote:

> Oh, absolutely!  The ITCZ was at least 250 nautical miles north of Howland,
> and had no effect upon Earhart's flight whatsoever.

Is this analysis based on historical evidence of the position of the ITCZ for a particular day in July1937 in the western Pacific? The ITCZ moves north and south on a yearly basis dependent on El Nino/La Nina and although 1937 was a "neutral year" in this respect, it also moves as much as 300 miles north or south on a daily basis. So I don't see how you can state this with such assurance.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:46:41 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Ric wrote:

>I'll get a research bulletin put together as soon as I can
>get to it but I think we can finally consign the Wreck Photo to the
>dustbin of history.

In the dustbin? Dang! I really liked that photo, too. It's a good thing he study was done, because the wreck photo cowling and AE's cowling look the same to me. (I will refrain from asking how sure Angus is of his conclusions!) Does anyone know why Grace McGuire won't let anyone near her 10E? What's her story? Why can't she loosen up a bit?

- Alfred Hendrickson
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm apparently more comfortable with Angus' comparison than he is. As for Grace McGuire, her tale is far beyond my meager storytelling abilities.  Let it suffice to say that the Earhart legend seems to draw "characters" like moths to a flame.  I'm probably one too.  Are you?  (mad laughter)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:56:28 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Yes. You could probably accurately label me a "character". Others do.

The two current Earhart research efforts going on that have my attention are those of TIGHAR and those of Nauticos (see also Long). There are characters all over the place, it would seem. They have swept the ocean floor for days on end and found nothing. Those guys are just down the road from you, in Maryland, are they not?

I read "Amelia Earhart's Shoes". I wanted it to go on for another 1000 pages.

LTM, who is a bit of a character herself,
Alfred
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  Nauticos is based in Annapolis, MD but I've never been to their offices.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:02:33 EST
From:         John
Subject:      Re: cowling size of E-model

The webpage  (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/mmw/electra.asp ) from the London Science Museum shows a Lockheed 10 in flight.  Does not state if it is the one at the Museum.

    Regards, John
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:03:56 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      March of Time

Ric wrote:

> Some time ago several of our researchers made a considerable effort to
> obtain a transcript of the March of Time broadcast from a private
> collector ( I don't believe the show was in any way affiliated with Time
> magazine) but, as far as I know, they were not successful.

I found Ron Staley, a man who said he would make me a tape of the broadcasts.  Unfortunately, he was a friend of Fred Goerner and his widow and was not enthusiastic about the Niku hypothesis.  After one long and, I thought, pleasant phone call, nothing else has come of my contact with him.

I also called several museums and talked with the CBS archives in NYC.  The CBS archives are the best bet, but they are not open to the public. If anyone is affiliated with CBS, they might make more progress than I was able to.

From talking with Staley, it seems unlikely that Betty was listening to the March of Time.  But as with War of the Worlds, some listeners apparently did think the docu-drama was real.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:05:38 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Weather info

Angus wrote:
>I don't see how you can state this with such assurance.

The ITZC location is based upon the various ship logs and PBY navigation from July 2- July 7, and is entirely consistent with the return of the various ships later that month.  The ITZC is a broad zone, roughly 50 nm in the north-south direction, and doesn't vary that much on a daily basis.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:21:10 EST
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

I have spent weeks immersed fascinated with the TIGHAR website, and have read most of what's been posted here, but not having any expertise in navigation, radio or aviation, didn't join the Forum until I thought I might have something useful to add.

The most fascinating part of the mystery to me has been the post-loss messages.  It seems to me that the "smoking gun" has already been found, in the form of the DF bearings on post-loss messages that were taken by Pan-Am and at Howland which intersect near Gardner Island.  To play devil's advocate, can these be explained in any other way than someone transmitting radio messages from Gardner or McKean, both of which were uninhabited in 1937?  (if the messages on which the DF bearings were taken were hoaxes, they would have had to have originated from that area, which seems impossible).

The most intriguing artifact of all to me has been Betty's Notebook.  While intuitively (like "crashed and sank") it seems it must be fake, the incomprehensible nature of the transmission actually speaks for its authenticity.  For instance, one known bogus post-loss message was a paraphrasing of "281 north" with a few obvious embellishments.  It's hard to imagine a hoaxer adding subtle details such as the cabin of the aircraft being too hot, or FN having to climb over AE to get out.  But most of all, I can't imagine a female hoaxer yelling "son of a BITCH!" (as Betty remembers) into a radio mic in that much more refined time.

Which brings me to the part of Betty's message which has vexed everyone most, the seemingly incomprehensible stream of numbers.  I'm a legal secretary and a musician  -- I have a trained ear and have to transcribe things accurately.  But even so I've noted that when someone is hurriedly rattling off a telephone number, I sometimes get figures wrong or mixed up (as Betty herself admitted).

Also, anyone who has learned a second language knows that the brain has a set of "frequently used words" that it's familiar with.  It's much easier for the brain to process a word like "small" than a word like "milieu."  If someone heard an unfamiliar word over a poor radio transmission and had to write it down in a hurry, it would be interpreted as a more familiar soundalike word.  Thus "NY NY" being Duke of York island or Norwich City makes total sense.

With this in mind, I decided to try the TIGHAR investigation method and pursue a hypothesis to its conclusion and in so doing, I may have stumbled across an explanation for that odd stream of numbers.  The nice thing about it is, the Forum has the expertise to decide whether it makes any sense or not.  I have to stress that I didn't start with any preconceived result in mind, I just followed my idea to see where it went, and where it went fit very closely in with the known set of facts.

My idea was this:  assuming Betty's Notebook to be the real deal, those numbers would likely be an attempt at giving position.  If so, it was probably not a long stream of random numbers but a few sets of numbers repeated over and over and misinterpreted by Betty.  If one could find a pattern in the numbers and relate them to something, the remainder of what she wrote down might make sense as Betty's imperfect interpretation of what was actually transmitted.

I started by going over the whole set of numbers looking for a repeating pattern.  I excluded "South 391065 Z or E" as Ric felt it may have been erroneously been a lat/long position relating to the Lae-Howland leg that Earhart read by mistake.  Makes sense, and I have another suggestion to add to that as well (more later).

Going over the remainder of the numbers, three cropped up more than once:  "158"  "36" and "38."  158 drew my notice because "158 mi." is the first thing Betty wrote and it's a standalone number, so it was the most likely to have been correctly interpreted.  The number "58" appears again in the very next string of numbers, along with "338."  The last two digits of "338," "38," appear again repeatedly.  Later, "36" appears several times.  The number "30" at the end of the message could have been the beginning of either number:  "THIRTY-six," "THIRTY-eight."

Then I went over to TIGHAR's map of the Pacific to check those numbers against latitude or longitude.  It didn't make any sense in that regard, but as I looked at the map I realized to my shock that those three numbers DID relate to another relevant set of numbers...the LOP.  "158" "(3)36" and "(3)38" were all one digit off from Earhart's last reported 157/337 bearing.

I have to stress here that the Line of Position never occurred to me...I had the numbers first, and then noticed the correlation.  And it fit the facts; the one thing AE would be sure of was that she was on the Line of Position.

It would make more sense to broadcast that than a latitude/longitude which might be wrong.  It seems likely that their charts of the area would not make it clear whether they were on McKean, Gardner or even Atafu (since Amelia only heard the Itasca once, broadcasting Morse which if I understand correctly carries farther than voice, she may well have assumed from the lack of radio contact with Itasca that she was much farther away from Howland than she actually was).

If AE had been told by FN that they should adjust the LOP by 1 degree (more on this later), she may have gotten mixed up on the second digit, broadcasting the 337+1 "338" several times instead of 337-1 "336" (which, given the desperate situation and the euphonious rhyming of "38" and "58" seems logical to me...it's the kind of brainfa*t mistake I'd make even if I wasn't in a life-threatening situation).

If we are to believe the Itasca, Earhart broadcast her LOP as one continuous set of numbers..."line 157/337," so I went back to Betty's Notebook with the assumption that she was repeatedly broadcasting "158/338," or "158/336."  And again, to my shock, nearly all of the baffling set of numbers now made sense.  Let's take it line by line:

"158 mi."

"mi." could have actually been line, it could have been Betty's interpretation of an otherwise meaningless number, or it could have been two parts of the transmission fitted together with the middle part obscured by static:  "158/338 line of position, X miles from..."

"58 338"

oneFIFTY-EIGHT THREE THIRTY-EIGHT" (...line)

"fig 8 - 3. 30 500 Z"

"one FIFty-EIGHT (note that Betty instinctively threw in a dash where one would have written a slash) THREE THIRTY eight (or six)..."  I don't know what "500 Z" would mean, but I do note that Gardner and McKean are very near 5 degrees (zero zero minutes?) south latitude.

"3E MJ3B"

I admit I don't have a clue here.

"Z 38 Z 13 8983638"

Z38 is very close to 338.

"Z13" is very close to "THREE-THIRTY (eight or six)."

In the third set of digits note the first appearance of "36." From here on in AE uses "36" more often than "38"; it may be that she realized her mistake here and corrected herself, but still made the mistake unconsciously from time to time.  It's a bit of a stretch, but 8983638 could have been a misinterpretation of "LINE [9] one fifty EIGHT, three THIRTY-SIX, not three THIRTY-EIGHT."  Keep in mind that there was distortion, the transmission was fading in and out, and the information was coming faster than Betty could write it.

"3.15"

I don't know, although "three" would be the first part of 338 or 336, and 15 the first part of 158.  Doesn't make sense though unless here she said "one five eight" instead of "one fifty eight."

"3Q rd 36"

"THREE THIRTY SIX"

"J 3"

"One fifty EIGHT THREE thirty (six or eight)"

"3630"

Not far from a dyslexic "THREE THIRTY SIX."  Another possibility, although it runs counter to my hypothesis, is that this is a repetition of the number stream "THIRTY-SIX THIRTY-eight" which appears at the end of the seven digit sequence above.

"38-3."

"THREE THIRTY EIGHT" backwards.  Reversing the numbers again.  Or possibly a mishearing of "One fifty EIGHT THREE thirty-six."

"3"

"THREE thirty-(six)"

"30"

"Three THIRTY six."

So by my count, of 13 sets of numbers, 10 conform to what one might expect from a phoenetic mishearing of the LOP adjusted one degree.  

Which brings me back to the "South 391065 Z or E" entry.  Ric's explanation still makes sense, but also note that the one other thing they would know for sure about their location and would want to communicate is that they are SOUTH and EAST of Howland on the line of position.  

Could this be an attempt to give position relative to where they thought Howland was when they said "We are on you but cannot see you", e.g. "We are south 391 miles and 65 miles east of Howland" (or, if Betty's later number interpretation is correct, "We are south 309 miles and 165 miles east of Howland.")  I don't know the actual mileage from Howland to Niku expressed in those terms, but the proportions on the map seem about right.  Would they be able to determine their mileage south and east from where they turned on the line of position based on how long they'd flown on it?

And this brings me to the $100,000 question for the Forum:  I'm not a navigator, and the whole line of position discussion goes right over my head .  Is there any logical reason why Fred would have told Amelia to broadcast a one degree correction from 157/337?  If not, then this is all bunk.  If there is, I'd bet the farm that she was trying to broadcast their location on an adjusted LOP.

OK...that's my first post to the Forum.  Bring on the slings and arrows...(and when is the Post-Loss Matrix going to become a reality?)

Adam Marsland

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Adam.  I love it when someone does his or her homework, follows sound methodology, and offers a well-thought out hypothesis.

One degree is a very fine adjustment to a course.  I can't fly to a tolerance of one degree.  I don't know if a Sperry Gyropilot could.

I'm hoping to have the Special Report issue of TIGHAR Tracks to the printer by mid-month and be able to mail it out to the membership by the end of the month.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:24:05 EST
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      addendum/correction

From Adam Marsland

I realized right after I posted that I myself had gotten mixed up on whether "336" and "338" would be the right number to correspond with 158, and that a true LOP would be 158/338 (not 158/336), which in a bizarre way bolsters my hypothesis I guess.  (Told you I was no navigator!)

That being said, if a logical reason can be found for making a one degree adjustment from 157/337, would the first two sets of figures in Betty's Notebook being "158" followed by "58 338" qualify as what you folks call a McGuffin?

adam marsland

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Not a McGuffin (the Hitchcockian term for the thing that the protagonists care about but the audience doesn't) but certainly a remarkable coincidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:25:43 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

> but I think we can finally consign the Wreck Photo to the
> dustbin of history."

Ric, this might be an opportune time to drop a note to the guy who supplied the picture and won't provide significant info and tell him thanks for the picture but it clearly has nothing to do with Earhart or her Electra and we no longer are interested in the source or any other information regarding the picture. He may decide to try and prove we're wrong. <G>

Alan
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Mr. Carrington is far far stranger than that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:33:36 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: ON BEING LOST II

> You have continuously asked for supporting evidence concerning the
> Marshall Island theory on a Forum that doesn't permit that topic.

Daryll, I'm about to poke another stick into your cage. <G>

But first, your comment above is not true. If you have an alternate theory and some support for it rather than just tossing out an opinion you better believe the forum will permit it. Ric just gets tired of the same old stuff when there is no support offered to back it up. That just wastes everyone's time.

Daryll also says......"Don't ever say that "us/we" conspirators never offered any evidence to support our position."

I won't, Daryll, and you're the first to accept the challenge. I welcome it. I DO have a couple problems with the scenario, however. BTW, tell me how you go about putting your FS flight on VHS tape. I think that's pretty cool.

OK, first of all 25nm off Howland works. That's not too far lost. I would start being concerned at 50 nm probably. I think FN had too much going for him to be further than that off course.

My first problem is that you have the Electra going NW on 337 for 25 nm but AE said "We're running north and south." What happened to the South part? But I'll give you that and just say that at 20.2 hours into the flight they were 25nm out on the 337 degree course out of Howland to start your plan B to Mili Atoll.

You change heading to 281 degrees. Is that true or mag? The true course is about 293 degrees from 26.7nm out on 337 on to Mili. The distance is 754nm. At 130k that'll take about 5:47+ hours no wind. The wind at that time BTW was 6K from the East.

Where we really have a problem is with the fuel consumption. I understand Oscar's piece about really reducing the consumption. The problem with that is that there is no evidence AE did that and on the contrary it is most certain she didn't. How do we know that? Easy. To reduce power settings to reduce fuel consumption as you suggest she had to reduce airspeed. The two are locked together. She didn't do that. It is clear from the distance traveled and the time enroute that she maintained her planned TAS of 130K. I posted a piece about that some time ago along with the average ground speed and thus the average head wind component.

Using KJ's figures on fuel usage and figuring 100 gallons for start, taxi, runup and take off to level off and about 30 minutes we are now at 1000 gallons. Three hours at 58gph, three hours at 49 gph, three hours at 43 gph and 10.7 hours at 38 gph leaves the Electra with 143.4 gallons at 20:43Z, the time AE said she was running north and south and still blaring away at strength 5 AND an hour after she said she was running low on gas.

That amount of fuel at 38 gph will last 3.77 hours and at 130K will take AE about 490 nm to dry tanks. That'll get her about 264 nm short of the grass strip on Mili which wasn't there in 1937.

Now compare my guesses with the actual fuel usage of the "Daily Express." That 10E used an average of 48 gph on a 22.5 hour flight. you can see if that was the case here with AE's plane she would only have 130 gallons reserve and at 48 gph she could stay airborne 2.72 hours or about 350 nm.

I don't know why the Express was not more economical but that was the case. All the figures for AE's flight indicates a little better mileage but I can't see any way to get the plane all the way to Mili.

I'm still eager to get your tape and try the flight myself.

As a side note all the Marshall stories vary and some have the plane crashing near Mili but most have the plane flyable at Saipan. Both possibilities can't be. The main story has the duo ditching at Saipan which can't possibly be. The story identifies AE and FN being brought to shore and FN wearing a short sleeve sport shirt. Find me such a picture. The guy wore long sleeve shirts, the kind that usually have a tie as an accessory. Small point of course. They also destroy all the evidence they "find." The brief case disappears. All the AE photos they found vanish. The Electra is burned in its hanger OR it is towed out of the hanger, drenched in gasoline and set afire OR it is dragged out, strafed and blown up. Two of those stories cannot be true and that means ANY two. If any two cannot be true why should any of the three stories be given credibility. I might add that in each case a small group of witnesses claim their version is true. See the problem? No evidence and all the witnesses at variance with each other and still no way to get the plane to the Marshall's that I can see. To the Gilbert's, possibly but not to the Marshall's.

Also don't forget AE, herself, said she was running low on fuel and that was at 7:42 local.

If I thought I could get my plane to a safe landing field some place I would certainly do it but Mili didn't have a strip any more than the Gilbert's or the Phoenix group did. Heading there wasn't going to help. Why would they try for Mili Atoll? Why wouldn't they head to the nearest land given there were no airfields?

I'll confess I don't know off hand what I would have done without being there at the time and actually knowing the conditions. SE was the easiest navigation . The Gilbert's were certainly an option with a slight tail wind but again the bottom line was they were looking for a reef or beach to set the plane on so why not the closest one? The Gilbert's option was closer to dry tanks than the Phoenix Islands and I would want enough gas left to look for a landing area, check it out and still have gas to run an engine for the radios. Seems to me the smart choice was the Phoenix Islands.

One last comment. There is no more reason to believe AE was north of Howland than to think she was south of the island. The wind was ESE at about 6 to 10 Knots and if they were going to fly an offset they would have offset to the South so the first turn would be NW and then a run back to the SE where there was the only hope of finding land - Howland, Baker, the Phoenix group. To the NW there was nothing for 770 nm.

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

Just to confirm Alan's statement.  We'll be happy to present a valid case for a hypothesis other than the Niku hypothesis if someone can come up with one. The problem we keep running into is that that the proponents of other hypothesis don't understand what a valid case is.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:33:49 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo //   ACCESSIBLE L10

What are the measurements of the possible cowlings. I have an Electra 10 and possibly two in my neighborhood.   One in Tucson and one in Chandler Arizona, I am thinking of trying the experiment.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The Electra in Tucson is a 10A.  I'm aware of no Lockheed 10[E] in Arizona.

If you really want to do this experiment you should not know the results you're after beforehand.  We don't know the dimensions of anything in the Wreck Photo because there is nothing to scale it to.  If we assume that the plane in the Wreck Photo is a Lockheed 10 then the prop should be nine feet long - but we don't know that the plane is a Lockheed 10. All we can do is look at cowling dimensions relative to prop length.  The best we can do is determine that the ratio of prop length to cowling diameter is the same in the Wreck Photo plane and a Lockheed 10.  We've already done that with regard to external cowling diameter.  It's the internal (opening) cowl diameter that seems to be the problem.

 I suggest that you take your photo of the plane in Tucson and compare it to the Wreck Photo and then come up with what you think the cowling dimensions of a 10E should be.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:38:53 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Jeff did assure you (Ric) that his measurements were well within the guidelines that you set up for his photographic assessment when he confirmed that the "wreck" was an Electra 10E. Although you and I don't agree about certain aspects of  the aircraft in the photo, I believe it is a long range Electra with camera equipment in the nose section. I am not saying that the "wreck" is AE's aircraft like I once believed, but it is a long range aircraft in a tropical looking area.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Jeff did not confirm that the aircraft was a 10E.  All we could confirm is that the ratio of prop length to external cowling diameter was the same as a 10E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:41:02 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Weather info

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> Angus wrote:
> >I don't see how you can state this with such assurance.
>
> The ITZC location is based upon the various ship logs and PBY navigation
> from July 2- July 7, and is entirely consistent with the return of the
> various ships later that month.  The ITZC is a broad zone, roughly 50 nm in
> the north-south direction, and doesn't vary that much on a daily basis.

Since we are interested in July 2nd and the ITCZ can vary greatly day by day, only reports from that day are useful. Were there any reports between Nauru and Howland? Reports from Itasca , Myrtlebank. Ontario, tell us little about this leg.

I quote from

http://www.tpub.com/weather2/9-25.htm

The zone of disturbed weather may be as little as 20 to 30 miles in width or as much as 300 miles. Under typical conditions, frequent rainstorms, cumulus and cumulonimbus-type clouds, and local thunderstorms occur. Violent turbulence may be associated with these storms, and cloud bases may lower to below 1,000 feet, or even be indistinguishable, in heavy showers. Their tops frequently exceed 40,000 feet.

See also

http://www.planearthsci.com/products/Hurricanes/tutorial%20pieces/Stages_of_Hurri%20cane_Dev/ITCZ/ITCZ.html

for a map of the ITCZ in July (Fig 2). The date-line runs along the l/h edge of the pic where it shows the ITCZ to dip down close to the equator.

See  also:

http://www.npmoc-sd.navy.mil/references/forecasters_handbook/tropical_ocean.shtml

In spring, the North Pacific High starts its northward movement. By July, the East Pacific High is at its northernmost position and the mean position of the ITCZ is along 10N. (Note this is the east Pacific). Although climatology indicates a gradual movement of the ITCZ from one month to the next, the daily movement is irregular and spasmodic. Daily migrations of the ITCZ can be as much as 100 to 300 miles northward or southward.

So there is little doubt that the ITCZ can indeed vary in position on a daily basis by a large amount and that it can also be far wider than 50nm.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:41:44 EST
From:         Ed
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

Fine job by Adam, I think he's on to something. I'm still convinced that Betty's notebook holds the key to what happened. Maybe Adam's approach could be applied to some of the other portions of the transcript not numeral in scope.

LTM
Ed of PSL #2415
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:22:41 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Marshall Islands

Darryl responds to Alan's statement "The Marshallites want them to be so far off course to the north that Mili Atoll would be just a hop and a skip" with a description of his Flight Simulator results.

No one doubts that you can fly from Howland (or somewhere nearby) to Mili Atoll using Flight Simulator. However, for AE to do so raises some questions. So, Darryl, as Ricky Ricardo would say "Splain me somethin' "

AE is flying over the Pacific, she comes to the place where she expects Howland to be, and she cannot find it. Nor can she find Baker. Let's assume that at some point she chooses to end her search for Howland or Baker, and go somewhere else. What are her choices? 1) Gardner/McKean; 2) the Gilberts; 3) the Marshalls.

Let's look at the pros and cons of each choice. For Gardner/McKean, the pros are that they are the closest land, and AE has already established a 157/337 LOP which will take them within a few miles of Gardner and McKean. The cons are that the islands are uninhabited and thus rescue is questionable. For the Gilberts, the pros are that the islands are inhabited, under control of a friendly (in the political sense) nation, and you can get there by flying due west; the cons are that they are further away than Gardner and McKean. For the Marshalls, the pros are ... well I can't think of any ... and the cons are that they are farther away from Howland than either Gardner/McKean or the Gilberts, and they are under the control of a politically unfriendly nation, and AE has no way of establishing the exact heading to get to the Marshalls.

Thus, I can make a logical argument for someone in AEs position chosing to try to find either the Gilberts or Gardner/McKean. I cannot see how someone in AEs predicament would chose the Marshall Islands. Darryl (or others), could you explain?

As a side issue, if AE did fly to Mili Atoll, the closest point in the Marshall Islands to Howland, how did she get the exact heading needed? 

Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who never liked the name "Marshall" anyway)

It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
If you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
  I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:23:54 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo //   ACCESSIBLE L10

Ric wrote:

> The Electra in Tucson is a 10A.  I'm aware of no Lockheed 10 in Arizona.

Uh, Ric, if Tucson isn't in Arizona I've been paying taxes to the wrong state for 30 years. (I assume you meant there is no Lockheed [Electra] 10E in Arizona.)

For Ron Berry; Who has a Lockheed Electra in Chandler? (I thought the only things in Chandler were mobile homes and pick up trucks.)

LTM (who knows what state she's in)
Kerry Tiller
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:25:49 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: Betty

Ric,

I believe Tom Byers is correct that there is a connection between Time Magazine and the "March of Time" radio show broadcast in 1937.  With a bit of internet searching, I was able to find this radio history article explaining the connection.   Unfortunately, no mention of the Earhart/ITASCA dramatizations.  For what its worth, I'll contact Time Magazine to see if they have any (free) archival information.

Tom Riggs  #2427
________________________________________________
March of Time

Early radio news was usually nothing more than dramatized documentary of events. Live recordings were unheard of and technologically difficult if not impossible. Rather than simply report events, radio producers felt dramatizing the events would bring the news home more effectively.

By 1928, Roy Edward Larsen was the General Manager of Time Magazine. It was Larsen who, as Circulation Manager, increased sales of the magazine from 25,000 to 200,000 in a few short years. Media theorist, Marshall McLuhan, referred to Larsen as an "electric man," sensitive to the latest modes of communication and its impact on society. Larsen involved Time in radio as early as 1924 with a sustaining program called Pop Question. Then in 1928 in cooperation with radio executive, Fred Smith, he began issuing throughout the country over 33 stations daily releases of ten minute news briefs, Larsen called NewsCasts. The following year they supplemented these NewsCasts with electrical transcription dramas, ten minutes in length, called NewsActing which featured professional actors and sound effects of current news. The two were combined into a fifteen minute show (read releases and acted news)in 1929 and offered free of charge to radio stations in exchange for advertising for Time Magazine. Though successful, the Smith/Larsen team proposed to Henry Luce a more robust program financed by Time. Larsen was aware of new competition on NBC in the form of the Lowell Thomas vehicle sponsored by Literary Digest. For their new production, Larsen and Smith pulled their title and theme music from the Harold Arlen song, "The March of Time."

One of the earliest of this type of drama, the Newsacting became the March of Time with narrator and dramatized news events produced by Roy Larsen, who later became president of Time, Inc. First heard on CBS on March 6, 1931, the show was broadcast on Friday nights and sounded very much like the movie newsreels. Like the newsreels, the show was built around a narrator who lead listeners into the dramatized events. Of narrators, there were three during the shows run: Ted Husing, Harry Von Zell and one of the longest "voice of Time" was Westbrook Van Voorhis (pictured above left).

Because the events were dramatized, an attempt was made to use actors imitating the actual voices. Many listeners thought the actual voices were being heard. During those early years, we heard "Adolph Hitler" "Edward VIII" and "Bruno Hauptmann" among others. The actors were chosen for these roles based on their ability to closely duplicate the actual person. Sometimes an actor was required to listen from a library of records with 30-second soundbites of the actual personality, or view the March of Time's newsreels and listen to the voice.Many of the actors went on to other fame including Agnes Moorhead, Nancy Kelly, Jeannette Nolan, Art Carney, Orson Welles, Peter Donald, Edwin Jerome, Maurice Tarplin, Kenny Delmar, John McIntire and many more.

To prepare each show required 1,000 man-hours of labor, 33 hours for each minute of broadcast time; 500 hours for news research, writing, and re-writing by Editor Willam D. Geer and his seven assistants; 40 hours of clerical work; 60 hours for music rehearsal; 400 hours for rehearsal of cast and sound crew. The musical director was at different times, Howard Barlow and Donald Voorhees; Ora Nichols provided the sound effects. Even historical accuracy and pronunciation was checked by Harry Levin. The program was brought together by director Arthur Pryor, Jr. (and also Don Stouffer).

By 1939 the show was still not making money. In fact it was sustained partially with the help of William Paley's Columbia Broadcasting System. Because of the loss of money, Luce decided to suspend the series. But in 1941 it returned with a new format (you can hear the new format in the Pearl Harbor clip), one that sounded much more like the newsreels that were popular with movie fans.    This was how radio listeners got their news at the time. The idea of simply broadcasting the news was too new, and for many, boring. Following the development of this series one gets a sense of the changes taking place in radio news at the time. By 1940, the dramatized versions were being phased out and news actualities broadcast from other countries were beginning to be heard. The "news reporter" was more and more becoming prominent. Partly due to the change in technology, the events of the time, and the idea that an eyewitness could best tell listeners what was happening, radio news was forming itself into the media broadcasting with which we are all familiar.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:28:51 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: McGuffins

Ric wrote:

> Not a McGuffin (the Hitchcockian term for the thing that the
> protagonists  care about but the audience doesn't) but certainly
> a remarkable coincidence.

Our forum is chock full of McGuffins. They're easy to identify. What is hard to identify is which of us are protagonists and which of us are audiences. I never know whether to care or not.

Alan
********************************
I ain't touchin' this one.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:29:53 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

Adam Marsland wrote:

> OK...that's my first post to the Forum.  Bring on the slings and
> arrows...(and when is the Post-Loss Matrix going to become 
> a reality?)

Adam, you did what I have had almost no success in getting folks to do. You offered an idea and gave your reasoning for that idea. I haven't had time to look at your posting in depth as it is after one in the morning and my aching body (played tennis all day) is about to collapse in bed. I DID note very innovative thinking. Good logic. For a first post you did great. The ideas need pursued.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:31:39 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

Really enjoyed Adam Marsland's posting. From a British perspective, I have always read things like "Z 38 Z 13 etc" as being pronounced "zed 38" etc. This is a simple question, but:

- do international aviation telecommunications use "zed" or "zee"? I have always understood that English is the language of international air traffic, but I've never stopped to think if it has to be British English.

- whichever, were things the same in 1937?

- or would/does it depend where in the English-speaking world you were from?

LTM
Phil Tanner 2276

****************************
Hoo boy, good questions. We can certainly find out how it is now. But in 1937?

Anyway, Skeet, all youse guys who fly/flew the big ones across the ponds, what is the convention?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:35:47 EST
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

I'm glad I did better on my first post than that fellow that said "why don't you just find the bones and DNA test them???"

I'm get the list on digest, and my post therein was liberally sprinkled with stray coding (probably the result of writing it in Word and then pasting into an e-mail) so it was pretty hard to read.  If anyone wants I can send them a cleaned up version; just e-mail me at adamghost@aol.com.  (If it's OK to post an e-mail address here)

Can someone refresh my memory as to what the time it was at Niku/Howland when Betty heard the transmission?  Was it early morning?

**************************************************

The stray coding is a function of Microsoft inserting itself into everything. Does that even if you try to turn everything off, or generate it as plain text. You almost have to use your email program to write your mail for the digest. It's a nuisance.

Email addresses are fine. We don't post them ourselves, but anyone who wants to include his/hers in the body of a posting is more than welcome to.

And to the substantive question:  About 10 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:37:02 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: March of Time

Marty Moleski wrote:

> From talking with Staley, it seems unlikely that
> Betty was listening to the March of Time.  But
> as with War of the Worlds, some listeners apparently
> did think the docu-drama was real.

Off topic, but sort-of related.  One of the things that happened with the Orson Wells Mercury Theater program was that there was a popular music program being aired on another station at the same time that the drama started, and that show did not end until 15 minutes after the _War of the Worlds_ began, so a lot of people tuned in after it was already in progress, and did not hear the introduction by Wells.

ltm
jon
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:42:55 EST
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

I would like to congratulate Adam Marsland for his excellent approach to help solving the meaning behind the notes found in Betty's notebook.

I have tried a somewhat different approach.  In my attempt to interpret the material, I have divided all of the notes into my best guess as to which were said by Amelia, which I show in Red, and which statements were by Fred, which I show in Blue.  Next, I divided all of the statements into those which I believed were meant to be transmitted to the world, and which were most likely just comments between the two.  I then study each independently.

While my complete analysis is not finished, I would like to share several thoughts.

First, when you concentrate only on the internal discussion statements, there is a strong implication that Amelia is trying to get Fred to help her communicate to obtain help, while Fred is only interested in leaving the airplane, which is filling with water.

This, among many other clues, led me to the belief that Betty's reception was most likely on July 2, 1937, since if the plane fills with water, it will short out the radio and perhaps sink off of the reef or sand bar it was on.

My specific comments on Adam's posting are:

I agree with the general thoughts that:

>the incomprehensible nature of the transmission actually
>speaks for its authenticity.

No one who was planning a hoax would use that material.  Furthermore, if the actual transmission was on July 2nd, as I think it was, no hoax or radio play could have been all ready written.

>the part of Betty's message which has vexed everyone most.
>the seemingly incomprehensible stream of numbers.

His further comments on jotting down common words and transcribing numbers in error is certainly apropos. I also looked at a repeating pattern with a slightly different idea in mind.  In my approach, I used the near matches of several sets of number sequences to provide a check bit approach.  Where they don't actually match exactly, I look at which numbers were transcribed in error or which were left out.  That has led me to a "corrected" set of numbers, which obviously are only guesses at this time.

Adam said:

>158 drew my notice because "158 mi." is the first
>thing Betty wrote, and it is a standalone number,
>so it was the most likely to have been correctly interpreted.

Making the assumption that it was important, I looked at what it could mean if it represented 158 miles.  It seems that the distance between Winslow Reef and Howland is about 158 miles.  And it certainly seems that if Amelia made a landing there, it would cause the airplane to fill with water.  I am not saying that is the correct interpretation, as there are many problems with a potential landing on Winslow Reef, only that it was a possibility.

The biggest problem in my mind with the Winslow Reef scenario (and there are many) is that it would imply that there were no further post loss messages after Betty received her reception, and I believe there were other later valid messages.  We are all waiting for Ric's post loss analysis.

One final thought.  We have all wondered about the transmission of Marie, especially since it was repeated many times.  My working hypothesis is that was a poor transcription by Betty of the word mayday, which could be expected to be repeated many times.

I welcome Adam, and other members of the forum to work with me off the forum to solve the mystery of what Betty's notebook means. You may contact me at hhpoole at sprynet.com.

Harry Poole
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:47:55 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

I gave it a try. If the Lockheed 10E propeller has a diameter of nine feet, then one blade is 4.5 ft. (measured from the spinner centerline). On the enlarged picture on my screen I measured this 4.5 ft blade to be 6 cm. Therefore the total length of the propeller is 12 cm. The opening of the engine cowling is 4 cm (give or take 1 mm). Which means the engine opening is 1/3 of the total propeller length. In other words, if the propeller is 9 feet long, the 10E engine opening is 3 ft. I wish I could see the picture of the wreck everyone is talking about. I couldn't find it on the Tighar site. Perhaps I didn't look where it is.

LTM

**************************************

Try

http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/13_1/wreckphoto.html
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/bull11_21_97.html
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/bulletin10_10_98.html

Pat, who knows where *everything* is :-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Jan 2003 12:18:14 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo //   ACCESSIBLE L10

Ron Berry's post jogged something in my memory.  Several years ago (I think it was when you were getting ready to have Jeff Glickman do the analysis of the wreck photo) didn't you run across an actual set of 10-E cowling sections? The Smithsonian sticks in my mind, but I'm not sure.  As I recall there was some discussion on the forum about how surprised you were to find them, and they were even labelled.

If I have time later on I'll try to look it up in the archives.

If my memory is correct, is it possible that in your notes you might have the dimension of the opening, or the distance from the edge of the opening to the outside of the cowling?  If you don't, that might be a source for such a measurement if one of the Tighars is close by there.

ltm
jon
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for jogging my memory.  Yes, I have those numbers.  C/n 1130, a late Model 10A, partially rebuilt as a 10E Special replica, and now in storage at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, has with it a set of 10E cowlings (no idea where they found them).  I have photos and measurements of both the outside diameter and the opening diameter.

The question is, if Ron thinks he can come up with the diameter of the cowling openings in the Wreck Photo (assuming that the prop is nine feet long), should I release the "correct" measurement before he does his experiment?  I don't think it's any big deal either way so I'll be happy to abide by whatever the forum thinks is the best way to proceed.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:15:26 EST
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo //   ACCESSIBLE L10

Ric wrote:

> The question is, if Ron thinks he can come up with the diameter of the
> cowling openings in the Wreck Photo (assuming that the prop is nine feet
> long), should I release the "correct" measurement before he does his
> experiment?  I don't think it's any big deal either way so I'll be happy to
> abide by whatever the forum thinks is the best way to proceed.

You should keep the numbers to yourself until Ron (or anyone else) does the measurement and comes up with a value for you to compare.  That way, you ensure that there will be no bias in the measurements.  In fact, it would probably be best if several people took a shot at the measurement, using whatever tools they have at hand, and all sent in their method and results.  We won't be as good as the professionals, but we should be able to come up with a reasonable average to compare.

                    Reed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations
Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy
Email:  drriddle@qwest.net
Homepage:  http://www3.iitap.iastate.edu/~riddle/

"This life has been a test.  If it had been an actual life, you would
  have received actual instructions on where to go and what to do."
                                 -- Angela Chase, "My so-called life"
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:16:31 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands Spies

For: Paige Miller,

How the Electra could have wandered into the Marshall Islands could have only been the result of storm conditions enroute (a guess). The Japanese mandates in 1938 (one year later) were crawling with Japanese submarines, surface raiders, supply ships, observation balloons, searchlights, seaplane carriers, and preparations for making war - ref: Vincent Astor's letter to FDR from the cruise of the Nourmahal.

Vincent Astor and his friends from the "room" at Harvard, of which FDR was a member, was a high level intelligence gathering system. In fact, Vincent Astor became a master spy in WW II and reported directly to ONI  (Office of Naval Intelligence). Not only that but British intelligence was known to be active in the area of the Gilbert Islands. Their objective was Japanese activities in the Marshall Islands. If Earhart landed in the Marshalls, she would have waked into an area of intense spying activity. It's no wonder the Lexington Battle Group with its three destroyers was denied permission to search the Marshalls.

Absolutely, Earhart should have headed for the Gilberts. Another isolated island such as Gardner-Nikumaoro makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why should AE and FN go looking for islands just like the one they couldn't find? Not only that but you have to consider Baker Island was just to the south of Howland, and they could not find either one of them. Two islands close together. Gardner sounds like a pilot's nightmare...nothing there, no ships, no fuel, and maybe no radio, and no Baker Island nearby. Whew....that would be putting it mildly. An archipelago such as the Gilberts with strings of islands (and very visible flying eastbound with the sun at your back) would have been a welcome relief for lost aviators such as AE and FN. Too bad, Gunga Din. A little tennis, eh what? You're on.

Pat, if you post this e-mail, the letter Vincent Astor wrote to FDR from the Nourmahal  is on file at the FDR Library in Hyde Park, New York. There was a rumor that Naval Intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, and FDR was particularly interested in the Marshalls because of the Earhart loss and a suspected military buildup. FDR requested Astor to cruise the Marshall Islands with his cousin Kermit Roosevelt aboard, but the Japanese refused the Nourmahal permission to enter the Marshall Island Mandates. If Earhart wandered into that mess, I hate to think of the end result. To say she would have been a tremendous liability is putting it mildly.

Carol Dow
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:18:28 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

To Phil Tanner

Interesting question! Today it's neither zed nor zee but zulu. That has been decided upon by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in or around 1946. Before that there was the WW II alphabet used by the Western Allies, according to which z was pronounced zebra.

It would indeed be interesting to know how the English radio alphabet was spelled before WW II.

I believe each country used its own, based on its national language. The French still use theirs for domestic use. It is also used in the French speaking countries of North Africa and I believe in French speaking Canada. However, English is used in international traffic.

For the benefit of those who are not sure what this is all about, here is a comparison of the two English language alphabets.

WW II: Able, Baker Charlie, Dog, Easy, Fox, George, How, Item, Jig, King, Love, Mike, Nan, Oboe, Peter, Queen, Roger, Sugar, Tare, Uncle, Victor, Whisky, Xtra, Yoke, Zebra.

ICAO: Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, Gulf, Hotel, India, Juliet, Kilo, Lima, Mike, November, Oscar, Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra, Tango, Union, Victor, Whisky, X-ray, Yankee, Zulu.

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:21:09 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Adam's post

Adam's post -- which I think is a truly exciting analysis -- is a good example of the strength of the Forum as a research tool.  Only someone with Adam's particular combination of experience and expertise -- and organization of brain -- could make such sense (even if it turns out not to be true) of what to most of us looks like a lot of gobbledigook.  Great stuff!  And Harry's independent analysis suggests that maybe it's time for a group to be organized, a la the Noonan Project, to focus specifically on interpreting the notebook.  Betty's Bunch?

**************************************

I am sure it would be quite interesting to work on... but the problem is, no matter what it would be speculative. We can't know, unfortunately, what was "really" meant. I remember that we spent a large amount of time at a team meeting (some years ago) on the 281 message, and eventually gave it up as unknowable, however fascinating.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:21:43 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo //   ACCESSIBLE L10

No, Ric. Let's get results first so that nothing gets contaminated even inadvertantly.

Alan Caldwell
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:22:41 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      281 Simulation

Ric wrote:

>Just to confirm Alan's statement. We'll be happy to present a valid case
>for a hypothesis other than the Niku hypothesis if someone can come up
>with one...

uhhh.....is this another trick.....Ric ?? Why do I get the feeling like "Little Red Riding Hood" skipping down the wooded path??

For Alan:

>...BTW, tell me how you go about putting your FS flight on VHS
>tape. I think that's pretty cool....[AC]

You need a video card in your computer with "TV out" to convert the graphics to analog. My nVIDA card (www.eVGA.com) has both S-VIDEO and an RCA output jack. After hooking up a dubbing cable to the VCR you have to set your "ADVANCE" display settings on the computer to "CLONE". With "CLONE" you see the graphics on the computer screen and TV at the same time.

>...OK, first of all 25nm off Howland works. That's not too far lost.
>I would start being concerned at 50 nm probably. I think FN had too much
>going for him to be further than that off course....[AC]

I reviewed my simulation more closely it was probably closer to 17-20 nm out for discussion purposes. This was, in my opinion (and close to others), their closest approach to the Itasca & Howland.

>...My first problem is that you have the Electra going NW on 337 for
>25 nm but AE said "We're running north and south." What happened to the
>South part?...[AC]

We know they weren't at Howland, so there was a 50/50 chance they were either north or south if we accept the use of the LOP as Noonan was using it. An "offset" used in navigation was to elongate the target on the sun-line so you had a better chance of finding a small target in day time. Baker island to the SE of Howland (~35nm) would have given a fix on Howland if they would have seen it because it was visible from the LOP.

>...But I'll give you that and just say that at 20.2 hours into the
>flight they were 25nm out on the 337 degree course out of Howland to
>start your plan B to Mili Atoll....[AC]

It was 19:12 - 19:30 GMT that they could have been in that area. 19:28 GMT she said "WE ARE CIRCLING".

In the "hind-casting" process I didn't pick Mili Atoll, Goerner did. BUT he really isn't the first source of naming Mili Atoll in connection with AE. Eric de Bisschop did in his "bottle message" of Oct. 1938.

>...You change heading to 281 degrees. Is that true or
>mag?.....[AC]

What the video shows is at 19:30 GMT AE transmitted ("...WE RECEIVED YOUR SIGNALS...")  they turn the airplane to the NW (337). I put an overcast ceiling in the simulation at 3000 ft because I cannot rationalize why else they were at 1000 ft looking for Howland.

I turn to 281 at "Point AE" (derived at from hind-casting). I make the turn by watching the Lat & Long read-outs at the top of the screen. BY coincidence of using the simulation, the turn is made very very close to 20:13 GMT the time of their last recorded transmission. The computer was keeping track of time that I couldn't in my own mind.

You should KEEP in Mind that the turn to 281 was a course to SOMEWHERE. If they were out of sight of Baker to the South, 281 would bring them into the Gilberts. If they were North of Howland AND Noonan knowing how much time they spent on the LOP at 130 kts, that time & speed gave a distance that could be applied to an Off-set from Howland where a 281 course would bring them into the southern Marshalls.

281 was a figure that only Noonan could figure out using his own observation of the winds AT the time. The winds are the biggest factor in what happened.

>...You change heading to 281 degrees. Is that true or mag? The true
>course is about 293 degrees from 26.7nm out on 337 on to Mili. The
>distance is 754nm. At 130k that'll take about 5:47+ hours no wind. The
>wind at that time BTW was 6K from the East....[AC]

Your are mixing FLAT chart information into a ROUND world computer simulation.

True and Magnetic only have a meaning if you know where you are and are wanting to go some place in particular. They were LOST and AE's job was to keep the airplane going straight, what instrument would you use?. The numbers 281 were recorded on July 5th. Does that mean Noonan had AE fly that exact number (281) or did Noonan transmit 281 after reviewing his flight track that got them to where they were? I don't know. I do think that 281 was used to orient whoever received the message to the known sequence of events . I used a 17 kt east wind. That was the recommended average wind from Lae to Howland. I felt I had to use some kind of a wind. NO wind just moves "point AE" closer to Howland.

>...Where we really have a problem is with the fuel consumption. I
>understand Oscar's piece about really reducing the consumption. The
>problem with that is that there is no evidence AE did that and on the
>contrary it is most certain she didn't. How do we know
>that?........[AC]

The heart of Oscar's studies (I felt) was the reduction in aircraft weight as the flight progressed, until it was below GW. Like an anorexic, the airplane was feeding on its own weight.

>...To reduce power settings to reduce fuel consumption as you
>suggest she had to reduce airspeed. The two are locked together. She
>didn't do that....[AC]

Altitude is also locked into the equation. Maintaining a given airspeed as aircraft weight is reduced, would cause the airplane to gain altitude. If the airplane is trimmed, you would naturally reduce power to maintain a given altitude which was also part of AE's job.

The lowest gph that I've seen you use was 38 gph. Without looking up Oscar's numbers for hours 20-27 I think he was using around 31 gph, I'll have to look it up. Why don't you re-do your numbers following Oscar's studies?

>...That'll get her about 264 nm short of the grass strip on Mili which
>wasn't there in 1937.....[AC]

In the simulation I set the fuel tanks in the Baron at 55% at 19:12 GMT. During the let down to Mili, from 10,000 ft, I had planned on landing at the simulated coral airstrip. I opened the fuel load window to see what the gauges couldn't tell me. I had zero fuel. I closed the window and the engines fell silent. The simulation offered a smooth enough beach surface to do a dead stick wheels down landing on the lagoon side of the largest of the islands in Mili Atoll.

I won't go into anything after splash down or why history just can't document ALL historical events.

>...One last comment. There is no more reason to believe AE was north
>of Howland than to think she was south of the island....[AC]

It's 5050 right? A flip of the coin right? You should know that trust plays a major part in crew interactions. You learn to trust somebody, which AE had to do with Noonan. Noonan would tend to do things to reinforce her trust in him. A note worthy (for AE) example of that was the Dakar crossing. You can argue that that wasn't a north off-set, but what AE remembered was that they were north of Dakar and she was wrong and Noonan was right. Noonan would plan the same northern off-set for Howland just to maintain AE's trust in him.

The flip of the coin entered into another decision at 19:30 GMT. They (AE?) decided that the direction they were flying down the LOP was the wrong way. AE's trust in Noonan ended at 19:30 (0800 Itasca) GMT. If there was any truth to the "Half Hour Of Gas Left" that time would have been 19:42 GMT. Sooo the simulation has them turning 337 at 19:30. I watch the Lat & Long for "Point AE" and the clock keeps ticking. When I turn to 281 it was 20:13 GMT.

I put some bad weather into the simulation on the 281 track. I did that mainly because of the PBY reports a day later about the weather it had encountered. It just might be in the ITCZ. The Lat & Long read-outs look like start at; N3 degrees 35 min E 179 degrees 20 min end at N4 degrees 20 min E177 degrees 20 min.

>...I'm still eager to get your tape and try the flight
>myself....[AC]

Since you didn't include your address am I supposed to send it to Ric?? He can look at it if he likes.

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:23:39 EST
From:         Alan CaldwellSubject:      Re: Adam's post

Ric writes:

> One degree is a very fine adjustment to a course.  I can't fly to a
> tolerance
> of one degree.  I don't know if a Sperry Gyropilot could.

When I was flying for SAC my nav would often ask for a half degree right or left on precision runs. Usually he'd get a complaint from me or the other pilot. He would not acknowledge our gripe but ask for three and a half degrees right followed quickly with a request for three degrees left.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:25:00 EST
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Weather info

For Angus Murray

You ask if there were any weather reports from Nauru to Howland. You may be interested to go to the Forum Archives and read my posting of 9th May/2002.  This contains a weather report from Ocean Is. for 2/July/37 at 2000 Local time obtained from the British Met Office Archives at Bracknell, Berkshire, U.K.   The time of the report would I think be around 3hrs. prior to AE/FN passing that area.  I believe the report indicates that the ITCZ would not have  been having any influence on the weather on that day.


              Jack Clark  #2564
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:25:37 EST
From:         Doc Holloway
Subject:      Zee, Zed, or Zulu?

When I was flying around Europe and the Mediterranean back in the early 1960's it was ZULU; never ZEE or ZED.  It's still the same today here in the U.S.  The phonetic alphabet of WW II would have used ZEBRA.  I'm afraid I can't help with the middle of 1937 as I was only three months old!

LTM
Doc
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:27:30 EST
From:         Shane Brinkman
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

All this talk about a wreck photo reminded me about a photo I got on ebay. You must have a ton of these photos.  It is alleged to be the belly flop in Hawaii on the first attempt around the world.  I put it on my webpage, and it will be there for about a week if you want to save it to your hard disk. (My webpage has nothing to do with A.E. or anything of interest to anyone.) http://www.in1.org/electra.jpg
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:28:01 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Cowl measurements

> long), should I release the "correct" measurement before he does his
> experiment?

Please wait.  This should be good.

Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:32:35 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Pensacola 10E cowlings


"...late model 10A at Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola...has a set of 10E
cowlings (don't know where they got them)..."

They got them from a USCG veteran who was once assigned to the WW2 Loran station on Gardner Island, of course.  <G>

Sorry, couldn't resist, & LTM,

Dave Porter, 2288
we will say Ni(ku) to you until you appease us

**********************************

Where's my shrubbery?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:33:03 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: cowling measurements

I don't see any problem in releasing the dimensions ahead of time.  It's not going to change Ron's findings.

> The question is, if Ron thinks he can come up with the diameter of the
> cowling openings in the Wreck Photo (assuming that the prop is nine feet
> long), should I release the "correct" measurement before he does his
> experiment?  I don't think it's any big deal either way so I'll be happy to
> abide by whatever the forum thinks is the best way to proceed.

I do suggest having Jeff Glickmann run an independant look-see as well.  (No disrespect to Ron!) and I'm sure he still has the original hi-res scans of the photo that he used to map the outside diameter.  Who knows?  He may have already done a measurement of the inside diameter in his original examination, but because we weren't discussing that aspect of the cowling, didn't mention it at the time.

ltm
jon
2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:33:46 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Pensacola cowlings

> Thanks for jogging my memory.  Yes, I have those numbers.  C/n 1130, a late
> Model 10A, partially rebuilt as a 10E Special replica, and now in storage at
> the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, has with it a set of 10E
> cowlings (no idea where they found them).

Didn't I read someplace that they purchased those cowlings at a village abandonment clearance sale on some little island in the south Pacific?

ltm
jon

****************************

I guess great (?) minds think alike....
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:34:22 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      The wreck photo

I have studied the Wreck Photo by using a super imposed grid system over the picture. There some things I have been reluctant to mention because I don't want to sound like a nut. The first is the aircraft in the picture looks as if it has been on fire, because of the way the metal is shaped on the leading edge of the wing inboard of the starboard engine mount. A very close inspection shows at the point of separation the metal is very straight like a lot force was brought to bare from the inside of the wing. There was a lot of fumes involved in the explosion to cause the metal to separate like that. Fuel tanks were the source of the fuel,but they were near empty, if they would have been full the wing would have a little split and the metal around the area would be melted. The split would be much smaller and the edges of the torn metal would be bent inward, if the tank was full of fuel. Basically the rule is the more fuel that is in a tank the less air there is to let the fuel burn, so it burns with less force.


The second thing really puzzles me, is the starboard motor mount has some sheet metal bent forward and down with two holes in it. I have looked at a lot of pictures of engines that have been removed and in the process of being removed, and this sheet metal is not present. The only thing that I can guess at is that it is the leading edge of the wing behind the motor mount. Somehow it has been bent down but after the engine was removed. Because the Firewall supports would cause the leading edge sheet metal to distort from the pressure of an explosion. This can't be outside skin of the aircraft because there is no sheet metal with the holes that are present on the skin. If anyone has any ideas let me know.

The next thing that if have found on the photo is a structure, I have tried to not consider it a structure but its just there, it is on the right hand edge of the picture just above the dense tree line.  The top corner of the building blocks the view of the palm frowns. It looks like a control tower to me. I can't determine where though.  Some of you that have been in the tropics help me find this place.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:36:09 EST
From:         David Kelly
Subject:      Cowling measurements

Perhaps we should hold a book on the size each of you come up with :)

Regards
David Kelly
David J Kelly & Associates
Suite 104A
511 Pacific Highway
St Leonards  NSW  2065
Phone: 0421 336 173

*****************************

Proceeds to TIGHAR?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:37:12 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

Adam Marsland wrote:

"I'm glad I did better on my first post than that fellow that said "why don't
you just find the bones and DNA test them???"


Adam...I'm not sure which fellow you are referring to, but if you are referencing a forum posting I made quite some time ago about  bones allegedly belonging to AE/FN brought back to the United States by a team in the 1960s, then you need to read the book "Amelia Earhart Returns From Saipan" to understand the logic behind my posting.  DNA testing was not available in the 1960s.  My only point was, if the alleged bones are still in the U.S. (as the book indicated in 1968) and could be located, a simple test using today's easily obtained DNA technology could provide data to prove or disprove the book author's claim.

Tom Riggs  #2427
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:39:45 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands Spies

The US Navy and State Dept. did not ask the Japanese to search the Marshalls at all.  As for a better source for Japanese activities throughout all of their islands, including the Marshalls, I would recommend that Carol Dow read Mark Peattie's Nan-Yo: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese in Micronesia, 1885-1945.

*************************

I would also recommend this book to anyone interested in what was going on in the pre-WWII years in the Pacific.

1988, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 0-0248-1087-2

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:41:21 EST
From:         Ron Berr
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo //   ACCESSIBLE L10

Do you want me to close my eyes while you show everyone else? The inside measurement of the opening of the cowl of a model A is 36" and the outside is about 50".  I did not say that is was going to tell you the measurement, all I said was that I was thinking of comparing the two. If you have the measurement and are holding it back then your blocking progress, the correct measurement may help someone put together some kind of puzzle.  Were not a bunch of kiddies trying to pass a quiz in forth grade. I have the correct measurements on a set of plans that I have done a lot of work from.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That's right Ron.  "Were not a bunch of kiddies trying to pass a quiz in forth grade." Fourth graders would probably be more literate.  We're trying to apply sound methodology to a very difficult problem.  "Double blind" tests are the scientific standard for the type of experiment you and others were proposing.

It is my understanding that the objective of the proposed experiment was to see whether the dimensions of the cowling opening in the Wreck Photo (assuming a nine foot propeller for scale) match the cowling opening of a Lockheed 10E. (Measurements of a 10A cowling are irrelevant.)  For such an experiment to be "double blind" the researcher should not know ahead of time the answer he is after (the dimensions of either cowling opening).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:46:28 EST
From:         Danny Brown
Subject:      wreck photo cowling interior diameter

I estimated it to be 3 feet 2 inches by using Photoshop.  However, on the 17-inch flat-panel LCD display of a new iMac, the wreck photo looks much more like a composite than an unaltered photographic print. It looks much different than when viewed on a CRT display.

Dan Brown, #2408

********************************************************************
From Ric

Okay.  We have 38 inches.  Anybody else?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:51:54 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Adam's post

Adam's analysis, although a credible attempt to make sense of these phrases and numbers, is too  full of assumptions,  of interpretations, and of speculations  of what "AE" actually said or  meant, or what Betty  deciphered and copied  to provide any any significant conclusion.  My opinion of course. We have been debating and rearranging Betty's numbers and words for the past two years.

My suggestion  is to  give Adam's interpretations to Betty and have her comment. Maybe they will stir some corner of her memory, which occasionally can happen.For instance, did she hear New York and write it N.Y. or what? Perhaps her recollection could clear up many of notations so Adam's work deserves a review by Betty.

 Previously, Ric has interviewed Betty at length and she has provided her anecdotal  "clarifications" to the written entries as best she could. On many questionable entries, she was quite frank and honestly stated she couldn't remember.

Hence all we can do is speculate and guess forever, but we will never know what the actual words were.  Ric has stated that the document must stand as written.

Equally open to further  explanations, are  Earhart saying W40K or WOJ, uncle, Bob, airport, Hello Bud, and suitcase in the closet, that appear in the notebook. Those words don't seem to fit the context of AE's aircraft filling with water in an emergency situation.

 Contrary to Adams conclusion that she was attempting to broadcast their KNOWN location with a revised, "adjusted" LOP, just doesn't make sense. Why not "KHAQQ calling Itasca,we are on an Island/atoll about 380 miles southeast of Howland", rather than provide only a LOP. Nothing fancy.. Maybe  a guess at their latitude and longitude. Theorectically, they had several hours to check their position before landing.

 Finally,rearranging numbers reminds me of Gervais's attempt to get AE to the Phoenix Islands. He rearranged the letters in Guy Bolam to spell out the Phoenix Island group, then rearranging them to come up with a number sequence that gave the exact  lat/long of Hull Is, where Lambrecht landed looking for AE. [She reportedly wasn't there]

LTM,
Ron Bright
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I have to agree with Ron on this one.  Trying to "decipher" Betty's notebook is basically a Talmudic exercise.  When all is said and done, all you've have is opinion.  There may well be smoking gun evidence of a sort in the post loss radio signals but it won't come from interpretations of the phrases heard by the shortwave listeners.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:53:59 EST
From:         J. Dubb
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Since forum members are going to be doing all this research on the wreck photo, is it possible to release a higher quality image to work with? The overall image has limited detail.

from
Jdubb
********************************************************************
From Ric

This thread started with my assertion that the Wreck Photo has been shown to be not worth worrying about.  We'll put up a new research bulletin as soon as I can get to it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:25:37 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Adam's post

Pat says...

"I am sure it would be quite interesting to work on... but the problem is, no
matter what it would be speculative. We can't know, unfortunately, what was
"really" meant."

Of course we can't, but speculation can lead to propositions that can be tested.  Example:  Gallagher says the skull was buried, and we conclude that it must have then been excavated.  We speculate that the hole on the Seven Site was where this happened.  We can then dig the hole and (maybe) find out.  OK, so we dug the hole and DIDN'T find out, but there's more to be done with the hole, and in digging it we found the burn features and animal bones.  The whole project's been full of this kind of thing.  I have no idea what a detailed analysis of Betty's notebook, by a variety of different brains, might yield, but the mere fact that it would be "speculative" doesn't strike me as much of a reason not to try it.
********************************************************************
From Ric

I see Tom's point, but I have a hard time imaging what sorts of things might arise from interpretations of Betty notebook that might be testable.  We've already noted the obvious ones:

- Was AE known to have something important stashed in a suitcase in her California closet?  Not that we've been able to determine so far, but if we discovered that she did would it prove that Betty heard AE?

- Was "N.Y., N.Y." really Norwich City mistaken for New York City, or Duke of York mistaken for New York?  Maybe.  But how could we ever know?

- Is the entry "S 309' 165*E" really 3 degrees 9 minutes South latitude, 165 degrees East longitude and therefore the unpublished assigned station of USS Ontario?  Maybe.  But like the suitcase in the closet, it doesn't prove anything.

- Is "Marie, Marie" really Mary Bea, Mary Bea (Noonan's wife)?  Maybe, but how could we ever be sure.

Conjuring interpretations for the recollected (or in Betty's unique case, documented) words and phrases heard by the shortwave listeners is uncomfortably like interpreting the results of a psychic reading.  It's easy to bend what is vague into something significant.

That said, if there are those who want to work on it I certainly have no objection.  Maybe something will come out that would lead us to something solid (just as interpreting Gallagher's cryptic descriptions of where he found the bones led us to the Seven Site).  After all, if a psychic tells the police "You'll find the body near water." and that prompts them to check the swimming pool and they find the body - what the heck.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:26:18 EST
From:         Ric GillespieSubject:      Alternative hypotheses

Daryll wrote:

>>Just to confirm Alan's statement. We'll be happy to present a valid case
>>for a hypothesis other than the Niku hypothesis if someone can come up
>>with one...
>
>uhhh.....is this another trick.....Ric ??
>Why do I get the feeling like "Little Red Riding Hood" skipping down the
>wooded path??

Another trick? When did I ever trick you?

You have stated your hypothesis that the airplane flew to Mili Atoll.  TIGHAR has stated its hypothesis that the airplane flew to Gardner.  Others have stated the hypothesis that the airplane went down at sea.  Anybody want to state a hypothesis that the airplane was abducted by space aliens?

Nobody knows for sure what happened and nobody is going to prove what happened by showing that a particular hypothesis could have happened.  What we need to see is evidence (clues, hints, enticing coincidences, whatever) that point to what really DID happen.  So far, as far as I know, all that has come out to support the Marshalls hypothesis is a mishmash of contradictory tales of the South Pacific and fanciful interpretations of rather ordinary documents and photographs.

In short, you're going to have to come up with something better than a string of assumptions that let's you get a simulated Beech Baron to a simulated Mili to get space on this forum.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:32:09 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands Spies

Randy Jacobson wrote:

>The US Navy and State Dept. did not ask the Japanese to search the
>Marshalls at all.

First of all I don't believe the above statement. Without reading Nan-Yo I have an eerie feeling it is in direct conflict with Astor's letter.  The Japanese were such nice pleasant peace makers.... baloney.

Carol Dow
*************************************************************************
From Ric

What the U.S. government did and did not ask the Japanese to do is a matter of historical record whether you want to believe it or not.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:43:12 EST
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      them dry bones and W40K

With the forum's forbearance, and acknowledging that Mr. Gillespie is correct in terming such discussion as largely speculative, I have one other question relating to Betty's Notebook.  It was written somewhere at one point that "W40K" happened to be coincide with the call sign of a now-deceased HAM on the same wave of propagation as Betty.  There was an second hand anecdote that W40K had actually had a conversation with AE ("I talked to her").

All good as far as it goes, but what I don't understand is this:  if the HAM in Florida were hearing AE on a harmonic of her broadcast frequency, how could they possibly have a two-way conversation?  The frequency she was heard on would be completely differently from her broadcast/reception frequency, right?  I don't know anything about radio, so I may be missing something really obvious here.

Tom Riggs wrote:

>>I'm glad I did better on my first post than that fellow that said "why don't
>>you just find the bones and DNA test them???
>
>Adam...I'm not sure which fellow you are referring to, but if you are
>referencing a forum posting I made quite some time ago about  bones allegedly
>belonging to AE/FN brought back to the United States by a team in the 1960s,
>then you need to read the book "Amelia Earhart Returns From Saipan" to
>understand the logic behind my posting.  DNA testing was not available in the
>1960s.  My only point was, if the alleged bones are still in the U.S. (as the
>book indicated in 1968) and could be located, a simple test using today's
>easily obtained DNA technology could provide data to prove or disprove the
>book author's claim.

If I remember correctly, this was just a fellow who wandered on, posted one inane sentence, and was never heard from again.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm as puzzled as you are about how Carroll's HAM call sign ended up in Betty's notebook.  Maybe it's just a strange coincidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:44:21 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Jdubb writes:-

>is it possible to release a higher quality image to work with? The
> overall image has limited detail.

I still have a reasonably hi-res copy on my website at:-

    http://www.cv990.demon.co.uk/wreck

Click the Wreck photo for a larger image.

LTM
Simon Ellwood #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:08:53 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Wreck Photo

I have a very nice photo of AE's 10E, and I make the inside dimension of the cowl ring at 38". I also have a copy of the wreck photo, and, from it, I make the inside dimension of the cowl ring at 38". In short, they match. My algorithm could probably be called "low-tech", but I'll go with it.

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it" - Collin Raye

(Sorry, Ric. I'm the one who brought this whole thing up!)
LTM, who probably loves the wreck photo as much as I do,
Alfred Hendrickson

***************************************************************************
From Jdubb

Here is my 2cent estimate for the inside diameter of the cowling.

For methodology I placed the higher res photo of the wreck engine into a drafting program (Microstation) and superimposed  an ellipse on the major components. I assumed a prop length of 9ft and did some averaging of the various ovals due to the "fuzziness" of the photo. 

The results:

assuming the prop length ~ 9ft
wreck photo outer cowling diameter 53.88in
wreck photo inner cowling diameter 38.88in
ratio inner/outer ~ 0.722

Assuming this is a true 10e, then the true outer diam would be 53.50in and the inner diam would be 38.63in.

But, measuring the cowlings on the "last takeoff" photo disproves that assumption.

Last takeoff photo ratio inner/outer ~ 0.794
10E cowling diam 53.50in
photo analysed 10E inner diam ~ 42.48in

Almost a 4in diameter difference. 
Just as Angus Murry concluded, and Ric stated, the wreck photo is NOT a 10E.

Ric, how close did I come to the true 10E inner dimension?

 Jdubb
***************************************************************************
From Angus Murray

Using the very poor resolution website photo, I determined the wreck cowl internal diameter as 37.5".There is not much point in putting any error limits on these measurements if we can get a better resolution photo.

 From measurements of NR's cowl in a rather better photo, I determined that to be 35.8". The diameter from another photo of NR I modified to illustrate the difference gave 36.45. There is likewise not much point wasting too much time estimating NR's cowl diameter if we can measure an R1340 cowl direct (which I believe has been done).However, it is a useful exercise to see what variation arises from analysing different photos. Here there is a 0.65" difference.

>I'm apparently more comfortable with Angus' comparison than he is.

Actually I just like doing things properly. We are only talking about a difference in diameter of perhaps 1.5". Thats just 0.75" either side.

Estimating the position of the tips of the propellers (to get scale) and the edge of the cowl are not straightforward due to the photograph quality. There is perspective and distortion (in the original print and on screen) to consider. Finally, apparent diameter can change depending on brightness and contrast. The two photos of NR give measurements differing by 0.65". If both the wreck measurement is wrong by 0.65 and the NR measurement wrong by 0.65", we have nearly made up the 1.5" difference. If one espouses the scientific method, and for the comparison to be taken seriously, one must use the best resolution photo available and take all the factors into account to arrive at a best estimate with appropriate error limits.

Regards Angus.
PS. A second reasonable quality photo of NR gives a diameter of 35.9", in good agreement with the other good quality pic (35.8"). My guess is that the cowling inner diameter for both 10A and 10E will be the same at 36".

A.

***************************************************************************
From Ron  Berry

If Ric can find the measurements of the cowl then anyone can. That is anyone that is as super human as Ric. That is meant in a good way.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

If you say so. Thanks, but my cape is at the cleaners.
***************************************************************************
From Ron Berry

Ric I already gave you my measurements on the wreck in July of this year in a letter that I wrote to you, so you have my best considering the photo that we have to work with over the net. I believe that the wreck photo was not taken on Gardner Island, so the past few weeks I have changed my focus to where a photo like that of a long distance Electra could have been taken.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Sorry. I can't find cowling measurements anywhere in the paper that you sent  to me.
*************************************************************************
From Dave Bush

Regarding the cowl opening dimensions vs the prop dimensions - do both the inner and outer cowls have the same opening dimension, or is that different just as the outer cowl dimensions differ?

LTM,
Dave Bush
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay gang.  Here are the measured dimensions (the envelope please).

The exterior diameter dimension of the 10E cowl is 53 inches.
The opening diameter of the 10E cowl is 40.5 inches.

The exterior diameter dimension of the 10A cowl is 47 inches.
The opening diameter of the 10A cowl is 33 inches.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:28:50 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Notebook start time

I don't want to belabor the notebook issue, but there is a debate  when Betty first started writing in her book. In your original post in 2000, you said she started writing about 3pm, St Pete time. Quit about 6:00 pm

But in her book, p. 3 , (your p. 53), there is "since 4:30" written at the top, then over a bit is "5:10".

Some beleive the book started at 4:30 pm. Can you recall your interview about when the book started. I am guessing your 3pm estimate based on your interview was the real start time.

LTM,
Ron Bright
************************************************************************
From Ric

No.  The original 3 p.m. estimate was Betty's initial ballpark guess.  When we really sat down and began asssessing each entry it became clear to Betty that her notation on the third page "since 4:30" reflected her realization at some point that it might be important to make note of when the reception began.  "4:30" might not be accurate to the minute but it should be pretty close.  The "5:10" on the same page may be the time that signals stopped for a while and Betty didn't know if they would resume or it may be when signals resumed after a break, or it could be the time she turned the page.  No way to be sure.

The notations "5:30" and "1 hr." on the top of the fourth page mean that it is now 5:30 and she has been hearing Amelia for one hour.  Betty is quite sure of that. The "6:00" at the top of the fifth and last page, Betty believes, indicates the time at the start of that page and the "ended at 6:15" is self explanatory.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:39:38 EST
From:         RC
Subject:      1937 RADIO LINGO

F.Y.I.  From one who flew prior to '37 & for an airline thereafter .. his comments:

Very few beyond airlines had radio xmtrs. but a few did have 200-400 recvrs. so they could hear towers and radio ranges for wx.

Since hardly any plane had a 3105 or 6210 recvr, the only way a pilot could hear another's radio lingo was to be in a tower or at a range station .. which was not uncommon, or listen on short wave .. very boring unless near an airport because xmsns were few and far between.

Xmsns. were mainly in 'conversational english' but slang did develop.  The most fequently used word was, 'Repeat'.  [static, weak signal, etc.]  Some Capts. were chatty with various towers and ranges, jokes etc.  Frowned upon but done. Reports to their co. on HF were more business like but still informal and unstructured.

Almost all position reports and clearances were via company radio.  Co. HF was the only frequency(s) that were, talk/receive on same freq.

Other pilots of the same company could of course listen to each other on the co. freq. and they did, including passing both business [wx, etc.] and personal comments back and forth.  Due to static, and other reasons, it became a rule to identify the sender at least on co. freq's.  'Jones, flt 2 at 5,000, ...'   Lots of, 'Hi Jim', or such when a voice was recognized.

Not until the war were some general guide lines adopted, and it was not until well after the introduction of the jets that the co's. and the FAA  became very serious about standard language .. request reentry .. for descent clearance, imitating celebrities voices .. Arthur Godfrey, Jimmy Stewart, etc ..and all sorts of topical slang, disappeared in a hurry.  He had never heard of any 'international radio procedure' prior to the war.

More to the point, he said that he was sure ICAO* had a history of the subject of 'international radio and procedures'.    Someone more familiar with researching the web can look into that.  Cheers,  RC  [who entered the airline scene post war]

* Intn'l. Civil Aviation Org.  An official org. of the countries to establish uniform procedures.  Also IATA is the Int'l Air Transp. Assoc .. the group of int'l. airlines ...

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Fascinating.  Context is everything in historical research and the entire aviation radio experience has changed so much since 1937 that there is a great tendency to make assumptions based upon the way things are now.

I wonder... did pilots really use the inflectionless (if that's a word) sing-song voice style so common in aviation movies of the '30s?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:50:13 EST
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands Spies

Ric, Carol, Randy,  Enclosed are some comments that may be helpful regarding circumstances in the Marshall Islands in 1937 and possiblity of Earhart and Noonan being there.

Vincent Astor's letter to Roosevelt in 1938 is quite revealing.  Astor was chairman of the "room',  Roosevelt's private secret intelligence group. Several other prominent and influential people were also members.

As reported in Day of Deceit, The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett, that USN Lt. Cmdr. Arthur McCollum composed an 8 step action memorandum which was intended to engineer a situation that would mobilize a reluctant America into joining Britain's struggle against the German armed forces then overrunning Europe. Its eight actions called for virtually inciting a Japanese attack on American ground, air, and naval forces in Hawaii, as well as on British and Dutch colonial outposts in the Pacific region. On October 7, 1940 the memo was given to two of Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors: Navy captains Walter S. Anderson and Dudley W. Knox who inturn gave it to Roosevelt.  Beginning the very next day, with FDR's involvement, McCollum's proposals were sytematically put into effect and Pearl Harbor occured a little more than a year later..

Stinnett also says that Rear Admiral Leigh Noyes [he was a Captain and commander of the Lexington in 1937 under the overall command of Earhart search commander, Lexington Group commander Capt. J.S. Dowell , Comdesron Two aboard the Lexington), as early as December 11, 1941 when he was then the Navy's Director of Communications in Washington, DC, "instituted a 54 year [that would carry us to1995 when many of the people involved would have died and thus be unavailable to talk]  censorship policy that consigned pre-Pearl Harbor Japanese military and diplomatic intercepts and the relevant directives to Navy vaults." According to Stinnett, two weeks after Japan surrendered in August 1945, the Navy blocked public acccess to the pre-Pearl Harbor intercepts by classifying the documents TOP SECRET.  Even Congress was cut out of the loop.   The Navy's order was sweeping: it gagged the cryptographers and radio intercept operators. Fleet Admiral Ernest King oversaw the censorship. He threatened imprisonment and loss of Navy and veteran's benefits to any navy personnel who disclosed the success of the breaking of Japanese codes.

The above discussion illustrates the risks Roosevelt was willing to take in comparison to a modest aerial observation by Lexington aircraft of the Marshall Islands from beyond the 3 mile limit or whatever it was.  Even a flyover of those relatively sparsely populated and widely  spaced islands could be imagined as willingly authorized by Roosevelt in his multiple and intense desire to find Earhart and to find out about Japanese military acitivities in the Mandates.

You will note that the Lexington was relatively very close to the Marshall Islands, i.e., about 200-300 miles,  in her published search route.  I don't know what the ground ("water")  rules were about entering adjacent/territorial waters to foreign lands/islands during that time, but it is possible that legal limits were close to shore, say 3-10 miles.  I believe they were similar up until 40-50 years ago when they may have been extended to a greater distance. Even though Howland was a U.S. Territory in 1937, there are reports of foreign ships coming up close to the island (within sight) unexpectedly and unannounced at that time.  Some of them were reported as Japanese.  An aircraft carrier could stand off an island at considerably greater distance and launch aircraft which would perhaps be less noticeable from an island (and less obviously intrusive).  The aircraft could maintain 3-10 miles offshore outside the territorial limits and still observe quite a bit of and about the island from a reasonable altitude.

As we know Australia's Smiths' Weekly in their October 16, 1937 edition said that we [the US Navy] took advantage of the Earhart search to  make a flyover/scrutiny of the Mandates.

Strippel in his book Amelia Earhart, the myth and the reality, 1972, says on page 93, " It is also highly probable that both the US Army and Navy carried out photo reconnaisance missions over the Mandates earlier" [than November 27, 1941 when such a mission by two B-24s was  ordered [but did not fly the mission] by General Hap Arnold. Iinterestingly Strippel also says that when Jackie Cockran visited Tokyo in September 1945 and found files on Amelia Earhart, the section bore no further notation about Earhart after the supposed crash near Howland. I had not heard that before.  As far as I can recall no one since has mentioned that].

In United States Defense and Trans-Pacific Commercial Air Routes 1933-1941 submitted by Francis X. Holbrook as a dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History at Fordham University, New York, 1969 on page 185 there is this interesting information:

"Finally, during the air sweeps conducted by the Lexingtons's squadrons, several of the Japanese islands in the Marshalls were flown over."

Holbrook cites as his source of this information "Pomeroy, p. 156.  United States Congress, Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Hearings, Part 37, Proceedings of Hewitt Inquiry, Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office, 1946, pp. 1136-1144.  Orange Activity in the Mandates in 1940.  The document shows that some intelligence information on these islands was gotten in 1937."

I have just reread a letter from Robert Stinnett, author of Day of Deceit, The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, to me dated March 16, 1994.

In part he says:  "Nevertheless, I have discovered secret USN documents where a special Naval Task Force was engaged in 'survey' of the Central Pacific Isles from Jan to July 1937.  Perhaps AE was part of this schedule."

I am attempting to contact Stinnett again on this issue.

Rear Admiral Ellis M. Zacharias in his book Secret Missions published in 1961 says referring to his arrival in command of the cruiser Salt Lake City in a raid on Wotje Atoll in the Marshall Islands in WWII:  "We could not help recalling the previous extensive efforts to gain information of this area through visits of our ships and the opposition of our own state Department to these 'controversial' issues."

War Plan Orange by Edward S. Miller, 1991,  is a must read for consideration of US-Japanese concerns in the Mandates pre WWII. There are other books in addition, that give different and contrary views to Mark Peattie's Nan-Yo.

As you know so well, the so-called "historical record" has to be interpreted, and compared to other records, i.e., the official Coast Guard and Navy search conclusions and the data that Tighar and others have dug up and interpreted!

Ron Reuther
**************************************************************************
From Ric

There are often discrepancies among historical documents and historians are often forced to decide which contemporaneous record is more reliable.  A classic case is comparing Commander Thompson's report of the Earhart Radio Transcripts with the actual Itasca radio logs.  However, one can not credibly challenge the "historical record" by citing undocumented claims and speculation by later authors.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:57:49 EST
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      more re Japanese militarism in the Marshalls

Stripple refers to the article by Lt. Gen. Masatake Okumiya, Japanese Air Self Defense Force (Ret.) entitled "For Sugar Boats or Submarines" which was published in the August 1968 issue of US Naval Institutes Proceedings and which proclaims that the Japanese did not fortify their Pacific mandated islands.

Stripple also refers to Francis X. Holbrooks February 1971 article, also in the Naval Institute Proceedings, entitled "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight", but doesn't say that Holbrook actually confirms "no fortifications."  Indeed in Holbrook's PhD Thesis  submission that we have refered to in earlier messages Holbrook actually cites official US Navy records which list a Wotje landing field completed in 1937 and a Building in Progress - a submarine base?  - on Eniwetok in 1936.

In the UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II, The War in the Pacific, SEIZURE OF THE GILBERTS AND MARSHALLS by Philp A Crowl and Edmund G. Love, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C. , 1955, I quote:  "From 1934 through 1941 the Japanese undertook  considerable construction activity in their island possessions, allegedly for nonmilitary purposes.  According to the testimony of Capt. Hidemi Yoshidqa, IJN, who was intimately connected with naval construction in the mandates, this program was aimed primarily at the building of 'cultural and industrial facilities.'" [How about the secondary aim?!! - RR]

"Under the category of  'cultural and industrial facilities' were listed such items as ramps and runwayus for aircraft , wireless stations, direction finders, meteorological stations, and lighthouses.  These improvements, :Yoshida claimed, were necessary for safe navigation, promotion of commerce [with who? - no westerners for sure!! - RR], and other peaceful pursuits."

"Unquestionably many of these installations could be employed for commercial pruposes.  It is equally true that their nature was such as to permit an easy conversion to military uses, if the situation so demanded. It also appears certain that the Japanese made a deliberate effort to disguise military construction projects in the cloak of harmless peaceful endeavors."

Ron Reuther
************************************************************************
From Ric

What has any of this got to do with Amelia Earhart?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:18:39 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

The 157/337 LOP cannot provide any guidance to Gardner because the azimuth of the LOP changes as the sun moves across the sky. It was 157/337 for only about one hour after sunrise and then shifted in a counterclockwise direction. By the time the Electra could have reached Gardner, say about 2240 Z (figuring on flying at 130 knots and departing Howland's vicinity immediately after the "157/337" radio message at 2014 Z) the azimuth of the LOP would have changed to 126/306 which is 33 degrees away from the true course of 159 to Gardner. This would take you more 190 NM north east of Gardner. As Ric has admitted, they only had dead reckoning and a compass to follow to Gardner, not a LOP. Since this  is the same type of navigation that they would have followed to the Gilberts, Mili, or any place else, your statement about the availability of a LOP does not provide additional support for the Gardner hypothesis.

gl
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll confess that this is the kind of posting that really frosts me, but I'll try to be nice.  Advancing an LOP through an intended destination by dead reckoning and then flying that line, again by dead reckoning, if the destination does not appear was a standard, recommended procedure.  TIGHAR has never said or implied otherwise.  Earhart herself said she was "running" on the 157/337 line - not some other line that would lead to the Gilberts or the Marshalls. The Navy recognized the legitimacy of the procedure in 1937. That's why they sent the Colorado to search for her down the 157 line.

Saying that I "admit" that "they only had dead reckoning and a compass to follow to Gardner, not a LOP."  is either a gross misunderstanding or an egregious misrepresentation.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:27:14 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Weather info

Ric/Jack/Randy,

What is the sum total of weather information in the Howland area for the whole of July 2nd 1937? Was there any weather info available from Canton for this day?

Regards Angus.
*********************************************************************
From Ric

We have the hour-by-hour decklog weather observations of the ITASCA and a noontime weather observation (with some winds aloft information) by Richard Black on Howland.  There was nobody on Canton.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:39:48 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Still more on the Wreck Photo

I have some more observations and questions about the wreck photo. I will appreciate your thoughts.

Things we know: The wreck photo shows a wrecked twin-engined plane in a tropical setting. The proportions of prop-length-to-cowl match the 10E close enough for some, but not for others! (They match close enough for me; I don't think we can expect to get a precise distance, without error, given what we're working with.)

Ric: Have all of the other 10E's and all of the Ki-54's been accounted for? In other words, is there anything like a strong probability that the wreck photo shows another 10E, or a Ki-54, or some other possibility? If planes other than AE's are ruled out, in my judgement, the very existence of this photo supports the Niku Hypothesis. It certainly does not prove it, but it supports it.

As to the question of scale, suppose I said that the prop length of the plane in the wreck photo is 8'. Or 7', or 10'. Does this introduce other twin-engine planes as possibilities? In other words, is the assumption of the 9 foot prop reasonable?

The other concern I have is this: Is there any chance the photo is a fake? Does TIGHAR have in its possession the original of this photo? If not, does anyone know where it is?

Thanks,
- Alfred Hendrickson
**********************************************************************
From Ric

>Have all of the other 10E's and all of the Ki-54's been accounted
>for?

No.

>In other words, is there anything like a strong probability that
>the wreck photo shows another 10E, or a Ki-54, or some other
>possibility?

Yes.

>In other words, is the assumption of the 9 foot prop reasonable?

Only if it's a Lockheed 10.

>Is there any chance the photo is a fake?

Yes.

>Does TIGHAR have in its possession the original of this photo?

No.

>If not, does anyone know where it is?

Somebody may.  We don't.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:41:50 EST
From:         James
Subject:      Re: more re Japanese militarism in the Marshalls

As a newcomer to the group, one who is still reviewing the information available on the site and in the archives, as well as doing my own research on this mystery, I'm reticent to offer any opinions about her disappearance at this time, but this e-mail sparked me to make one observation, based on my studies as a history major and my ongoing interest with World War II and the events that preceded it.

Okumiya's statement is probably entirely true, not only on its face but in detailed analysis. In 1938, it was very unlikely that the Japanese were "fortifying" anywhere. Their definition of "fortification" was a traditional one--fortifications meant bunkers, pillboxes, redoubts, and other kinds of improved or hardened fighting positions. The Japanese military did not begin widespread fortification of its possessions until 1943, when it conceded an essentially defensive strategy to protect the areas providing the home islands their industrial resources. The Outer and Inner Defensive Perimeters had not even been imagined in 1938. I would be very surprised to see objective evidence showing significant fortifications, as the Japanese would have used that word. Therefore, Okumiya's assertion would be truthful.

The facilities they were building, while not "fortifications," would have been of great concern to the United States or anyone else worried about the rising tide of militarism. In many ways, airfields, port facilities, etc. would have been more worrisome than "fortifications." Defensive works don't threaten anyone on other islands. Airfields would.

Anyway, that's my one and one-third cents' worth for today (I'm adjusting for COLA and general overhead, and anyway, my thoughts aren't worth much on the best of days!). I'm enjoying reading the posts and catching up on the archived materials, and will offer my thoughts on the disappearance per se when I'm in a position to offer something considered.

James
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:43:55 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

The wide variation in estimated cowl diameters rather confirms my suspicions that this is not an entirely straightforward business.

Some things we should consider:

1) Were cowls made to a fixed internal diameter? Since this dimension is not critical, is it possible they varied dependent on the particular panel-beater who made them?

2) Was the spec for the electra cowl ever changed for better cooling?

3) Were NRs cowls changed to a non standard internal size after the groundloop accident?

4) Does the wreck photo not have a 9 foot propeller?

5) Ric quotes the 10A internal diameter as 33". Someone recently quoted it as 36" - does this give us a clue that diameters were not entirely standard?

I like Jdubb's idea of superimposing an ellipse to predict the position of the edge of the cowl where it is not visible (due to shadow or dirt) and also to better establish the angle of the major axis.

Having thought more about using the measured dimensions for a comparison, I now think using a calculated dimension from a good late photo of NR is better. The same distortions will then act on both images and we don't need to consider whether all cowls were the same for the same model. At least we now have a better resolution photo of the wreck.

 The photo comparison I did for Ric makes it very difficult to believe that the electra cowl is larger internally than that of the wreck. The only way I can easily see this could seem to be the case is if the wreck actually has a shorter prop.

Do we have any prop lengths for the Tachikawa? (The tapering nose panelling on the wreck photo is Tachikawa-like and this alone virtually rules out it being NR).

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:49:23 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      3 items from Daryll

1.  Ric wrote:

>>>Just to confirm Alan's statement. We'll be happy to present a valid case
>>>for a hypothesis other than the Niku hypothesis if someone can come up
>>>with one...
>>
>>uhhh.....is this another trick.....Ric ?? Why do I get the feeling like
>>"Little Red Riding Hood" skipping down the wooded path?? 
>
>Another trick? When did I ever trick you?....[RG]>>

I posted (attempted) a forum posting on this very subject several months ago.

In a personal email to me you said you weren't going to talk about this conspiracy crap on the Forum. 

I had known your sentiments yesterday I wouldn't have bothered to include a copy of the tape for you with Alan's when I mailed them. 

For Alan,....Ric will have your copy of the tape, since he has your address.

2. For Jack Clark

>...This contains a weather report from Ocean Is. for 2/July/37 at
>2000 Local time obtained from the British Met Office Archives at
>Bracknell, Berkshire, U.K.

Jack I remember your posting. It seems you have access to the British archives. 

I have a copy of notes from a July '71' interview of Capt. Ernest Humphrey. (.....Ernest Humphrey CAPT USN (Ret) was a Naval Academy graduate ensign aboard the USS Lexington as assistant navigator under Commander Felix B. Stump, navigator of the Lexington and later a big wheel Admiral. The captain of the Lexington at the time was Captain Leigh Noyes.

Humphrey says that Lt. True, who sent the latest enroute weather in 72 parts to Lae, that Amelia missed, obtained some weather observations from a British Airologist on Tarawa. Would British archives have that?

3. Randy Jacobson wrote:

>The US Navy and State Dept. did not ask the Japanese to search the
>Marshalls at all....[RJ]

Gee Randy, I have always thought that it was Leyton (Layton?) who broached the subject with the Japanese and it was Yamamoto who said no, that the Japanese would do the searching in the Mandates.

Daryll

**********************************************************************
From Ric

Seems to me that I've been posting a great deal of "conspiracy crap" on the forum lately and it's still as groundless and empty-headed as it has always been.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:53:49 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

My figures show that I have calculated, guessed, and held my finger up in the air to check wind drift long enough for my arm to get tired. I came up with the photo measurements cowl opening 37" exterior 54'.
********************************************************************
From Ric

The 10E measurements are cowl opening 40.5, exterior 53.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:59:01 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands Spies

Let me make this perfectly clear:

Based upon the bridge logs of all the Lexington ships, it was physically impossible for the Lex planes to fly over any of the Marshall Islands and still be able to take-off and land at the times stated.

There is no record of any correspondence from the Navy or the State Dept. to Japanese authorities requesting permission for the Lex planes to fly over the Marshalls.  In fact, only belatedly, did they request (and receive) permission from the British to have the Itasca and Swan cruise through the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.  The islanders did not know that the British had granted permission when the ships arrived, causing some embarassment to all.

If you want to have a conspiracy that the Lex search group spied on the Marhsall Islands, feel free, but you will have a hard time finding any contemporaneous documentation or information that even suggests that it was possible.  Of the 50+ planes/pilots, don't you think one of them would have come forward by now with this idea?  Not a single one has.
***********************************************************
From Ric

Hey, absence of evidence is proof of a cover-up.  Says so right here in today's paper.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:01:25 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

I gave it another try, this time using the  wreck photo. When measuring the engine opening of Linda Finch's Lockheed 10E on a picture I took in 1997 I came up with 3 ft. I measured the opening of the engine in the wreck e photo and came up with very much the same figure. Being more familiar with centimetres than with inches I measured in centimetres again. If the propeller is indeed 9 ft, it is 108 inches or 274 cm. On the wreck picture the propeller measures 11.5 cm. and the engine opening 4.2 cm. Therefore 1 cm on my screen represents 9.39 inches. The engine opening measuring being 4.2 cm. it is 39.43 inches wide. How does that fit the Lockheed 10E?

LTM
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The cowling opening of a 10E is 40.5 inches.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:04:40 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: them dry bones and W40K

For Adam

Strange things happen but none stranger than the fact that W40K, the Ham guy at Fort Worth, Fl is 158 miles from St Petersburg on my road atlas. See "158mi" written at the top of Betty's book. But so Winslow Reef was 158 miles south of Howland or close to it.

LTM,
Ron B.
*********************************************************************
From Ric

And the equator is 281 miles from the Seven Site and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:06:17 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Glad to see my calculation was right to within an inch

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:10:48 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands Spies

RE: Navy request to search the Marshalls for AE

The Honolulu Advertiser cites a New York,  July 6,1937 AP release. "Japanese officials said today the 2100 ship Kooshu(sic) is searching ....the Marshall Islands,north and west of Howland, for Amelia Earhart".

The same basic story was datelined out of Toyko.

Also on a personal level, Adm Edwin Layton, wrote in his book that he worked closely with Yamamoto's office in Tokyo during July 37 in the search for AE. "And  I was there", p.62.

There are many records that show that the Koshu was in and around Jaluit,Marshalls, during July 1937 and had been dispatched to look for the Electra. Clearly the US requested help in searching for AE, and accepted it.

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:46:00 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands spies

Carol the sun low on the horizon would be a help in locating islands, they would show up as a break in the shimmer of the water.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:46:53 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Weather info

Jack Clark wrote:

> I believe the report indicates that the ITCZ
> would not have  been having any influence on the weather on that day.

Many thanks for reminding me about that. This is useful information to me. Ocean Is. is still a long way from Howland though (833nm) and they were flying closer to the ITCZ all the time. However, I think we can draw the conclusion that the ITCZ had not made its presence known at least as far as Ocean Is. (0.52S 169.35E)

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:47:53 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands spies

Randy Jacobson writes:

> The US Navy and State Dept. did not ask the Japanese to search the
> Marshalls at all.

We could know what WAS asked but it is not possible to know what wasn't asked. All that can be said about that is we have no record the Japanese were asked to search the Marshalls. It would not surprise me since the plane couldn't get there. It would have as much sense to ask someone to check the Philippines.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:50:31 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

I see the structure, too. Also, in the background, almost directly above the two lightening holes in the right and slightly to the left and below the base of the palm tree closest to the wreck, there appears to be two  people or some type of object. But I'm just looking at the photo on the website and don't have anything to work with to enhance it.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:49:59 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

re: Shane Brinkman's photo at
> http://www.in1.org/electra.jpg

This is the best photo I've seen of AE's "groundloop" in Hawaii - if that is what it is (note the guy in Navy togs). From the looks of it, the right engine is twisted and both sets of cowlings are gone. Is it possible that the cowlings were replaced? If so, were they replaced with original spec cowlings or substitutes? Do we have later photos that will allow dimensions to be taken in regards to the prop sizes? Seeing the way the left gear is bent makes me wonder if they didn't have to do a lot more structural work than first thought causing them to have to use a different set of patches on the belly than the original specs called for (with additional stringers and different spacing of rivet holes).

LTM
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:51:01 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Adam's post

AE was hearing other people talking over the airways and was trying to talk to anybody that made a noise. I have done that many times and most of the time you can only hear them. It's harder to reach them. So some of the things that are written in Betty's book would not make sense if she wrote down everything she could.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:51:44 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 simulation

Daryll wrote:

"I reviewed my simulation more closely it was probably closer to 17-20 nm out for discussion purposes. This was, in my opinion (and close to others), their closest approach to the Itasca & Howland."

Explain to me what you base that opinion on. I'll tell you now that neither you nor anyone else knows how close or how far they were from Howland.

"We know they weren't at Howland, so there was a 50/50 chance they were either north or south if we accept the use of the LOP as Noonan was using it. An "offset" used in navigation...."

Daryll, can you not understand we DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE? We don't know, for example, whether they had already passed high above Howland BEFORE descending because we don't know when they descended and we don't know where they were at any time after T.O. We also have no information or clue that Noonan was using an offset and most likely was not because he thought he had use of DF and didn't need it. The LOP was to determine at what time the Electra was to arrive at Howland. It was a speed line and nothing more. It was not to broaden some target area. You need to review celestial navigation and hundreds of postings we've had on this subject. I'm spending all my time correcting misstatements instead of getting to engage in a productive dialog. You might review the web cite and get your information correct before posting. It'll make our discussions easier.

"It was 19:12 - 19:30 GMT that they could have been in that area. 19:28GMT she said "WE ARE CIRCLING"."

Daryll, once again you need to review the information before saying things like this. It is pretty well accepted she said "listening" not "circling" as "drifting" was what was copied and then changed. "We are circling but cannot hear you" makes no sense. "We are listening but cannot hear you" DOES make sense. Further, Noonan can't navigate if she circles. She has to fly some sort of pattern or Noonan will lose what position he thinks he has. How did you possibly come up with your "fact" they could have been in that area only between 19:12 and 19:30? That's nonsense. There is nothing that could tell you that.

You have a lot of studying to do to understand air navigation.

"What the video shows is at 19:30 GMT AE transmitted ("...WE RECEIVED YOUR SIGNALS...")=A0 they turn the airplane to the NW (337). I put an overcast ceiling in the simulation at 3000 ft because I cannot rationalize why else they were at 1000 ft looking for Howland."

Why did you put the bases at 3000' instead of where the Itasca reported them and why did you make it overcast instead of what was reported?

"I turn to 281 at "Point AE" (derived at from hind-casting). I make the turn by watching the Lat & Long read-outs at the top of the screen. BY coincidence of using the simulation, the turn is made very very close to 20:13 GMT the time of their last recorded transmission. The computer was keeping track of time that I couldn't in my own mind."

Daryll, you have me confused. At 19:12 they reported over Howland and you have them turning to 337 and going to a point about 17 nm from Howland and turning to 281 and suddenly it's 20:13. How does that happen? Have I misunderstood your flight?

"You should KEEP in Mind that the turn to 281 was a course to SOMEWHERE. If they were out of sight of Baker to the South, 281 would bring them into the Gilbert's. If they were North of Howland AND Noonan knowing how much time they spent on the LOP at 130 kts, that time & speed gave a distance that could be applied to an Off-set from Howland where a 281 course would bring them into the southern Marshalls."

That paragraph doesn't make sense. They had to fly a long way north before 281 would ever hit the Marshall's.

"281 was a figure that only Noonan could figure out using his own observation of the winds AT the time. The winds are the biggest factor in what happened."

Explain to me how Noonan "observed" the winds.

"Your are mixing FLAT chart information into a ROUND world computer simulation."

Daryll, 293 IS a great circle course. I'm not using a flat chart.

"True and Magnetic only have a meaning if you know where you are and are wanting to go some place in particular."

Daryll, you have no clue what you're talking about. I've been flying and  navigating since 1955. Who do you think you're blowing smoke at?

"I used a 17 kt east wind. That was the recommended average wind from Lae to Howland. I felt I had to use some kind of a wind. NO wind just moves "point AE" closer to Howland."

Why didn't you use the wind reported by the Itasca? That's the area they were in not between Lae and Howland.

"The lowest gph that I've seen you use was 38 gph. Without looking up Oscar's numbers for hours 20-27 I think he was using around 31 gph, I'll have to look it up. Why don't you re-do your numbers following Oscar's studies?"

Because, and this may come as a surprise, Earhart didn't have the benefit of Oscar's study. She missed it by about 65 years. What she DID have was Kelly Johnson's figures and recommendations. Do you have any idea who He is? Why not look him up and see what connection he might have had with the Lockheed company and the Electra. Let me also ask you if you have all the performance charts for the Lockheed 10E? I do.

Oscar did a marvelous job in expanding the theoretical envelope of what might have been possible in an Electra in order to maximize flight endurance. There is no known connection with AE's last flight.

"A note worthy (for AE) example of that was the Dakar crossing. You can argue that that wasn't a north off-set, but what AE remembered was that they were north of Dakar and she was wrong and Noonan was right. Noonan would plan the same northern off-set for Howland just to maintain AE's trust in him."

Daryll, reread all the information on the Dakar crossing and try and get it right. Why would anyone offset a continent. You can't miss it.

"The flip of the coin entered into another decision at 19:30 GMT."

Where did you get 19:30?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:53:48 EST
From:         Gary LaPooke
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

At the time of sunrise at Howland, and for about one hour after, the LOP ran on a bearing (or azimuth) of 157/337 degrees true. Then it started to shift as the sun moved across the sky and the LOP, which is plotted at a right angle to the bearing to the sun, rotated and changed its azimuth. Unfortunately for your theory the azimuth changed in a counterclockwise direction with the azimuth getting less as time went by. It started at 157/337, changed to 156/336, then on to 155/335, etc. It would never equal 158/338 since it was moving in the opposite direction.

gl

> If we are to believe the Itasca, Earhart broadcast her LOP as one continuous
> set of numbers..."line 157/337," so I went back to Betty's Notebook with the
> assumption that she was repeatedly broadcasting "158/338," or "158/336."  And
> again, to my shock, nearly all of the baffling set of numbers now made sense.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:54:17 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

Anybody know when  "mayday" became standard radio phraseology?

Gary LaPook
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:55:22 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: 281 simulation

The magnetic variation in that part of the world is now 10 degrees east and was about the same in 1937. Ten degrees makes a big difference in a flight of over 700 nm. It would put you off course by more than 130 NM. So if Noonan meant 281 magnetic they would be approximately 130 NM further north than if he meant 281 true. Or it would mean that your point "AE" has to be adjusted 130 nm south as the starting position if they flew 281 magnetic from there and ended up on Mili.

BTW,  the great circle course from Howland to Mili is 295 true (285 magnetic) and 749 NM. The rhumb line course is only three tenths of a degree south of the initial great circle course and the distance is exactly the same.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:56:24 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: on being lost II

I have to agree with most of what Alan posted, but I would like to make one point which doesn't change the conclusion.

There were at least three reasons that they would have used an offset to the north rather than to the south.

First, it would involve a shorter flight since the LOP was not at right angles to their course approaching Howland. It would be shorter flying to intercept north west than to intercept south east which would involve flying past Howland and then having to double back.

Second, the flat observation window was on the left side of the airplane. Since Noonan would want to be able to take additional sights on the sun to insure that they were staying on the LOP this would only be possible through this window if the sun were on their left as they followed the LOP. This would mean that their heading on the LOP had to be 157 necessitating an intercept to the north west.

Third, to minimize the amount of distance needed for the offset to ensure intercepting the LOP on the anticipated side. Since they could lay off the offset from Baker, say 60 NM, to ensure that they were northwest of Baker. Following the LOP would then cause them to find Howland sooner after flying only about 22 NM along the LOP saving about 38 NM of flying (the spacing between Howland and Baker.) If they planned to intercept to the south east they would have to lay off the intercept, say 60 NM, south east of Howland. After they intercept they would turn to 337 and fly past Baker on the way to Howland and Baker would provide no advantage and they would probably fly about 60 NM along the LOP before finding Howland.

gl

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> One last comment. There is no more reason to believe AE was north of Howland
> than to think she was south of the island. The wind was ESE at about 6 to 10
> Knots and if they were going to fly an offset they would have offset to the
> South so the first turn would be NW and then a run back to the SE where there
> was the only hope of finding land - Howland, Baker, the Phoenix group. To the
> NW there was nothing for 770 nm.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:56:57 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: them dry bones and W40K

>I'm as puzzled as you are about how Carroll's HAM call sign ended up in
>Betty's notebook.--- Maybe it's just a strange coincidence.

I don't suppose there's any possibility, is there, that Carroll's "conversation" with AE could have happened sometime before the disappearance, so that she was aware that he'd been listening, maybe had for some reason had good communication with him, and therefore would be trying specifically to call him?  

LTM (who's suspicious of coincidences)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:11:06 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      No Subject

Ric wrote:

> What has any of this got to do with Amelia Earhart?

I believe the letter that was written by Astor from the Nourmahal  should be posted on the website. I would also go one step further and say that everything I have seen on the Gardner Island theories is leading to blank walls. I talked with archeologist Dr. Tom King when he was here in Kansas City, and he confirmed to me the same thing. One of the points we talked about was the possibility of the Electra being washed off the reef at Gardner Island. Such being the case the airplane would be lying in fairly shallow water (with a high oxygen content) meaning 65 yrs. later there would be nothing left of it. By this date, it would have corroded away to an unrecognizable glob. Not very encouraging, and it also raises a question of what the slope off that reef would be under the waterline. Can you answer that question? I'm just expressing an opinion, but if the possibility of running out of leads at Gardner is looming on the horizon, the only direction anyone can turn (except Nauticos and Ballard very expensive deep sea expeditions) is towards the Gilberts and the Marshall Islands. So, you, Sir Richard, are an accident investigator. Why should you eliminate potential leads at other islands? It doesn't compute. Another problem, neither Nauticos or Ballard thought enough of the Gardner Island thesis to even bother with it. Tighar is a land based  investigator.  Why should you turn down land based investigations no matter where they are? Go investigate....everything. Now does that answer your inquiry? Before closing, I repeat the Vincent Astor letter should be posted on the website.
Carol Dow

******************************

Carol, we are very, very far indeed from "running out of leads at Gardner." I also have a hard time believing that Tom King said anything like that, although you may well have thought he did.

Perhaps you would like to start your own website for documents you feel are important. Our website is already so big (something over 900 pages), and takes up so much of my time in maintenance and updating, that I am not really too enthusiastic about putting up materials unrelated to our projects.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:12:30 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: 1937 radio lingo

Thanks, Herman. So have I got this straight? When Earhart said "KHAQQ" in her communications, she said "K-H-A-Q-Q", not something along the lines of "King-How-Able-Queen-Queen"? And therefore when Betty notes "Z 38" she has heard "Zee 38", which could easily be a mishearing of "338", rather than something along the lines of "Zebra 38"?

Phil Tanner 2276
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:13:06 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: them dry bones and W40K

> From Ron Bright,
> But so Winslow Reef was 158 miles south of Howland or close to it.

Actually Winslow reef is 176nm from Howland (modern positions) and it's underwater.

Regards Angus Murray
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:13:42 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: sun in your eyes

For: Ron Berry

Ron, yes, I understand that's true (the sun behind the islands would have created a dark spot). However, it only happens when you are in a certain position and in-line with the islands straight into the sun. Anything to the side would lose the affect.
Carol Dow

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:33:34 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Carol's Curious Concept of Confirmation

Carol says:

"I would also go one step further and say that everything I have seen on the Gardner Island theories is leading to blank walls. I  talked with archeologist Dr. Tom King when he was here in Kansas City, and he confirmed to me the same thing."

Uh -- Carol, if you think I "confirmed" that everything on Niku is leading to blank walls (other than walls of Scaevola), you're not only misinterpreting what I said to you, but must have been asleep during my presentation to the KC 99s.  I'm trying to think what I could have said that you could possibly twist into a "confirmation" of your conclusion, and I vaguely recall that you stated your opinion and I said that yours was certainly an opinion.  I'll stand by THAT.

You also, I believe, said something about our not having the smoking gun in hand, and I believe I gave you my standard schpiel about not much believing in smoking guns -- in which I doubtless "confirmed" that we don't yet have one.  Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

Let me say without the least equivocation that in my opinion we are by no means running into blank walls on Niku (except, as noted, of Scaevola, an ugly occupational hazard).  We're finding stuff on the island; we're getting information and analyzing it from elsewhere (e.g. the post-loss signals), and the preponderance of evidence, I think, points to the Niku hypothesis being correct.  Correct, as in right.

Now, can you please repeat back to us all what I've confirmed, so there can be no mistake?

Thanks,
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:44:40 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Wreck Photo

For comparison:

Hermann           Finch's 36"
 wreck 39.44"

Alfred                AE's  38"
     wreck 38"

Jdubb               last take-off( via inner/outer ratio) 42.48
wreck 38.88"

Danny
       wreck 38"

Ron
        wreck 37"

Angus              AE's   36"
  wreck 37.5"


Average                     38.2"
            38.14


Ric (measured) 10E   40.5"

Averaging doesn't mean a lot as we are all using different photos, methods and there are distortions that can considerably affect the answer.However, there seems ( apart from jdubb) some indication that we come up with an electra opening substantially smaller than the size Ric measured. This is to be expected because the prop doesn't lie in the same plane as the cowl opening and I would consider Jdubbs larger than Ric's 10E figure as very suspect. If we remove this from calculating the average we can see that the average changes to 36.6 - SMALLER than the wreck photo.

The degree of difference in apparent length due to the exact plane in which the measurement is made will depend on the type of lens ie the focal length of the lens - (long focal length lenses compress perspective) used on the camera with which the photo was taken and also the distance from the subject.

 It would be interesting to see some more figures from the forum for NR16020 calculated from photos taken during the world flight with references on photos used.

I note that some of the photos at Purdue show the aircraft fitted with spinners and some without. Can Ric throw any light on this? Were they removed to provide better cooling through greater cross-sectional area and increased turbulence I wonder? The weight saving would be pretty minimal.

Regards Angus.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Spinners appear on the airplane on only one day in early March 1937 when the plane was being prepared for the first World Flight.  It was apparently, at least in part, a "press day" because there are lots of photos and quite a bit of newsreel footage, but it all seems to be from that one occasion.

Spinners appear on some Lockheed 10s and not on others.  No noticeable pattern.  The impression I get is that they were tried on NR16020 that one time and found to be either detrimental or of no particular value and were discarded.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:45:48 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: 281 simulation

Alan Caldwell writes:

> Earhart didn't have the benefit of
> Oscar's study. She missed it by about 65 years. What she DID have was Kelly
> Johnson's figures and recommendations.

We should not forget that Kelly Johnson's "figures and recommendations" include Report 487, which has information on power settings lower than the "38 gph" setting in KJ's telegram. I suggested in an earlier posting that comparison between the telegrams and Report 487 seems to indicate that the "36 [sic] gph" setting mentioned in KJ's first telegram is a typo for a lean setting near 200 hp burning 30.6 gph.

Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:46:48 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

For what it's worth; using GIMP, a dartboard and my new bifocals.... -Based upon 9'prop length (108"), cowl opening measures about 36.8".

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:48:19 EST
From:         Herman DeWulf
Subject:      Re: 1937 radio lingo

To Phil Tanner

That's right. Able, Baker, Charlie, etc... came with WW II. I have no idea how AE spelled KHAQQ in 1937. I'm fairly sure it wasn't King-How-Able-Queen-Queen. Betty being the child she was she would have jotted down these words. One way to find out how things were in 1937 could be to lay hands on a pre-WW II telephone directory. There must be a library where they keep those things. If you live in the UK you might ask the Public Records office (PRO)in Kew. In most countries there was some kind of alphabet in use based on words from the national language. In most the word Telephone stood for T. So were Christian names. French in France, German in Germany, etc. I happen to remember the Germans used Adolf, Bertha, Carl, Dora, Emil, Ferdinand... (I forgot the rest). German pilots used the words IMI and ATA instead of saying left or right or port and starboard (both words happened to be well known brands of washing powder). Isn't there a radio historian on the forum who would know how American pilots spelled outwords before WW II? 

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:49:22 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 3 items from Daryll

Yes, the US Navy and State Department asked the Japanese to be on the lookout for any wreckage of Earhart, and the Japanese said they would keep an eye out in the Marshalls, and offered one oceanographic vessel to help search the Marshall areas.

My original statement, that the US never asked permission of the Japanese to have the US search the Marshalls still stands.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:50:35 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      The right aircraft.

Simon Ellwood 2120 has a very nice photo that shows the cockpit of  an airplane that looks just like the wreck. Ric Your are right the front cabin is not on it's side. The windshield corners are the very same and the windshield center post is more like what is on the wreck than an Electra. The picture that sold me is the one in the museum in Bei Jing China. No wings or tail just the cabin and it's a match all around the windshield. So the aircraft pictured is the Ki 54. check Simon's wed site.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:51:41 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: them dry bones and W40K

Why are people so suprised by coincidences?? Think of all the possible coincidences that might occur for any given situation - trillions (but each one admittedly of low probability) Multiply the number of possibles by the average  probability. Is it any wonder that some occur? In fact with the unimaginable number of possibilities, the only thing thats suprising about coincidences is that there are not more of them.

The time to be suspicious is when there are no coincidences.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:52:26 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Fuel economy

Oscar,

What would have been the most efficient airspeed for maximum range, flying at 1000ft assuming the electra had 2hrs of fuel remaining? Ric made a rough estimate of 120Kt some time ago. Can you confirm or give a more precise figure?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:05:36 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Weather info

Ric wrote:

> We have the hour-by-hour decklog weather observations of the ITASCA and a
> noontime weather observation (with some winds aloft information) by Richard
> Black on Howland.

What was the weather for the evening of 2nd July?

>There was nobody on Canton.

I had been misled by Jane Resture of Kiribati fame who stated the eclipse expedition was there in early July but I now discover it was 8th June.

Regards Angus

****************************************************************************
From Ric

According to the ITASCA deck log, during the evening hours of July 2nd the wind was ESE at force 2 ("Light Breeze").  Barometer was 29.79 and rising thoughout the evening to 29.85. Air and water temperatures were in the mid-80s F.  There was broken cloud of cumulus and cirro-cumulus type covering roughly half the sky (except for one hour of overcast conditions from 8 until 9 p.m.) and moving from the East and later from the SE.  Cloud height was not recorded.  Visibility was estimated to be 20 miles.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:07:23 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Marshall Islands, etc

Carol Dow says:

>Absolutely, Earhart should have headed for the Gilberts. Another isolated
>island such as Gardner-Nikumaoro (sic) makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why should
>AE and FN go looking for islands just like the one they couldn't find?

I don't think Gardner was just like Howland. It had a reef, a lagoon and from what I have read here in this forum, this made it visible from much further away than Howland. Perhaps AE knew that, perhaps not. But the point is, she HAS to look for something, she can't ditch in the water. If you can't find point A, why not look for the closest point B? I see nothing illogical about that, even if B was "just like" A, and I don't think it was. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying it seems logical (and of course, there are other logical choices)

>Not only that but you have to consider Baker Island was just to the south of
>Howland, and they could not find either one of them. Two islands close
>together.

You know, my map must be wrong. I see an island near Gardner on my map.

> Gardner sounds like a pilot's nightmare...nothing there, no ships,
>no fuel, and maybe no radio, and no Baker Island nearby.

While I agree that at Gardner there was no fuel and no radio and Baker was far away, the same disadvantages hold with the Gilbert Islands. No fuel, no radios capable of talking to aircraft, and Baker is far away. True, the Gilberts were inhabited, and that is a plus in their favor, but they were also farther away from Howland than Gardner was.

>Whew....that would
>be putting it mildly. An archipelago such as the Gilberts with strings of
>islands (and very visible flying eastbound with the sun at your back) would
>have been a welcome relief for lost aviators such as AE and FN.

I leave it to the pilots on the Forum to comment on the visibility of the Gilberts in that situation. I can see on the map that there are 50 mile gaps between some of the Gilbert Islands, its possible she could miss them entirely. I do know that AE had already established a heading that would take her to within a few miles of Gardner.

But to sum up, Carol, you seem to be arguing that the Gilberts is the only logical choice for AE to make, and I just don't agree. I think she had three logical choices, Gardner, or the Gilberts, or to keep searching for Howland.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who always saw spots on her maps that just weren't there)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:08:02 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: them dry bones and W40K

Angus,

My calculation of Winslow Reef at 158 miles is why attendence at the Bright School of Navigation is almost nil. Noonan dropped out early.  I have been using old AAA maps/charts.

Ron B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:09:19 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Reasonng with Carol

Carol Dow wrote:

>  Why should you eliminate potential
> leads at other islands?

The TIGHAR team has visited other islands. I have a mental picture of Ric hip deep in guano on one of them.  No other UNINHABITED island or atoll or mark on a chart has produced anything like the anecdotes and evidence that Niku has (the bones ... the bones!).  Ric & Co. have got lots of work left to do both at the Seven Site and back in and around the village.  There is even some underwater work scheduled for Niku V.

> ... Go investigate....everything.

Investigations cost money.

Scarce resources have to be spent using intuition (hunches, guesses, personal judgment) about where best to invest the funds.

Using intuition this way is, in fact, part of the scientific method.  Few researchers can afford to "investigate ... everything." They have to choose IN ADVANCE OF PROOF the lines of inquiry that they expect will provide proof for skeptics.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:13:44 EST
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

I also measured the cowling...I get 37 inches for a prop diameter of 9 feet.  I might try to work out a different method later to see if that is consistent; I just measured the cowling under the prop, getting a diameter the best I could.

One thing...just because we're not matching the cowling dimensions that Ric got off the 10E cowlings he found doesn't mean that he is right and we are wrong.  We need to get some measurements of the cowlings of the Electra during the world flight, and match those against the wreck photo.  After all, we're trying to match those cowlings, and we don't know what might have been done different to them after the ground loop and/or in preparation for the flight.    We do, however, know that the plane wasn't "factory standard" when it left on the flight.

Reed
************************************************************************
From Ric

Changing something as basic as the cowling opening dimensions would be a major, major modification.  You just don't go screwing around with something like that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:20:02 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Looking at the wreck photo and the missing pieces of skin and comparing the 10E vs the KI-54, I noticed that the 10E skin sections are basically large squares vs the KI-54 which appears to be more of a rectangle. The wreck photo missing pieces of skin are more like rectangles vs squares.

Thus, it leads me to believe that what we are seeing is a KI-54 or if not, it definitely isn't a 10E based on the size and shape of the missing skin sections.

Yours,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:19:03 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Hope you don't mind if I ask a potentially stupid question?

With all this business about finding an existing Electra 10E cowling so measurements can be made to compare to the wreck photo, I got to wondering if Lockheed still has the structural drawings for AE's Electra that should clearly show the cowling dimensions.  Duh?  I thought I remember 10E drawings were obtained from Lockheed to compare with the rivet spacing on the aluminum skin found at Niku many years ago.

Tom Riggs #2427
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Engineering drawings for the Model 10E (although not specifically Earhart's 10E) are on microfilm at the Smithsonian's Garber Facility archive.  The only engineering drawings we have ever found that are specific to c/n 1055 are for an internal beef-up of some wing centersection structures that were made durng the repairs.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:22:35 EST
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands spies

Maybe this is old news and everyone already knows it but anyway here is a post from a Maryland News service dated Dec 17 2002, about Nauticos. The webpage is

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/live/12_17-20/BUS

Heres what they said:

Firm sets sights on solving Amelia Earhart mystery
By NOI MAHONEY, Business Writer

Sixty-five years after Amelia Earhart vanished in the Pacific, a Hanover firm is ready to try once more to close the door on one of the last great mysteries of the 20th century.

Nauticos Corp. began an expedition to locate Earhart's missing Lockheed Electra in the vastness of the Pacific Ocean last spring, but had to call off the search after only 27 days because of equipment problems.

Now Nauticos founder and President David Jourdan is trying to raise at least another $1 million to finish what he started.

"It's close in a sense, the path has been identified, funding has been identified, but it will take several months to get all the details together," he said. "We haven't changed our plan or our assessment."

During the first expedition, company officials put together $1.7 million to pay for the search, which used a sonar scanner to plumb 17,000 feet down just west of Howland Island.

Mr. Jourdan said his staff is sure they can locate the deep sea spot near Howland where Mr. Jourdan believes Earhart went down in 1938 during a doomed attempt to be the first woman to fly around the world.

Earhart, the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1932, disappeared with navigator Fred Noonan on a 2,556-mile stretch between Lae, New Guinea and Howland Island.

Sixty-five years -- and thousands of news stories, documentaries, books and false leads later -- the missing aviator remains the subject of continuing research and debate.

"To find her is an opportunity to promote a legacy of a woman who did something at a very young age when most women weren't allowed to fly," Mr. Jourdan said. "With sufficient resources and an unlimited budget, I'm positive we could find her. I'm certain she's there, and it's likeliest that the plane is intact."

Nauticos has already scored some impressive underwater finds, including a Japanese submarine sunk in Atlantic on a secret World War II mission to Germany. It also found the wreckage of an ancient Greek merchant ship on the floor of the Mediterranean in 1999.

In their seach for Earhart, Nauticos officials have had help from the California and Massachusetts institutes of technology, which analyzed how much fuel Earhart had when she issued her last radio call to determine how far she might have flown before being forced to ditch.

"They did a fuel study that shows she likely ran out of gas after her last radio broadcast," Mr. Jourdan said. "Personally, I'm convinced she went into the water."

Theories of Earhart's whereabouts abound. Some say she died in a Japanese internment camp in China. Others claim she survived as an island castaway, or even returned to the United States to live in obscurity under an assumed name.

"My money is on the bottom of the ocean and probably within the vicinity of Howland Island," said Tom Crouch, aeronautics curator at the Smithsonian Institution.

Ric Gillespie, on the other hand, believes the plane landed at Gardner Island, now called Nikumaroro in the Phoenix Islands.

Mr. Gillespie, a former aviation accident investigator, heads up The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, a nonprofit that has made six trips to Gardner Island over the past 14 years.

During the most recent trip in fall 2001, the Wilmington, Del.-based group found evidence of a castaway camp "way back in the brush."

Artifacts recovered during that trip are being analyzed, he said.

"In 1998, we found in British archives evidence that a British colonial officer in September 1940 found the bones of a castaway," Mr. Gillespie said.

"With the bones was the remains of a woman's shoe."

He said analysis of measurements of the bones suggest they are those of a white female of Northern European descent.

Mr. Gillespie's group is trying to determine where on Gardner Island the bones were found in hopes of finding something the British missed.

Mr. Jourdan said he's holding firm with his theory that Earhart's plane is 17,000 to 18,000 feet below the ocean surface within 100 miles of Howland Island.

"Almost every island in that part of the Pacific has an Earhart legend," Mr. Jourdan said. "Others, in my opinion, basically contrived a scenario where they can look for (Earhart)."

Mr. Jourdan also said while his first expedition didn't uncover Earhart's plane, it led to the discovery of a wealth of scientific data, including sea mounts, sea vents and other deep sea features.

"No one has seen the sea floor in any way in the depths that we are seeing it," Mr. Jourdan said. "It's unexplored and untouched. The underwater maps we collected are fruitful data for scientific study."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ltm

**********************************************************************
From Ric

Rumor has it that Nauticos is headed back out on February 28.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:23:19 EST
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      3 items from Daryll

To Daryll.

Re Item 2.     When I contacted the Uk. met archives I was advised they  only had Pacific weather for Ocean Is,  Tulagi,   Funafuti, & Rotuma .  No mention was made of Tarawa.  I  have never posted the last three because they are great distance from our area of interest.    The closest being Tulagi near Guadacanal Is.  some 270 nm. south of Nukumanu    BTW.  The Uk. Met Archives can be contacted by any-one . E-mail address metarc@metoffice.com  I found them helpful and courteous.

Jack Clark.    # 2564
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:26:35 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Charts

Can some kind person point me in the direction of the charts which would have been available to Noonan showing the Howland/Gardner area in 1937 (Admiralty/Hydrographic office etc)? I would like to know the appropriate numbers and whether anyone still supplies them.

Regards Angus

*******************************************************************
From Ric

As far as I know, we've never determined what charts were available then that would have shown the Howland/Gardner area.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:29:10 EST
From:         Bob Payne
Subject:      Lockheed Electra 10

Have you visited the Pima Air Museum in Tucson, Arizona??   They used to have an Electra 10 setting right next to a "Twin Beech"....    was just wondering if it was the same as the one Amelia flew.....
Thanks,

Bob Payne
***********************************************************************
From Ric

The airplane at the Pima air Museum is c/n 1011, the 11th Model 10 built and the oldest surviving Electra.  It is a 10A and has smaller engines than Earhart's c/n 1055.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:30:55 EST
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

source image: http://www.cv990.demon.co.uk/wreck

methodology:  with the large version of the wreck photo on my CRT, I held an 8.5" X 11" transparent grid of approximately .5" squares up to the screen, rotated along the axis of the wreck propeller.  Measurements were interpolated to the nearest 1/20th of a square.  Propeller length, (est.) = 8.15 units.  Cowl opening width (est.) = 2.85.  Cowl/propeller ratio = 2.85/8.15 = 0.3496932.  Estimated cowl opening, given a propeller length of exactly 108" (nine feet) = 37.77 inches, plus or minus .33 inches.  If a model 10E opening is indeed exactly 38 inches, I would submit that is well within the confidence range of my estimate.

LTM, (who always wondered why the passengers of the S.S. Minnow packed so many clothes for a three hour tour...)
Rich Young

***********************************************************************
From Ric

The 10E opening is 40.5 inches.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:33:50 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Tried my hand at measuring the wreck photo, using the fine large scan at Simon Ellwood's site.

I came up with a 38.3 inch inner diameter, 53 inch outer diameter, assuming a 108 inch propeller.

Using the same prop length assumption I also tried one of the Ki-54 pictures, and found a 40 inch inner diameter and 53 inch outer.

That would seem to make the Ki-54 a better match for the 10E than the wreck photo, but a better match for the wreck photo than is the 10E.  But I suspect all three are within my limits of accuracy.

LTM (Lets Take Measurements)
Robert
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:35:08 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Carol's Curious Concept of Confirmation

For: Tom King

Please accept my apologies, I was all the way in the back row which may have been part of the problem. I confirm everything you are saying. I must have gotten mixed up somewhere along the line.
Carol Dow
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:19:22 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Charts

Ric is essentially correct.  We can surmise what maps Noonan MAY have had, by examining historical and contemporaneous maps, such as those found at the National Archives.  Doing so, I discovered that the contemporaneous map of Gardner Island bore no resemblance to its present configuration, due largely to an antiquated survey in the mid-1840's.

Many of Noonan's maps were aeological maps purchased at a commercial map company in Los Angeles and elsewhere, rather than US Navy Hydrographic maps.  This information obtained from the map collection at the Purdue University Libary's Special Collection.

Ric wrote:

> As far as I know, we've never determined what charts were available
> then that would have shown the Howland/Gardner area.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:20:27 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: fuel economy

Angus Murray wrote:

> What would have been the most efficient airspeed for maximum range, flying
> at 1000ft assuming the electra had 2hrs of fuel remaining? Ric made a rough
> estimate of 120Kt some time ago. Can you confirm or give a more precise
> figure?

I'm going to duck the question for the moment. I think a rough answer can be obtained from the information in Report 487, which would allow us to calculate what Lockheed would have said was the absolute best range speed (zero wind) at (say) 8500 pounds gross weight. Give me a few days, and I will take a look at it.

(At a guess, I suspect it is around 115 to 120 MPH - not knots - INDICATED airspeed, but we'll see.)

When you say "two hours fuel",  I assume you mean "about 75 gallons". Right?

Let me add that if you wait until you have only 75 gallons remaining before using maximum range techniques you are not going to achieve very much in the way of a range increase.

Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:21:41 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands, etc

For: Paige Miller

Okay, I swore I wasn't going to say anything, but I'll say it anyway. I'm talking to Woody Peard quite some time ago, and he remarked to me about the visibility from 7,000-8,000 feet in the Marshalls in particular and I would guess the Gilberts (with the sun at your back) as being very good. You could see from island to island. I just took him at his word. I went looking through my stack of E-mails and gave up looking for his exact words. I would have to get Woody Peard back on the line to verify this, but I understand he is in the Marshall Islands. At the time he sent the e-mail he remarked how the wind swirled around those islands at a fearsome rate. I don't know how many times he has been out there (quite a few), and he has been sending food and clothing to the natives. In fact, at one time I was almost recruited to make the trip with him looking for a buried airplane the natives say is there. The way he said it stuck in mind....the visibility westbound with the sun at your back is very good. So, that's where it came from. It would take the best part of a day to find that e-mail, but I am hoping this e-mail will suffice. Repeating, the visibility westbound from an airplane at 7-8,000 ft. in the mornings is very good...according to Woody Peard, who has been there quite a few times.

Carol Dow
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:23:21 EST
From:         Michael Smith
Subject:      Wreck photo

Thanks to everyone who posted their measurements of the inner cowling diameter of the plane in the wreck photo and AE's Electra.  I found that it was helpful to compare the measurements.  Here's my summary of all of the postings:

Herman De Wulf	39.43" (wreck)	36" (10E, based on photo analysis of NR16020)
Ron Berry	37" (wreck)	36" (10A, based on exemplar measurement)
Danny Brown	38" (wreck)	 ___ (10E)
Alfred Hendrickson	38" (wreck)	38 " (10E, based on photo analysis of NR16020)
Jdubb	38.88" (wreck)	42.48" (10E, based on photo analysis of NR16020)
Angus Murray	37.5" (wreck)	35.8", 36.45", & 35.9" (10E, based on photo analysis of NR16020)
Ric Gillespie	___ (wreck)	40.5" (10E, based on exemplar measurement) 33" (10A, based on exemplar measurement?)

The difference between largest and smallest diameters for the wreck photo is 2.43" and all measurements seem generally consistent.  This gives some degree of confidence in these measurements, unless everyone is making the same mistake.

The difference between the largest and smallest diameters for the 10E, however, is 6.48" and all but one measurement is 2.5+" less than Ric's measured diameter of 40.5".  The discrepancy in these measurements creates a problem.  Depending on which measurement is correct for the 10E, the inner cowl opening of the plane in the wreck photo is (1) too big to be NR16020 (Herman and Angus), (2) too small to be NR16020 (Jdubb [& Ric?]), or (3) just right (Alfred).

All of this leads me to these conclusions:  (1) measuring precise distances (or ratios) from photographs is not a simple task and probably requires some expertise to have any confidence in the result; and (2) there is a need for greater certainty that Ric's measurement of 40.5" on an exemplar 10E is the correct number for NR16020.

Therefore, to convince me that the plane in the wreck photo (1) is definitely not NR16020 or (2) has the same ratio of prop length to inner cowling diameter as NR16020, I would want an independent expert like Jeff Glickman to provide the measurements from the wreck photo.  For all of the reasons Angus suggested, I would also want Glickman to provide the comparison measurements for NR16020 from a good photo close in time to the disappearance, rather than rely on 40.5" as the definitive measurement for the inner cowling diameter of NR16020.  Even if everyone were confident that NR16020 had the same inner cowl diameter as the exemplar measured by Ric, it would still provide a good check on Glickman's analysis.

By the way, does anyone know the correct measurements for the prop length, outer cowl diameter, and inner cowl diameter of the Ki-54?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:23:59 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: reasoning with Carol

For: Marty

In response to your e-mail, coming in to Howland, Earhart flew over Tabiteau in the Gilberts (assuming she was on course) and instinct tells me a pilot in the situation she was in would not go looking for new islands to find. One failure would have been enough, I believe. Now that's a personal opinion of what a pilot would do in the fix AE and FN were in. I happen to be a pilot with 500 hrs. mostly Bonanza time. I know Noonan was a navigator, and all the navigators (including Gunga Din) are going to argue they could plot a course to this island, and that island, and any other island in the vicinity. The only trouble is the first one failed. Howland was nowhere to be found and neither was it's companion island, Baker Island . What is this anyway? What is the problem? How many failures can a given situation stand? Noonan only had a strip map of the area, and AE in the past, in trouble, made 180 degree turns (a typhoon over Burma). Cruising at night over the Gilbert Islands I am guessing would have produced a ghostly outline of the Gilbert Atolls because of the iridescence of the sea. Depending on the visibility, they must have known they were there, and they knew the headings in case they turned back. And that, Marty, is exactly the whole point.....AE and FN had the reverse headings and at least a quartering tailwind if they turned back for the Gilberts. I don't know what happened. All I can do is guess. If Tighar can turn up evidence they went into Gardner Island, fine. The burden of proof is on the accident investigators. What else can I say. But I'll tell you one thing if I had my hands on those controls that airplane would have pulled about 4G's turning back for the Gilberts. Period. End of statement. Whew, I'm exhausted from e-mails.

No more for a while, please. I would rather just listen. I need a rest. You all take over.
Carol Dow
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:25:19 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: sun in your eyes

> Ron, yes, I understand that's true (the sun behind the islands would have
> created a dark spot). However, it only happens when you are in a certain
> position and in-line with the islands straight into the sun. Anything to
> the side would lose the affect.
> Carol Dow

Car.....ole! Your source for this IS?  The problem is that the sun, which is generally above the clouds, somehow permits little scattered CUs to cast shadows on the water which look like little islands. This occurs only when there is a straight line formed between the sun, cloud and water surface and occurs whether there are islands hanging around or not. <G> Did I misunderstand your point?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:24:28 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fuel usage

Oscar, I agree that close to the end of the flight the fuel flow could be lower but the "Express" flight had terrible gas mileage over 22 hours. That concerns me. I recognize that information could be in error so I'm not hanging my hat on it but I also know that reducing gph is going to reduce airspeed too. It's my thought that AE probably flew KJ's schedule until reaching the Howland area. I see no reason she would do otherwise as they weren't expecting to not land at Howland I would have to guess. The endurance problem would then figure to begin when Howland didn't readily appear. NOW gas is a problem and I would certainly start being a little conservative with my gas. This would be the time to slow down and lean out as much as practical while they looked around for Howland would you not agree? From that point on the problem should have become one of achieving maximum range for wherever they decided to go. What, in your opinion, should my power settings be and my IAS and altitude be? I think I would want to climb to some altitude that would provide me with a broader area to search in consistent with the existing cloud layers. Maybe 5,000' instead of 1,000 feet or even back to 10,000 feet. Would doing that be too expensive in terms of climb fuel? Obviously we can't actually pick an altitude as we don't know which direction they went or what the clouds were so for this purpose let's disregard the clouds. We slow down and it takes longer to get someplace yet we reduce the gph figure so there needs to be a happy medium whereby we get the most range for our buck. I don't know anything about the fuel analyzers on board so I would ask how would AE know she was setting up for the maximum range? Or maybe she wouldn't and just guess. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:26:07 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: them dry bones and W40K

> Actually Winslow reef is 176nm from Howland (modern positions) and its
> underwater.
>
> Regards Angus Murray

Those damned reefs drift. I'm having the same trouble with all the islands of interest and the mountains near the early part of the course. Every source is a little different. Can those folks not read their GPS accurately?<G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:27:30 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: On being lost II

Gary LaPook writes:

> I have to agree with most of what Alan posted, but I would like to make one
> point which doesn't change the conclusion.
>
> There were at least three reasons that they would have used an offset to
> the north rather than to the south.

Good points, Gary.  I initially picked the north side IF I was going to do an offset also. The angle of the LOP DOES suggest picking the north side as the LOP is reached sooner and Howland is not passed to the East. If the wind was slightly from the south as reported I think I would be even more inclined to pick the north side to better ensure I was not blown past where I wanted to be so that would be a fourth reason.

I don't see a necessity to offset further south just to include Baker as Howland was the target and the flat window isn't a factor to me as the sun was low having just come up and I see no reason FN couldn't shoot out of the cockpit windows which were also flat. That's where he most likely was anyway so he could help spot Howland.

Having said that, it just struck me that offsetting to the south would be the most efficient as a turn to the NW should have then brought Howland into view and if not the turn back to the SE should have put them onto Howland then Baker then Gardner or whatever. Two courses as opposed to three.

As to the offset in the first place there will always be one unless one is dead on course or in this case thought there was DF available. I think I might have set a small offset any way fairly close in and tried the DF and upon finding it working I would have altered in on course. If I didn't get a good DF steer I would have continued on my little offset and turned on the LOP. But, then, I didn't get to be on the flight so what I would have done doesn't help much. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:28:16 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      The photo and other things

Dave Bush makes a good point here about the general shapes of the skin panels of the 10E versus the Ki54. I have looked at the wreck photo a hundred times and never thought of that. This is one of the things that makes this forum work so well; One considers what another doesn't. I appreciate Ron Berry's note about the more square-shaped nose, which points more towards the Ki54, and and all of Angus Murray's comments as well. Thanks.

(Actually, this is terribly disappointing. I really liked that wreck photo! But, I'll get over it! <LOL>)

Ric: How is TIGHAR coming with funding the next Niku expedition? If memory serves, the next one is V, right? Have dates and a task list been set up? How much more money is needed? I bought my T-shirt, so I'm ready. Do you need a structural engineer on this next go-round?

LTM; that's her summer home in the wreck photo at the top right.

- Alfred Hendrickson
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:28:56 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

> Anybody know when  "mayday" became standard radio phraseology?
> Gary LaPook

Right after the engine quit.

Seriously, it probably came into use during WWI when French pilots used "m'aidez" meaning "help me" when they had an emergency.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:29:36 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Adam's Post

Ron wrote:

> AE was hearing other people talking over the airways and was trying to talk
> to anybody that made a noise.

Are you sure about that, Ron? I've missed that bit of information.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:31:06 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

> The 157/337 LOP cannot provide any guidance to Gardner because the azimuth
> of the LOP changes as the sun moves across the sky. It was 157/337 for only
> about one hour after sunrise and then shifted in a counterclockwise
> direction. By the time the Electra could have reached Gardner, say about
> 2240 Z (figuring on flying at 130 knots and departing Howland's vicinity
> immediately after the "157/337" radio message at 2014 Z) the azimuth of the
> LOP would have changed to 126/306

To Gary and Frosty

Talk about being frosted. Just wait. Gary, the LOP never moved even a half of a degree. It was a line drawn on the map -nothing more. To this day it is still sitting there on the map at 157/337 degrees.Through eternity the LOP will never move.

Noonan drew his LOP. Period. Now if he flew down to Gardner he did NOT have only DR. That's just flying heading and time. He could possibly still shoot the sun depending on cloud cover, possibly some other celestial body. (A project yet to be reviewed - AGAIN) He had his drift meter. He would check his position periodically in relation to the line he had drawn on his chart. A line that never moved. You seem to think he had to fly along a new sun line each time he shot. Not true. That would be a foolish way to fly. Like in a big arc.

Each time he checked his position he would alter back toward his target but not necessarily try to get back on his LOP. Now if he could not shoot the sun or anything else or use his drift meter he would have used the best estimate of wind that he had and fly a wind corrected heading and time along the 157/337 LOP that he had drawn on his map. That WOULD have been simple DR.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:31:50 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Itasca radio com question

Was radio communication between USCG Itasca and USCG HQ San Francisco of a direct nature or a series of relays between different stations? - Is there any documented problems of communication problems between Itasca and USCG HQ San Francisco? - I've always assumed communication between Itasca and USCG HQ San Francisco was in code rather than voice - Is that correct?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:37:31 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands, etc

Paige Miller wrote:

> I think she
> had three logical choices, Gardner, or the Gilberts, or to keep
> searching for Howland.

When you realize that searching for Howland logically takes you to Gardner (Niku), it's a double whammy.

ltm,
jon
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:38:02 EST
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: reasoning with Carol

In reading all the posts from and to Carol, all I can do is to quote Lewis Carroll's Cheshire Cat's observation to Alice:  If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.

David Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:18:54 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Comm question

Tom Strang asked:

>Was radio communication between USCG Itasca and USCG HQ San Francisco of a
>direct nature or a series of relays between different stations? - Is there
>any documented problems of communication problems between Itasca and USCG HQ
>San Francisco? - I've always assumed communication between Itasca and USCG HQ
>San Francisco was in code rather than voice - Is that correct?

Radio communication between Itasca and COMFRANDIV (Commander San Francisco Division) was direct by code.  There were a few difficulties from time to time but nothing major.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:29:01 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Niku V

Alfred Hendrickson asks:

>How is TIGHAR coming with funding the next Niku expedition?

Just starting.

>If memory serves, the next one is V, right?

Niku V, that's right.

>Have dates and a task list been set up?

Only in a general sense.  Specific dates depend upon the ship's schedule and we can't lock in the ship until we can put down a deposit.  We do, however, have a good handle on the tasks we want to accomplish.

>How much more money is needed?

How much ya got?  Seriously, the cost will probably be simaliar to the last trip - $600,000.

>I bought my T-shirt, so I'm ready. Do you need a structural engineer on
>this next go-round?

There's a well established procedure for qualifying for selection.

A. Join TIGHAR
B. Complete the Introductory Course in Aviation Archaeology and Field School we offer each year.

From members who have met those qualifications we assemble a team that we think will best be able to do the job.  Much of the 12 person team is made up of veterans of past trips but we almost always have a few new people.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:36:09 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Dave Bush wrote:

> From the looks of it, the right
> engine is twisted and both sets of cowlings are gone.

In another photo, the cowlings are carefully stacked up nearby.  I don't know how it relates chronologically to the photo on Shane Brinkman's site (which is a good picture).  It didn't look to me like the cowls were mangled - Ric maybe you can help here.  In any event, I would doubt that (if replacement was necessary) that Lockheed would replace that type of assembly with anything but standard Lockheed parts.

ltm
jon
*************************************************************************
From Ric

From what I can see the cowls are not mangled or even significantly damaged. Changing the cowlings would, I'm sure, involve new engineering drawings which would have to be approved by the Bureau of Air Commerce (as was done with the changes made to the centersection structure).  No such paperwork appears in the FAA (formerly BAC) file.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:38:10 EST
From:         Peter
Subject:      Wreck Photo

Excuse me for mailing you directly but I have suffered a recent hard drive failure and lost instructions on how to post to the Forum, together with  my archive of Forum Digests.

In the last quarter of last year, was there not a posting from a woman (no, not Carol!) to say that an Australian journalist had identified the photo in question in the early '60s? His article had even won an named national prize and I can remember searching the net for more info., but without success. Had I not lost them all, I'd have gone back and checked the Digests myself. "the second thing to go is your memory" so if I've got this all wrong, my apologies.

Best regards
Peter
***********************************************************************
From Ric

That doesn't ring any bells with me.  Anybody else remember anything like that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:49:54 EST
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      10E cowling diameter

Quoting the forum digest of 1/(6-7)/03:

>Okay gang.  Here are the measured dimensions (the envelope please).
>
>The exterior diameter dimension of the 10E cowl is 53 inches.
>The opening diameter of the 10E cowl is 40.5 inches.

Quoting the website research bulletin of 11/21/97:

>...10E (diameter of cowling opening 37 inches, cowling diameter 53.5
>inches). Photek performed a meticulous measurement of the cowling in the
>photo and came up with an cowling opening of 37.1 inches with an error
>band of +/- .3 inches. The exterior cowling diameter was measured as 54
>inches with an error band of +/- 1.34 inches. In other words, the
>airplane in the wreck photo appears to be equipped with the P&W R1340
>engine...

For the sake of argument, can the discrepancy between the 37 inch and 40.5 inch values be resolved?

Dan Brown, #2408 (not the same person as Danny Brown)
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmmmm.   Yes, I think so.  I'm not sure where I got the 37 inch measurement back in '97 but it was apparently in error.  The 40.5 inch figure comes from photographs I took, and still have, of the cowling in Pensacola with a tape measure laid acoss it.  That's about as empirical as it gets.  There is, of course, a possibility that the cowling that was clearly marked "10E cowl" was not, in fact, a 10E cowling.  It was beside, but not installed on, the airplane - which actually made it much easier to get an accurate measurment.

The really puzzling thing is that it appears that the cowling opening on the 10E is actually larger than the cowling opening in the Wreck Photo and yet the photo comparison Angus did shows just the reverse (assuming that both props are nine feet long).  So, either the cowling I measured in Florida was not a 10E cowl or the prop in the Wreck Photo is not nine feet long.  I would suspect the latter.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:29:59 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: fuel economy

Oscar,

Thanks for your help. The 2hr fuel remaining was really plucked from mid-air. I suppose I was thinking of a scenario where low fuel was a major concern and every effort was being made to maximise range. Perhaps the starting point of "gas is running low" would have been better - but not more than 4hrs fuel anyway. Your point about range increase is well taken but its the airspeed and hence ground speed required for that which is what interests me.

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:31:07 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Wait a minute! We all started our calculations assuming that the propeller in the picture was 9 ft. long. What if it wasn't? The only thing I can be sure of is the measurement of Linda Finch's Lockheed 10E because I took the picture myself. But as Ric know (I sent him an attachment) even that propeller is not stopped vertically but the measuring of the engine opening was.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:32:08 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      No Subject

I doubt that. A French pilot would rather have shouted "Aidez-moi!" Mayday must be concocted by someone who thought he knew French.
LTM

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>Right after the engine quit.
>
>Seriously, it probably came into use during WWI when French pilots used
>"m'aidez" meaning "help me" when they had an emergency.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:32:43 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: sun in your eyes for Alan Caldwell

Alan Dear,

Earhart is down to 1,000 ft and looking for Howland. I don't know who it was, it's been quite sometime, but somebody from the Coast Guard popped up on the Tighar website and very accurately described the search technique for the sun-in-your-face procedure and trying to find objects over open water....including isolated islands.

If the Electra was above the haze line and scattered CU's, fine with what you are saying. But that's the whole point .....they weren't. They were down to 1,000 ft. and from that altitude the glare off the ocean and the sun would have blocked out almost any attempt to find Howland except a head-on view. Head-on, a straight line view would have caused Howland (or Baker) to fall into a shadow effect giving off a dark appearance. Now that's all I know, and it conflicts with Elgen Long and his TV show.

I would take the Coast Guard view because it sounds more accurate, and it was the search method the Coast Guard was taught in WW II. End of statement. So Elgen Long gets on TV and says if AE and FN were south of Howland and Baker they could have looked back and seen Howland and Baker as dark brown spots on the horizon. So to Elgen Long this proves the Electra was to the north of Howland. Wrong again .....according to the Coast Guard. Enough said?

Carol Dow
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:33:22 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: reasoning with Carol

Carol, I'm with you. I don't know where they went either. Maybe they DID turn back toward the Gilberts. I hope someday we find out.

I CAN tell you that in 20 years of flying across both oceans at night I never saw the ghostly outline of anything nor have I ever saw an iridescent ocean. All my oceans were murky black at night. No lights, no nothing. That's from a little under 5,000 hours of flying.

I think Noonan could navigate in any direction to any place but the question is what tools did he have and what degree of success he could expect. SE was pretty easy with a morning sun off to port to get course lines and possibly winds from his drift meter and maybe another celestial body for help.

Gary, you might look at that issue too. What celestial bodies might have been available that morning? Very early as the sun was coming up the stars are still visible for a brief time. Possibly one of the planets would have helped.

East was tough with only speed lines and drift meter. NW would not have been overly difficult but west would have been tough with the sun behind him and not all that usable. Now he would be reduced pretty nearly to just simple DR and a hope.

As a pilot my first consideration would have been to get to the nearest land as quickly as possible so I had fuel to look over the possible landing area. I would not have cared one iota whether the land was populated or not. I would have figured my radios would work if I could set the plane down safely and in any case everyone would come looking for me - particularly if they looked in the last direction they knew I was going.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:33:54 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

> Thanks to everyone who posted their measurements of the inner cowling
> diameter of the plane in the wreck photo and AE's Electra.  I found that it
> was helpful to compare the measurements.

Michael, someone mentioned a factor no one has apparently picked up on and one Glickman might be able to resolve. That's the focal length of the lens of the camera that took the picture and the camera's location relative to the wreck. There may be more significance to that than we are giving it.

I know that in portrait photography we use a long focal length such as 85mm as a normal lens of 50mm distorts the facial features.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:34:23 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands, etc.

> I am hoping this e-mail will suffice. Repeating, the visibility westbound
> from an airplane at 7-8,000 ft. in the mornings is very good...according to
> Woody Peard, who has been there quite a few times.

Good info, Carol. Now if only woody had been there on July 2, 1937 his opinion might be of value.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:35:08 EST
From:         James Burnett
Subject:      Mayday?

I've read that "Mayday" does come from the French "M'aidez," but I doubt it was World War I -- or, if it was, it was nautical and not aeronautical. There were no aircraft with radios in World War I. Only a very few observation balloons even carried telegraph equipment, which had been commonplace in America in the American Civil War.

James
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:35:47 EST
From:         James Burnett
Subject:      Re: Mayday

First research results: "Mayday" has its origin in the first half of the twentieth century, an Anglization of "Venez m'aider," "Come and help me." I'm still looking for an approximate date and first usage.

James Burnett
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:36:51 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Adam's post

We are trying to (guess) why Betty had all of these things written down that she heard on her radio. If you have ever listen on the old tube type radios their were a lot of voices to in the background. Most of the time they stay in the background, but their strength seems to change and they would fade in and out. If you hear someone that sounds fairly close, you  would try to talk to them in the hope that they could hear you. You can't always be heard at the same strength as them. So if you are on an island with your wrecked Electra and you hear Joe Blow who sounds like he is ten miles away wouldn't you try to call him to come over and pick you up off  of the little bit of paradise that you have picked for yourself. Now remember you are the only one that can hear Joe because his harmonic is aimed in your direction. Now Betty is 1000miles away in a another direction from Joe, and can't hear him and can only hear you so that is what she writes down. Sounds like this Joe Blow this is (You ) calling, .................ok, ......... it... static............more.......no ....static.......low........yo........ and it goes on Betty only hear parts of the conversation and it can't make any sense.  Ric show the same thing that I am trying to say  a couple of weeks ago by using a few words out of a sentence and that way they made no sense at all. The fact that she heard other people on the radio does not  mean that she would say on the radio I hear other people on the airways but they won't speak to me like she is telling a story. She would be trying to make contact with anybody. There has to be something that this information is based on. I don't think Betty made this up. She was a very sharp young lady to have written this down.  I have listen to short and aircraft wave for many hours when I was a child but never wrote anything down. I once heard an airline pilot who was ditching his aircraft talking to the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter that was circling to make the ocean waves flat. The only person that I could hear was the airliner. They were successful nobody was even injured. But I never wrote any of that conversation down, different strokes, way to go Betty.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:39:32 EST
From:         Michael Van Holsbeck
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Might have been a different group that was talking about it.  I just went through the forum posts on the web site re reading making notes.  I read them all from 2000/ the betty notebook discovery to present.  Nothing like that that I remember and I just read them this weekend.

Michael (#2569)

Peter wrote:

>In the last quarter of last year, was there not a posting from a woman
>(no, not Carol!) to say that an Australian journalist had identified the
>photo in question in the early '60s? His article had even won an named
>national prize and I can remember searching the net for more info., but
>without success.

=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:40:59 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca radio com question

At times, the communications between Itasca and USCGSF was direct, but it usually was routed through the US Navy station in Hawaii.  Yes, all radiomessage traffic was in code.

Tom Strang wrote:

> Was radio communication between USCG Itasca and USCG HQ San Francisco of a
> direct nature or a series of relays between different stations? - Is there
> any documented problems of communication problems between Itasca and
> USCG HQ San Francisco? - I've always assumed communication between
> Itasca and USCG HQ San Francisco was in code rather than voice - Is that correct?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:41:54 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Web sites wanted

To Ron Berry: You refer to Simon Ellwood's web site in your note on the wreck photo. Can you please give me the web address?

Jon Watson: You refer to Shane Brinkman's web site in you note on the wreck photo. Can you please give me the web address?

(I have this one:
http://www.cv990.demon.co.uk/wreck/
But I don't know whose site it is.)

Thanks very much.

LTM, and I hope she loves me back,

- Alfred
ahendrickson@ga-tech.net
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:44:28 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

> Dave Bush makes a good point here about the general shapes of the skin
> panels of the 10E versus the Ki54. I have looked at the wreck photo a
> hundred times and never thought of that. This is one of the things that
> makes this forum work so well; One considers what another doesn't. I
> appreciate Ron Berry's note about the more square-shaped nose, which
> points more towards the Ki54, and and all of Angus Murray's comments as
> well. Thanks.

I wouldn't have thought about it either, except that the link was given to a site that had several photos of both the 10E and the KI-54 which showed the rivet patterns on the noses. I put my money "on the nose" when I saw a clear rivet pattern of both of them - otherwise, I wouldn't have thought of it either. I started looking at the two sets of photos for the most prominent feature available between them and the wreck and, of course, that was the nose which is in the foreground of the picture. Once I started comparing that, I noticed the rivet patterns on the KI-54 and how they were closely spaced running from the nose aftward, so I looked at the 10E and realized that they are more widely spaced and more square in appearance. Of course, I thought, what if there are stringers behind them that the skin wasn't riveted to, but that didn't seem to make any sense, why would they put stringers there that they didn't rivet to, but that is a possibility. Unless we know what is behind the 10E skin, we can't totally rule out the wreck photo based on the shape of the missing skin, but it does seem to make more sense.

Anyway, thought I would explain how I came to the conclusion.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:45:58 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Adam's post

Regarding this - What I understood him to say is that AE might have been hearing other people on the radio (again at a harmonic, not on her same freq), but not understanding that it was a harmonic, she (AE) was trying to talk to them, thus causing some cryptic wording that Betty was picking up, thus adding to the confusion even more!

LTM,
Dave Bush

> Ron wrote:
>
> > AE was hearing other people talking over the airways and was trying to talk
> > to anybody that made a noise.
>
> From Alan
>
> Are you sure about that, Ron? I've missed that bit of information.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:46:43 EST
From:         Bill Moffett
Subject:      Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

Ric,  For what it's worth, I piloted heavy bombers and transports during WW II, often using Sperry Gyropilots.  I doubt that one could "fly a tolerance of one degree" with any certainty. My USAAF "Pilots' Information File" (1943-5) says, "Use the directional gyro in connection with the magnetic compass. It is not a direction-seeking instrument and, because of precession, must be checked every 15 to 20 minutes against the magnetic compass and reset."  PIF also says there were two types of automatic pilots in general use (by '43-5): suction driven or electrically operated.  My distinct recollection is that while we enjoyed letting "George" fly the plane on long cross-country and overseas flights, we checked the gyro- against the magnetic-compass oftener than 15-20 minutes and relied on the Mark-1 eyeball, our navigator (if one was aboard) and RDF to stay on course.  Turbulence also increased precession, requiring more frequent resetting to agree with the mag compass.

LTM,
Bill Moffet  #2156CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:49:10 EST
From:         Warren Thompson
Subject:      Re: Niku V

When is the next: Introductory Course in Aviation Archaeology and Field School being taught?

Thanks,
Warren

***********************************

We don't have firm dates or a place yet, but a good bet is early autumn. As soon as we have things nailed down we'll be letting everyone know.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:50:10 EST
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook...the numbers explained?

Gary LaPook asked:A

>Anybody know when  "mayday" became standard radio phraseology?

From the net:

http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorm.htm#mayday

ETYMOLOGY: From French (venez) m'aider, (come) help me!

Mayday

This distress call is a phonetic representation of the French "m'aider", literally "help me". In this case the change from the French is deliberate and not a result of corruption over the years. Its use dates to the 1927 International Radio Telegraph Convention. (Or at least that's when its use was codified; it may have been in unofficial use prior to that.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:52:20 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 10E cowling diameter

> For the sake of argument, can the discrepancy between the 37 inch and
> 40.5 inch values be resolved?

Since Photek measured 37.1 plus or minus 3 doesn't that resolve the descrepancy?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:54:46 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: 10E cowling diameter

Ric wrote:

> The really puzzling thing is that it appears that the cowling opening on the
> 10E is actually larger than the cowling opening in the Wreck Photo and yet
> the photo comparison Angus did shows just the reverse (assuming that both
> props are nine feet long).  So, either the cowling I measured in Florida was
> not a 10E cowl or the prop in the Wreck Photo is not nine feet long.  I would
> suspect the latter.

What is particularly interesting is that Photek came up with a figure of 37.1 inches for the wreck photo. The wreck photo is taken at an angle to the axis of the engine such that the prop and the cowl edge in the region of the prop are at a similar distance from the camera and the comparison is likely to be valid. Photos taken of NR16020 from square-on will produce cowling diameters somewhat undersize because the prop is some inches forward of the cowl. My wreck photo estimate agrees well with Photek (37.5 against 37.1). My estimate of 36 inches for NR16020 should be a little more than this if taken at the same angle as the wreck photo. That was indeed the case with the photo I used for the direct comparison which was taken from a similar angle. Estimated cowl diam for NR16020 from this photo was 36.45". This is still a smaller figure than Photek's for the wreck and very much smaller than 40.5". Assuming my error in measurement of the wreck photo was only 0.5" or so, could I really have made an error of 4" on NR16020?

Was the cowling diameter really 40.5" on NR16020? One would expect that a larger engine, needing greater heat dissipation, would need a larger cowl opening. But if the 10A was 33", this would indeed be the case at both 36.5" and 40.5" for the 10E.

The comparison I did only uses one half of the prop because the other half is obscured. This will tend to produce larger percentage errors. A photograph of a 10E with or without original cowl, taken from exactly the same angle and distance is the only way to properly resolve this. If the cowl is non original, we can still discover the percentage difference that perspective makes by comparing calculated with actual measurement.

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:53:56 EST
From:         Michael
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

>It's the wreck of Yamamoto Isoroku's plane shot down by US
>Forces in Bouganville. It seems Adams hunted it down after interviewing many
>hundreds of locals, and a harrowing trek through the mountains and jungles
>of the Bouganville interior.

So is there anyone on the forum that could find the photo this Adams guy took and see if it is the same as the wreck photo on the TIGHAR site.  This would end the need for all the measuring and debate.

Just a thought I forgot on my last post.

Michael (2569)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I've seen several photos of the Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" in which Yamamoto died and the wreck bears no resemblance to the airplane in the Wreck Photo.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:39:10 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Mayday

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

May-day2. Also Mayday, mayday.

[Phonetic repr. of F. m'aider imper. inf. "help me!", or shortening of venez m'aider.] An international radio-telephone signal of distress. Also transf. and attrib.

1927 Internat. Radio Telegraph Convention 51 Rules apply to the radio telephone distress call which consists of the spoken expression mayday, (corresponding to the French pronunciation of the expression "m'aider").

1929 Times 18 June 16/1 The pilot, after wirelessing the S.O.S. of the Air Service "May Day" endeavoured to return to Lympne aerodrome with the power still at his disposal.

1930 B.B.C. Year-Bk. 399 Aircraft and Wireless... In case of distress, due to engine failure over the sea, the word "Mayday" -- equivalent to the S.O.S. used by ships -- transmitted through the microphone, will summon immediately all possible help.

1951 O. Berthoud tr. Clostermann's Big Show i. 30 If you can't get back to the coast, bail out after calling "May Day" on frequency D.

1962 Listener 1 Mar. 370/2 With the onset of lambing time the farmers' "Mayday" signal begins to hum along the network of telephone wires.

1962 Sunday Express 5 Aug. 1/2 Her first "Mayday" distress message came soon after midday.

1971 Islander (Victoria, B.C.) 16 May 13/1 When her topmast chains snapped, she radioed a mayday signal.

1971 Daily Tel. 23 Aug. 1/5 The radio operator sent a Mayday distress call before the sea rushed into the cabin.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:43:46 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: sun in your eyes for Alan Caldwell

Carol Dow wrote:

> I would take the Coast Guard view because it sounds more accurate, and it
> was  the search method the Coast Guard was taught in WW II. End of
> statement.

AE disappeared PRIOR TO WWII, prior to "training" about "modern" search techniques, so Carol's statement is flawed. End of statement.

LTM,
Dave Bush

*********************************

As always, context is everything. Many of the navigation and S&R techniques we associate with WWII were, in fact, developed *during* the war in response to mission failures. So far as we have been able to ascertain, the CG had no procedures in place in the late thirties to cope with downed aviators; there just hadn't been enough of 'em yet.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:44:32 EST
From:         Wink Butz
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

More fuel to the fire.

Those pushrod tubes on the Ki54 engine stand out like a sore thumb but not so on the wreck photo. Comments anyone....

Wink Butz
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:46:16 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: reasoning with Carol

That's been my experience too except for the reflection of moon light on the water. But I do remember my first time flying over the Grand Banks in the North Atlantic at night. I looked  down and thought I must be way off course because it looked like I was flying over a large city. I did some quick rechecking and then realized that it was the fishing fleet all lit up and working at night.

gl

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> I CAN tell you that in 20 years of flying across both oceans at night I never
> saw the ghostly outline of anything nor have I ever saw an iridescent ocean.
> All my oceans were murky black at night. No lights, no nothing. That's from a
> little under 5,000 hours of flying.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:47:02 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Adam's post

I think that Dave has the idea.  If there are any old hams or any kind of two way radio users, you know that at great distances you heard a lot of background noise, some of that would fade in and out. If you are desperate you COULD TRY TO CONTACT ANY OF THE PEOPLE YOU HEAR TALKING. I don't if AE did this or not but if you can't raise the person you want to talk to  then wouldn't you try anybody.  All I am saying that may be the reason that Betty had some of the things written down that she did.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:47:41 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: 10E cowling diameter

The discrepancy comes when the nine foot prop measurement it used on both the Electra and the wreck photo. STOP TRYING TO PROVE THAT THE PHOTO IS AN ELECTRA, TRY PROVING THAT IT IS SOMETHING ELSE. If we find out the prop size of the Ki54 the problem will be easier to solve.

Ron Berry
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:48:13 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Alan Caldwell wrote:-

>That's the focal length of the lens of
> the camera that took the picture and the camera's location relative to the
> wreck. There may be more significance to that than we are giving it.

Alan makes a good point here that I was about to touch upon:-

With all this measuring going on of the prop & cowlings in the Wreck Photo I'm supprised nobody's picked up on one point which struck me quite a while back when I first studied the photo in detail - the lower prop blade is longer (approx 7-8% by my measurements) then the upper blade, but but both appear undamaged/unbent and complete. I suppose the upper blade is very slightly further away from the camera - on avaerage, but I think the margin of difference probably shows that there is at least some lens distortion here.

Any camera / lens experts that can comment ?

LTM
Simon Ellwood #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:49:30 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

>It's the wreck of Yamamoto Isoroku's plane shot down by US
>Forces in Bouganville. It seems Adams hunted it down after interviewing many
>hundreds of locals, and a harrowing trek through the mountains and jungles
>of the Bouganville interior.

The pictures of Bettys that I have seen have a 4-bladed prop on the engine. Cheers from Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:50:40 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Electra underwater

On Tuesday Jan 7 forum, Carol Dow wrote of her conversation with Tom King:

"..........One of the points we talked about was the possibility of the Electra being washed off the reef at Gardner Island. Such being the case the airplane would be lying in fairly shallow water (with a high oxygen content) meaning 65 yrs. later there would be nothing left of it. By this date, it would have corroded away to an unrecognizable glob."

Two points I must disagree with:

1.) "Such being the case the airplane would be lying in fairly shallow water " - this may not necessarily be true. The reef around Niku drops off into very deep water.

2.) "65 yrs. later there would be nothing left of it. By this date, it would have corroded away to an unrecognizable glob."

Truk Lagoon is located in the Caroline Islands west of the Marshall Islands. During WWII many Japanese aircraft were shot down and are now lying at the bottom of Truk lagoon in relatively shallow water (e.g. 50ft.-150ft.). These aircraft have been immersed for approx. 60 years in a similar Pacific salt-water environment as exists around Niku and are still relatively intact and easily recognizable as aircraft.  Truk lagoon is a world-famous scuba diving site.  Three months ago, a pilot/scuba diver friend of mine went to Truk Lagoon and and took many underwater photos showing numerous intact aircraft with fuselage, wings, engines, and even instrument panels still attached.  Even after 60 years, there is indeed much left of these aircraft and they have not "corroded away into an unrecognizable glob".  There are numerous websites with dive photos of these Truk lagoon airplanes.  For example, see:  http://www.scubaturk.net/batik_air_truk_eng.htm

Tom Riggs #2427
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:54:16 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Bones

Just finished watching a documentary about the discovery of the remains of a Roman/German battlefield from the year 9 A.D.   The remains of the slaughtered legions had apparently been buried some 6 years after the battle by a group of Romans sent specially for that reason.

The German forensic anthropologist verifying the remains said something interesting:

"We know these remains spent between two and ten years lying on the ground unburied".

"After two years, the skin, flesh, muscles and tendons would be away (her words meaning gone)".

"After ten years there would be nothing".  The way she explained it was that by ten years the bones themselves if they remained unburied would have biodegraded.

Just another thought to add to those on the age of the Gardner Island remains.

Th' WOMBAT

*************************************************

>"After ten years there would be nothing".  The way she explained it was
>that by ten years the bones themselves if they remained unburied would
>have biodegraded.

Depending on the environment this may or may not be true. For instance, in the forests of Downeast Maine, unprotected bones are often gone within a few months. The porcupines and mice eat them. However, there are other places, less biologically active, where bones can sit out for many decades.

Bones seem to last pretty well on Niku if the bird bones found at the Seven Site are any indication.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:54:56 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Regarding Dave Bush's post comparing the KI-54 and the Electra, on Simon Ellwood's website:  http:\\www.cv990.demon.co.uk/wreck, one of the photos (credited to Tighar) is a look up and into the open nose of an Electra.  It gives a pretty good idea of the type of construction.  There do not appear to be any stringers that are not riveted to the overlying skin.

ltm,
jon
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:55:32 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: web sites wanted

For Alfred Hendrickson:

http://www.cv990.demon.co.uk/wreck is Simon Ellwood's site.

The photo at Shane Brinkman's website address is:

http://www.in1.org/electra.jpg

ltm,
jon
> From Alfred Hendrickson
>
> To Ron Berry: You refer to Simon Ellwood's web site in your note on the
> wreck photo. Can you please give me the web address?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:58:28 EST
From:         Stretch Johnson
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Michael wrote:

>So is there anyone on the forum that could find the photo this Adams guy
>took and see if it is the same as the wreck photo on the TIGHAR site.  This
>would end the need for all the measuring and debate....
>
>From Ric
>
>I've seen several photos of the Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" in which Yamamoto
>died and the wreck bears no resemblance to the airplane in the Wreck Photo.

I agree, the phots I've seen of the wreckage of Yamamoto's Betty were in deep, thick jungle with no open space in the foreground and in no way resembled the photo in question.

Stretch
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 13:01:44 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: sun in your eyes for Alan Caldwell

> So far as we have been able to ascertain, the CG had no
> procedures in place in the late thirties to cope with downed aviators;
> there just hadn't been enough of 'em yet.

True, the CG did not try to save downed aviators unless there were at least 10 in the group. We had a lot of aviators in those days.

OK, so I'm just ragging you.<G> That'll teach you guys to work on Saturday.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 13:08:21 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Dem Bones

> Depending on the environment this may or may not be true. For instance, in
> the forests of Downeast Maine, unprotected bones are often gone within a few
> months. The porcupines and mice eat them. However, there are other places,
> less biologically active, where bones can sit out for many decades.
>
> Bones seem to last pretty well on Niku if the bird bones found at the Seven
> Site are any indication.

Pat, is that because there are no porcupines or is there some other reason?

Alan

*********************************

Well,  there certainly aren't any porkys on Niku <G>. Most bone damage is animal caused. There aren't any large land-based predators on Niku (think coyotes, bobcat, that sort of critter); there are rats and crabs, and they will gnaw just about anything, but it takes a pretty good jaw to crunch up, say, a pelvis. Highly acid water will dissolve bones -- but there aren't any sources for that at Niku.... think of the classic cow skull in the desert, bleached white but fully intact.

Kar could help us out here, but a semi-arid place like Niku is a good preservative for bones as well as metal.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 13:09:47 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Simon Ellwood wrote:

> the lower prop blade is
> longer (approx 7-8% by my measurements) then the upper blade

Good job, Simon. I noticed that when I tried to measure the cowling. I would guess Photek can resolve that.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 13:40:03 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Weather info

What was the weather as recorded by Colorado for 7th -10th July? Is there any evidence of deteriorating weather that could have destroyed or sunk the electra during this period? I note that the Colorado pilots found a heavy rain squall over part of Canton on 10th July but presumably isolated squalls are not at all uncommon at this time of year in the Phoenix islands and do not give a good indication of regional weather.

Regards Angus.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The Colorado's deck log indicates good weather conditions throughout that period. Broken cloud, excellent visibility, very stable barometric pressure right around 29.73, wind varying from SSE to NE at less than 20 knots, sea state 1 or 2 ("calm or light sea") with the swell swinging gradually from SE around NE over those few days.

Unfortunately, there was no ship in or near the Phoenix Islands for the first five days after the disappearance so we have no weather or seas state data for that period.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:11:16 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 10E cowling diameter

Ric, I have a relatively simple question.  What is the purpose of the cowl? Is it to protect the engine somehow yet let air to flow over the engine for cooling?  What factors of the cowl are important for it's function?  I'm just curious...
********************************************************************
From Ric

I'm no aeronautical engineer and what I know about the evolution and function of engine cowlings is from what I've read and personally experienced.  At first, circa WWI, the function of the cowl was primarily to keep the oil flung from the air-cooled rotary engines of the day from coating the pilot's face.  Even so, the benefit was marginal - hence the traditional white scarf (for wiping goggles).  Water-cooled engines could be covered up completely for streamlining.

With the advent of the less oil-exuberant radial air-cooled engines of the 1920s cowlings became less common and the engines, or at least their cylinders, tended to hang out there in the wind (think Sprit of St. Louis). Then sometime around 1930 (as I recall) engineers at the new National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA - the forerunner of NASA) discovered that a carefully designed shroud over a round engine could both augment cooling and reduce drag.  The industry was quick to adopt the "NACA cowl" and aerodynamically "dirty" engines soon disappeared under sleek coverings. Sophisticated cowling design permitted the use of larger, more powerful radial engines with multiple rows of cylinders.  To this day, you'll only see uncowled engines on small, slow airplanes.

The point is that the cowlings on the Electra's engines, although they might appear to be simple sheet metal coverings, were very precisely designed and constructed to channel the right amount of air to just the right places to provide just the right cooling for the performance range of that particular airplane/engine combination.  It's not something you messed around with.

LTM'
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:42:56 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Responding to Ron and Wink's points about the Ki-54 comparison.  On the prop length question.  Knowing the prop length of the Ki-54 would be very useful, but not absolutely necessary.  Since we don't know the length of the prop in the wreck photo, all that really matters is the proportion of the measured prop length, inside and outside diameters.

On the pushrod question.  While it's true that in some photos the pushrods are quite prominent, in others they are not.  Simon Ellwood's photo #2 shows an engine front that strongly resembles the wreck photo.  This may be a function of different finish on the pushrod tubes, or how recently the engine was cleaned.

One other point; an earlier poster (I'm sorry I can't find it now) mentioned that when he brought the picture up on a large flat screen it looked like a composite.  Something I've noted is that the focus doesn't seem consistent.  The exposed area of wing structure on the right wing is quite sharp.  The right engine firewall (which shouldn't be that much closer to the camera) is noticeably blurry.  Then the nose section (which is closer still) is clearer.  Seems odd to me.

LTM
Robert
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:44:27 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Mayday

Is there any record officially or from any other radio source that AE said "Mayday" on or about 2 July.

R. Bright

********************************

Quite the contrary; no record of any SOS/Mayday/distress call exists.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:44:56 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Electra underwater

For Tom Riggs -- Thanks for your response to Carol Dow; I missed THAT particular odd interpretation of something I've said.  I agree with you completely, both with regard to the reef and with regard to Truk (now Chuuk) Lagoon, where airplane wrecks that have remained immersed are in quite good shape.

LTM (who's not in such bad shape herself)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:46:00 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Bones

> "After ten years there would be nothing".  The way she explained it was
> that by ten years the bones themselves if they remained unburied would
> have biodegraded.
>
> Just another thought to add to those on the age of the Gardner Island
> remains.

This clearly is entirely dependent on the climate and fauna of the area. I have seen photos from WW2 battle sites in Russia, where skeletons of the dead have just lain in place on the surface since 1943. Apparently, for socialist materialists, interring the dead from out of the way battle fields, was too unrewarding an activity, even for their own soldiers. In the last decade, West German groups, and a Russian group named, i think, Memorial, have been gathering the bones for honorable burial.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:48:26 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      157/337 Line of Position

Gary LaPook writes:

>The 157/337 LOP cannot provide any guidance to Gardner because the azimuth
>of the LOP changes as the sun moves across the sky.
>
I think you misunderstood my point. I was not trying to establish a navigational method by which Amelia would maintain a certain heading. Nor was I trying to imply that the sun never moves across the sky and thus appears at different orientations during the day; we all know that it does indeed move.

My point was directed to the thought process that one would go through when you can't find your intended destination and you are at an unknown location in the middle of an ocean. First, we know that Amelia was running north and south along the 157/337 line. So what happens next ... you have flown a certain period of time with the heading 157 and you haven't found your intended destination. Is it logical to continue to fly 157 a little further to see if your intended destination will appear over the horizon? And if it doesn't, is it still logical to follow 157 even further? Yes, I think it is logical. So my contention is that this was indeed a logical decision that AE *could* have made, among a set of several logical decisions she could have made at that time. Nothing more. And my larger point was that choosing to fly to the Marshall Islands was not among the set of logical decisions at any time for AE after her last radio broadcast to Itasca.

How AE would actually maintain a 157 heading for several hours is something pilots can discuss, as I have no clue how to do that.

Paige Miller, #2565
LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:50:14 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Radios

Ron Berry wrote:

> I think that Dave has the idea.  If there are any old hams or any kind of
> two way radio users, you know that at great distances you heard a lot of
> background noise, some of that would fade in and out. If you are desperate
> you COULD TRY TO CONTACT ANY OF THE PEOPLE YOU HEAR TALKING

So, basically AE was so untrained, so unfamiliar with her radio, that she thought she could talk to anyone she could hear? ( Transmit on any frequency her receiver was tuned to. ) This apply to KGMB also?

Hue Miller

*********************************************

I suppose it's possible she really had that poor a grasp of frequencies and the technology of radio.... Seems like a reach, though.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:51:23 EST
From:         Terry Lee Simpson
Subject:      Betty tape

Ric,you impress me with your answer to Randy Jacobson........Got the tape of Betty,thought it was great,it only confirms what I had believed all along,Betty did hear Amelia .Sometimes you got to take things at face value and move on or you get stalled,if only we could find out where the signals came from,that would be awsome! You do a great job! Appreciate your hard work,thanks a lot man.

Terry Lee Simpson,Port Huron,Mi(#2396) LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:55:12 EST
From:         Larry Turner
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Dave Bush's post comparing the KI-54 and the Electra, on Simon Ellwood's website:  http:\\www.cv990.demon.co.uk/wreck, It appears that the sweep of the windshields are at different angles, is there any way to compare them to the wreck photo given that all pictures where taken from different angles?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:56:23 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: 10E cowling diameter

Ric--Well --thank you perfesser--for 'splainin that to us !!!! I couldnt have done it better myself...

Jim Tierney
Simi Valley, CA
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:39:10 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

After looking at the Mystery Photo again and again and reading that Tigher stated "From these data we conclude that the airplane in the wreck photo is not a Ki-54", I want to disagree with this and say that I still think the Mystery Photo is indeed a Ki-54. If it was an Electra 10E it probably would still have its cowling on it as the engine seems to be the least damaged of all the parts of the plane in the mystery photo.

Lockheed had sold some of the Electra 14's to Japan before they started to produce their own calling it the Ki-54. These were all were designed from the basic Electra 10 and if Lockheed made their wings on this model like the 10E then the Japanese probably got the same designed wing.

And what about the missing cowling in the Mystery Photo. I wonder if the reason that there is no cowling in the Mystery Photo is due to the fact that the plane didn't have one anyway. My proof in saying this is two photos I have seen. One of which is on the Tighar site showing a Ki-54 being serviced [http://www.ijaafpics.com/B&W/KI-54_LD.jpg]. If you look closely you won't see any cowling either on the plane or on the surrounding ground. The engines in this photo seem to match the one in the Mystery photo as far as the cowling goes. And you will see that it is has two-bladed prop.

The second photo you can view at[http://www.ijaafpics.com/JB&W/Ki-56-3.jpg]. This shows a Ki-56 which is a freighter (or in this case, used to transport parachuters.)

I don't know why the cowlings would be taken off except if that smaller engine version had heating problems. Maybe it needed more cooling in those hot areas.

Maybe we should change our debate of trying to measure the cowling opening to debating whether this plane actually is one of them Ki-54; an early Electra (with lockheed wings) due to the fact that some obviously did fly without the main cowlings on.

Cheers from Bill Shea
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The KI-54 was most definitely NOT a Japanese version of the Lockheed Model 14.  Why would you say something like that?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:53:27 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

BETTY'S NOTEBOOK: WAS IT AMELIA?

An analysis of Betty's notebook of the alleged broadcasts from Amelia  Earhart at 4:30PM, EST, determined that it is inconsistent with a 10:AM  landing at Gardner Island. I am posting this report in good faith to  stimulate additional research on this most perplexing shortwave reception.

We know that the Earhart was nearing Howland mid-morning on Friday, July 2, 1937 when  she lost contact with the ITASCA and subsequently disappeared.  Sometime between her last transmission at 08:43 ITASCA time, and her maximum estimated fuel exhaustion about 12:00 noon, she crashed, ditched at sea, or landed on an atoll.  No one knows exactly when or what area of the Pacific.

The controversy of whether AE's 50 watt Western Electric transmitter broadcasts could be received by Betty's Sears or Zenith Stratosphere radio, on an atoll or in the water, has been thoroughly discussed on this forum. Experts disagree; however I will presume it was theorectically possible. 

AE's  last  official message , however, gave one tantalizing clue: "WE ARE ON THE LINE OF POSTION 157-337 ... ARE RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH".  This gave birth to one of the most popular theories: that had she continued on that LOP, she could have possibly made it to Gardner Island located about 400 statue miles southeast.

TIGHAR ,  a strong proponent of this theory, has made many expeditions to Gardner Island and has found several possible artifacts possibly linked to the Electra . Still, no definitive evidence has developed to establish conclusively that AE landed there.

A possible breakthrough came in September 2000 when TIGHAR learned that a young lady at St. Petersburg, Florida, claimed that in early July 1937 she heard a woman's voice on her family's shortwave radio identify herself as "Amelia Putman"( twice written in the notebook) sending out urgent distress calls.  As an offer of proof, the girl provided her small notebook containing therein 5 pages of handwritten entries of the AE transmissions she  allegedly heard. Unfortunately, while the notebook appeared to have been written in 1937, there was no date of those AE entries.   It has become a challenge to ascertain that date to compare with the Electra's probable location. This transmission seemed to support a Gardner Is landing.

Since TIGHAR published the relevant notes in 2000, there has been considerable debate of not only the date of the notebook but over the meaning of the words, phrases and number sequences.  Such entries such as W40K, KGMB, 31.05, are inexplicably noted in the book soon after Betty started copying.
 
Very little has been written about the date, which I think is the key to the mystery.

According to Betty, then a 15- year- old 8th grader at St. Petersburg, she came home and tuned into the family's shortwave set as was her custom.  Suddenly she tuned (frequency unknown) to an "ongoing transmission" at an estimated 4:30 PM, Eastern Standard Time.  A woman's voice was transmitting an obvious SOS distress call and identifed herself as "Amelia Putman"( sic) as well as "Amelia Earhart Putnam" but shortened to "Amelia Putnam" to save space. Betty did not explain how she recognized Amelia Earhart's voice on the radio other than the woman identified herself as "Amelia". Had Betty heard Amelia's voice before ?

She didn't know how long the broadcast had been going on but about 6:15 it ended. During that time she copied down the best she could what was said. There were gaps, silences, static, and fading in and out so the transcription was fragmentary at best. The actual broadcast time between the 4:30 and 6:15 was estimated to be about x of an hour.  But there was no doubt it was a woman and in an emergency situation.

Note:  For those who note a discrepancy in the Notebook start time of 3PM in Ric's first post, Betty later stated that she thought  that the 4:30 time was correct, based on her notation in the notebook.

According to Betty, her father "came home from work" during the transmission and heard some of the signals before checking with a next door neighbor.  Afterwards, he reported the incident in person to the St Petersburg  Coast Guard who said they would handle it. Nothing further ever came of that report as far as Betty knows. [ Inquiries with the Coast Guard Archives disclosed no record, but records were not always complete for this period] Betty held on to the notebook and graduated from high school circa 1941 and eventually moved to Washington DC.

There she reportedly attempted to contact some "official" about the notebook,  but again nothing further developed.

In 1970, John Hathaway, a friend and neighbor of Betty's, helped Betty correspond with AE researcher Fred Goerner in an effort to revive interest in her story.  Goerner answered her but apparently never followed up on the notebook. [A review of the Goerner's files, some 900, at the Pacific Science Museum, Fredericksburg, Tx.,  has so far disclosed no specific file under Betty's or Hathaway's name; however additonal efforts are underway to examine potential leads and other files and repositories.] 
 
In 1970 Hathaway also interiewed Betty's mother, Olive. In a discussion with Betty and  Olive, Olive decided that it "might have been the FIRST day that Earhart was missing." [ 2 July 1937] On what basis she made that decision is not reported, and Hathaway's notes have not yet been posted. The Friday , 2 July is also consistent with Betty's recollection that her father had returned home from work. [ Friday, a weekday, would also ordinarily be a workday]

Olive's recollection of the event, said Hathaway, is different from Betty's.  Olive clearly recalled being present and hearing the voice and recognized it, she said,  as Earhart's based on prior broadcasts. Betty did not recall Olive's presence, and Olive was apparently not her source of the voice recognition. 

Hence, Betty's notebook remained in limbo from 1970 until Hathaway contacted TIGHAR in 2000.

CRITICAL TIMES / TIDES

When Betty first tuned into the shortwave band at 4:30 p.m. it was 10:00 a.m. aboard the ITASCA, then initiating a search for the missing Electra.

When Betty started to transcribe the "AE" messages, she described the voice as "upset" , and crying while sending her message.   Betty reported hearing about this time the voice of a man who was in "a state of complete agitation".  The notebook entries read: ( not in sequence)

HELP US QUICK, NEED AIR, LET ME OUT OF HERE, WATER IS KNEE DEEP, LET ME OUT... WE CAN'T BAIL OUT, HURRY, SOS, I CAN'T MAKE IT...

Other words and numbers are interspersed between those entries; but such words and numbers, however,   did not seem to match the context of an SOS or distress situation.i.e, "suitcase", "Bob",etc. The notebook ended with AE saying a "few cuss words" and it "sounded like she was having trouble getting water so high the plane was slipping". 

Adding to the ambiguity of the the broadcast location, Betty did not hear such  words as "reef", "island" nor words such as 'KHAQQ" ( her calling sign she used in normal radio protocol). Betty did not indicate in the notebook any reception of Morse code, only voice.

Unequivocally, those entries described an exigent distress situation that was happening at that very moment on 2 July, 1000a.m. (ITASCA time) when AE first went down. She was either in a lagoon, on the ocean or a reef. Based on the graphic remarks that Betty recorded, Earhart was in imminent danger of sinking or swamping. 

The most significant question then is: Could those transmissions originate from Gardner Is around 10:00 am, on 2 July 1937.

Based on TIGHAR'S posted tide table, the Gardner Island reef some 75 feet inland from the reef's edge near the Norwich City was nearly dry (tide was out and coming in)  to about 0900 a.m, and by 10:30 a.m. there wasonly one inch of water over the reef, and by 12:00, there was 9 inches of water on the reef.  

Therefore  landing at Gardner Is reef by the Norwich City around 10:00 a.m. would NOT have been  a life threatening or dangerous situaton inside the Electra. The Electra had 35-inch. wheels and would have been well above any water, unless it was nearing 1:00 p.m. or later. 

In my opinion , the nature of the description that Betty transcribed is inconsistent with the conditons at 1000 a.m. on the Gardner Island reef. If she had landed in the shallow Gardner lagoon, the evidence has never been found over all of these years.

PUBLIC ALERT

According to Betty's time table of the post loss reception at 4:30 pm in St. Petersburg, Earhart had to be down at 1000 a.m. ITASCA time. Although AE's last signal was at 0843, the ITASCA waited until 10:15 a.m. aboard ship to send out the first message that AE is overdue.  10:15 a.m. ITASCA time is 1:45 p.m. San Francisco, so anytime after 1:45 p.m. San Francisco  time, it is theoretically possible for hoaxes or misunderstandings from the various 
traffic to begin.

TIME AND DISTANCE AND RADIO

A collateral but equally significant question is how close the Electra would have to be near Gardner to arrive at 10:00 am and start the SOS broadcast. No one knows how far south (or north)  the Electra was on the LOP at 0843. ITASCA received it at a signal strength "5". (This may well bring in the Brandenburg analysis of time of day, distance and signal strength measuements of AE's radio).

Gardner Is is about 404 statue miles from Howland, so whereever  she was  at 0843 she arrived in one hour seventeen minutes, or 10:00a.m. Depending on the Electra's speed, one could compute how far away she was from Gardner to take one hour seventeen minutes flight time to get there.

EXAMPLE: 77 minutes is 1.28 hours. 1.28 X 130 mph (cruising speed). 1.28 X 130 =166.4 miles. If she was 166 miles away from Gardner she was 238 miles south of Howland. ( 404-166 = 238). Could the ITASCA have heard AE at signal strength "5" about 200-240 miles south at 0843?

SUMMARY

When I compare the  Earhart dire straits as recorded in the notebook with the known tide/water level at Gardner at  1000 a.m. or 4:30 p.m St Petersburg time, it was not Earhart that  Betty was hearing.

Could AE and FN have remained in the Electra cockpit and transmit that type of message on 3 or 4 July? It seems unlikely that they would remain in the cockpit under those circumstances, in harm's way, for 24 hours or more. There is no apparent reason, AE and FN could not have exited the aircraft and made it to shore with a low tide. All the information we have supports a spashdown on 2 July prior to 12:00 noon.

Could AE have been somewhere else at 10:00 a.m. and transmit that type 
of distress signal. Perhaps so. But where? In the Gilberts, Mili, Saipan?  Could she have been on an uncharted reef within 1 hour and 17 minutes flying time from 0843? Winslow Reef was under water in 1937 and no one has identified an alternative reef or atoll within that range.

ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS AND LEADS

Could there be an alternative source of a voice transmitting? Did Betty's reception of signals have a more mundane origin? 

I have suggested that the most reasonable approach to resolving the Betty controversy is to "follow the signal",that is, follow  the W40K call sign. That call sign  was assigned from 1929 on to 1937 to an avid Ham, Francis Carroll, who, coincidently, was living at Ft Worth , Florida on the same great circle route about 150 miles away. No one can explain that W40K entry even though  it is one of the very first entries in Betty's notebook, page l, top. How could AE pass on that call sign? And Carroll once remarked to his daughters friend while listening to an Earhart documentary that "he once talked with Amelia". That is an excellent lead.

Reportedly, WOJ, also one of the first entries, was a high frequency ATT shortwave station broadcasting voice and news to ships. It was located in Florida. This is also a potential lead.

Based on the above, my conclusion is that the alleged transmission did not originate with Amelia Earhart. The possiblities are (a)Betty was the victim of a  hoax, (b) she heard  a re-creation broadcast,  (c)  a she heard a blend of overlapping  early news accounts with other non related transmissions from amateur hams (d) or other unknown sources. 
 
A NOTE ON SOURCES: As primary sources I used the Itasca radio log, the 1937 Standard Time Zones, and the Rand McNally world Atlas. I also relied on TIGHAR'S interviews of Betty and John Hathaway as posted on the Forum. I have only a copy of the original Notebook and Betty's clarification notes posted alongside the various entries.  If there are any errors or misrepresentations in the text they are inadvertent and I take full responsibility of this report.

Ron Bright
Bremerton,Wa
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Before I comment on your conclusion let me say that Betty has corrected my earlier misimpression that her mother was not present and did not hear the transmissions.  Her mother was there at least part of the time.

Whether or not Betty and her family actually heard Amelia is, I would guess, always going to be a matter of opinion.  Your reasons for not believing that she did are, if I summarize correctly:

1.  You don't think there was enough water on the reef at Gardner between 10:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. to justify the concern about "imminent danger of sinking or swamping." 

2.  You don't think they would have been in the airplane on the 3rd or 4th of July.

3.  You don't think that Itasca could have heard Earhart at Strength 5 if she was far enough south to make it to Gardner by 10:00.

As you have pointed out, if the date was July 2nd, as Olive apparently told John Hathaway (I wasn't aware of that.  There's no mention in John's notes.) then Betty started hearing what she heard BEFORE anyone except the crew of the Itasca knew she was even overdue.

Now let's look at your reasons:

1.  "Imminent danger of sinking or swamping" are your words, not Betty's, and not the notebook's.  In fact, the only mention of water is "waters knee deep - let me out" on the third page.  "Knee deep over" on the fifth and final page is logically also a reference to water.  Where is the water knee deep?  In the cockpit?  Not if the radio is working.  In the aft cabin?  Not on July 2nd.  It didn't get that deep even at high tide until July 5th.  It seems most likely that the reference is to the water depth on the reef.  Is it really knee deep or does the panicky person quoted in the notebook merely think it's knee deep?  They've landed on the dry reef but very soon it becomes apparent that the tide is coming in.  Water is washing around the airplane.  Can you say that it's not possible that someone looking down from the cockpit might misjudge or exaggerate the water depth? Having never been here before, they have no way of knowing what to expect.  Also, as we've said, we feel confident that our tide estimates are in the ballpark but we can't say we have the water level nailed to the minute and to the inch. Dismissing July 2nd as the date of Betty's reception based upon "waters knee deep" doesn't wash.

2.  I don't understand why you think they could not have left the airplane and returned on the 3rd and/or the 4th.  They certainly could have.  However, I personally think that it's more likely that, having experienced the extreme heat in the plane during the daytime, they would return to use the radio only at night - another argument for the Betty transmissions having been heard on July 2nd.

3.  I don't know how far the plane could be from Itasca and still be heard at Strength 5.  Do you?  I don't know the speed of the plane as it flew southeastward on the LOP, if that's what it did.  Do you?  There have been many opinions expressed but, as far as I know, that's what they are - opinions.

I think Betty heard Amelia, but I can't prove it.  You certainly haven't disproved it and I find your reasons unconvincing.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:36:08 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

I wrote:

>After looking at the Mystery Photo again and again and reading that Tigher
>stated "From these data we conclude that the airplane in the wreck photo is
>not a Ki-54", I want to disagree with this and say that I still think the
>Mystery Photo is indeed a Ki-54. If it was an Electra 10E it probably would
>still have its cowling on it as the engine seems to be the least damaged of
a>ll the parts of the plane in the mystery photo.

OOOOPS, I meant to say that i think it is a Ki-56 and not Earhart's. I confused myself in using the Ki-54 photos to show you that the Japanese flew some of them without the cowling.

Cheers from a red-faced Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:36:42 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Maximum Range Speed

Last week, Angus Murray and Alan Caldwell both asked what speed would give maximum range near the end of the flight when aircraft weight had been reduced by fuel burn.

I don't know, and I don't think we have enough information available for anyone to calculate the answer with any real precision, but let's make a stab at the subject.

The theoretical speed for best range is called "best lift over drag speed", or V l/d. Modern thought seems to be that V l/d is about 1.315 times the speed for best endurance ("Ve"). (I believe that John Anderson explicitly defines Ve as 0.76 of V l/d.) So let's investigate Ve first.

Report 487 contains information on Ve in the "Horsepower Required and Available Curves". Page 487-28 has the graph for a gross weight of 9300 pounds, the lowest weight  given in the Report. The sea level horsepower required curve shows a decreasing horsepower requirement as speed is reduced until 85 mph is reached; below 85 mph, the curve turns upward (ie, the horsepower required increases) again. This indicates that Ve in the 10E at 9300 pounds is around 85 mph CAS.

Dividing 85 by 0.76 gives 111.842 - say 112 CAS as V l/d at 9300 pounds.  (Remember that the CAS for V l/d remains constant at a given weight for all altitudes - True velocity for V l/d increases with altitude, while CAS remains the same. At 1000 feet, TAS for 112 CAS would be 114 mph + True.)

So Answer #1 to the question is - "fly at V l/d, which is 112 mph CAS."

I am not sure that that is the answer that would have been given in 1937. I have a copy of Charles Mattingly's AMERICAN AIR NAVIGATOR, which was published by Consolidate Vultee Aircraft Corporation in 1944. Pages 168-170 contain an interesting discussion of maximum range (written by someone who perhaps did not understand all the issues involved) which states that "Ve + 10 knot curves are generally used for all long-range flight". The examples are for the PBY, but the technique is not stated to be limited to that aircraft. So ...Answer #2 (a wrong answer) is "fly at Ve (85 mph CAS) + 11.5 mph, that is 97 mph CAS."

For Answer # 3, let's turn to Lockheed's "Flight Manual" for the 10 A or (Issue 357). My copy has an added page 35a, which is headed "Maximum Range and Endurance". It calls for an indicated airspeed of 125 mph for maximum range at 8,500 pounds( 128 mph at 10,500 pounds). Page 35A gives Ve for the 10A as 77 mph at 8500 pounds and 91 mph at 10500 pounds, which correlates well with 85 mph at 9300 pounds for the 10E shown in Report 487. Since the 10E is not so different from the 10A, perhaps the advice would apply fairly well for the Model 10E. Answer #3 is "fly at 125 mph INDICATED".

For what it's worth, my own opinion (based on the information that we have and what we know AE was furnished) is that if AE had wanted to increase range toward the end of the flight, she would have relied not on holding a specific airspeed but would have reduced power to a 200 hp setting (rather than continuing at the 250 hp/38 gph setting) and leaned to 0.70 Cambridge.(I say this because the Chart on page 7 of Report 487 recommends 200 hp settings for the last 10 to 14 hours of the flight, and KJ's telegrams recommended leaning to 0.70 at low horsepower if unusual headwinds were encountered - ie, if maximum range was needed.) Theoretically (assuming the increased leaning held the sfc constant) this would result in a 20% reduction in fuel consumption rate, and a 25% increase in endurance on the remaining fuel. Speed would also be reduced, but by somewhat less than 20%, thus resulting in increased range.

"How much would speed have been reduced?" is a difficult question because Reports 465 and 487 give different answers. Report 487 (page 34) indicates that at 9300 pounds the 10E would do 151 mph on 250 hp and 135 on 200 hp at sea level. At 5000 feet, the numbers are 157 and 139; at 10000 feet, the numbers are 162 and 143. This equals a 10 to 12 % reduction in speed by going from 250 to 200 hp per engine.

On the other hand, Report 465 (page 10) indicates that at sea level and 10,500 pounds, speed at 250 hp would be 160 mph, and speed at 200 hp would be slightly under 150. (At 5000 feet, the numbers are about 169 and 158, respectively; and at 10000 feet they are 176 and 165)  This is a reduction in speed of only 6 1/2 to 7 %.

In either case, there is a clear gain (assuming you have zero wind or a tailwind) because you have reduced fuel consumption by 20%. Report 487 gives mpg figures that probably understate the saving (because 487 assumes an increase in sfc with power reduction). Report 465 probably overstates the case.

Let's take the middle ground and estimate that fuel consumption could have been decreased 20% in exchange for a 10% speed decrease. In zero wind conditions, this would increase range on the remaining fuel by 12 1/2% (Endurance goes from 1 to 1.25; speed is decreased from X  to .9 X. Multipy 1.25 by .9 to get a range of 1.125 X , or a 12 1/2% increase.)

What would the speed be late in the flight at 200 hp per engine? Here the internal inconsistencies in Report 487 become annoying. The Chart on page 34 says that at 9300 pounds 200 hp/engine will give 139 mph True at 5000 feet and 143 mph True at 10000 feet. But the "Recommended Flight Procedure" Chart on page 7 shows a speed (average?) of 135 mph INDICATED at 8000 feet at a 200 hp/engine setting, which equals roughly 155 mph True. The Recommended Flight Procedure Chart thus correlates better with Report 465 than it does with Report 487. In any case, the speed at atitude late in the flight will not be much (if at all) less than "150 mph", and may actually be more than that.

What does this do to the endurance and range? If 12 hours into the flight one reduces to 200 hp, the remaining fuel (sufficient for 12 hours at 38 gph) will give another 15 hours endurance, for a total of 27 hours. One gives up perhaps 10 to 15 mph during hours 13 through 24 in exchange for 3 additional hours at 140 to 160 mph at the end of the flight, a gain of (say) 300 miles in still air range.

Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:40:06 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: radio chatter

Hue Miller wrote:

> So, basically AE was so untrained, so unfamiliar with her radio, that she
> thought she
> could talk to anyone she could hear? ( Transmit on any frequency her
> receiver was
> tuned to. ) This apply to KGMB also?

I did not say that AE would try to talk to a AM radio station.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:41:03 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Larry, that Ki54 windshield is not a pointed in the center as it looks in the photos its point (center post) is about half the distance of the Electra. and in the wreck photo there a couple of things that contribute to the way it looks.  First the photo has flaws across the area where the cabin is. one goes thru the base of the windshield which makes it look like the base of the Electra. the second is the forward cabin that is left is smashed down, and that makes the windshield look flat.

Larry Turner wrote:

> Dave Bush's post comparing the KI-54 and the Electra, on Simon Ellwood's
> website:  http:\\www.cv990.demon.co.uk/wreck, It appears that the sweep of
> the windshields are at different angles, is there any way to compare them to
> the wreck photo given that all pictures where taken from different angles?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:42:11 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Bill shea wrote:-

> Lockheed had sold some of the Electra 14's to Japan before they started to
> produce their own calling it the Ki-54. These were all were designed from the
> basic Electra 10 and if Lockheed made their wings on this model like the 10E
> then the Japanese probably got the same designed wing.

Ric replied:-

> The KI-54 was most definitely NOT a Japanese version of the Lockheed Model
> 14.  Why would you say something like that?

Ric is correct here - the Ki-54 is a completely Japanese design, not just some derivative of a Lockheed design. It's true that in the pre-war years especially, the Japs did a lot of copying of engine and prop technologies and even some aircraft - indeed Bill's no.2 photo shows a Japanese copy of the Lockheed 14 aircraft.  But the Ki-54 is definitely an indigenous design.

LTM
Simon Ellwood #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:05:40 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Well, if Betty reports that her father came home from work in the late afternoon (5:15 p.m., I believe Betty claims) and heard the transmissions, too, and if July 2, 1937 was a Friday, then (assuming he worked a standard Mon-Fri job and didn't work on the weekends) the next day these transmissions could have been heard by him as Betty claims is on Monday, July 5th.  Yet, if that's the case, and 4:30 p.m. in Florida is 10:00 a.m. on Gardner, and Betty heard the transmissions for an hour and half or so, then what were Earhart and Noonan doing in the plane in the intense heat at high noon three days after landing?  Would Earhart have dragged the injured and incoherent Noonan back and forth on across the reef, or leave him under cover ashore where the breezes blow?  Hmmm.  It does seem, as Ric suggests below, that this argues for the transmissions being July 2nd right after first landing.  But, that raises all the "distance from Gardner" issues if we know Earhart was in the air at 0843, a mere one hour and 17 minutes earlier.

Could it be this:  Either the Niku theory, if correct, disproves Betty's notebook, or if Betty's notebook is a transcription of Earhart it disproves the Niku theory, and that Earhart landed somewhere else?

--Chris Kennedy

****************************************************************************
From Ric

No.  As we've said repeatedly, Betty's notebook is not going to prove or disprove anything.

Your assumption that Betty's father did not work weekends is incorrect. According to Betty, he often did painting and handyman jobs on Saturdays. Sunday was the 4th of July so it's not likely that he was working that day.

Like Ron Bright's "imment danger of sinking or swamping", your "injured and incoherent Noonan" on subsequent days is of your own invention.  Noonan does seem panicky and incoherent at the time Betty heard him and she had the impression (although it's not specifically mentioned in the notebook) that he had some kind of head injury.  People who may act in an irrational manner shortly after a blow to the head often recover within a few hours.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:35:29 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Oscar Boswell wrote:

> In any case, the speed at
> atitude late in the flight will not be much (if at all) less than "150
> mph", and may actually be more than that.

First, many thanks for your very interesting investigation of the matter. I assume 150mph is 150 TAS.

I see the figure of 130kt IAS was recommended as a cruising speed @ 10,000ft. and seems according to Randy to have been used extensively on previous legs.

130kt IAS = 156kt TAS @ 10,000ft = 179.5mph

Is the recommended speed so much higher than the most economical for maximum range merely from the consideration of making reasonable progress or does engine reliability at weaker mixtures figure?

*What is your opinion on the likelihood that AE would have merely used the recommended cruising speed irrespective of the advisability to economise further? What's your opinion on this last question* Ric?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:36:06 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Noonan's head injury (?)

Noonan did not have to suffer his head injury during the landing. The reef was treacherous and other things can happen. Since it was a head injury, he might have been going to the "head" and the incoming tide might have shifted the aircraft and caused him to lose his footing resulting in a head injury in the "head". Or he could have slipped entering or exiting the aircraft, or slipped on the reef or a coconut might have fallen and hit him in the head. So, just because there are indications that Noonan had a head injury does not mean that it occurred on landing or even on the day of the landing. Heck, one of those big crabs might even given him a jolt in the night and he jumped up and hit his head on something. All is speculation and no one answer is more right than another. I still vote for the "head" injury, tho.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:37:27 EST
From:         Larry Turner
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Ron Berry wrote:

>Larry, that Ki54 windshield is not as pointed in the center as it looks in the
>photos its point (center post) is about half the distance of the Electra.
>and in the wreck photo there a couple of things that contribute to the way
>it looks.  First the photo has flaws across the area where the cabin is. one
>goes thru the base of the windshield which makes it look like the base of
>the Electra. the second is the forward cabin that is left is smashed down,
>and that makes the windshield look flat.

Thanks,  Are you saying that the wreck photo is the Ki54 or can not be the Ki54, or is impossible to compare because of problems you stated?

Larry Turner
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:38:11 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Congrats to Ron Bright for a very clear and thorough presentation of his point of view.

Now some questions.

Your conclusion that Betty heard the transmission on July 2 is based upon two pieces of evidence, that seem somewhat shaky to me. (Or, was there a 3rd piece of evidence that leads to the July 2 conclusion that I have missed?)

First, Betty's father came home during the broadcast, and thus the conclusion is that it must have been a Friday. Do we know for sure that Betty's father did not work on Saturday or Sunday? A minority of people do work on Saturdays and Sundays, but it's not so rare that I would conclude from this piece of evidence that the alleged AE broadcast had to be heard on a Friday and not a weekend.

Second, Olive says the date "might have been the FIRST day that Earhart was missing." I note that the word FIRST is in capitals in Ron Bright's write-up, and I don't know why ... whereas I want to capitalize and emphasize the word MIGHT. Not only does this give me the impression that Olive was not sure, but in addition, she is remembering an event 33 years earlier, and those memories might be somewhat blurred. In addition, let us suppose that Olive and Betty go to sleep Friday night unaware of Amelia's plight, wake up the next morning and see in the newspaper Amelia Earhart is missing. Later that afternoon, Betty and Olive hear the alleged AE broadcast and think this is the FIRST day that Earhart was missing ... that would be a natural assumption to make at the time.

Ron, can you shore up these arguments? Can you show me what I am missing, give me a greater comfort level that it really was July 2 when Betty heard that broadcast?

Paige Miller #2565
LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:39:33 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

You are right Alan, the line on his chart would not move.

However the only value of a LOP is that it represents a line on the surface of the earth. We both agree that there was no LOP painted on the water that Noonan could see and follow. It was not a terrestrial line of position like a railroad track, road, river or shore line that a pilot can follow to an airport located next to such LOPs.

The celestial LOP is useful for finding an island if the line on the chart passes through the island and so representing a line on the earth's surface that also passes through the island. Then, if you can determine that you are staying on the line on your chart you will also be determining that you are staying on the  line on the surface of the earth that goes to the island. You make this determination by taking additional observations of the sun and comparing the altitude that you measure  to the altitude you would  have measured (which you compute) if you were on the LOP. If they are the same you are on the LOP, if not you can determine how far off you are and which way to turn to regain the line.

The question I have about your response relates to your statement:

>He would check
>his position periodically in relation to the line he had drawn on
>his chart. A line that never moved.

I don't know how he does this after the sun's azimuth has changed, perhaps you can explain it to me. Use this example to check his position in relation to the line he had drawn on the chart:

It is now 2240 Z on July 2,1937, about two and a half hours after the last transmission, and the airplane has been maintaining a true heading of 157 degrees and an airspeed of 120 knots and so should be getting close to Gardner. Noonan uses his bubble sextant and measures the altitude of the center of the sun. After making corrections for refraction and index error his observed altitude (Ho) is 59 degrees 15 minutes.

Where is he in relation to the line he had drawn on the chart?

Is the plane still on the LOP drawn on the chart?

If the plane is not on the line on the chart then how far off the LOP is the airplane?

Is the plane still on course for Gardner?

If it is not on the line to Gardner then which way should he turn to get to Gardner?

Please explain how you reach you conclusions and include the math.

If you have a scanner available I would appreciate it if you could scan in the chart work you do to figure out this example and email it to me at : glapook@pacbell.net since I would like to see how you accomplish this.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:40:33 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

> then what were Earhart and Noonan doing in the plane in the intense heat at
> high noon three days after landing?  Would Earhart have dragged the injured
> and incoherent Noonan back and forth on across the reef,..............

Ten AM is not high noon.

>Would Earhart have dragged the injured and incoherent Noonan back and forth 
>on across the reef,........"

I would have. The sucker couldn't find Howland and stuck me on a tiny atoll with no water. I would have dragged him all over the place. <G>

Seriously if we read a bit more carefully and not try to make up stuff not said we won't be so likely to incur our leader's wrath. <G> OK, so it was just a little bit of wrath. A wrathette.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:41:10 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Outstanding as usual, Oscar. That's a lot of information now to play with but let me redefine my question based on some things you said and an assumption (good grief) of mine.

My assumption is that based on the distance flown from Lae to "we must be on you" and the time that took, 19.2 hours it seems to me AE essentially maintained 130 knots TAS. That is something I posted some time ago in postulating the average groundspeed and average headwind appeared to be what was predicted and not what Elgin Long preferred to believe. If this is correct that AE held a 130 know TAS until reaching what the believed to be Howland I would have think upon not finding the island that NOW fuel conservation would have been an issue with our duo. If at that time AE decided to conserve fuel what would she have probably known to have done? Would it be likely she leaned to .70 and 200 HP per KJ? I don't suppose she would have known of anything else to do? Would you agree on that likelihood? If this is the case what might her airspeed be and fuel gph now be?

I doubt she was anywhere near as versed in all this as you are or know much more than what KJ wired to her. I'm also not convinced they would have stayed at 1,000' with such a reduced area of view nor do I think it would have been all that fuel expensive to climb.

Thanks for a great posting, Oscar.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:39:23 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Well, as you say it seems that Betty is recording a panicky and incoherent Noonan.  Apparently you assume that a "blow to the head" is responsible for his problem, yet you also say that people often recover several hours later.  If the "blow to the head" occured during the landing (an assumption, admittedly), and people often recover in a few hours, yet Noonan still seemed panicky and incoherent to Betty, doesn't this further indicate that the events she was recording occurred on July 2nd?  The father returned from work on Friday at 5:15 as Betty reports, and as you say he probably wasn't working on July 4th (Sunday) so that date is probably out.

You have already committed yourself to believing that Betty actually heard Earhart.  Is there some problem with this having occurred on July 2nd?

Regards,
--Chris Kennedy

P.S.: I notice you didn't reply to the timing issue (0843 vs. 1000).  I believe Bob Brandenburg told me awhile ago that, as the morning progressed, the transmission range of Earhart's equipment would decrease.

-C-
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I dont know where the confusion came from but, for the record,  from the information available to me at this time, Betty's notebook fits best with July 2nd.

I don't know what you expect me to say about the timing issue.  It simply suggests that Earhart was farther south on the LOP at 08:43 than many have presumed.  Generally speaking, HF radio propagation does decrease as the morning progresses, but that true every morning.  If Betty heard Amelia she heard her on a harmonic and it was a very low probability event.  Low probability events happen (there's a popular bumper sticker that says the same thing more colorfully).

>You have already committed yourself to believing that Betty actually heard
>Earhart.

No.  This is more lawyer-cuteness.  I said that I believe that Betty heard Amelia.  I have not committed myself to that belief any more than I have committed myself to any belief.  New information could change my mind.  If you have any new information I'd love to hear it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:40:33 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Betty Interview Tape

Thank you for the Betty interview tape - Interesting to say the least - One question came to mind right off - When you interviewed Betty, did you ask her when she first realized or heard Amelia Earhart had disappeared?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang  2559
****************************************************************************
From Ric

We asked.  She doesn't recall.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:45:02 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Betty reports the transmissions went on for several hours after she tuned in at 10:00 Gardner time.

C.N.K.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you.  That's new information.  The transmissions we're aware of went on, albeit sporadically, for only an hour and three-quarters.  The notebook is pretty clear about that.  What's your source?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:55:41 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

There's another key that suggests July 2 was not the date of reception.  I believe Betty's father went to the local Coast Guard station and was told that things were under control.  Well, if the date was July 2, no Coast Guard station, other than Hawaii, San Francisco, and the CG Headquarters in DC had any information that AE had disappeared, let alone that a search was on-going.  If Betty's father had gone to the local CG station on July 2nd, then surely their knowledge of AE being down would have amazed the CG authorities there when they later got the word from CGHQ, and would have followed up with some sort of a report or inquiry.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

We don't know what the Coast Guard told Betty's father.  She wasn't there. We do know that he was very upset when he came home.  On any day BUT July 2nd the Coast Guard in St. Pete (like anyone who read the newspaper) should have known that alleged distress calls from Earhart were being received.  On any day BUT July 2nd you would think they would have at least taken down his name and passed along the report as did other Coast Guard stations who were contacted by amateurs.  It's on July 2nd that it seems most likely that a report by some nut who said he heard Amelia Earhart calling for help would be totally ignored.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:59:32 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Paige Miller wrote:

> Your conclusion that Betty heard the transmission on July 2 is based
> upon two pieces of evidence, that seem somewhat shaky to me. (Or, was
> there a 3rd piece of evidence that leads to the July 2 conclusion that I
> have missed?)

I thought there was a reference to Betty coming home from school.

I may be mistaken.

LTM.
Marty #2359
************************************************************************
From Ric

Betty doesn't remember for sure where she was coming home from.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:09:37 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

I just watched the "Betty" tape the other night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I suppose it's just the world we live in  of skepticism and disbelief that prompts people to want to NOT believe Betty's story. I do believe she heard AE and I don't believe she could have faked her display of emotions at the end of the tape. What agenda could an old woman have other than to tell the truth? I was very impressed that she gave careful consideration to every question asked of her and when she didn't have an answer she said so. I thought the questions asked of her were thorough and fair and I was impressed that the approach to the interview was done with respect and dignity that I think she deserves. I was proud of the way Ric & Pat treated Betty. Keep up the good work.
LTM,
Mike Haddock #2438
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:11:21 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Noonan's head injury

Regarding Fred's alleged head injury - my own personal experience with a head injury might provide some insight - remembering of course that all head injuries are different in severity, duration and the part(s) of the brain that are affected.

In 1970, 2 months after I finished Army jump school, I fell off a roof and fractured my skull. I do not remember the incident. I "woke up" in the hospital the next day. I remember short time periods for the following week. The event happened on a Tuesday night around midnight. After that, only short snatches of "alertness" came to me even tho my friends and family said that I was speaking and moving around. Mostly, I was busy fighting "gooks" and other inane activities. The doctor's told my parents that "if" I lived, I'd probably experience problems all my life. The following Monday I awoke in a private bed. The tv was on a soap opera (and I HATE soap operas). A nurse was doing a few things in the room, then she left. I couldn't find a control for the tv, so I got up, climbed up on a chair (the tv was on a wall mounted platform) and changed the channel. Later, the nurse came back and asked me who changed the channel. I said that I had. She looked at  me with disbelief. I told her that I had got out of bed, climbed up on the chair and changed the channel. She shrieked and ran out of the room. Within a few minutes she returned with the doctor who examined me further. I left the hospital on Friday - a week and a half after the injury. It was an 8" fracture from the top center to the base of the skull. I also had an inner ear injury that made walking feel like I was on the deck of a ship in a moderate sea. That lasted for almost a month. I kept going back to the doctor for followups and he was always amazed at my coordination. In fact, on ROTC skill tests, I had improved coordination after the injury. My ability to throw and hit a target improved dramatically (I refer to the grenade toss - I could hit the barrel 8 out of 10 times compared to 4 out of 10 prior to the injury).

How this relates to FN is any injury he incurred could have ended similarly to mine, with a full recovery in time - tho I don't know how extensive his was. Also, I don't know what, if any, treatment I received. I do remember waking up once after I was transferred to a hospital here in Houston (I was in Nacogdoches - in east Texas, about 2 hours from Houston). Anyway, I woke up and it was like they were hitting me with some kind of electrical stimulation and I was vibrating all over the place or like my head was on a vibrator or something! Maybe it was an ekg or even a probe into my brain, no one ever explained any of it to me. It might even have been a defribulator! Anyway, that was my experience with a head injury. I've seen a lot of others that happened to friends and acquaintances and thank my luck stars - G, O, & D everyday that I had such a full and miraculous recovery from. I've seen way too many who had permanent memory or physical impairments following even milder injuries than I suffered. One friend even lost their son - a year older than ours, from an injury incurred at a church summer day camp.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:13:19 EST
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

As usual, I am confused.  What is the problem with a July 2, 1937 date; is this an international dateline issue?  When did Itasca, or any other entity, first report AE missing?  Wouldn't the CG make a general broadcast of this info to all stations?  I would assume the CG would know before the general public.  If the CG knew and the general public did not, wouldn't this validate Betty's recollection; how could she "make up" something the public was not generally aware of?  Even if the local CG station wasn't "in the loop" wouldn't this tend to validate it still further.  AE is down, Itasca knows or presumes missing, public doesn't know, local CG doesn't know, How does Betty make any of this up?  What is the timing relationship to other "messages"?  Do any of them precede the window of her going into the drink or landing in relation to running out of fuel or are they all after; after CG knowledge; after public knowledge?  As Mr. Gillespie notes, Betty's father was upset--because the CG didn't know, or knew, and didn't believe report.  If Betty heard, told father, father told CG before CG or general public knew, she must have had an incredible imagination to make it all up. By the way, if I were Betty at her age, and I made it all up, I would be one scared puppy when dad went next door and then to the local CG station to make inquiries and report; I never liked the back of the woodshed and I think I would have confessed long before it got that far out of hand.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:14:29 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

Gary LaPook wrote:

> Please explain how you reach you conclusions and include the
> math.
>
> If you have a scanner available I would appreciate it if you
> could scan in the chart work you do to figure out this example
> and email it to me at : glapook@pacbell.net since I would like to
> see how you accomplish this.

Apparently you have far more free time than I do. You figure it out. It doesn't matter what the bloody sun does. Certainly you know how to ascertain a position. Somehow I think Noonan could also.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:15:11 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

> I see the figure of 130kt IAS was recommended as a cruising speed @

Angus, AE's recommended TAS was 130 knots or 150 mph.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:18:20 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

Gary LaPook wrote:

> It is now 2240 Z on July 2,1937, about two and a half hours after
> the last transmission, and the airplane has been maintaining a
> true heading of 157 degrees and an airspeed of 120 knots and so
> should be getting close to Gardner. Noonan uses his bubble
> sextant and measures the altitude of the center of the sun. After
> making corrections for refraction and index error his observed
> altitude (Ho) is 59 degrees 15 minutes.
>
> Where is he in relation to the line he had drawn on the chart?

Southwest of the line at 2 54S 175 59 24

> Is the plane still on the LOP drawn on the chart?

No

> If the plane is not on the line on the chart then how far off the
> LOP is the airplane?

He is on 170.143 deg from Howland, 224.22 nm away. Gardner bears 140.3 degrees 137.13 nm away. He is 13.143 degrees off course to the southwest 50.98 miles from the LOP.

> Is the plane still on course for Gardner?

No.

> If it is not on the line to Gardner then which way should he turn
> to get to Gardner?

True course required is 140.3 degrees. Wind to date is from 190.3 deg at 21 knots to need a magnetic heading of 166 deg from true position of Howland so new magnetic heading is 140 deg and he will arrive in 1hr 16min 19sec.

> Please explain how you reach you conclusions and include the
> math.

Inspiration, skill, charm, good looks, spherical trig, and Sodano's method. I can't give the math because I did it on my abacus. How'd I do?

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:19:02 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP - Correction

Thought that didn't look right!! I added magnetic variation to True instead of subtracting it! (Maybe that's what Fred did). That abacus always was useless.

True course required is 140.4 degrees. Wind to date is from 58 deg at 27. knots to need a true heading of 157 deg from true position of Howland so new true heading is 127.6 deg and he will arrive in 1hr 15 21 sec. at 23 55 21 Z.

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:19:24 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

I stated the problems of trying to compare the windshields of both aircraft, The wreck Photo could be the Ki54, I have a problem with the wreck photo being AE's aircraft for a number of reasons that I have already stated earlier on the forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:20:35 EST
From:         Larry Turner
Subject:      Noonan's head injury

Ric wrote:

>People who may act in an irrational manner
>shortly after a blow to the head often recover within a few hours.

I agree with Ric, but the opposite is also true.

People can suffer major head injury that do not show any symptoms for minutes, hours or in some cases days after the injury has accrued. It would be possible for FN to suffer an injury on July 2nd and not act in an irrational manner till the 3rd or 4th.of July.

LTM: ( 32 yrs Fire Service:  Rescue Squad,EMT, Fire Chief)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:21:13 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Underwater search

As I understand it, there are likely significant metallic remains of AE's 10E in the water around Niku. It is also likely that there is evidence of her presence on the atoll itself; on land. Searching on land is easier than searching under water, but it seems to me that the underwater targets could very well be larger and more readily identifiable. I am by no means an authority in this field, and I have visited the island exactly zero times, but it seems to me that a focus on finding underwater remains has the potential to be much more productive than a land search. Am I right about this? Will the next Niku trip involve a significant underwater search effort?

LTM,
Alfred
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:21:54 EST
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Oscar's report

Some forum members seem to think fuel conservation DOESN'T become an issue until AE & FN realize that Howland wasn't where Noonan thought the airplane was. This is the same kind of thinking that AE & FN didn't know the DF Loop was NOT working until they thought they had gotten right over Howland, not that they should have been picking up Howland signals 100+ miles out. This is an example of flying behind the power curve. Why bother with flight planning?

I think Oscar has made it clear that the Cambridge analyzer played a key role in the flight. So much so that KJ didn't think that long range flight should be attempted without it. AE&FN spent a couple of days in Bandoeng to get the analyzer fixed.

Airspeed is not the key factor here. There is NO connecting flight that has to be made at Howland for the passengers.

Noonan was keeping track of the fuel burn as the flight progressed. "The point of no return" is still an important as an option to keep in mind. That fuel burn was affected by the winds they encountered, NOT the forecast winds.

At take-off they had yesterdays weather with them. Lae to Ontario ESE 12-15 , Ontario to east 175 ENE 18, east 175 to Howland ENE 15.

AFTER take-off Lae received;...to Ontario ESE 25 kts,...to Howland E to ENE 20 kts.

Balfour recorded one message from KHAQQ with the wind at 5:18 pm (07:18 GMT). Noonan reported the wind at 23 kts. This was at Nukumanu island, a geographical reference point, where he could use the fix for an accurate wind calculation. This was also the last geographical fix before sunset. This report leaves 11 hours left to fly (in an 18 hour flight plan) to Howland. Oscar has stated (that KJ had stated with a headwind....) that to conserve fuel one must start to do that 12 to 14 hours left in the flight .

Note that Noonan's calculated wind speed was very close to the forecast of 25 kts that Lae got after take-off. It doesn't matter if they received the forwarded forecast from Balfour or not.

I have seen where a 25 knot wind speed was where wind terminology changes from Moderate to Heavy winds.

The evidence shows that Noonan knew,  fairly accurately (23 kts), at a point in the flight (11 hours left to Howland) where AE could have leaned to .70 Cambridge to squeeze the fuel range out of what they had left in the tanks. It was a red flag because they departed with a hard copy forecast of winds at 12 to 15kts. The winds they were encountering were about 10 kts faster than the forecast. All of the wind forecasts have an Easterly wind component.

It's the same kind of continuous fuel consumption monitoring (calculations) that led to AE's "half hour of fuel" transmission. The general belief was that this was a fuel exhaustion point, it wasn't. It was where "plan B" had to commence. That was why there was no mayday call.

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:22:35 EST
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Was it July 2?

To Paige Miller, and such others as are concerned, a few indications that Betty's notebook, if a record of actual AE transmissions, was recorded on July 2:

1.  The concern about high water and the subsequent abandonment of the cockpit strikes me as a first "high tide" event.  We KNOW the Electra had to have ceased flight sometime around or before 1200 on July 2 - if the Electra had already been evacuated, and later re-occupied, I would expect they would have an idea of the next high tide time, and could plan an orderly retreat.

2.  The "slightly kooky" behavior of the supposed Fred.  Unless he really DID get hit on the head by a coconut, the landing remains the most probable source of a head injury, which he should be over by the time of a later high tide.

3.  If this ISN'T an immediate post-loss set of messages, why is Fred even in the plane, coherent or not?  Presuming he and his instruments were evacuated in good order, only one is needed to work the radio - he could just as well scribbled down any information he had on scrap paper, and waited for her under a palm tree, (after checking for coconuts in immediate danger of falling...)

4.  If this ISN'T an immediate post-loss situation, Fred not only should be sober, recovered from his "noggin-bump", AND figured out where they are by now.  He's had at least eleven hours, and more probably twenty four, to shoot stars and sun lines, without being in a moving airplane, shooting through a window, yadda, yadda, yadda.  He should have a good lat/long by now, if not the name of the island, scribbled on the back of an old chart or page out of his astronomical almanac, for Amelia to broadcast, and that SHOULD be the most important thing to repeat over and over, given limited transmit time, NOT some nonsense about a suitcase or whatever.

5.  July 4 being a holiday, and July 2 being Friday, even if Betty's dad habitually worked on Saturday, IF he had a Saturday off, the third would likely be one, out of desire of  himself, or his weekend employer, to take a long weekend.

Now a question:  do the tidal hindcasts for Gardner show any significantly higher tide than usual from July 2 through July 5?

LTM  (who's never gone missing after an airplane flight - but her luggage has...)

Rich
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:23:09 EST
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Oscar's report --- correction

Sorry, correction to RE Oscar's report. Should read 10 to 14 hours..

>Chart on page 7 of Report 487 recommends 200 hp settings for the
>last 10 to 14 hours of the flight,  

Not 12 to 14 .

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:08:35 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ric wrote:

>The transmissions we're aware of went
> on, albeit sporadically, for only an hour and three-quarters.  The notebook
> is pretty clear about that.  What's your source?

Regarding your question on source,  I was responding generally to Alan Caldwell's comment that 1000 was not high noon by reminding him that what Betty heard went on for some time into or towards the noon hour (1145).  Actually, as I type this I am struck that maybe the most accurate term to use in this regard is "receptions", not "transmissions".  The difference is not just semantic as I don't recall that there is anything to indicate that what Betty tuned in on wasn't already a work in progress and that Earhart's transmissions could have started earlier.  If so, that further pushes back the time that the plane would've arrived on Gardner on July 2 if you consider the date of the notebook receptions July 2, with 1000 being simply the time that Betty tuned into something ongoing.

While we're talking about precision, since we know the distance from Howland/Itasca to Gardner, you really should run the numbers and calculate the plane's distance from Gardner at 0843 (last confirmed message from plane in air) assuming a no-earlier-than arrival time at Gardner of about 1000, at which time Earhart starts transmitting and Betty starts hearing  (see Betty's notebook---assuming 4:30 in St Pete is 1000 a.m. at Gardner, which I haven't heard anyone dispute thus far).  For the speed of the plane I would run separate calculations based on the lowest, highest and a midpoint of the suggested speeds which have appeared on the Forum and the website.  This avoids stacking the exercise.  Those distances then need to be subtracted from the total distance, Howland/Itasca to Gardner, giving you the distance from transmission point (plane) to reception point (Itasca) at 0843 given each different plane speed. Then the radio experts need to consider, at each distance,  whether it is likely that the 0843 transmission would have been heard had the plane actually been at these distances from Howland/Itasca.  They need to mindful of what they have already said about radio range  (see "The Radio Riddle"), and I repeat my earlier observation that I think Bob Brandenburg told me that natural phenomenon would cause the range of Earhart's equipment "reach" to decrease as the morning progressed, so any one-to-one comparisons with transmissions from the plane earlier that morning may be inaccurate.  The bottom line is that I think you may find that the notebook is most likely not a record of a July 2nd reception from the plane.  That's important, because we're stuck with a 1000 start time regardless of day, and 1145 a.m. "end" time,  even if the receptions were heard by Betty on a subsequent date.   We discussed what that could mean yesterday.

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:10:07 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Noonan's head injury

Larry turner wrote:

>People can suffer major head injury that do not show any symptoms for
>minutes, hours or in some cases days after the injury has accrued.

Quite true, particularly with subdural hematomas.

Daniel Postellon MD
TIGHAR#2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:05:37 EST
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia?

Ric's comments to Ron Bright are in quotes, followed by my response.
(From Ric: And to save bandwidth my comments are in parentheses.)

"'Imminent danger of sinking or swamping' are your words, not Betty's, and not the notebook's. In fact, the only mention of water is "waters knee deep - let me out" on the third page. "Knee deep over" on the fifth and final page is logically also a reference to water."

PDG cmments:  Ron's interpretation of the scenario depicted in the notebook is perfectly valid.  FN is desperate to get out of the cabin.  The water (somewhere) is knee-deep.  AE sez "We can't bail out," implying that they are trapped for some reason.  The entire transcript portrays two panic-stricken people who have been reduced to virtual incoherence (no mention of "KHAQQ," "Itasca," "shipwreck," etc.)  If this does not suggest "imminent danger" I don't know what does.

(From Ric; My argument was with the "sinking or swamping".)

"Where is the water knee deep? In the cockpit? Not if the radio is working."

PDG comments:  True, and if FN's remarks are interpreted to mean the water is knee-deep IN HERE (rather than OUT THERE), virtual proof that the transmission was a hoax.  [I personally believe that FN"s alleged remarks were intended to refer to interior rather than exterior water depth, as I cannot see how knee-deep water outside the aircraft would prevent two desperate people from "bailing out."  TIGHAR has previously opined that perhaps they were worried about sharks.  I am 5'10" and the distance from the soles of my shoes to my knees is 17 inches.  Knowing nothing about Niku, 100 yards from dry land and in dire straits, I think I would take my chances with any shark that can navigate in that much water.  But it's just my opinion and not germane to Ron's analysis.]

(From Ric:  Isn't it just as likely that "We can't bail out." means "We can't abandon the aircraft.  We have to keep calling for help." ?)

"In the aft cabin? Not on July 2nd. It didn't get that deep even at high tide until July 5th. It seems most likely that the reference is to the water depth on the reef."

PDG comments:  Except the water wasn't that deep at 10 am July 2 on the Gardner reef, nor for some hours thereafter.  Which is precisely Ron's point.

(From Ric: So we all agree that knee deep doesn't refer to water in the cabin.)

"Is it really knee deep or does the panicky person quoted in the notebook merely think it's knee deep? They've landed on the dry reef but very soon it becomes apparent that the tide is coming in. Water is washing around the airplane. Can you say that it's not possible that someone looking down from the cockpit might misjudge or exaggerate the water depth? Having never been here before, they have no way of knowing what to expect."

PDG comments:  It is not impossible that Betty heard Earhart.  It is not impossible to misjudge water depth.  It is not impossible that alien beings reside on this planet and appear regularly on the Jerry Springer show.  But in analyzing Betty's Notebook we have to consider probabilities as well as raw possibilities.  Yes, in my experience I can tell water that's a few inches deep vs. knee-deep by, inter alia, watching the way the waves break against rocks and other objects (like the NC wreckage).  Why would you not get out on the wing and see how far the water covered the tires?

(From Ric:  I haven't looked at the water on the reef from the cockpit of a Lockheed 10 but I've looked at it from a similar height, standing on the wreckage of Norwich City, and it's not easy to judge the depth once it gets to be more than an inch or so.  For one thing, the tide doesn't rise like water in a bathtub.  It washes across the reef in gradually increasing wavelets.  When there is technically an inch of water on the reef there may be as much as three or four inches as wavelets wash past.  There are no rocks to watch the waves break across and you can only see them break on Norwich City if you're close enough.  To get out on the wing you, of course, have to exit the aircraft.  There are only two ways to do that - through the cabin door or through the cockpit hatch.  For whatever reasons, Noonan has quite obviously been unable to do that.  That's what he's on about and that's what Amelia is resisting.  If the cabin door was usable he wouldn't need to argue with AE.  He could just leave.  So it appears that the cabin door was not usable.  The simplest explanation would seem to be that the left main gear has collapsed, dropping the aircraft on its port side.  That would block the cabin door from opening.  To exit through the cockpit hatch onto the wing you have to stand on the pilot's seat, but that's where AE sits.

I recently had the opportunity to sit in the left seat of the New England Air Museum's Lockheed 10.  I tried to imagine what it would be like if somebody was trying to get out through the cockpit hatch and I was trying to stop them.  Betty's notebook became even more believable to me.

"Also, as we've said, we feel confident that our tide estimates are in the ballpark but we can't say we have the water level nailed to the minute and to the inch. Dismissing July 2nd as the date of Betty's reception based upon 'waters knee deep' doesn't wash."

PDG comments:  It seems to me that TIGHAR's theory can be reconciled with Betty's notebook only if the Gardner reef flat in the vicinity of the NC was dry, or nearly so, at 2130 GMT on July 2, 1937.  About forty minutes later (5:10 pm Betty Time or 2210 GMT) we have FN complaining of knee-deep water.

(From Ric:  Our calculations show the reef dry at 21:30Z.  By 22:10 there should have been about 2 inches of standing water if the water was standing - but it wasn't.  It probably wasn't "knee deep" either but I don't think that's a disqualifier under the circumstances.

"I don't understand why you think they could not have left the airplane and returned on the 3rd and/or the 4th. They certainly could have. However,I personally think that it's more likely that, having experienced the extreme heat in the plane during the daytime, they would return to use the radio only at night - another argument for the Betty transmissions having been heard on July 2nd."

PDG comments:  Sure they could have returned to the airplane on July 3 or 4, but by that time they would (presumably) have become a little more familiar with tidal conditions on Niku.  Would they stay in the plane long enough to let themselves get trapped?  Again one must consider the desperate, panic-stricken situation depicted in the Notebook.  I do not understand how using the radio at night argues in favor of the theory that Betty heard AE on the morning of July 2, Gardner time.

(From Ric:  Start with the indisputable fact that to be in the cockpit of that airplane on that reef any time between about 9 a.m. and 6 p.m would be almost unbearable.  Temperatures, even with the hatch and side windows open, would probably exceed 100 degree F.  Consider that,  except for another shortwave listener, (Nina Paxton, who heard her reception just before 8 a.m. Gardner Time on the morning of July 3rd) Betty's is the ONLY reported reception of more than 100 that occurs during daylight hours at Gardner. )

"I don't know how far the plane could be from Itasca and still be heard at Strength 5. Do you? I don't know the speed of the plane as it flew southeastward on the LOP, if that's what it did. Do you? There have been many opinions expressed but, as far as I know, that's what they are - opinions."

PDG comments:  Correct.  To paraphrase Alan C., we cannot know anything because we weren't there.  But if the Niku Hypothesis is to be reconciled with Betty's Notebook, then AE had to be a LOT farther south at 2013 GMT than previously believed in order to land on Niku by 2130.  The S5 notation suggests (nothing more) that this was not the case, but as Ron has said, that's a question for the Radio Rangers.

"I think Betty heard Amelia, but I can't prove it. You certainly haven't disproved it and I find your reasons unconvincing."

PDG comments:  Ron did not rule out the possibility that Betty heard AE -- only that Betty heard AE from the Gardner reef flat.  I find his arguments in that respect quite convincing.

(From Ric:  That's your prerogative.)

Okay, now to come out of the closet (without my suitcase) and give my own opinion:  Considering the totality of Betty's transcription, I think it was intended to portray an aircraft that is slowly filling with water and about to slip beneath the waves. I'll call it the "floating deathtrap" scenario. This is consistent with the references to knee-deep water, "We can't bail out" (because where you gonna go?) and the general atmosphere of panic depicted.  It's also what I would expect of hoaxsters who, for their own sick reasons, might be tempted to imagine Our Heroes' final moments.  They could not be expected to know that the Electra could not transmit in that situation.

(From Ric:  If you were scripting a hoax that had the airplane gradually filling with water and about to slip beneath the waves, would you make two references to "knee deep" about an hour apart?)

Was a hoax possible?  It's close.  Apparentely the first official "AE is missing" communique went from Itasca to Honolulu at about 4:45 pm Betty Time, and presumably was picked up immediately by the local media.  But Itasca also was transmitting the dispatches of newsmen Hanzlick and Carey, and these could have gone out earlier.

(From Ric:  But they didn't.  Their reports are in the Itasca radio log. Neither of them reported anything until much later that day.)

In any event I agree that nobody will ever be able to prove from the Notebook that Betty did or didn't heard Amelia Earhart.  But based upon Betty's own time notations and TIGHAR's tidal data, the chances that she heard Earhart *transmitting from the Gardner reef flat* are, IMHO, remote.

LTM
Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:28:57 EST
From:         Betty Brown
Subject:      Betty's corrections

From Ric

Betty has asked me to pass along a few corrections.
**************************************************
Several things are screwed up, in the emails. I never went to Washington DC. I called a man there, and he never got back to me ....Maybe he never got my message.

Dad was a Sign painter not a painter or handy man.......He loved to do that, and it was a Sat. job he loved to go to.  Lots of times took me to the shop and I learned a lot....So when I say he came home from work it could be Sat..Mon...to Fri....I was alone when I first heard Amelia and my Mom and Sister came in shortly before Dad .

Hope the emailers realize I know things get turned around the more people talk about it, but I am glad at least they are interested to try and figure all this out....To the ones that do study and reaize I heard her  I DID... THAT WAS NO PLAY !!!! Betty
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:29:45 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Alan Caldwell writes:

> Angus Murray wrote:
>
> > I see the figure of 130kt IAS was recommended as a cruising speed @
>
> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Angus, AE's recommended TAS was 130 knots or 150 mph.

Thanks Alan,

I thought after I had sent it that it was probably meant to be TAS. I got that figure off the archive forum postings, posted by Randy as IAS and the post anwered by Ric. Evidently no-one noticed the error.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:30:32 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

For Mike M.

San Francisco Coast Guard was notified by the Itasca that AE was overdue at 1:45 p.m, Pacific Standard Time, on 2 July. According to TIGHAR, "we must presume that the news immediately went out...Hoaxes are theorectically possible from this time on."  Thus anyone from the West Coast for the next few hours could be sending out hoax messages.
R. Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:46:48 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia?

When you stop to think about it we are actually pretty fortunate concerning this inquiry, as we can test it scientifically:  Since Betty's notebook gives us a time the plane would've been down, and since we know the plane was last heard from in the air at 0843, and since we know the distance from Howland/Itasca to Gardner, and since we have from the Forum, website and Oscar's good work a range of speeds that the Electra was probably flying at,  we should be able to calculate where the plane was at the 0843 transmission, given an arrival at Gardner at 1000 on July 2nd at the very latest at these various speeds---in other words we assume Betty started hearing Earhart immediately after Earhart landed and didn't receive a transmission already in progress (if it WAS already in progress, that pushesthe landing time back closer to 0843, which puts the plane that much farther from Howland/Itasca at 0843).  Then, the radio experts need to opine as to whether it is likely that the plane would have been heard by Itasca at 0843 at all,  and at "strength 5", assuming that by strength 5 is simply meant that the person hearing the signal felt it was  a strong signal.  For some reason Ric feels that this was a July 2 transmission.  We can test that by running the calculation suggested.

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We can't prove or disprove it by running the calculations but we can determine what factors would have to be the case in order for the airplane to arrive at Gardner by 10:00 a.m. What you're going to end up with is something like:

Either the plane was XXX miles south of Howland flying at XX airspeed with X wind influencing its groundspeed or it was XX miles south of Howland flying at XXX airspeed with XX wind influencing its groundspeed.

If all of the possible scenarios turn out to be outrageous enough you can be pretty certain that none of them happened, but I'll predict that it's not going to turn out that way.  I think you'll find that a 10:00 a.m. arrival is within the range of reasonable possibilities.  Should be an interesting exercise, but the key will be in setting the parameters of possible airspeeds, windspeeds and directions, groundspeeds, and radio reception ranges.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:47:33 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia?

Pretty interesting Pat (Gaston) but you and Ron have far greater imaginations than I do. I just look at what's there and leave the play writing to Carol. She does a better job than I could.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:48:55 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Chris Kennedy wrote:

> I don't recall that there is anything to indicate that what Betty tuned in on
> wasn't already a work in progress and that Earhart's transmissions could have
> started earlier.

Pretty good point to consider, Chris. As to doing all those computations I'm not convinced we have adequate input data to make it worth while. There are some good indications AE WAS south of Howland at least at one point. We could put the plane sufficently south to reach Gardner at most any time we want. Using the radio strengths to validate that is an exercise in futility I believe. One could get a strong or weak signal from various positions without it directly relating to distance at all times.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:59:08 EST
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia?

Ric wrote:

> Start with the indisputable fact that to be in the cockpit of
> that airplane on that reef any time between about 9 a.m. and 6 p.m would be
> almost unbearable.  Temperatures, even with the hatch and side windows open,
> would probably exceed 100 degree F.

If that is so (that is, AE & FN wouldn't be in the ditched/landed plane during daylight hours because of the intense heat), then Betty's reception on ANY day must be false because she allegedly heard it during what would have been daylight hours (10:00 a.m. To about 11:45 a.m.) on Gardner. QED.

David Katz
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Not so.  They land on the reef at about 10:00 a.m. and immediately begin (or more likely continue) to call for help.  Noonan has been injured in the landing (left main gear collapse, blocking the cabin door?) and is acting irrationally and wants to get out.  The temperature in the cockpit gradually rises to almost unbearable levels which adds to the stress and contributes to the chaotic situation portrayed inthe notebook.  By 11:45 even Amelia has had all she can take.  The tide is coming in and they don't know how high it will get. She reluctantly agrees to leave the airplane and the transmissions stop.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:01:09 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia?

I've been wondering if perhaps the radio messages might have been from a sinking boat, if it's not *that* airplane.    Radios on a small boat would have been rare in 1937; the operator might have been a ham. Were any boats lost that weekend, and did any have radios?

Mike H.
**************************************************************
From Ric

Betty specifically heard the woman identify herself as Amelia Earhart.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:01:58 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

I've been wondering about this myself... A line drawn on a chart is a line drawn on a chart and it won't vary with time... To my understanding, the LOP was drawn at sunrise on 7/2/37 and stayed where it was... Gary's knowledge is substantial and broad, but I'm wondering why he's speculating on this and suggesting that the LOP would vary with time... A "quasi-experienced" navigator would know this already....

LTM (whose ignorance of navigation would astound Vasco de Gama),
Dave
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:03:29 EST
From:         Adam
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook -- Was It Amelia?

One more argument for July 2:  The 90-minutes-plus length of the transmission.  All of the other post-loss messages that have been posted are short, and wasn't there a danger of running down a battery?  If the message is authentic, it's hard to imagine AE and FN broadcasting staying on for that length of time days after the crash after having broadcast short messages before, but very easy to imagine them doing so right after they first land.

With respect to one of the most frequently cited arguments against the notebook -- AE never using the words "KHAQQ" -- we don't know that she didn't.  The transcription is fragmentary; the letter "Q" appears in one part, and though it's a stretch, "MJ3B" has a few phoenetic similarities to KHAQQ.  "KHAQQ" is another unfamiliar phrase which, heard over a bad radio transmission by a 15 year-old girl, would likely be interpreted as something else, assuming it was heard at all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:05:37 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

The official message traffic from the Coast Guard did not indicate any notification to other Coast Guard Stations, other than Hawaii, San Francisco, and Headquarters in Washington, DC.  If there was any release of information, it would have come from newsmen and/or Putnam.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:04:45 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Underwater search

For Alfred Hendrickson

Alfred, since I'm sure Ric is tired of answering this one, let me respond to your query about underwater vs. on-land search.

The troubles with the underwater search are the following (at least):

1. The reef face on which wreckage may be distributed slopes down fairly steeply for a couple of thousand meters.

2. It's a coral reef, with complex topography -- lots of places for stuff to hide.

3. The plane must be busted up into little pieces, hard to find.

4. The only big pieces are likely to be the engines, which themselves wouldn't be THAT big and would pretty readily mimic coral heads.

5. The pieces would be distributed in more or less the same area as the remains of the Norwich City, the huge steel-hulled wreck that's distributed ferrous pieces all over the reef face, making magnetic detection pretty difficult.

6. Even if the engines went fairly straight down the reef face, there'd still be a pretty wide area of reef to search.

7. Any serious (i.e. deep, using sensing technology) exploration of the reef would be real expensive.

Coincidentally, I spent the last week consulting intensively on another project with an engineer who specializes in deep water exploration and recovery of stuff, using ROVs, subbottom profilers, magnetometers, side-scan sonar, etc., so I asked him what he'd use to locate something the size and nature of a radial aircraft engine on a coral reef like the one at Niku.  He raised an eyebrow (he's British) and dryly said:

"A very great deal of luck."

LTM
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:22:27 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia?

This doesn't seem to be something beyond our collective abilities.  Consider, (taking it from the top......)

--You could start with the distance from Howland/Itasca to Gardner (the islands haven't moved).

--We know the last known transmission in the air was at 0843.  Assuming Betty didn't receive a transmission that started earlier than 1000 (or that the start time of her listening isn't closer to her original memory of about 3 p.m. Florida time), then we're talking about 1 hour 17 minutes of flying time between 0843 and 1000.

--As to speed, I have heard estimates of 110 mph to 150mph. I would run a calculation at 110, 130 (midpoint) and 150 mph.

--Actually, Bob Brandenburg may already have done much of this work in his "The Radio Riddle" which concerned range and movement of the plane over time down the LOP---after all, wasn't one of the main questions The Radio Riddle was trying to solve the reason why nothing was heard from the plane after 0843?   So, if his work has any validity shouldn't he have already considered many, if not all, of the parameters and the "XX" and "XXX" factors Ric mentions?  I am not sure if he adjusted his work in The Radio Riddle for what I remember him telling me---that is, that as the morning progressed transmission range of Earhart's equipment to Itasca would decrease.  So, he might have to consider this. But, since he is aware this would occur he may know how to adjust for it.

Something to consider is that I think lots of people may be thinking that if Betty actually heard Earhart, then she was therefore hearing Earhart from Gardner. So, there might be some concern that if the foregoing exercise shows that the plane probably could not have been heard from at 0843 if it arrived on Gardner at 1000 on July 2, then Betty, perforce,  could NOT have heard Earhart (the argument being that subsequent days for the receptions comming from Gardner are out based upon both the substance of the receptions and the fact that they would have been broadcast from the reef at 1000 to 1145 a.m., a time we are stuck with from the notebook.  I would add to this that Earhart/Noonan may have recovered their wits a bit by then, thus Earhart would be giving better clues as to position than Ric's Mcguffin Lae--Howland "midpoint", which is essentially useless to someone looking for you).  Of course that might be the case, but it could also be the case that Betty did hear Earhart, but from somewhere else than Gardner.  I am not saying that I believe that, but don't automatically think that it's an all or nothing proposition.  So, perhaps Betty did hear Earhart, but from somewhere else. Seems like an exercise worth pursuing.

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:23:58 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      Betty's Radio
From Eric

Last year, I wrote to Dr. Harold N. Cones, the co-author of ZENITH RADIO: THE EARLY YEARS 1919-1935 and THE ZENITH TRANS-OCEANIC.  Since Dr. Cones has access to the Zenith corporate archives, I was curious to learn if company sales records still existed which could help to verify that Betty's family did, in fact, own a Zenith 1000Z Stratosphere radio.   Here is his reply:

"There are no company records of individual sales for any model  --  that kind of information was discarded years ago.  A dealer would, of course, have the information if he was alive and the business still in operation.  I sure wish I could be helpful with this project  -- it sounds great  --  but I am afraid I have to report that there are no records.   The Strat did have a fantastic front end and was red hot on short wave, so it could have heard a weak distress call.  Took a look at the web site [TIGHAR's site with info on Betty's notebook] very professional."

I plan to check back with Dr. Cones to see if anyone has compiled a census of surviving 1000Z Strats.  (This was not the sort of radio you hauled off to the dump when you were tired of it.)  If such a census does exist and if one of these surviving 1000Zs can be traced back to having come from St. Petersburg, there is a good chance that it might be Betty's radio.

 And, the owner might even have some of the set's original documentation such as the manual, original bill of sale, etc., or have some background information on its previous owners.  Stay tuned for further developments.

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. =========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:29:42 EST
From:         James Burnett
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ron Bright wrote:

>San Francisco Coast Guard was notified by the Itasca that AE was overdue
>at 1:45 p.m, Pacific Standard Time, on 2 July. According to TIGHAR, "we
>must presume that the news immediately went out...Hoaxes are
>theorectically possible from this time on."  Thus anyone from the West
>Coast for the next few hours could be sending out hoax messages.

Fair enough, Ron -- and please note, everyone, I'm not an advocate of what the notebook does or does not prove. I don't think they prove anything with respect to any forced landing situs. I'm addressing solely the hoax issue in this e-mail.

You have a valid point. If Itasca notified S.F. at 1345 (1645 in Florida), then someone in Florida claiming to have heard Earhart between 1400 and 1500 Florida time could be fabricating the event.

But, what is the motive? Publicity? For decades, apparently, she sought no publicity over the matter. The goal of any hoax is to gain notoriety; one cannot gain notoriety by concealing one's hoax. 

I agree with you on the temporal factor. There is the possibility the notes were contrived. But I'm still waiting to read a logical explanation, from anyone, as to why she would have fabricated the story in the first place--and then neglected to publicize it for tens of years.

James J. Burnett
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Ron was not suggesting that Betty perpetrated a hoax.  He says "Thus anyone from the West Coast for the next few hours could be sending out hoax messages."

I'd like to hear how such a hoaxer might contrive to have their hoax transmission heard on the opposite side of the continent and apparently on only one radio.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:31:33 EST
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Okay, several hours, beginning in the early afternoon, after a missing report, not a crashed and sunk report, to 1) develop a hoax; and 2) begin broadcasting on bands that could be picked up by commercial stations/receivers.  In 1937, I presume most kids would have been in school and those that weren't probably wouldn't have the resources to broadcast.  I also assume most adults would have been at work.  It has always seemed to me that these type of hoax's take several days to "cook up" and begin distribution, not several hours.  In any event, this analysis would assume that Betty heard something, i.e. the hoax.  The second alternative, that Betty made it all up, doesn't fly, she wouldn't know.  The only other alternative is that Betty heard AE.  Have there been any published studies of "hoaxers" and the course of such hoaxes relating to missing persons, children, accidents etc. where somebody has studied how and when they are carried out any by whom--sort of a profilers analysis?

**************************************************
From Ric

Good question.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:35:59 EST
From:         James Burnett
Subject:      Re: Underwater search

My father was a petrochemical engineer. He designed many of the offshore rigs that are still in service today in the Gulf of Mexico, and even a few in the North Sea. The Gulf is an interesting section of ocean. It's essentially an immense crater and may be the place where the dinosaur-killer came down, if you subscribe to that astonomical event. It is also a heavily traveled body of water, both by ships and aircraft. In the course of building and servicing those rigs, the oil companies and their contractors carried out quite an impressive history of undersea exploration themselves, which true oceanic explorers like Dr. Ballard at Woods Hole have used in their own studies.

Those surveys show some very interesting things about debris fields. What they show more than anything else is that there's absolutely no pattern to them. Two similar vessels can go down in the same area and yet their debris fields will bear no similarity to one another. Now, that's with maritime vessels which, while they may sink quickly (or even be blown apart, as in the case of tankers torpedoed by U-boats in the Second World War), they transit from above the water to on the ocean floor much more slowly than aircraft. Ships are BIG, too, and sturdier on impact.

Look at the wreckage of RMS Titanic. It extends for miles, and yet it's really two debris fields. The stern section plummeted almost straight down, crashed into the ocean floor, and turned into a gargantuan steel version of a flattened accordion. The bow section "sailed" off prow-first and planed into the sea bed relatively gently. The stern section's crash-landing scattered debris in a roughly circular field; the bow section dribbled debris as it sailed down and then scattered debris in a longer, narrower pattern.

Apply the mechanics of impact to the aircraft, whether you want to posit a landing in shallow water (i.e., one of the reef or island forced landing scenarios) or deep water (i.e., the scenario where they went down before they could reach an island or reef). Even on a smooth sea bed, I think Tom's point #3 (The plane must be busted up into little pieces, hard to find.) is a crucial one. In shallow water, currents could move your debris radically early on, and there's been almost 60 years of currents to contend with since then. In deep water, more than one set of currents come into play (though, realistically, if they didn't land at or near land, then I think it's functionally impossible to find the aircraft, both because we don't know where they went down and because the depth of the water would make the cost of a search ferociously expensive). We don't know what the debris field should look like.

Add in Tom's item #2. (It's a coral reef, with complex topography -- lots of places for stuff to hide.) You don't have a smooth sea bed. Lots of nooks and crannies and lots and lots of very aggressive marine life that would quickly move in on the field, attaching themselves to and thus camouflaging much of it, especially the smaller parts.

"A very great deal of luck?" ~chuckling~ I think that's such a wonderfully British understatement. I think it wouldn't even be "needle in a haystack" luck; more like "pinhead in a mountain of iron filings."

James J. Burnett
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:47:29 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia? Carol's Comments

Alan,

I'm really having a debate in my mind as to whether the post loss messages should go in the script. Just from what I have seen in the commentary, I wouldn't touch the subject matter unless it looks right to Ron Bright and Rollin Renieck.

As I understand it, someone told me once upon a time that Ron Bright was formerly with ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence). There's no question Betty heard what Betty heard, but the real question is who was doing the broadcasting? Rollin Renieck sent me a report from a friend of his that it was impossible for radio waves to propagate the distances required irrespective of Bob Brandenberg's report. I also question two people in the cockpit of an airplane yelling into a microphone in the midst of rising water and one of them has a bad gash in the head. Betty's notebook sounds more like a sailboat sinking than anything else.

Unless there is more that can surface, I can't use the scenario. There is not enough there I can send to a studio head and say "this is what happened" and at the same time expect an unknowing public and a very hard nosed producer to believe. I need evidence such as the old Japanese Prison at Garapan, Saipan, which is now a tourist attraction. You want to see Amelia Earhart's prison cell? Well, there it is. Go look. She even left her initials on the wall along with mysterious symbols. The studios might buy that approach. It's salable. They are looking at it I can tell you that.

The following are excerpts from an e-mail Rollin Renieck sent me on propagation:

(From Ric:
Carol, I can't post that communication to the forum without the author's permission.)

Also, I would like to comment I assume I have Rollin Renieck's permission to post this information. I did not include his address in this posting because I am not so sure Rollin wants to get mixed up in the brouhaha over Betty's message. I also do not have permission to quote who Paul is and that information would have to come with Rollin Renieck's permission. Quite frankly, I'm not technically qualified to comment on this problem. As much as I would like to use Betty's message in a screenplay (and I really would) I don't have enough to send as proof of what happened. KHAQQ or the Earhart name was not identified in any of the transmissions, I believe that's correct,  and it casts suspicion as to whether this was a hoax or a sinking sailboat in the Caribbean.

So, to answer my good friend Alan Caldwell, Betty's notebook isn't far enough along to be made into playwriting material. If the press (newspapers) buy the story, and it becomes widely known that would make quite a lot of difference. It would certainly mark the end of the crashed and sank theories which would be a welcome relief. I know one thing, I can't use it - yet. I copied this e-mail to The Kansas City Star.

Carol Dow
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Carol, please don't use Betty's notebook or anything else you think you have learned on this forum or from the TIGHAR website in ANYTHING you write.  By all means, rely on Ron Bright and Rollin Reineck.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:54:19 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Alan Caldwell asked:

>  If [after following KJ's Hawaii telegram fuel settings until 1912] AE
> decided to conserve fuel what would she have probably known to have done?
> Would it be likely she leaned to .70 and 200 HP per KJ? I don't suppose she
> would have known of anything else to do? Would you agree on that likelihood?
> If this is the case what might her airspeed be and fuel gph now be?

What I think AE would or wouldn't have done is pure speculation, and I see no reason to indulge in that very much. What I think the plane COULD have done is somewhat speculative, but is at least based on the Lockheed documents (confusing though they may be).

At 1912 assume 190 gallons remaining - five hours at 38 gph. (Gross weight at this point is around 9300 pounds, assuming the plane left Lae at 14,800 pounds.)

At 200 hp fuel consumption would be 30 to 34 gph depending on the altitude and leaning technique - say 31 gph average at 0.70. That would give slightly over 6 hours on the 190 gallons instead of 5 hours at the higher power setting.

Speed (true) at 1000 feet and 200 hp (according to Report 487 page 34) is 136 at 9300 pounds.  If you accept Report 465 page 10, speed at 200 hp and 1000 feet is 151. Speed at 10,000 feet is 143 (per 487-34) or 165 mph (per 465-10).

Since the chart on page 7 of Report 487 shows 155 mph True at 8000 feet and 200 hp (versus 162 in Report 465-10), I'm going to seize upon that fairly close correlation between Reports 465 and 487and call the speed range at 9300 pounds 145 mph (at 1000) to 157 mph  (at 10,000) at 200 hp, and  160 (1000 feet) to 172 (10,000 feet) at 250 hp. (I am disregarding 487-34 as too low, and reducing the numbers in 465-10 to correspond more closely with 487-7.)

So let's say that by reducing power from 250 hp to 200 hp per engine you give up 15 mph per hour for 5 hours in exchange for an extra hour(+ a bit more) at anywhere from 145 to 157 mph (depending on altitude). The net gain is around 75 miles of still air range.

> I'm also not convinced they would have stayed
> at 1,000' with such a reduced area of view nor do I think it would have been
> all that fuel expensive to climb.

The climb back to altitude is no big deal, and should INCREASE range. Let's assume a 15 minute cruise climb at 60 gph. This burns only an extra 7 gallons of fuel (60 - 31 = 29 divided by 4 = 7.25). This costs you about (7/31  x 60=) 13 minutes of your "extra hour ", which in turn reduces your gain in still air range by about 33 miles, but since the plane is faster on the same power at altitude in exchange you get 5 hours and 47 minutes of (say) 12 mph increased airspeed (a 69 mile gain) for a net gain of  (69 - 33 =) 36 miles, thereby increasing the total gain in still air range from 75 to 111 miles.

You have referred to the "recommended airspeed of 150 mph". (Let's ban "knots" from this discussion, because it causes confusion.) In truth,  AE was given not recommended speeds but  recommended POWER SETTINGS, which she expected to produce an AVERAGE  TRUE air speed of around 150 mph. Nothing indicates that she was attempting to hold a constant airspeed, and in fact KJ's telegrams are a strong indication to the contrary.

The only place (I think) in which there is a recommendation of "150 mph" is in the Headwind Chart (487-8) which explicitly states that 150 mph CAS (not True) is the  most efficient  zero wind Speed at Sea Level AT 16,500 pounds. (At sea level, CAS and true airspeeds are identical.)  If the most efficient CAS at 16500 pounds is 150 mph, it will be lower at lower weights. (I estimated V l/d at 9300 pounds at 112 mph CAS in the last posting.)

Look at the Horsepower Required Chart for 16,500 pounds (487-26). Using the same technique as the last posting, estimate Ve on that chart as around 113 mph at 16,500 pounds. Divide 113 by 0.76 and you get 148.68 - close agreement with the 150 mph figure. The 12,900 pound chart on 487-27 shows Ve around 100 mph CAS, which makes V l/d at that weight around 132 mph. Going to the Flight Manual on the 10A/B (page 34A) we find that best endurance speed at 10,500 pounds is given as 91 mph; dividing by 0.76 to estimate V l/d gives roughly 120 mph. Using the 8500 pound Ve of 77 mph, we calculate V l/d at around 101 mph.

We have thus  estimated V l/d at various weights from 8500 to 16,500 pounds as between 101 mph and 150 mph CAS (not true airspeed). The absolute most efficient flight would reduce speed hour by hour as weight was reduced so as always to be flying at or near V l/d for the current weight. (On the Lae Howland flight, the actual plane weight would have been lower - say 14800 at takeoff and 8200 at fuel exhaustion - so the range of V l/d would have been somewhat lower too.) Remember again that to make a rough conversion of CAS to TAS you add 2% per 1000 feet of altitude. (A CAS of 120 at 6000 feet is 1.12  x 120 which equals 144 True.)

To speculate for a moment about what AE might have done, I will say that I think KJ's telegrams imply she was a pilot who requested (and intended to rely on) a program of power management prepared by someone else. A couple of notes in LAST FLIGHT on the South Atlantic crossing  imply that she was following the program closely. My personal opinion is that such a pilot is not likely to deviate from the program in flight. ( I think that is a GOOD thing, and do not mean it as criticism.) So, I don't think that AE would have gone to a lower setting unless someone had told her to do so under some circumstances. Comments in Dick Strippel's book imply that Paul Mantz told Stripel that he had recommended a lower power setting for the last 10 hours of the flight - around 200 hp, and this is consistent with the chart on  487-7, so perhaps she did reduce power. But considering that Howland should have been reachable with a 4 hour reserve without such a final reduction, perhaps she did not. I don't know.

Oscar
******************************************************************
From Ric

To my way of thinking, the argument against the climb is that it prevents you from seeing the surrounding ocean and perhaps a place to land for a protracted period of time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:55:37 EST
From:         Terry Lee Simpson
Subject:      Re: Betty's corrections

I said before Ric I believe Betty,thats not whats bothering me.Towards the middle of the tape someone knocks on the door and Betty calls "come in" I was wondering if that was Elgin Long at the door.
Terry LeeSimpson(#2396) LTM (Just kidding)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:01:12 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Betty's Notebook: Was it Amelia

I have previously addressed the problems of reconciling the descriptions furnished by "AE" with the known tidal conditions at 10:00am at Gardner and the signal strenght issue regarding the time/distance and "5" recorded by ITASCA.

A third issue may be more significant in resolving the mystery. I think it is fair to say that there was no two-way communication between AE and the ITASCA, and the only reception that AE received was a series of "As" on Morse code late that morning.[ In fact there is no conclusive evidence that AE received any messages from Lae, although her transmitter was working just fine.]

There is no doubt her receiver was on the fritz, mis-tuned or as Tighar suggest, the antenna was broken on takeoff from Lae.

But Betty wrote down very early in the transmission, say about 4:30-4:33pm, the call sign of "W40K" or "WOJ" that AE said. One is a Ham amateur's call sign in Ft Worth Florida, the other a high frequency radio station.

The question  is how could she receive an amateur call sign transmission from Floridia that morning on Gardner if her receiver was not working? AT 4:30pm, it is doubtful that Francis Carroll [ W40K] was aware of AE's disappearance.

LTM,
Ron Bright
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The presence of those letters and numbers in the notebook does not mean that Betty heard either station any more than the presence of 158 and 338 mean that there was a reference to the line of position.

The only receiving antenna available was the loop, but it does appear that it and the reciever were working or she wouldn't have heard the "A"s.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:11:50 EST
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Fanciful Scenarios

Ric said:

>Not so.  They land on the reef at about 10:00 a.m. and immediately begin(or
> more likely continue) to call for help.  Noonan has been injured in the
> landing (left main gear collapse, blocking the cabin door?) and is acting
> irrationally and wants to get out.  The temperature in the cockpit gradually
> rises to almost unbearable levels which adds to the stress and contributes to
> the chaotic situation portrayed in the notebook.  By 11:45 even Amelia has had
> all she can take. The tide is coming in and they don't know how high it will
> get. She reluctantly agrees to leave the airplane and the transmissions
> stop.

Where do you come up with this stuff?  This is the very type of insupportable speculation that members of this forum regularly tear to pieces.  There is absolutely nothing on which to base such a scenario except imaginative conjuring of the type that a fiction writer would conceive for a dramatization such as I Was Amelia Earhart.

There is no way to determine for certain where the Electra was at 8:43, but based on the (albeit subjective) assessment of the increasing strength of Earhart's radio transmission over the previous two hours (and the fact that at 6:45 she thought that she was "about 100 miles out") it is more likely than not that she was pretty darn close to Howland Island.  Unless she was piloting an SST, I don't see how she could have made Gardner Island at or before 10:00.

David Katz
************************************************************************
From Ric

Let me get this straight.  You get to say that AE and FN wouldn't stay in a hot airplane, but if I present a possible scenario in which they would I'm guilty of the very type of insupportable speculation that members of this forum regularly tear to pieces.

If you can tear my speculation to pieces by all means do so.

If you think you can show that it would take an SST to reach Gardner by 10:00 a.m. then go for it - but show me the numbers.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:13:04 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      On the Underwater Idea

To Tom King:

Thanks very much for your response to my questions about the underwater search.

I had read your posting of 1/13 where you said, "airplane wrecks that have remained immersed are in quite good shape.", and I also read Tom Riggs' posting of 1/11, where he said, "aircraft have been immersed for approx. 60 years in a similar Pacific salt-water environment as exists around Niku and are still relatively intact and easily recognizable as aircraft." From these, I concluded that an underwater search held considerable promise.

From your response to my note, though, I gather that, if pieces of AE's 10E are in good shape, they are probably covered in coral and would thus be difficult to spot and/or recognize. Of course, they might not be in good shape at all; wave action has probably battered them badly. The mixing of the plane wreckage with the Norwich City wreckage would certainly complicate things.

In any event, I understand that an underwater search is a knotty problem, to be sure.

I enjoyed your book very much.

LTM,
Alfred
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:14:53 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

Angus wrote:

> Inspiration, skill, charm, good looks, spherical trig, and Sodano's method.
> I can't give the math because I did it on my abacus. How'd I do?

I have no doubt that you are charming and have good looks <G>.  However that does not explain how you arrived at your conclusions. If you are certain of your work then you shouldn't hesitate to explain to us all how you arrived at them.

If you did the calculations on an abacus (or other calculator) so that you can't show the math then at least tell us your methodology. If your did chart work then scan it in and share it with us or at least tell us the procedure that you used so that we can duplicate it. Your position would carry much more weight and be more convincing if you can clearly explain to us all how you arrived at it.

Gary LaPook
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:15:45 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

Dave in Fremont wrote:

> I've been wondering about this myself... A line drawn on a chart is a line
> drawn on a chart and it won't vary with time... To my understanding, the
> LOP
> was drawn at sunrise on 7/2/37 and stayed where it was...
> Gary's knowledge is substantial and broad, but I'm wondering why he's
> speculating on this and suggesting that the LOP would vary with time... A
> "quasi-experienced" navigator would know this already....

Dave, Gary knows this and his posting has been misinterpreted by me and others. The famous LOP is only in our imagination albeit an educated one. No one knows if Noonan ever drew a line 157/337 on his chart and if he did when it was done. It could have been done before take off at Lae or any time subsequent. IF he did so you are correct it would never move and of course Gary knows that.

What Gary was saying was that as time passed and the sun rose in the eastern sky it also changed its azimuth. The significance of that, as Gary pointed out, was that subsequent sun shots would NOT yield a LOP of 157/337 degrees.

The reason he pointed that out was he had surmised there was a theory on the part of some of us that Noonan could have navigated from Howland SE to Gardner simply by shooting sun shots to keep himself positioned on the 157/337 LOP. Such is not the case and Gary tried to point that out. It is also not the case that such a theory was ever advocated but to Gary's defense I think some misunderstood earlier postings that may have been so construed.

If in fact Noonan attempted to navigate SE to Gardner he had to follow some course and that's a fact. What that course was we don't know nor can anyone compute such a course because we don't know where he started from. It would have been generally SE and that's all that can be said about that. He most certainly could have shot sun shots to aid him in his navigation but he would not have been minutely following derived LOPs as they would have taken him in an arc. Don't make me explain that as it isn't important. What he would be doing is using his sun shots in combination with other navigational tools (and I'm not getting into that either) to determine his position best he could to get the plane to wherever he wanted it to go.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:56:19 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Folks, below is an analysis from one of our new guys. He was my classmate in law school so I have known him for 20 years. Recognize he is new to this investigation and did not have any prior knowledge of TIGHAR and TIGHAR's work. Of course he knew some general information as would most anyone.

He does not know everything that most of you know about the Earhart mystery so cut him some slack on his ideas. He's just getting up to speed after only a few days of reading the web site and doing his own research.

I post this because I think his method of approaching the subject deserves a good look not because I necessarily agree or disagree with any particular item in his posting.

This is from James Burnett.

*****************************

For the record, I don't think Betty's notes prove or disprove anything. I think the whole dispute over them, and over what they do or do not show, is as Shakespeare said, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. But to understand where I'm coming from, you need to understand that I am trying to take the most neutral view possible.

I'm following Marcus Aurelius' advice: "Of each thing, ask what is its true nature." In other words, look at the thing itself, not what you want the thing to be. Fit the box around the goods, not the goods into the box.

Let me start by pointing out some problems I have with what is posted on the site. I note these things because I think several of these factors are factors affecting the reasoning of advocates on both sides of the "Betty Battle."

First, assuming the basic accuracy of the statement that these notes were transcribed contemporaneously in 1937, we are dealing with a second-hand, highly paraphrased rendition of what the writer heard. We do not have the primary source--a recording of the actual reception. This is crucial in a number of areas, but we have to live with it. Hey, at the time it happened, she wasn't expecting it to be a major historical event. Frankly, neither were the people on Howland, or the Itasca, or anywhere else in the actual target area! I'm sure that initially, the thought was, "Okay, they're running late." Even when she didn't answer their initial calls, they probably weren't immediately unduly alarmed. It was only after some time passed and there was no sighting that worry would have grown. It would be best if we had a recording of what Betty actually heard, but we don't have it, so we have to deal with that limitation across the board.

Second, I do not believe we can give great credence to Betty's non-contemporaneous "clarifications" (shown in the "Comments" column). As the site advises, she made these clarifications much later on. Sixty years had passed--sixty years in which she had had time to reflect on what she heard, assess and reassess its significance in light of the history she lived through and in light of the several resurgences of interest about the Earhart case (I remember it being a hot topic in historical circles in 1967, and again in 1976, and in 1982, and I'm sure there were other times, too). Plus--and you know this from trying cases and taking depositions--what we observed, or remember observing, changes as time passes and our conscious and subconscious minds have an opportunity to play with our objective recollections. This does not mean I am writing off all her comments as silly, wrong, or lies. It does mean that in evaluating the notebook, I think we should evaluate only the notebook initially. Her recollections are a valuable secondary source, but they do not necessarily accurately reflect what it is she heard.

Third, we are missing time incremental references in the notebook. Again, this is no fault of hers; she wasn't a trained note-taker and it wasn't something she was expecting to do at the time. But we don't know how much time passes between each of the things she heard that she made notes of.

Compounding the third concern is a fourth: We do not know what she heard in between each entry of notes that she simply didn't think important enough to make a note about, or that she didn't have time to note. In other words, the record is incomplete even allowing for the fact that it's an amateur paraphrasal transcription.

Fifth, a facial reading of the notes suggests that many of the things she noted down were not part of a putative Earhart broadcast. "Uncle." "Bob." The tantalizing "Come here just a moment." Even "George." We cannot assume it was Earhart just because Earhart's husband was named George. There may have been other broadcasts that were stepping all over the wavelength. It happens. It can happen even in digital communications, though it's rare.

Sixth, even if all the noted statements were by the same person, they cannot all be accurate. They make no sense in context to one another. The logical conclusions are that either parts of what Betty heard were garbled or impaired by interference and static, or that she mistook things she heard, or that she wrote the wrong things. All of these things are possible; they happen all the time. Have you ever been writing something down, and your mind will wander momentarily, and a totally wrong word will suddenly appear in your own transcription? Of course you have; we all have done that.

I don't mention any of the above to discredit or discount the notes. I mention them so that you know all the things I'm taking into account in making my assessment of the notes. I'm simply following the Aurelian protocol.

Now, with that background on the table, here's my analysis as it relates to the Gardner (or any other) faction's advocacy or dismissal of the notebook.

1: Is the notebook genuine?

"Genuine" means two things. First, is it a real historical document--something created at the time averred? If it is not, then this woman has done a superb job of manufacturing an antique instrument. What motive would she have for fabricating the document contemporaneously, however? I cannot determine one. TIGHAR isn't going to pay her some whopping great amount of money for it. It can't be turned into a novel, non-fiction work, film, TV special, or anything else with notable commercial value. Unless Betty is crazy as a ************, she has no rational reason to engage in what would be a time-consuming and expensive piece of art forgery, to no profitable end. Therefore, the most likely answer to this element is that she did write these things in 1937, as she states.

"Genuine" is also a question of contextual accuracy: Does the notebook reflect what she heard on the radio, relatively accurately, and allowing for her limitations based on lack of experience, limitations of quality in the reception, surprise, etc. There are three possibilities here:

The notebook is genuine.

The notebook is a mistake (that is, it is not an accurate recording of what Betty heard, but she honestly thought she was hearing what she noted).

The notebook is a fraud (to wit, it's something she fabricated at the time).

I'll deal with them in reverse order.

The notebook is a fraud. Motive is the issue here once more. All of the foregoing considerations apply, but even more so, because in order to create the fraud on 2 July 1937, Betty would have had to know, on 2 July 1937, that the Earhart disappearance would be a major mystery that would pique public interest even nearly a century later. That's attributing a lot of smarts--and forward-looking--to a teenage girl. I've raised two. So have you. They aren't that forward-looking. Furthermore, it would have required considerable scienter on Betty's part, because at the time she was "fabricating" this--assuming it was written at the time she maintains it was, she had no way of knowing Earhart would not be found! If Earhart were found after she fabricated the notes, then the notes would have no value.

"Ah, but Betty could have written this stuff up, say, a few days or weeks or even a month later!" Well, maybe. I don't know what the rest of the notebook contains, whether there are dated (or datable) notes after the ones we're interested in. Once again, the "to what purpose?" question arises, and there's no logical answer for it. The only answer to it would be, Betty's a total liar and was then, and she constructed the whole thing for some completely irrational purpose.

This doesn't work. People do things for reasons. Even irrational people have reasons for their action; what makes them irrational is that their reasons make no sense to us. Unless Betty's always been loopy, then there is no reason for her to commit the fraud. If Betty were that loopy then, she'd be a certified nut-case now, and that's something I would hope your investigators would have turned up, or at least developed a feeling about, for I assume that they didn't simply "Ooh" and "Aah" over this but did some independent investigation before they accepted it from her.

Thus, the fraud possibility seems unlikely.

Betty made a mistake. I have no doubt that she did--as to many things she wrote down. I attribute her mistakes to the many factors I cited above. But it does not follow that she made a mistake as to the entire reception. She mistakenly heard the individual identify herself as "Amelia"--more than once? Unlikely.

There is another potential mistake here, too, which is that it simply wasn't Earhart. There's no way to prove that it was or not. It might have been another Amelia discussing another matter. There is too much in the notes, however, that fits facially with Earhart and her flight for this to be of high probability.

It might have been that a third person was relating what they heard from Earhart. A third person, who was also a woman, who never noted that she was relating it? Again, unless Betty was completely ignorant of what she was hearing, she would have noted that someone else was relating the information. The notes do not indicate this. Betty's commentary does not reflect this. The 60-year-reflection period cuts both ways. It gives a person time for memories to blur and to adjust them to fit your desired reality, but it also allows haunting problems to come to the surface and worry one so much that one will attempt to set the record straight. Absent evidence that Betty is a liar, it is fair to conclude she did not hear a third party and forgot to mention that.

Thus, the global mistake concept does not have a high probability, either. The individual contextual mistakes are rife, I believe, but there is still a kernel of information in the notes that indicates to me a genuine nature to the transmission. To me, one of the most telling is the "S.O.S." The debate on that one is a non-issue, by the way. It would be an issue if Betty were certain she heard the beginning of the broadcast and it started with "S.O.S." (or even "Mayday," by the way). You see, in 1937 aviators still adhered to the 1927 International Convention on Emergency Transmissions, and it required emergency transmissions to begin with "C.Q." (Come Quickly). "S.O.S." first gained usage that we know of in 1912 aboard the Titanic, but the transmissions ALL began, "C.Q. and S.O.S." "Mayday" was not something 
American aviators used with great frequency before World War II, according to the research I'm doing, and the use of "S.O.S." before either "C.Q." or "Mayday" did not occur, as far as I can tell, before 1942. In fact, I cannot find a record of an emergency transmission, at sea or in the air, that begins with "S.O.S." before "C.Q." The latter simply stopped being used because the former was more easily and immediately noticeable in both voice and Morse Code. Particularly the latter, where the subtle but devilish differences between American and International Morse were a pain in the arse for everyone.

The notebook is genuine. Once you exclude the other possibilities, you have a stronger case for the first one. If you allow for the idea that many of the statements Betty wrote down are incorrect in that she misheard something, or miswrote it, and if you allow for the possibility that other broadcasts bled in there from time to time, the strange and disconnected context of the notes is no longer so strange or disconnected. The bits and pieces that are consistent with Earhart's other transmissions (pre-disappearance) and their planned course now make more sense. "58 338" may well be "158 338" and "Z 38 etc." likely a misheard or miswritten "338."

My first conclusion, therefore, is that Betty's notebook is a genuine recording of transmssions from Earhart, though I do not believe all the things she wrote down came from Earhart but were in fact other transmissions she jotted down without thinking to exclude or segregate them, or without realizing she was hearing more than one broadcast.

2: Does the notebook prove--or disprove--any hypothesis?

No. It does not. Let's take just a few basic ones.

The Gardner hypothesis. Nothing in the notes reflects Gardner. Nothing in the notes reflects Earhart asserting, or even believing, that she was on or near Gardner. Surely, if she had had some idea where she was, she would have said so. Now, maybe she did and Betty missed it. But, if I'd been down on an island and I had an inkling where I was, and I still had comms, I'd sure as hell be repeating that rather important bit of information. I want to be rescued. I don't want to die of thirst on some empty bit of coral. I'm not going to leave my rescuers in a guessing game. Even if I'm not on Gardner, but I'm close, if I think I'm there and I tell people, when they don't find me on Gardner someone's going to look on the nearby islands. Earhart probably would have stated her believed location many times. Betty missed them all? All of them faded out and Betty never heard a one? I doubt it. The transcript simply does not point to Gardner, or anywhere else, therefore.

The "Fred hurt his head in the crash" hypothesis. I'm sorry, it doesn't prove, or necessarily support, this one, either. The "head" reference is in the "clarification," not in the notes themselves. This is crucial. We cannot assign credibility to the comments as highly as the notes, not when there is not a single reference in that section to his head. "Let me out of here" may as probably relate to "I need air." "It's going" may relate to those, too, and to the various references about high and rising water.

The "they're on a reef and the tide is coming in" hypothesis. This is a hypothesis that derives from the assumption that they landed on or near an island. It has no supporting evidence in the notes or in any historical or empirical evidence TIGHAR or anyone else has ever presented. I think this may be the crucial factor in what's wrong with the entire Earhart investigation--the assumption that they landed relatively safely on an island or a reef. As you pointed out in your e-mails to me, the facts don't support it. The facts don't support any hypothesis about where they landed. I see the adherents--whether they be Nikumaroro, Nauru, Gardner, Winslow, or the Marshalls--basing their generally agreed upon conclusion that she set down on or near land for two reasons. First, wherever the hell she was flying intentionally (I say it that way to include the Marshallites who have her spying for Uncle Sam), they assume her course was accurate enough that she was relatively close to whichever of the various target sites you want to aim her for--Marshalls or the Howland area. Second, they base a number of their conclusions on a preceding assumption about her quality as a pilot and what pilots would do. If either of these assumptions are invalid, even to a slight degree, then a weakness develops in the reasoning. If both are invalid to more than an insignificant degree, the weakness grows more serious. It isn't my intention here to get into either of those issues. As I've said, I'm still at the beginning of my own forensic analysis. I'll accept everything those of you who are knowledgeable about the technical aspects--engine, fuel, airframe, aerodynamics, radio, navigation protocols, etc.--assert. I have no technical expertise that allows me to challenge those scientific elements. But I have a growing suspicion that ever since 1937 the investigation has been looking in the wrong places, because the investigation failed to take into account some important factors that are obvious in a forensic examination. I'm not being coy or provocative and when I have enough data to formulate my hypothesis about what happened to them, I'll relate it to you in detail and we can tear it apart just like everyone else's hypothesis gets ravaged either by the facts, the lack of them, or the tempers of people whose oxes are being gored. ~grin~

No, my point here is simply that the "tide" hypothesis derives from a prior assumption that they landed near such a place. This to me is the most glaring example of fitting the goods into the box in this project, and it's occurring on both sides. On Ric's side, I think it's occurring out of a well-intentioned but misguided assumption about the landing sites. On the side of the people who seem to attack Ric and his people, I think it's more a case of not wanting to acknowledge any but their own pet theory, as you and I have discussed about these folks.

All I'm saying, in terms of the Betty's notebook issue, is that the notebook does not a priori support the "reef and tide" idea. It is just as likely that they were afloat in the water and the aircraft was losing watertight integrity. It didn't have to flounder immediately; with a lucky ditching and a relatively calm sea, it could have floundered relatively slowly. "Come here just a moment" doesn't jibe on its face with Betty's clarification, plus "wanting to get out of the plane" is not the same thing as he was out of the plane (as many of the e-mails in the group conclude). He could have been in the back of the aircraft, doing something to try and maintain its balance in the water or to salvage equipment or who knows what. (By the way, you never answered my question: Did they have a survival kit? If so, what did it include for water landings?)

You can even construct a scenario where the transmissions come, in whole or in part, before they ditch or land anywhere. This is a low-probability scenario to me, but it is supported by the fact that the "58 338" and related references, if they came from Earhart, would be more consistent with information you would give while still in the air and looking for Howland. Once you're no longer flying, the course you were flying is less important and less useful than where you think you are.

3: If it doesn't prove anything, then what use is it?

It has several important uses. First, if Betty is correct in her recollections of when she heard it and how long it lasted, it gives us some indication of their situation either shortly after going down, or both before and possibly after going down. Second, it gives us some valuable clues into their mental and emotional state during that time period. Now, I realize the technical types will discount that kind of information; in their mind, that doesn't lead to locating the aircraft. I disagree. The aircraft isn't simply a machine governed by mechanical laws and aerodynamic principles. It's a machine under the direct and constant control of two human beings. How they were handling their jobs is crucial to understanding not only what they did in the last minutes of their flight, but in the entire time preceding that, arguably all the way back to Lae and before that. The true nature of the flight is not what the Electra could do. It is what Earhart did with it, and that is a function of how she thought and what she felt, physically and emotionally, at the material times. The true nature of the navigation process is not what course Noonan plotted and computed but how he did that job both at his peak (whatever that was; Noonan's maritime and Pan Am record indicates competence but nothing stands out marking him as the paragon of all navigators, either) and under the most stressful of conditions.

My basic conclusion: The notebook is genuine, and it gives us potentially useful information related probably to the last course they were holding and perhaps their condition and actions during the minutes, possibly the hour, after they were forced down. It gives us no useful information on its own, however, about where they were when they went down. The absence of objective evidence at any of the possible forced-landing sites (including the Marshalls) does not militate that the notebook is false, neither does the notebook add credence to any of the potential sites.

There. You may now call me a useless bastard who doesn't understand flying (both of which are true). My whole point for this exercise is that they're all wasting their time arguing over what the notebook does or doesn't prove.
 
What it does strongly suggest is that they were in a hell of a fix wherever they were, at the end of their flight -- and Earhart and probably Noonan knew it.

........................

James

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you, James, for your excellent observations and comments - most of which I agree with.

I'll take issue with only two of your points for the moment:

1.  You have shown yourself to not be the useless bastard you represent that  you are. (You wanna see some useless bastards, stick around.)

2.  The only way for Betty's notebook to be a transcription - however flawed - of genuine transmissions from Earhart and for the aircraft to not be on land of some kind is for the event to have taken place while the aircraft was still inflight.  The reason is very straightforward. In order to work, the transmitter had to receive power from the battery via a device called a dynamotor which was located under the pilot's seat.  If the Electra was floating in the ocean - even if it was floating like a cork, buoyed up by the empty gas tanks - the forward part of the airplane would be submerged.  Unpressurized land airplanes, even today, are not watertight.  Not even close.  But all airplanes (with the exception of some modern computer-flown non-airplanes like the F-117) must have a foward center of gravity.  The somewhat over-sized engines on Earhart's Electra gave it a rather pronounced forward CG.  Bottom line:  If the airplane is floating the dynamotor is underwater - guaranteed.  No dynamotor, no transmissions - guaranteed.  That's why the following message was sent to the Itasca by coast guard headquarters in San Francisco after the ship was sent to look for a floating Electra 281 miles north of Howland (based on a supposed transmission from the plane that seemed to give that position):

OPINION OF TECHNICAL AIDS HERE THAT EARHART PLANE WILL BE FOUND ON ORGINAL LINE OF POSITION WHICH INDICATED POSITION THROUGH HOWLAND ISLAND AND PHOENIX GROUP.  RADIO TECHNICIANS FAMILIAR WITH RADIO EQUIPMENT ON PLANE ALL STATE THAT PLANE RADIO COULD NOT FUNCTION NOW IF IN WATER AND ONLY IF PLANE WAS ON LAND AND ABLE TO OPERATE RIGHT MOTOR FOR POWER.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:03:01 EST
From:         Tom Strange
Subject:      Betty'S Note Book ?s

Ric or Pat

   To help me better understand the moment in time when Betty and her immediate family heard the Amelia Earhart message - What was her family's immediate reaction and response to having heard that message? - Did a family discussion ensue? - Besides the Coast Guard did they communicate this event to anyone outside their immediate family within a day or two of this event? - Understanding the circumstances of the event I feel is as important as the the event at this moment - If Miss Betty feels my questions are out of line, please disregard and I apologize in advance.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Betty has said that when she first alerted her family to what she was hearing they reacted with bemused skepticism (my words, not hers), but once they had listened for a moment they shared her astonishment and alarm.  Betty's father ran next door to see if theor neighbor could also hear it.  It's Betty's recollection that he couldn't but there seems to be some indication that her mother's recollection was that he could get something but couldn't understand it.  We don't know what kind of radio the neighbor had but we do know that the antenna Betty's father had rigged was much more sophisticated than the neighbor's.  Betty has mentioned no efforts after the first evening to contact anyone else at that time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:06:31 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Running along a Sun line

Dave in Fremont writes:

>I've been wondering about this myself... A line drawn on a chart is a line
>drawn on a chart and it won't vary with time... To my understanding, the LOP
>was drawn at sunrise on 7/2/37 and stayed where it was...
>Gary's knowledge is substantial and broad, but I'm wondering why he's
>speculating on this and suggesting that the LOP would vary with time... A
>"quasi-experienced" navigator would know this already

As you can see, he doesn't understand how a Sun line can be tracked.  I have pointed it out to the Forum in the past--that the advanced sunrise LOP would lose its usefulness because there was not a convenient way of tracking along it. However, the ever-available Sun line(s) across Howland Islandcould be tracked along; repeated observations of the Sun's height would tell whether the observer how closely. The more sights, the more accuracy was possible and the more the navigator could refine his idea of where he was. It would be very tempting for Noonan to have done that. [So would getting some Moon observations, even if he had to open an overhead hatch or side door, or cut an opening in the top of the fuselage--(none of which would have been necessary)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:47:47 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Re: Alan's distance estimate

Here is a pretty good idea how far south she could be at 0843.  TIGHAR expert Bob Brandenburg wrote in the 8th edition that the Electra's MAXIMUM distance from Howland at 0843 was "200 miles". He did not indicate what strength the signal would be but I would assume considerably less that "5".

But suppose that at 0843, ITASCA got a signal "5",  AE was at a maximum of 200 miles south of Howland or 204 miles north of Gardner. She had to fly that distance in about 75 mins,  land and start transmitting by 10:00 am.

      Example:. If she was 204 miles north, based on the Brandenburg calculation,  she would have to fly at 159  mph in 1.28 hours to get to Gardner. This may well be with in her speed capability, but Lockheed experts can comment on that.

With Brandenburg's analysis one can get a pretty good idea that she was at least 200 miles south to have any chance of getting to Gardner. If the radio folks do not think ITASCA could get a "5" at 200 miles, then the picture changes.

LTM,
Ron Bright
*********************************************************
From Ric

Stand away from that wheelbarrow.  You KNOW you don't understand machinery. <G>

Last time I checked, Gardner was about 356 nm southeast of Howland.  If Earhart was 204 miles north of Howland at 08:43 and was going to land at Gardner an hour and seventeen minutes later she'd need to make a groundspeed of cover those 560 miles at a groundspeed of about 438 knots.  She wouldn't need an SST but a LearJet would come in handy.

If she was 200 nautical miles south of Howland she'd need to cover the remaining 156nm at a groundspeed of 123 knots.  For that she's need an airplane like - oh, say, a Lockheed 10.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:49:54 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Betty's Radio

Eric wrote:

>I plan to check back with Dr. Cones to see if anyone has compiled a census of
>surviving 1000Z Strats.

I think there are something like 37 known to exist... recall seeing that recently on a Zenith web site.

>(This was not the sort of radio you hauled off to
>the dump when you were tired of it.)

To which I respond, OH YEAH?

When TV hit in the late 40s and early 50s, a LOT of people junked a LOT of  "super radios" that were suddenly part of an eclipsed technology.  Stuff collectors would almost literally kill for, today!

I once worked in a radio station that had been a pioneer 50 KW AM, in 1940 (10 KW from 1928...) -- one of the old geezers who'd been there since Methuselah was a corporal told me such stories, many years later of course... such as, when TV hit, the radio business lost something like 60% of its revenue OVER NIGHT and within a year, (1951-52) it was something like 90% less.

(The station I worked for had evidently considered that it had the Divine Right to a TV license, since it was a "biggie" and the regional NBC flagship... NOT SO.  The first TV license in the area went to --what a shock! -- an upstart company with a 1 KW AM outlet, which has matured into a powerhouse TV/digital/satellite company... asi es la vida.)

If there was no revenue, it means the sponsors felt there were no listeners to target... people went NUTSO over television.

A lot of big klunkers went out, to make room for the new one-eyed cyclops.

>If such a census does exist and if one
>of these surviving 1000Zs can be traced back to having come from St.
>Petersburg, there is a good chance that it might be Betty's radio.

Note the MIGHT BE.  We could never be sure, especially if this thing has been through the hands of several collectors.

>And, the
>owner might even have some of the set's original documentation such as the
>manual, original bill of sale, etc., or have some background information on
>its previous owners.  Stay tuned for further developments.

Again, MIGHT.  It'd be downright miraculous.  But nice to dream about.

Such stuff is easily lost.

One thing to look for though, would be stickers or tags from repair shops.  Sometimes these are still stuck inside the cabinet.  Collectors tend to treat these with much TLC.

LTM (who says she prefers radio, the pictures are better)
and
73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:02:45 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Mike Muenich's point that the hoaxer would have only a few hours to create his material is based on the idea that Betty heard the broadcast on the first day AE was lost.  But Betty doesn't remember which day she heard it.  The conclusion that it was the first day is based on material in the broadcast (FN still being in the cabin).  But if it is a hoax the textual material is unreliable and irrelevant. A hoax could have been heard at any time after the loss became known.

His other point that there is no reason for anyone to perpetrate a hoax is true.  However, hoaxers were active before and after this incident, for no good reason.

LTM
Robert
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Let's postulate a hoax.  Where was the hoaxer and why was Betty's family apparently the only one who heard it, or at least believed it enough to report and remember it?

Contrary to popular impression, only a very few people (10 in all) reported hearing Amelia on their shortwave, then or later, and none of them heard what they heard at the same time.  Which do you find harder to believe - that there were 10 single-receiver hoax receptions scattered across the continental U.S. and Hawaii or that there were 10 low-probability receptions of signals from a single source?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:06:30 EST
From:         Dave Chase
Subject:      Carol....

With all due respect, I believe there's a limit to how many more of Carol's emails we need to be subjected to. I understand that it's in TIGHAR's best interest to promote its activities. Maybe at one point in time, influencing Carol's future writings might have fallen into that category. It was obvious long ago that this was a  losing cause...  JMHO.

********************************************************************
From Ric

I am but the servant of the people.  If the forum wishes to be spared Carol's postings I'll happily oblige.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:18:12 EST
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia?

> You get to say that AE and FN wouldn't stay in a
> hot airplane...

Excuse me, Ric, it was YOU who stated that no one in their right mind would stay in an unbearably hot airplane.  I never postulated that; I merely quoted you.

And the reference to the SST was hyperbole.  Since it was not meant to be taken seriously, I don't feel the necessity to "provide numbers" as you suggest.  Simple math, however, will tell you that the 400 mile distance from the vicinity of Howland to Gardner could not have been covered by the Electra in an hour and seventeen minutes.

David Katz
*************************************************************************
From Ric

What I said was:

>the cockpit of that airplane on that reef any time between about 9 a.m. and
>6 p.m would be almost unbearable.

I did not say "no one in their right mind would stay in an unbearably hot airplane."  What I did do was outline a possible scenario that explained how AE and FN may have been in an unbearably hot airplane on the first day.

>Simple math, however, will tell you that the 400 mile distance
>from the vicinity of Howland to Gardner could not have been covered by the
>Electra in an hour and seventeen minutes.

And a moment's reflection will tell you that's it's pretty unlikely that they'd need to do that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:58:10 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

For James Burnett

Although I don't think Betty heard AE, I want to make it clear as did TIGHAR that I have never thought that Betty made up the notebook or in anyway participated in developing a hoax.  At 15, with family members present, I think that is simply out of the question.

Now we could speculate forever on what cruel things some hams may do in a "crisis" situation. Around here in the Puget Sound area near Seattle, Coast Guard receives numerous "lost" signals a year, hoax type msgs.

And from the recipient's standpoint, TIGHAR has found over 150 post loss msgs, and some are out right frauds.  I don't think Nina Paxton heard AE for example, and there is credible research to suggest she made it up.

I don't think that Dana Randolph in Wyoming was perpertrating a fraudulent reception.

Obviously, some of the messages that were received were cooked up by nuts, thrillseekers, etc.

Whether Betty was a victim of some nutty Ham, along with a blend of other Ham broadcasts that afternoon, a combination of the two, or parts of a legit broadcast, is what we have been examining.

I know Betty monitors this Forum and truly beleives it was AE she heard. But we have not been told by Betty just how she recognized the voice, other than the woman so identifying herself. I wish I could play her my tape of the 1937 Broadcast of the March of Time program with an actress imitating Amelia's voice. I have heard AE's voice on many video programs, and I would swear that it was Amelia.

Motives for hoaxes are so complex and varied that it would be of little value to identify them. Suffice it to say that Betty heard what she heard and copied the words down the best she could.

LTM,
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

You have a tape of the March of Time dramatization?!  When did you get that?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:01:36 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

RE: Muenich's question of how long does it take to cook up a Hoax.

 It could occur almost immediately if the Ham or "hero" or publicity seeker was so inclined. After all the time for a fraudulent hoax is immediate as the crisis may go away for soon, so time is of the essence.

 The date of Betty's reception is still unresolved. Our problem is that we can not base the date of Betty's reception on content such as SOS, etc as surely someone broadcasting a hoax could have done that days, or weeks later. We simply do not know what date she heard those transmissions. At best , Betty and her mother, according to Hathaway, agreed that it MIGHT have been the first day of AE's disappearance. Hardly a definitive date.

In Betty's handwritten annotation in her notebook, page one, made about ten years ago, she wrote that she would come home from " school everyday and listen to shortwave and all summer". Again that gives us a choice of summer or after school, which wouldn;t have been in July. Perhaps Betty today could at least clarify if it was after school or during the summer.

LTM,
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Where did you get the information that the notations were written about ten years ago?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:12:56 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Underwater search

James J. Burnett wrote, in reference to an often proposed underwater search

> I think it's functionally impossible to find the aircraft, both because we
> don't know where they went down and because the depth of the water would
> make the cost of a search ferociously expensive). We don't know what the
> debris field should look
> like.
>
> "A very great deal of luck?" ~chuckling~ I think that's such a
> wonderfully British understatement. I think it wouldn't even be "needle
> in a haystack" luck; more like "pinhead in a mountain of iron filings."
>
I wonder if Elgin Long and Nautico (Is that right. I think I always get it wrong) would be interested in James assessment? <G>

Alan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Don't feel bad.  Just about everybody always gets it wrong.  The man's first name is Elgen.  Most people spell it Elgin (like the town in Scotland and the marbles) but, for whatever reason, it's Elgen.

The company's name is Nauticos.

And I've always been fascinated by how often we see Amelia's initials written as "EA".  I can only imagine that it's a phonetic thing - "Emeelya Airheart".
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:26:11 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

> You have a valid point. If Itasca notified S.F. at 1345 (1645 in
> Florida), then someone in Florida claiming to have heard Earhart between
> 1400 and 1500 Florida time could be fabricating the event.

If the west coast got the first news at 1:45pm which is 4:45pm on the east coast then isn't 4:45pm the earliest anyone could have thought to broadcast a hoax for Betty to hear? Am I wrong that Betty started to hear the transmissions at 4:00 or 4:30? Has it been too long a weekend and I'm losing it?

Alan
***********************************************************************
From Ric

You're not wrong Alan.  Betty's notebook indicates that she was hearing the transmissions "since 4:30" which is, of course, 1:30 on the West Coast and 10:00 in the Central Pacific.  If Betty's receptions were heard on July 2nd, she began hearing them at least 15 minutes before anybody other than the Itasca crew knew that Earhart was even overdue.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:30:21 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

How many people do you think sit down in front of their Strat and listen to short wave at three in the afternoon? There were only a few of these radios in the southern part of the U.S. at that time. There was a depression on and most people did not have enough money to buy a receiver like Betty's. We're lucky to have her feed back, there is information in the note book that makes sense to the AE situation. There is information that does not make sense but that can be explained away.  I have one question what time in Florida did AE touch down in the Pacific? I know this has been discussed before but I may have missed it.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know how many Strats were sold in the southern U.S. or how many people listened to their shortwave in the afternoon, and I sure don't know what time AE touched down in the Pacific - but when Betty started hearing the transmissions it was 10 a.m. local time in the Central Pacific.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:37:14 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: RIght engine run radio?

"RADIO TECHNICIANS FAMILIAR WITH RADIO EQUIPMENT ON PLANE ALL STATE THAT PLANE RADIO COULD NOT FUNCTION NOW IF IN WATER AND ONLY IF PLANE WAS ON LAND AND ABLE TO OPERATE RIGHT MOTOR FOR POWER."

I am very puzzled by the above statement and i am wondering why it would be the case.

In the usual radio installation, AFAIK, the radio just runs from the ship's 12 ( or 24 ) volt supply, the battery. Whether the battery gets recharged at all by the generator, while the battery is losing stored power from a load, is a separate question. How does (electrically) the radio know the generator is online? I am puzzled. The only situation i am familiar where engine operation is necessary for radio operation, is where the engine drives a special generator for the radio, such as the 800-cycle generator in some navy planes, such as PBY, and SBD (early), or maybe the wind-driven generator in some early Navy planes and also some later light planes (the kind without electric starter).

This is not the case for the AE aircraft: the radio was solely dc 12v powered. If you have a battery, why would not the radio run from it? The battery also does voltage-smoothing and noise-reducing work, like a huge capacitor.

Hue Miller
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm going ask those who understand the mechanics (or electrons) better than I do to explain how the engine-driven generator, the dynamotor, and the battery operate to deliver usable power to the transmitter.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:57:18 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it a hoax she heard?

I'm not postulating a hoax, I'm commenting on the process.  If the reception cannot be pinned to a particular day then the content of the broadcast cannot by used to verify it's authenticity.  That is to say, you can't assert that "the broadcast must be genuine because it contains information not known to the public on 2 July 37" unless you can show that the broadcast was heard on that date.  Not suggesting that Betty is either inaccurate or dishonest, to the contrary I accept her statement that she doesn't recall the date.

I'm not sure I understand why a small number of people hearing the broadcast makes it more likely that it was real than that it was a hoax. Please expand on this point.

As to the Notebook material I have no opinion as to its meaning.  It's certainly dramatic, but frankly I can't make head nor tail of it.

LTM
Robert
**************************************************************************
From Ric

A genuine brodcast from AE has to come from somewhere in the Central Pacific. A hoax broadcast has to come from a place where there is a hoaxer- almost certainly in the continental U.S. or possibly in Hawaii. Statistically, the chances of anyone in the U.S. hearing an intelligible broadcast from AE were very small.  Statistically, the chances of people hearing a hoax broadcast from a populated area were very high.  We would therefore expect that very few people would hear a genuine broadcast and that lots of people would hear a hoax broadcast.

One of the most interesting things to me about the content of the notebook is that the more information you have about the setting in which it supposedly took place (the cockpit of a Lockheed 10), the more sense it makes.

We find ourselves with a document that is easy to question but very difficult to explain away.  Accepting the fact that it may very well be genuine, it makes all the sense in the world to try to fit it into the matrix of other information and try to pin down where it fits best in time.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:10:26 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Well you are mixing apples and nautical miles. I said that Gardner Island is 404 statue miles from Howland. If Brandenburg says she was at a maximum distance of 200 statue miles south of Howland at 0848 (sig "5"),  that leaves 204 statue miles to fly to Gardner.

As I said that would take a speed of 159 mph to do the 204 in 77 minutes.

Again I don't think anyone beleives that she was 200 miles south of ITASCA to get a "5" signal. But that can be debated by the radio guys.

Is that correct? Or was Brandenburg using nautical miles?

LTM,
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Ron, according to our records you have a copy of the 8th Edition.  You should therefore have a copy of Bob's paper "The Radio Riddle" in which he very clearly says he's using nautical miles and shows that the 08:43 (not 0848 as you state above) transmission could have been heard from 200 nm south of Howland.  If you and others don't choose to accept his calculations that's up to you, but it wastes a whole lot of everyone's time and causes a great deal of confusion when you present arguments without making sure you have the
facts straight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:23:21 EST
From:         Jack Clarke
Subject:      British Pathe Newsreels

Re  Pathe film clip "Tragedy of the Pacific"

Hue, I have spent a couple of days reviewing the take off sequence in this film. I cannot agree with your opinion that it sheds no light on the Lost Antenna.

First the state of the runway, which is very wet!  I feel this condition excludes any possibility of a puff of dust.  The puff of dust seen in the TIGHAR film clip I now believe to be a
splash of water.

By judicious juggling of the Stop/Pause buttons it is possible to get a still shot around the 40 sec. mark which I believe shows the mid and aft ventral masts to be intact with the a/ctailwheel off the ground. The a/c by this time is in the vicinity of the smoke bomb and so past the point where the puff occured.

I have been unable to get a good shot of the pitot tubes.   I am at present using the free low resolution version. I have had some trouble with the film "breaking up " but it is possible to get decent shots. Have you experienced breaking up Hugh ? It may be my computer which is fairly ancient.  In all I believe this film casts doubt on the Lost Antenna theory.

Another point with the bent pitot tube theory is that this would undoubtedly render one of the Airspeed  Indicators inopperative.(presumably the co-pilots).   This I think would appear to A/E as a malfunctioning Pitot/Static system yet twice Amelia radioed  "everything Ok."   Would a pilot do this with a pitot /static problem?   Perhaps one of our Forum Pilots may care to comment on that aspect.

Jack Clark    # 2564
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Jack, I haven't seen the newsreel clip available from British Pathe but I can guarantee that it's NOT the Lae takeoff.  There were no "media" on hand and the one home-movie film taken didn't surface until years later.  From your description it sounds to me like the Oakland takeoff in March (lots of splashing through puddles on the runway).

Jeff Glickman later determined that the appearance of a bent pitot tube is an illusion.  Neither pioto is bent.  The belly antenna, however, really is gone.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:27:30 EST
From:         Adam
Subject:      Betty's Notebook -- Was it you know who?

Two thoughts on the "if Betty's Notebook is July 2 does that rule out Gardner?" discussion.

Thought one is that while the strength of the radio signals would seem to indicate (although not prove) they were fairly close to Howland at 8:43, and thus makes a 10:00 landing at Gardner problematic, isn't that true of just about anywhere else they could have wound up?  I mean, where else would they be that's closer to Howland?  Winslow Reef?  Baker?  If the problem is that they couldn't have made it to Gardner on July 2 by 10:00, fair enough, but barring an uncharted isle a la Gilligan I don't see any more likely spot on the map for the transmission to originate from.

Thought two is that there's a pretty strong indication that Amelia was already heading southeast on the LOP at 8:43.  "We are on line 157/337.  We are running north and south" only makes sense if they had ALREADY gone one way, and were returning, or were about to return, on the other.  Otherwise, one would say "we are running north" or "we are running south."  And as someone pointed out in a forum long past, the order of "north and south" implies that they had already gone north, and were now heading south.

So...to get back to the issue of the 5 strength of the radio reception.  Let us presume that at the time of "We are on you but cannot see you" AE and FN are, say, 100 miles southeast of Howland on the LOP.  They then head north for a good long way, finding nothing and thus deciding that they MUST be north of Howland, and then head south, and are still heading south on the LOP at 8:43.  Having already gone pretty far north and found nothing, and having had to then retrace their steps to get back to where they started before proceeding further southeast, it's unlikely that they would turn back northwest again; the only logical course of action at that point is to keep heading southeast (and pray).  Note that during all this flying, they have been within, say, a hundred miles or so of the point where they first hit the LOP and said "we are on you."  If the Itasca was getting a 5 at that juncture (if memory serves I think they were), they might well still get a 5 at 8:43; the 10E would have gotten closer to Howland and then farther away, but relative to the original "5" signal they might not have gone far at all.

Finally, let's not forget the Pan-Am and Hawaii fixes on other post-loss transmissions.  Of four of the bearings taken, three of them intersected at or very near Gardner.  I just don't see how we easily get around that...it's as close to a smoking gun as anything I've seen.  The recent points raised are valid, but even so it still seems to me that Gardner is a more likely landing spot than anywhere else.
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Bob Brandenburg has just completed an extensive review of the PAA and Coast Guard DF bearings taken during the search and that information will be included in TIGHAR's forthcoming Special Report on the Post-Loss Radio Signals.

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:02:03 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Buy This Notebook

It was interesting for me to see that the lyrics to the song titled ( I think) "They can't take that away from me", as transcribed by Betty, show overwritten words and more hurried handwriting, as if really written down while the song was playing, as compared to the "AE distress message" material, which altho sketchy, is written in a very neat cursive handwriting, as if there was then no hurry at all. Look at the uniform slant of the distress material, and its adherence to the lines on the paper, and compare to the song lyrics. Strange, innit? Look at the careful flourishes on the H of "Howland", or the M of "Marie" on the California page. Same page, looks like "from" has been erasured and rewritten, and maybe same erasure for "!" after "Marie Hey". The song lyrics i spoke about, now *that's* what it looks like when i scribble down things I hear on the radio. The rest of the distress material, that reminds me of how i write when i write checks or address envelopes.

(  "Hey Marie", wasn't that one of the Keely Smith - Louie Prima jazz tunes my dad would play in the 1950s ? .....Just kidding! )

AE: "Watch that battery"
FN: "What did you tell me to do?" (pretty noisey in there, or wound to head or ears)
AE: "Will you help me?"
FN: "All right!"

and so on. R I G H T.

"Take it away, Howland!" , as Amelia sez.

-Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The transcription entries are clearly written down more carefully than the song lyrics and there may very well have been erasures in places.  Betty has said many times that she wasn't scrambling to get everything down.  There was far too much being said.  She says that she was trying to pick out what might be the most important things and write them down clearly.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:39:27 EST
From:         Adam
Subject:      Strength 5 at 8:43

After my previous post, it occurred that there was a simpler explanation to the seeming dichotomy of a Strength 5 transmission being received at 8:43 if AE was already 200+ miles SE on the LOP on the way to a 10 a.m. Gardner landing.  (Ric or someone else may have already pointed it out and if so, you needn't post this)

If I remember right, according to TIGHAR's research with the unsmoothed radio logs, it would appear that neither radio operator actually heard the 8:43 transmission...they were occupied with radioing for help and it seems to have been overheard by others on the speakers, who then relayed the message to the radio ops.  If that's the case, then as a relative gauge of strength (and thus distance from Howland) to previous transmissions, the notation of "strength 5" would be useless, since it would be a secondhand information from a different set of listeners.  If the distracted radiomen did not themselves hear the 8:43 message, it would argue if anything for the signal having grown weaker.

Therefore the issue with the 8:43 transmission would appear to not be whether a strength 5 could have been heard at that distance, but whether the transmission could have been heard at all.  If AE was moving away on the LOP and was 200 miles or so from Howland at 8:43, it would also help explain why there were no further transmissions (e.g. at 9:15 or 9:45) heard by the Itasca.

Does that all track, or did I get something wrong?
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The 08:43 reception was logged in two distinct sections.  The first part (We are on the line 157 337..." etc. and ending in the word "Wait") was followed by a notation that specified that the foregoing was heard on 3105 in voice at strength 5.  The second part ("We are running on line north and south") is appended after the above notation and is preceded by a "(?/KHAQQ XMISSION". So what did the question mark mean?  Was the operator unsure that this part was really a transmission from KHAQQ?  That doesnt seem likely.  There was nobody else in the neighborhood sending voice on 3105.  It must mean that the content of the second part of the transmission was questionable.  Why?  Bob Brandenburg suggests that the quality of the reception might have been a factor.  I've suggested that the second part of the transmission caught both operators by surprise while they were doing something else (as evidenced in the original log) and nobody was sure just she had said.

In any case, both parts of the transmission were logged as received at 08:43 so they happened quite close together.  The first part was logged as "S5" and it would be hard to make a case that the airplane was at a significantly different distance from Howland during the first part of the message than it was during the second.  I don't recall why, but Elgen Long claims that the 08:43 reception, although still "Strength 5", was somewhat weaker than the preceding Strength 5 receptions.  In fact, he makes a rather big deal of that in assigning where the airplane was at that moment (see the chart on page 212 of his book).  I'll have to see if I can dig out why he thinks the signal was weaker at 0843.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:40:49 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ric wrote:

> You have a tape of the March of Time dramatization?!  When did you get
> that?

And what is the date of the broadcast that you have?

There were two, a week apart.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:44:36 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

My copy of the Eighth Edition is currently on loan, and I'm curious what speed Brandenburg used for his analysis, as well as what exactly he said as to the possibilities of the plane being heard at the distance you mention, and at the signal strengths reported. It would probably be best just to fully quote him, rather than paraphrase.

--Chris Kennedy
*************************************************************************
From Ric

There's not much point in quoting anything if you don't understand that speed has nothing to do with it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:52:41 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: RIght engine run radio?

There are a number of reasons why the radio couldn't function with the a/c floating.

(1) For starters, the Electra wouldn't bob like a cork.  Despite the empty fuel tanks, there was a lot of weight involved, and remember the a/c was not designed to float in the first place.  Lots of places for water to leak into the airframe.  The a/c would settle quite a bit before equilibrium was achieved.

This is a bit of a digression, but... Even a Volkswagen Bug, one of the most watertight cars ever made (and designed that way), will leak and settle... back in college I knew a guy who used one of 'em for a boat in a comedy river race sponsored by the student engineers' society.  He (just) made it over the 5 mile course, with 6 inches of water inside at the end. The a/c would probably have water inside the cabin, particularly in the cockpit.  The receiver was mounted under the right seat. Sizzle-sizzle-wonk.

(2) The dynamotor for the transmitter was mounted near the cabin floor. ZAP.

(3) The batteries were located either in the nose (primary) or under the aft cabin floor (auxiliary).  Sea water and batteries don't mix.

(4) (and probably elementary) The feed through insulator which passed the lead-in from the dorsal Vee antenna through the fuselage was located on the lower starboard side of the fuselage.  If the antenna feed point is under water, especially salt water, the transmitter isn't going to work.

(5) And if the a/c was floating with the tail high enough so the feed wasn't wet, surely the cockpit would be so full of water that the receiver would be flooded.  Not to mention the primary batteries.

(6) Remember too, this is hardly modern solid state electronics. A dynamotor is a big greedy amp-eater that says "FEED ME!" whenever it starts up.  Unreplenished batteries will not long support a system that draws something like 65 amps (dynamotor and filaments) at 12 volts (yes, the Electra used a 12 volt system, not 24).

(7) Of course, all this would be a moot point if the a/c did not survive the ditching intact.  If the tail came off, or merely if the force of water back over the fuselage at splashdown carried away the antenna, well.... Go figure.

73
Mike E.
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mike.  Minor correction - the aux. battery was in a box on (not under) the cabin floor behind the transmitter.  Also, whether the receiver was working or not is irrelevant to whether transmissions were sent.  That said, your point is well-taken that for the transmitter/aux. battery/ transmitter lead-in to be clear of the water, the main battery and dyanmotor have to be underwater.

Could you review for us just what it is the dynamotor does?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:13:19 EST
From:         Dave Chase
Subject:      Re: Betty's radio

This site claims that there is a private registry (about 40) for the Zenith Stratospheres:

http://www.oldradiozone.com/strat_1000Z.html

You can find the link to email them on the left.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:13:45 EST
From:         Dave
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

To Alan:

Thanks, Alan... I'm sure I have misread and come up with a lousy interpretation of what Gary was positing. Also, my apologies to Gary for having so badly interpreted his posts.

Although as a non-navigator, isn't it reasonable to assume that they may have relied to a great extent on a compass heading and just stuck with it?

Dave
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:14:26 EST
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

> The second alternative, that
> Betty made it all up, doesn't fly, she wouldn't know.  The only other
> alternative is that Betty heard AE.

There IS another alternative:  Betty could have made the whole thing up and written it down days (or even weeks, months or years) after the fact.  I am not suggesting that she did so, but it IS another possibility.  As to motive?  I don't know, nor would I presume to hazard a guess.

David Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:18:21 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Carol,

On the TIGHAR Forum, I want to make it clear that I don't want to get involved in any kind of movie, play etc with the material I have written to the TIGHAR forum.

These posts are intended for research discussion purposes only, and I suspect, the property of TIGHAR since he posts them under his website. (Ric?)

So thanks for the opportunity for a screen credit , but no thanks.

Ron Bright, (yes S/A ONI (ret)

*****************************************

From Pat

>and I
>suspect, the property of TIGHAR since he posts them under his website.

You betcha. It's right there in the first paragraph on the Earhart Forum page:

"By submitting a written message to the Forum, the author assigns all copyright (if any) to TIGHAR."

And no, we do *not* give blanket permission to *anyone* to use these postings. It's a case-by-case basis, for specific items, and we would certainly not allow them to be used in a fictionalized play about AE.

LTM and her intellectual property rights,
Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:18:53 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook: Was it Amelia

Maybe I wasn't clear. But Betty is positive she heard Amelia Earhart repeat those call signs of W40K Howland Port, et al. Not that she, Betty, heard them and copied them into the notebook

So could AE's broken antenna or loop antenna receive Carroll's ham transmission of his call sign, which, says Betty was specifically said by AE. If not there are other explanations for that broadcast.

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:19:15 EST
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

James Burnett's post is one of the most reasoned and well articulated analysis I have ever read on the TIGHAR forum

David Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:20:37 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

Alan wrote:

> Dave, Gary knows this and his posting has been misinterpreted by me and
> others. The famous LOP is only in our imagination albeit an educated one.
> No one knows if Noonan ever drew a line 157/337 on his chart and if he
> did when it was done.

TIGHAR did not pull these numbers out of a hat.

They come from the last radio transmission received by the Itasca.

Everyone who wants to argue about what could have or should have been done has got to take account of the data in the radio message.

There are at least two cool things about 157/337:

1) It matches the LOP derived from a dawn sunshot.

2) A line drawn 157 degrees from Howland points pretty close to Gardner (Niku).

AE didn't explain how she and Fred chose to fly this line.  But it seems reasonable to me to assume that they thought they had a good reason to us it to search for Howland or find another landfall nearby.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:22:27 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

James Burnett wrote:

> ... You see, in 1937 aviators still adhered
> to the 1927 International Convention on Emergency Transmissions, and it
> required emergency transmissions to begin with "C.Q." (Come Quickly).
> "S.O.S." first gained usage that we know of in 1912 aboard the Titanic,
> but the transmissions ALL began, "C.Q. and S.O.S." "Mayday" was not
> something American aviators used with great frequency before World War II,
> according to the research I'm doing ...

CQ and SOS are Morse Code (continuous wave, CW) conventions. "Mayday" was adopted in 1927 for radiotelephone as the oral equivalent of SOS in CW: 
<http://webhome.idirect.com/~jproc/rrp/distress.html>

Whether AE and FN understood or followed the distinction is debatable.

> ... It is just as likely
> that they were afloat in the water and the aircraft
> was losing watertight integrity.

You're assuming that the radio would work equally well in a floating aircraft and that AE would be content to sit in the cockpit for 90 minutes or so talking to nobody.

I don't think either assumption is warranted.

> Did they have a survival kit? If so, what did it
> include for water landings?)

We don't know.  No one has yet found the inventory of what was or was not loaded aboard for the fatal flight.

> My whole point for this exercise is that
> they're all wasting their time arguing over what the notebook does or doesn't
> prove.

You've joined the argument, so you stand under your own judgment.  ;o)

Ric then quoted this transmission:

> OPINION OF TECHNICAL AIDS HERE THAT EARHART PLANE WILL BE FOUND ON
> ORGINAL  LINE OF POSITION WHICH INDICATED POSITION THROUGH HOWLAND ISLAND
> AND PHOENIX  GROUP.  RADIO TECHNICIANS FAMILIAR WITH RADIO EQUIPMENT ON
> PLANE ALL STATE  THAT PLANE RADIO COULD NOT FUNCTION NOW IF IN WATER AND
> ONLY IF PLANE WAS ON  LAND AND ABLE TO OPERATE RIGHT MOTOR FOR POWER.

As I noted in my previous message to Alan, the "original line of position" to which this note refers is 157/337.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:23:36 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Oscar Boswell writes:

> In truth,  AE was given not recommended speeds but  recommended POWER
> SETTINGS, which she expected to produce an AVERAGE  TRUE air speed of
> around 150 mph. Nothing indicates that she was attempting to hold a
> constant airspeed, and in fact KJ's telegrams are a strong indication to
> the contrary.

Thanks, Oscar. If I could have ever come up with this it would have taken me a month. <G>

I can't argue with you about any of this except about the constant airspeed. Maybe she didn't hold a constant airspeed but I don't know how Noonan could keep track of his position without it. My navigator would have killed us if the airspeed didn't hold to what he wanted. Now I suppose they could have done this in hourly increments or something along those lines but it would still compound Noonan's problems of keeping the whereabouts of the Electra accurately plotted on his chart.

But you answered the critical parts of my question and I tend to agree it is likely AE just held to a fairly constant procedure whether of airspeed or power settings. I understand she indicated this was the  toughest leg but I don't think they thought it was going to be as difficult as it apparently turned out. By that I mean it don't think they made any special plans or efforts in regard to the possibility of not finding Howland.

l also had long suspected that climbs were not as you put it a big deal fuel wise. Ric points out the obvious problem and that's visibility. That of course cuts both ways. The weather would have been a great deciding factor. It seems apparent the weather in bound to Howland was an obstacle to their seeing Howland from 10,000 feet as they descended from that altitude to 1,000 feet. They had two weather problems. Looking down to see Howland and looking up to see the sun. We don't know the tops of the cloud formation so there is no way to decide whether climbing was practical once they decided to leave Howland for wherever they went. All I wanted to do was see if fuel considerations eliminated that avenue. Clearly it doesn't.

Finally it seems to me they could have reasonably expect slightly more range after Howland than we have previously thought. I know you had shown us it was technically possible but I was more interested in what AE could have known to do and might have done. I think you answered that quite well. What she did of course we may not ever know.

I told our new poster and my old friend, James Burnett this group had some incredible expertise and pointed to you as a good example. TIGHAR is indeed fortunate to include you and the many others whose knowledge is indispensable.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:24:49 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia? Carol's Comments

Ric wrote:

> Carol, please don't use Betty's notebook or anything else you think you
> have learned on this forum or from the TIGHAR website in
> ANYTHING you write.  By all means, rely on Ron Bright and Rollin Reineck.

Ric, don't forget the good solid and indisputable "evidence such as the old Japanese Prison at Garapan, Saipan....." including "her initials on the wall along with mysterious symbols." Combine that with Rollin and Ron and no studio could turn her down.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:25:48 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Carol ...

Ric writes:

> I am but the servant of the people.  If the forum wishes to be spared
> Carol's postings I'll happily oblige.

I look forward to them with great anticipation. <G> They are certainly different but by what yardstick would they be banned? I'm afraid a number of our good souls would fall under the same rules.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:26:22 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Carol ....

Ric,
I think you're right about the postings. I would like to stay on the website, but I really shouldn't be posting personal opinions which is what I have a tendency to do. So, in the future if you see something that shouldn't be posted from Carol Dow, don't post it. Please pardon me if I have offended anyone.
Carol Dow
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:28:24 EST
From:         Tom Strange
Subject:      Re: Carol...

Ric,

Please keep Miss Carol involved - Many comments by Miss carol and others on the forum seem off subject but do provide food for thought - Besides she sometimes provide a foil for pent up excess energy on this forum.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang

Dave Chase wrote:

>Ric, with all due respect, I believe there's a limit to how many more of
>Carol's emails we need to be subjected to. I understand that it's in
>TIGHAR's best interest to promote its activities. Maybe at one point in
>time, influencing Carol's future writings might have fallen into that
>category. It was obvious long ago that this was a losing cause... JMHO.
>
>********************************************************************
>From Ric
>
>I am but the servant of the people. If the forum wishes to be spared Carol's
>postings I'll happily oblige.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:29:03 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

> It has always seemed to me
> that these type of hoaxes take several days to "cook up" and begin
> distribution, not several hours.

If I was going to cook up a hoax it would have at least made enough sense I could have got some mileage out of it. I can't see any kind of a theory where this could have been a hoax.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:29:33 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Carol ...

> If the forum wishes to be spared Carol's postings I'll happily oblige.

Maybe not an outright ban...just be more rigorous about restricting her to postings with real substance (that should accomplish the same thing).

LTM,
Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:30:56 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Opposition

Opposition goes on all the time I know but sometimes it grates the wrong enough I feel like saying something about it.

Most of the folks on the forum are very positive and contributing people. Folks like Oscar just to name one and I won't go further with that for fear of leaving someone out.

Some only want to disprove everything. They only want to challenge anything someone says. The challenge is not all bad but it's the way it's done. And you guys know who you are without me naming names. If you disagree that's fine. Show where someone is wrong AND why something else is more correct or more likely. SHOW it don't waste everyone's time just saying it.

All you guys want to do is play little games with words and try to make someone look foolish. I'm guilty too when I bash poor Daryll who is trying damned hard to get a point across. He works hard at it. And I apologize to Daryll for being too tough on him. At least he's trying to contribute a positive concept. Others just want to sit back and tell everyone to "Prove it." "Show me all your math."  Where's THEIR math? Where're THEIR ideas?

It doesn't take ANY intelligence to disagree. It DOES take intelligence to put forth a good well reasoned theory. I'm not seeing any.

Particularly during the last few days all I'm reading is why something CAN'T be done. Not a blessed intelligent proposal in that group.

That's not a contribution. It's a pure waste of time. Fortunately there are enough folks here with a lot of individual expertise and common sense AND who can read to bounce ideas back and forth. Some of you need to get together and see how many things you can think up that can't be done. Post a list with the poof AND the math of course and the rest of us won't have to bother with those things ever again.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:31:20 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Knee Deep

The report of knee deep and can't bail out. Why not this scenario: Fred goes to the "head", toilet over flows, he slips, hits his head and becomes incoherent. Amelia is upset, the back of the plane is covered with sewage and she has nothing to "bail out" the back of the plane with!

One possible scenario.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:32:45 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Running along a Sun line

For Mark Prange:

Yes, Mark, I know how a Sun line can be tracked... I would also postulate that given the timeframe (1937) and the experience of Fred Noonan, I would think that his most reliable sun shot would have been at sunrise. Taking a solar shot against the jinking of the airplane to maintain course or trim would have been assumed to be less reliable than a shot taken against a known reference (the horizon).

My belief is that we would all be much better served if we could shrug off the navigational methods learned in the past 60+ years and attempt to rely on the methods known, and possibly used, at the time (circa 1937). It is also my belief is that if Earhart had a modicum of confidence in her compass, that she would have depended upon that (the compass heading), rather than depending on a series of haphazard sun shots by Fred Noonan (if, indeed, they were ever taken). In the interim (since 1937) we can almost assume that Fred Noonan's navigational abilities were only depended upon to the determination of an assumed valid DF signal from ITASCA.

In spite of the faux "hero worship" demonstrated in this forum, I would suggest that Amelia Putnam and Fred Noonan found Gardner Island and landed on it during the morning of July 2, 1937 and afterward sent distress signals received by Betty (at one time) and by others (at other times), and that they perished for useless, although very understandable, reasons.

As a student of history, I am constantly reminded that this duo were extremely ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances; not only that, but that they prevailed... for a time.

Dave

P.S. To Ric:
The past few days have compelled me to put my money where my (sometimes misinterpreted) mouth is and join TIGHAR... (the check is in the mail).

*******************************

From Pat ---

Ric thanks you. Pat thanks you. TIGHAR thanks you. That's three thanks for one membership, not bad, huh?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:40:25 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Carol ...

> I am but the servant of the people.

Oh sure, hit us with the old humble bit.

> If the forum wishes to be spared Carol's postings I'll happily oblige.

Really, it's whatever you want - personally, most of the time I just skip the drivel anyway, so it doesn't really impact me much - you're the one who has to wade through the stuff (even if Pat's doing a lot of the drudge work right now).

In the broader sense it seems to me this needs to be looked at from several angles.  First and foremost, participating in the forum is a privilege, not a right.

Do the postings (Carol's, Cam's, or anybody else's - like mine for example) contribute in a (generally) meaningful way to the forum and by definition to the project, or do they provide a (generally) meaningful counterpoint or opposing view from which the forum members may learn?  I've never known you to suppress honest expression of dissident viewpoints, and from time to time I've learned some things as a result, either from the postings, or the responses.

If individual postings fail that test, are they otherwise sufficiently entertaining to justify putting up with them even though there might not be much of substance?  If so, then I would continue to post them.

If, however, the postings consistently provide nothing substantive or educational, or are so downright vitriolic as to be nothing much more than than hate-speech, then I see no point in you wasting your time, or the forum wasting the bandwidth.

Carol does tend to ramble and get off point.  And if truth be known, she gives me the distinct impression that she's using Tighar as her personal literary research assistant.  Other than writing a play, I really don't think she has much interest in the Earhart mystery.

A couple points that Carol should heed well.  Betty's notebook is her work - read: Betty owns the copyright.  Tighar has permission to use the material for research purposes.  I'm not a lawyer, but I would suspect that should Betty's (or Tighar's) material be usurped for unauthorized commercial exloitation (or other unlawful uses) there would be a pretty strong case for civil or criminal sanctions.

All that being said, Carol (so far) doesn't really seem to be hurting much. Now I'm watching over my shoulder for a lady with a samurai sword ;^)

ltm
jon

*****************************************

>Betty's notebook is her work -
>read: Betty owns the copyright.  Tighar has permission to use the material for
>research purposes.

Yup. A very good point to raise, Jon, and I appreciate it. We *do* take our copyright law seriously.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:41:11 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Carol ...

Ric wrote:

> I am but the servant of the people.  If the forum wishes to be spared Carol's
> postings I'll happily oblige.

If one wishes to be spared Carol's postings, or mine, or Ric's, one need only skip them. (I have a list of both posters and subjects to which I give only limited attention.) I suppose there's a limit, but I don't think Carol is anywhere near it. And - in the absence of insanity or breach of the peace - there's always a real danger in limiting discussion. In one of my first postings, I said "I learn a lot of things from people who obviously don't know what they are talking about." It's not what the posting says that counts most - it's the mental sparks it generates.

Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:43:19 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Mike Muenich writes:

> Okay, several hours, beginning in the early afternoon, after a missing
> report, not a crashed and sunk report, to 1) develop a hoax; and 2) begin
> broadcasting on bands that could be picked up by commercial
> stations/receivers.  In 1937, I presume most kids would have been in school
> and those that weren't probably wouldn't have the resources to broadcast.

So, we have Betty's more recent clarifications as to date, to rely on. Very well.

Most "kids" don't have access to hamband transmitters. College-age people do, and maybe time to do something.

> Have there been any published studies
> of "hoaxers" and the course of such hoaxes relating to missing persons,
> children, accidents etc. where somebody has studied how and when they are
> carried out any by whom--sort of a profilers analysis?

Hardly proof, but i did post the example of a hoax perpetrated in 1941, where all record of it would be lost, except for the fact that the FCC and ham organizations took the ham community to task for NOT reporting it!  The general attitude to hoaxers (and jammers) is to ignore them, deny them the attention they seek, and they will go away.

In the words of AE ( per Betty ), "Take it away, Howland!" (punctuation added by me, to AE's transcribed works)

[ If you're unfamiliar with old radio show lingo, this means "Back to you", or "Now it's your turn". ]

BTW, re WOJ or W4OK:

AE did NOT hear either station. The same rules apply West - East as East -West. Daylight conditions in both Niku and Florida rule out reception between these points on frequencies AE's WECo receiver could cover. Her receiver did not tune the higher shortwave bands. AE did not hear WOJ or W4OK. Why are these notations in Betty's notebook? She didn't retune away from AE's signal?

Where is "fig. 8-3" ? I could not find figure 8-3 as an attachment to the notebook.

I am holding down the microphone button while i type this with the other hand. On with the show.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:44:25 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Comments on various issues

I'd like to make some disconnected comments on recent postings to the forum.

1. I am still not convinced that the transmission Betty heard was on July 2, 1937. I believe that although this is indeed possible based upon the evidence I have seen, nothing proves it yet and nothing disproves it, and so in my mind July 3 and July 5 remain other possibilities.

2. If the broadcast Betty heard was indeed Amelia after her landing on Gardner, is it possible that she did not know where she was? Did her maps contain the names of the islands to the southeast of Howland? I don't believe we have an answer to this question. Did she even realize that she was now approx 350 miles southeast of Howland? Could she have thought -- gee, at 0843 we're still near Howland and can't find it, 75 minutes later we're on an island, but there's no other island that close to Howland on my map? That would be a reason to broadcast the course/LOP (157/337 or 158/338) rather than the name of the island.

3. If Betty heard Amelia interspersed with other broadcasts as suggested by James Burnett, would not Betty recognize that the voices had changed? For someone who spent a lot of time listening to short-wave radio broadcasts, you would think Betty would be aware of a change in voices.

4. For Carol Dow...there is a class of literature that allows the author to write about events that are NOT historically proven. Perhaps you were unaware of it, this class of literature is called "fiction". In fact, I believe there was a screenplay by James Cameron in which a certain First Officer Murdoch on board RMS Titanic committed suicide in the screenplay, an event that is not historically proven. If my memory serves, Mr. Cameron's screenplay was turned into a moderately successful movie. But I second Mr. Gillespie's comments, you are best off basing your screenplay on any non-TIGHAR information, no doubt that is the best path to go.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:45:10 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Antenna orientation on Niku reef

In analyzing the post-loss signals, at least the ones heard in the Pacific area itself, i mean signals heard on the fundamental channels of 3105, 6210 and *not* any harmonic, i think you might want to also look at the orientation of the aircraft antenna vis a vis the receiver location. At these wavelengths, the aircraft antenna would be highly directional, favoring broadside off the sides of the aircraft and having null areas straight on and off the the tail of the plane. Yes, i know this is a whole lotta homework for someone.

You start with the orientation of the supposed landing beach, but allow some more rotational span than the antenna pattern would normally allow, since you don't know if the aircraft turned to an angle on coming to rest, due to broken landing gear, obstruction, whatever. I am referring for the pattern to "The ARRL Antenna Book", 1977, page 58 fig. 2-70  (not Betty's "fig 8-3" ), which shows patterns for end fed antennas from 1/2 to 2 wavelengths long. The electrically short aircraft antenna, short anyway as compared to the 90 and 48 meter wavelengths of the 2 radio channels, would take on the appearance closest the book's sketch of the 1/2 wave situation, which looks just like a "figure 8" pattern. ( Iimagine the rule lines on the paper being the plane's fuselage and the lobes - where the transmission and reception being strongest - as the loops of the "8" above and below the paper lines- or - same as the "wings" of the plane.)

I suggest this orientation issue would cast some light on the probability of the veracity of some claimed receptions.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:46:01 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Underwater search

Ric wrote:

> ... And I've always been fascinated by how often we see Amelia's initials
> written as "EA".  I can only imagine that it's a phonetic thing -
> "Emeelya Airheart".

My problem early on was deciding on Earhart (correct) or Earhardt (wrong).

I am a moderator for news:rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated. Over there, we talk a lot about the EarNharDts, Sr. (RIP) and Jr.  :o(

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:46:51 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ric,

I have a tape of a Dec 1937 recap of the March of Time broadcast made in July 37. It just  covers the radio room, and a minute of so of the attempts to contact AE. I think it was Voorhees, the announcer. Carol Osborne found it years ago.

I compared the transcript with Betty's entries. I didn't see any match that suggests she was listening to the MOT. It had lots of KHAQQ, ITASCA blurbs.

No one that I know of can produce the original MOT of 8 July and I think a week later.

Ron B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:47:21 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

In a post of 11-07-2000, you wrote that the explanatory note in the upper right was written quite recently,"probably within the last ten years". It was made for her grandchildren.

You also indicated recently that your review of Hathaway's 1970 notes did not confirm that Betty and her mother agreed that it "might have been the first day that AE was reported missing." In your interview you indicated that Betty didn't recall that conversation with her mother.

But in the same post, supra, your cited "according to John's notes..." So apparently somewhere in John's notes that date estimate is around.

I don't think the date now is in  much dispute. It was 2 July, the date she went down.

Ron
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:48:54 EST
From:         Ron Bright
ubject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ric,

My apologies to Ric and Bob Brandenburg. I missed that Brandenburg was using nautical miles in his matrix. I relied on memory, which is fallible.

So if I  understand it, the max distance AE could have been at 0843 was 200 nautical miles from ITASCA.  At that distance, the "90th percentile SNR was 13dB, indicating a signal that was readable les than 10% of the time."

This suggests that it would have been less than signal strength 5. But I may be misinterpreting that Matrix. Maybe Bob or Ric could answer if at 200 miles the ITASCA could reach her at "5".

LTM,
Ron
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:49:26 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Strength 5 at 8:43

Ric,

In Bob's analysis he says the (?) mark in the 2013 entry indicates an uncertainty about what was said, suggesting that " the SNR was below the 100% intelligibility level, and thus somewhat below that implied by sig strength 5. page 3.

Ron
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:50:30 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Strength 5 at 8:43

Adam wrote:

> After my previous post, it occurred that there was a simpler explanation to
> the seeming dichotomy of a Strength 5 transmission being received at 8:43
> if AE was already 200+ miles SE on the LOP

I think anyone would be hard pressed to provide mathematical evidence of where the plane was, in which direction it was going and how far away from any place it was given all the factors involved and the little input data available.

Because of the environmental factors alone it is not likely repeated tests on the same day using the same equipment would produce identical results.

I love mathematical and scientific preciseness but I think our "precise" warriors are tilting at windmills on this issue. For that matter I've not seen any positive suggestions from them but only attempts to quantify so that they can disprove. Those efforts are far more transparent than clever.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:51:20 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Strength 5 at 8:43

Something has always bothered me about AE's transmission of "Wait". Was that typical protocal for transmissions in 1937? If not, I have always had the impression that it could have suggested she had encountered a serious problem--conjecture at best, but that word "Wait" has always bugged me.

LTM (who gets bugged easily)
Mike Haddock #2438
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:52:08 EST
From:         Howard
Subject:      Radios

Since so few radios like Betty's have survived, wouldn't it be easier to check around the St Petersburg area for electronic/furniture stores that date back to the 1930s? I would think that, if one of them kept any records from the time period, it might be possible to find a record of Betty's father's purchase of the family radio. A very long shot at best, but probably the only chance to definitively find out about the radio. I'll go back to lurking now.

LTM, who likes Carol's posts, if only as a relief from fuel consumption and navigation analysis
Howard in El Paso

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:55:50 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

> How many people do you think sit down in front of their Strat and listen to
> short wave at three in the afternoon?

I can't answer your question nor do I think there are any such statistics but I can tell you that I listened to the radio periodically in the afternoon as did my grand father in the 30s. He was a retired railrod man and had a floor model Zenith with short wave bands. I was born in 32 and always the radio was on and the static crackling.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:56:48 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      What is a Dynamotor?

Q:  What is a Dynamotor, and what does it do?

A:  The word Dynamotor is an amalgam (combination, derivative) of the two words DYNAMO and MOTOR.  In short, a Dynamotor is a machine, a motor driven generator.  The motor section is powered by direct current (DC) from the battery power source, which also energizes the field coils in the generator section of the machine.  The generator section puts out high voltage DC which is used to operate the radio transmitter, or receiver as the case may be.

Dynamotors are also sometimes called "genemotors" depending upon who manufactured them.

In the case of the WE equipment aboard NR16020, the receiver and transmitter each operated from separate dynamotors.  The receiver dynamotor was a relative "baby," drawing about 2.5 to 3 amps from the battery.  It put out 200 volts DC at around 65 milliamperes for the receiver. 

The transmitter dynamotor was much larger.  It drew something like 40 amps from the battery, maybe a little more, when putting out under full load. The output of this machine was 1050 volts DC at 350-400 milliamperes.

The ratio of input power to output power, with dynamotors, yields approximately like 30 percent efficiency.  Rather low... especially considering that with modern gear employing high voltage, transistorized switching-type supplies with efficiencies in the area of 75-80% are used. In a dynamotor you are converting electrical, to mechanical, back to electrical energy.

Dynamotors are pretty heavy too, poundage wise.

Something I forgot to mention in the previous post, regarding a ditching... it would be very easy for the antenna feed line to be torn away from the insulator on the fuselage during splashdown, because the a/c would probably impact in an attitude with the tail a little low... with the insulator located where it was, the forces stressing the wire would be great.

73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:57:52 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Running along a Sun line

> Yes, Mark, I know how a Sun line can be tracked... I would also postulate
> that given the timeframe (1937) and the experience of Fred Noonan, I would
> think that his most reliable sun shot would have been at sunrise.

Dave, whether the year is 1937 or 2003 the most unreliable celestial shot is when the selected body is lower than 10 degrees. Atmospheric distortion is the reason.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:00:44 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands and LOP

> Although as a non-navigator, isn't it reasonable to assume that they may
> have relied to a great extent on a compass heading and just stuck with it?

Absolutely, Dave. for example if they decided to stay at 1,000' because of better visibility and the air was too rough to have a stable platform from which to get an accurate sun shot the "ole whiskey" compass would loom pretty large. Early in my flying career I did a lot of navigating with that instrument. Cross country in a T-6G for one.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:17:51 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ron Bright wrote:

> ... No one that I know of can produce the original MOT of 8 July and I think a
> week later.

Ron Staley claimed to have a friend who had a wax recording of the two broadcasts.

Staley was a friend of Fred Goerner.  We had a nice talk once upon a time on the telephone, but he never came through with a tape of his friend's recording and he hasn't answered my mail or e-mail inquiries since we talked on the phone (circa 2000).  But he did give a description of the two March of Time programs.  There were musical cues between scenes. Chances are good that Betty would have been able to recognize that she was listening to a show if she'd heard the MoT.  The MoT broadcasts were also just a half-hour long.

I called the CBS archives in NYC when I was trying to track down recordings or transcripts.  They wouldn't say whether they've got anything.  Their records are not open to the public.  If anyone has CBS press credentials, they might be able to get further than I did.

I checked some other archives of radio recordings with no success.  Things may have changed since I last searched.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:19:55 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: motor sports

Marty Moleski wrote:

> I am a moderator for <news:rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated>.
> Over there, we talk a lot about the EarNharDts, Sr. (RIP) and
> Jr.  :o(

Marty, you're a NASCAR fan? I would have taken you for more of a Formula One kind of guy.

LTM (who never drives fast)
Kerry Tiller

*********************************************

No. Please, no. Not a NASCAR thread....

LTM, who dislikes noisy engines
Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:21:01 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: What is a Dynamotor?

Mike says:

> The generator section puts out high voltage DC
>which is used to operate the radio transmitter, or receiver as the case may
>be.

Let me make sure I've got this right.  The battery puts out DC but at low voltage.  The transmitter needs relatively high voltage DC.  The dynamotor boosts the voltage to a usable level.  Yes?

>In the case of the WE equipment aboard NR16020, the receiver and transmitter
>each operated from separate dynamotors.

Do we have a handle on the dimensions of each dynamotor?  I've seen reference to only one - the one under the pilot's seat.  Is it possible that the "baby" receiver dynamotor was housed with the receiver?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:23:13 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Right engine run radio II

Mike:  It is difficult to argue with an expert.  So I won't try.  However I note that you are not familiar with the ability of lead-acid batteries to operate under water.  In days of yore in Wisc. I had heard of cars that fell thru the ice on frozen lakes [guys who were long on show off but short on brains] with lights on, which continued to 'burn'.  Then one day I saw it myself.  They went thru the usual cycle of gradually dimming to 'kaput'. over an hour or so.  Fresh water lake.

Several years ago when I first heard the batteries would not work under water, I knew that the statement was incorrrect.  But seawater ??  So I got a couple gals. of the Pacific near Santa Cruz; :45 min. away.  Found a bat that had seen service for at least 5 yrs [wasn't going to possibly ruin a good one].  I decided on a work cycle of xmit. for 20 sec., rest  40 sec.

A piece of oven coil made a 20 A load with a full charge; about 12.4 v. as I recall. I figured a 20 A load on an old bat. would be similar to about 45A on a pair of new bats.  [there was a 50 A fuse that supposedly the xmtr. Blew on the first trip, attibuted to a long xmsn. time],.  After 20 some minutes of that, with beter than 11.5 volts between cycles,  I went in for  lunch. When I returned the anode alligator clip had been eroded & fell off.

Also before beginning I had put 12.4 v thru an ammeter, on two alig. clips in the water.  The 'leakage was between 100 ma & 1 A depending on how close the terminal's were to each other, and it increased with double clips  i.e. more area.  200 ma was the leakage for my bat terms.

I concluded that the bats did deliver normal current under sea water, and a high load could be drawn .. for a longer time if for short periods with intervening rest, and the leakage was not significant for a couple hours at least.  The disolving.of the clip was because it was steel.

That does not say that AE could have xmtd. when on or in the water, only that the batteries were not the limiting factor.  I think Lockheed said batteries rather than a dynamotor, ant. or whatever, because batteries under water would be something everyone would find reasonable.

In a similar vein a neighbor [Chicago, ca '50's ] called me to his house in a panic.  His finished basement had two feet of backed up sewer water and the outlets, some with appliances connected, incl. a floor lamp which was LIT!, were only a foot above the floor.   I put on rubber boots & went into the basement to turn off the affected circuit bkrs.  While there I put a snap-on ammeter over the conductors of the two circuits.  With the lamp off, there was barely flick of the needle of the 3 amp range, 100 ma. grads.. Four duplex outlets with 120 v. imersed in dirty sewer water, & for all practical purposes, no leakage ...

I wrote to the Nat. Undewriters Lab about that.  Everyone knows how current and water will electrocute people.  They pointed out that the electrocution problem with water was in the bathroom where the conductor was not water but cast iron tubs, basins, toilets, etc connected to ground by cast iron pipes. [no plastic in those days.]  So much for water being a good conductor.

Your comments appreciated ... Bob

 [01A, 24-A, 27, 45 experimenter, '36 .... to transistors;  West. Elect..  step/crossbar/radar  '40-'43  WWII;  Test Set Maint. '46-'50;  USAF  '47-'57; Korea;   TWA '52-'82 , light aircraft '46-'99.]
Goofing off in between.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:25:03 EST
From:         Michael Van Holsbeck
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ron,

Did you not about a year ago say that you knew of a man that had them but was stubborn and not into the "NIKU" thing so he was reluctant to get them out or dubbed or transcribed?  If so what if someone else contacts him under the assumption that the post loss messages were fake and that they heard MOT and mistook (like war of the worlds) the broadcast as real?  Maybe to "prove" that she went down at sea and post loss messages were all hoaxes. He might warm up a little to that Idea from a new contact.  Just a thought.

I have tried also with contacts I have who claim to have access to so many things.  They are looking and If they come across them I will share.

Michael (#2569)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:27:20 EST
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ric wrote:

> ... Bob's paper "The Radio Riddle" in which he very
> clearly says he's using nautical miles and shows that the 08:43 ...
> transmission could have been heard from 200 nm south of
> Howland.

It makes perfect sense to me that AE was 200 south east of howland at 0848, thats exactly where I would expect her to be since she said she was running the line.  What Kinda fool would go north when there is nothing there??

LTM Claude Stokes
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:29:26 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook -- Was it you know who?

Adam wrote:

> Two thoughts on the "if Betty's Notebook is July 2 does that rule out
> Gardner?" discussion.
>
> I mean, where else would they
> be that's closer to Howland?  Winslow Reef?
>
> Thought two is that there's a pretty strong indication that Amelia was
> already heading southeast on the LOP at 8:43.  "We are on line 157/337.  We
> are running north and south" only makes sense if they had ALREADY gone one
> way, and were returning, or were about to return, on the other.  Otherwise,
> one would say "we are running north" or "we are running south."  And as
> someone pointed out in a forum long past, the order of "north and south"
> implies that they had already gone north, and were now heading south.

To your first point, even at low tide, there is a minimum of 36 feet of water over Winslow Reef.  DMA Pub. 126, Sailing Directions for the Pacific Islands, 1988 ed.      describes Winslow Reef at 1-36 S, 175-57 W as about 1 mile long E-W and 1/2 mile wide N-S with "a minimum depth of 11 m (6 fm).."  That's 36 feet! So no place for AE to land. She would have sunk there just the same as if she were over the Marianas Trench.

To you second point, ever hear of "beans and pork"?  No? It's hard to pronounce it, isn't it? The expression "pork and beans" , however, rolls off your tongue in one smooth complete single expression. Now try saying "south and north." "North and south" is also a common expression and also just rolls off the tongue. My point is don't read too much into AE's pronunciation. It is also possible that she did say "south and north" but that the radioman wrote it down in the reversed order because of common "north and south" expression.

It is also possible that they had already made several passes both north and south in an effort to find Howland prior to the transmission.

gl.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:20 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

You may want to doublecheck that speed has nothing to do with it.  At one point, as I recall, Mr. Brandenburg has the plane moving down the LOP to Gardner at a certain time, and while a time/speed analysis may not be a factor in his computation of the range of Earhart's equipment, it is a factor in his conclusion as to why the plane was not heard from after 0843.  In other words, applying the theory/analysis of range to a particular set of facts/assumptions as to time and speed.  If someone on the Foum has "The Radio Riddle" perhaps they can double check both Ric and myself on this one.  I believe Mr. Brandenburg addresses two issues in the analysis, and this is the second issue (towards the end of the paper).  The answer may help Adam with his questions, as well.

Thanks for the help,

--Chris Kennedy
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, I understand your question.  Speed, of course, does not have any bearing on signal to noise ratio (SNR).  Bob Brandenburg did, however, base his study on some basic assumptions about where the airplane could have been at specific times.  One of his assumptions (quoting directly from his paper) is:

"[T]his analysis assumes that Earhart's ground speed on the LOP was bounded by a minimum of 115 knots and a maximum of 130 knots."

He also presents data which "shows 200 (nautical) miles as the maximum distance (from Howland) from which the 2013 GCT signal could have been sent."

As we've already seen, an airplane that was 200 nm southeast of Howland at 2013 GCT would need a ground speed of 123 knots to cover the remaining distance to Gardner by 2130 GCT (10:00 a.m. local).  By interesting coincidence, that's pretty much in the middle of Bob's speed range.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:37 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: RIght engine run radio?

Mike,

think about this:

Til the radio shorted out, blew a fuse, or whatever, there might be high voltage in the water, from water contacting wires inside connectors on the dynamotor and radio. That would make it unsufferable, in fact, impossible, to keep any part of one's body in contact with the water.

Now also think about this quote, live from the airplane on the reef:

"....waters high..."

"....here put your ear to it..."

Since the water was high, the radio receiver was probably shorted out. IF the radio was still running, for sure, the salt water grounded out the antenna connection, which was an exposed terminal. Antenna grounded out = no reception, no noise.

So what was AE talking about FN putting his ear to?

The radio headphone?

A seashell?

A suitcase?

The water?

-Hue Miller
***************************************************************************
From Ric

At the risk of again offending Mr. Katz, let me point out some alternative interpretations:

"....waters high..."  If the airplane is on the reef (which it must be if transmissions are being sent and it is somehow threatened by water) and the water is high enough to reach the receiver, the transmitter is already submerged and the tranmission can not take place.  So - I agree with you - that can't be right.  What if "waters high" refers to the water along the reef edge, i.e. the ocean?  If they're parked about 75 feet from the reef edge (where the surface is smooth enough to land on) and they look seaward they'll see the swells breaking threateningly along the reef edge.

"....here put your ear to it..."  One earpiece of the headphones of course. We know the receiver was working when she heard the "A"s and it seems most likely that she heard them over the loop (she was, after all, trying to take a bearing).  If she tries the loop again on the same frequency - 7500 Kcs - would there be anything for her to hear very shortly after 10:00 a.m. local time?  Let's check the Itasca radio log.

(This is so cool.)   From 10:03 to 10:05 Itasca is trying to contact Earhart on 7500.  The message, of course, is in code because Itasca has no voice capability on that frequency, but it turns out that there was something for Earhart to hear if she was listening at that time.  Whether she could have heard a transmission from Itasca about 350 nm away over the loop is a question for Bob Brandenburg.

It may be that in trying to show that the notebook receptions can't be genuine, you've uncovered another reason to believe that Betty really was hearing AE on July 2nd.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:46 EST
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook:  Was it Amelia?

Did Tighar ever play any of the pre-flight AE and FN news clips sound tracks for Betty and let her make a positive ID on voice recognition for AE and or FN as whether she thinks they were the same voices she heard in 1937?

LTM, claude stokes

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Could you ID voices as being the same ones you heard 65 years ago?  I'm afraid that an exercise like that would be meaningless.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:11 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ron Berry wrote:

> How many people do you think sit down in front of their Strat and listen to
> short wave at three in the afternoon?

Ron, the above question is a non-starter. It's apparent how many people you think, were doing this, but you're wrong.

>There were only a few of these radios
> in the southern part of the U.S. at that time.

IMO you may have something here. It was a small house, and Betty's father's job, altho very respectable, wouldn't seem to match this top of the line radio. "House poor and radio rich", i would call it. 

>There was a depression on and
> most people did not have enough money to buy a receiver like Betty's.

However, it was "late depression", not 1930 - 1933, and not everyone was on the corner selling apples.

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

This has been explained many times.  Betty's father worked for the power company which encouraged and subsidized the purchase by its employees of new electrical appliances in hopes of boosting their popularity and increasing demand for electricity.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:29 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Buy This Notebook

Ric wrote:

> The transcription entries are clearly written down more carefully than the
> song lyrics and there may very well have been erasures in places.  Betty has
> said many times that she wasn't scrambling to get everything down.  There was
> far too much being said.  She says that she was trying to pick out what might
> be the most important things and write them down clearly.

Okay, just to clarify, because i'm a slow learner:

When Betty was listening to a song she liked, and she wanted to get it down, she would try to write every word down, with the result that her handwriting suffered.

You can see the hurry.

But, two people are sending SOS, and sounds like approaching death, but Betty calmly, carefully and neatly pens only the key words, the really important words, like "suitcase", "uncle", and "Marie".

Now on to the text itself, when AE says, "Help us quick", are those AE's actual words? If so, was she concerned that the Itasca's crew was all on deck, smoking cigarettes, dragging their feet?

"Water's high"  "Here, put your ear to it". Ear to what? ( Receiver non functional)

"This is Amelia Putnam"

Oops- shouldn't have cited this one- Betty has explained what AE "really" said.

"Come here." "Just a moment" It's a long walk in the Lockheed?

"Bob"

Oops- i forgot your name was Fred.

"Crying now"

I'm crying, i am afraid it's all over, we are dying, but i sure will remember to keep that microphone button pressed, so the world can hear me crying.

Meanwhile ( H Miller speculates here), Betty's radio drifts, or is retuned, and pulls in WOJ with a transoceanic phone call: "Marie...wait til you hear from me....get George's suticase from the closet, okay? and so on.

And so on.

"Take it away, Howland!"

-Hue Miller
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Perhaps you'd like to construct your own script of what a genuine transmission from Earhart should sound like.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:00:42 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Here's some thoughts that I have on Betty's notebook entries. I've read through the bulk of the forum archives and I have not seen these issues brought up so I thought that I'd throw them out.

The notebook entries (as have been pointed out before) are chilling. The human nature of the tragedy -- two people who both probably feel that they have let down the other -- are tired, and most importantly lost. Fred's "loose" navigation coupled with Amelia's lack of radio expertise have now conspired to put them on a deserted island.

After being in the plane for over 20 hours, perhaps suffering from an injury, Fred wants out of the plane. Unless exiting the plane is suicidal, I can certainly understand that. Give me some air and let me gather my thoughts, analyze the situation from dry land and plan.

Standard survival plan: STOP -- Stop, Think, Observe and Plan.

Amelia, on the other hand, is still(?) working the radio trying desperately to talk to anyone. Again, a perfectly reasonable reaction considering that she probably feels that radio communication is her responsibility and the only proactive means that they have to be rescued.

So the question -- was it Amelia? I think so. Unless the time frame of the messages just can't be worked out (and I think they have been) I'd have to say that the notebook entries are real and they do nothing to disprove the Niku hypothesis.

Bob Lee
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:05:50 EST
From:         Oscar Boswll
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Alan Caldwell writes:

> Maybe she didn't hold a constant airspeed but I don't know how Noonan could
> keep track of his position without it. My navigator would have killed us if
> the airspeed didn't hold to what he wanted. Now I suppose they could have
> done this in hourly increments or something along those lines but it would
> still compound Noonan's problems of keeping the whereabouts of the Electra
> accurately plotted on his chart.

Let's see if we can get on the same page about what I am saying about airspeed. It is that at a given airspeed and altitude, speed will gradually increase as weight is reduced by fuel burn. This is simply inevitable.

Report 487-34 gives us data for an estimate of the magnitude of this increase - speeds at 10,000 feet on 300 hp per engine are shown as 158 mph at 12,900 pounds and 177 mph at 9300 pounds - this implies an increase in speed of roughly 1 mph for each 200 pound weight reduction (19 mph for 3600 pounds). Take this as a rough midpoint estimate. A fuel consumption of (say) 38 gph is 228 pounds per hour. We might therefore estimate that at 38 gph, speed would increase 1.1 or 1.2 mph during each hour. This is no big deal, and is easily compensated for by using an average speed - if any compensation at all is required.

I certainly am not suggesting that FN would have been happy if AE flew at 126 for 14 minutes, followed by 163 for 8 minutes, then 151 for 9 minutes, etc. I am merely suggesting that if she flew at the 38 gph setting for 10 hours, speed increased steadily during that time - and that the aircraft's speed at the end of the 10 hours would have been 10 or 12 or 15 mph faster than at the beginning of that period, on the same horsepower and at the same altitude. FN could handle that.

Remember that IT IS THE NAVIGATOR'S JOB to keep track of the airspeed of the plane so that he may dead reckon. He has an airspeed indicator right in front of him. A 1 or 2 mph increase over an hour is actually so small as to be lost in the shuffle, when one considers the variations in wind speed and direction.

People talk about the winds being "such and such" from "X direction" - that is just a composite estimate. There is no such thing as a "10mph" headwind from "090 degrees" for any appreciable period of time. The wind changes every second. When we say "10 mph from 090" (or whatever) we simply make an estimate of what the AVERAGE EFFECT of the wind will be [or was] over a given segment of the flight. (I walked next door for lunch yesterday - perhaps 60 yards - when I started out, the wind was perhaps 10 knots; by the time I reached the restaurant it was certainly over 25 knots; returning 20 minutes later, it was perhaps 5 knots. Try it yourself.)

This is not to say that airspeed is unimportant to the navigator. He needs to know what it is, and he certainly prefers it to be relatively constant. The constant power setting would have provided constant (slightly accelerating) speeds.

The next question (I can't resist it) was "did FN know what those speeds were on the Howland flight with the same accuracy as he did on previous flights?" Remember that the "missing" antenna was tethered to the right pitot tube. I note Ric's comment that the "bent pitot tube" in the takeoff picture is an illusion - and perhaps it is. But it is still interesting to consider the possible effect of the trauma to the pitot tube from the loss. A slight deformation causing a 2 or 3 mph error in indication would be much more serious than either total loss of the pitot or damage that introduced errors gross enough to be obvious. A small error would be lost in the shuffle, but the cummulative effect might be significant in its effect on dead reckoning results. Pure speculation, of course.

Oscar
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Teensy tiny point:

The airspeed indicator that was right in front of Noonan was the one in the instrument panel of the cockpit.  The instruments seen mounted beside the cabin window in the photos of the "navigation station" (taken in March) weren't there for the second attempt and, as we've often pointed out, Noonan seems to have spent most of his time up front.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:10:10 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      copyright

Pat wrote:

>You betcha. It's right there in the first paragraph on the
>Earhart Forum page:
>"By submitting a written message to the Forum, the author assigns all
>copyright (if any) to TIGHAR......."

The Forum, in part, kicked Cam off because it was perceived that he was unresponsive to requests for him to post his evidence. Did anyone stop to think that maybe Cam didn't want to give up his copyrights?

Daryll
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It is certainly not TIGHAR's desire or intention to "steal" anyone's research.  If concern about copyright is really the reason that Cam wouldn't support his claims we'll be happy to give him written assurance that we won't reproduce it without his permission.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:11:29 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: motor sports

Pat wrote:

> No. Please, no. Not a NASCAR thread....
>
> LTM, who dislikes noisy engines

I bow to Pat's authority to kill unwanted threads.  Let me just say that I picked up the NASCAR bug while not studying theology in D.C.  I suppose I might have turned to F1 if I'd been not studying theology over in Europe.  :o)

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:12:45 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Michael Van Holsbeck wrote:

> Ron,
>
> Did you not about a year ago say that you knew of a man that had them
> but was stubborn and not into the "NIKU" thing so he was reluctant to get
> them out or dubbed or transcribed?

That was me, not Ron.

And it was my theory to account for the facts. Staley's friendship with Goerner (and with Goerner's widow) seems to be a plausible explanation for him not being motivated to obtain the recording for us. He may have entirely different motives.

>  If so what if someone else contacts
> him under the assumption that the post loss messages
> were fake and that they heard MOT and mistook (like
> war of the worlds) the broadcast as real?

Go for it.  My e-mail address is <moleski@canisius.edu>. Send me an e-mail, and I'll send you everything I know about Staley and March of Time.

> He might warm up a little to that Idea from a new contact.  Just a
> thought.

I agree.

I lost interest in the tapes for two reasons:

   1) They're only 1/2 hour in length.

   2) They've got musical interludes between scenes.

Even without listening to them, these two facts suggest to me that MoT was not the source of what Betty heard.  YMMV.

Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:14:13 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      HOWGOZIT

for Alan & Oscar;

I am considering the other person's "intellectual property rights" and the ability to share research for an Earhart solution when I supply some of the "dots" for the forum to connect.

For Alan and Oscar concerning long distance flight and fuel consumption. Here is a suggestion for "connecting the dots" project; What is an/a "HOWGOZIT"  ?? Is it a tool like a an hand held flight computer?? Is it a graph or paperwork table ?? What is an/a HOWGOZIT??

Capt. Harold E Grey of Pan Am has been given credit for inventing it, it that true?

There is evidence that Noonan was the navigator on several flights that had to return to the departure point because the fuel consumption was too high. What tools were used to calculate that "point of no return"??

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:15:03 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

My grandfather also worked for the Florida Public Utilities in the 40's & 50's and was a man of modest means. He had a Zenith table model radio with cathedral top. As I have mentioned earlier, we picked up on a fairly regular basis fishing boats off the Yucatan Peninsular with amazing clarity. We did have an outside antenna that extended up on the roof of our two story house.
LTM,
Mike Haddock #2438
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:16:24 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: HOWGOZIT

Daryll asks:

> What is an/a "HOWGOZIT"  ?? Is it a tool like a an hand held flight
> computer?? Is it a graph or paperwork table ?? What is an/a HOWGOZIT??

It is a chart prepared in advance of a flight and updated during the flight.  It helps to vizualize the decision point beyond which the flight is committed to its destination and cannot return to the point of origin.

Cf: <http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/farparts/part63far.html>

> Capt. Harold E Grey of Pan Am has been given credit for inventing it, it
> that true?

I don't know.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:26:02 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

For Marty Moleski.

I think you and I spent a considerable time tracking down the elusive source of the MOT two years ago. In my opinion the notebook compared to what the MOT broadcasted don't match. I don't think Betty heard the MOT, which at first was a possibility. It did fool the Wailupe radio operator who heard "KHAQQ calling...etc"

Ron Bright

***************************************************************************
From Ric

No Wailupe operator was fooled.  The report originally came from Hilo Radio and was passed on to the search group:

MR MANUEL FERNANDEZ OF THE HILO AIRPORT REPORTS HEARING AMELIA EARHART AND FREDERICK NOONAN CALLING THE ITASCA ON 1420 KCS AT 1615 AND ASKING THEM RUSH ASSISTANCE AS THEY CAN ONLY LAST SHORT TIME LONGER.  ACCORDING TO FERNANDEZ HE ALSO SAID THE ITASCA ANSWERED AND TELL THEM TO HOLD OUT A WHILE LONGER. PLEASE CONFIRM IF ANY CREDENCE TO THIS REPORT AS LOCAL PAPERS REQUESTING INFORMATION.

They quickly figured out that Fernandez had heard the March of Time broadcast.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:38:19 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: RIght engine run radio?

The more significant question about radio capability is whether Amelia's receiver was in fact working, and if so could she receive W40K and KGMB during the 10:00 -10:05 time, 2 July. The evidence from Lae to Howland suggests that her receiver was not working. Maybe Brandenburg can answer if the loop antenna could have picked up the 7500ks and the ham signals and the AM 1320 signal.

I just can't believe that Amelia Earhart's comment "waters high" relates to an observation of an ocean tide, surf coming in from 75 feet away. The words were preceded by "help me", followed a few seconds later with " help...I can feel it".And she is "crying". For me that would describe inside conditions of imminent danger, not the outside conditions.

Ron Bright
****************************************************************************
From Ric

The loop antenna is not a receiver.  It's an antenna.  Earhart clearly reported receiving the "A"s on 7500 but couldn't get a minimum.  Unless you want to say she was lying, or that the Itasca heard somebody else say that, she had a functioning receiver at that time.

Whether she could receive a HAM in Florida and/or KGMB are very different questions.  HAM in Florida ( a weak amateur station umpteen thousand miles away) - probably not.   KGMB (a super-powerful commercial station in Hawaii whose frequency she should have had) - very probably.

>The words  were preceded by "help me", followed a few seconds later with
>"help...I can feel it".

I'd fascinated to learn how you know how much time elapsed between specific notebook entries.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:51:56 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Hathaway's notes

I can't recall if I posted this. But in a 2000 post you did write that Hathaway's notes reflected that Olive and Betty  "decided" that the date of the reception "might have been" the 2nd. But in a more recent post you indicated that your review of Hathaways notes was negative.

Have you had a chance to check that out. It was my understanding you were going to post the "Hathaway Notes" of his 1970 interview and the relevant correspondence with Goerner. Would Goerner have filed that under Klenck, Brown, or was there another married name in 1970. I have a list of the Goerner files at Nimitz.

Who has the orginal Notebook?

Ron Bright
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't have time right now to go back and find the posting you refer to in 2000 but, as I have said before, the John Hathaway notes that I have are very sparse.  They consist of a few words written in black ink on a folded half of lined loose-leaf paper.  Below is a transcription of all the words that appear:
*****************
Russell Rodes

Sears Roebuck
Cabinet Set
Silvertone

Rhodes - neighbor
bayside coast guard still there

neighbors receiving
not as well

suitcase upstairs in
cloak closet
heard voice
before on radio
recognized

Mrs. Clink
************************
Betty has no other married name.  I don't know what Goerner would file it under. I've already described the nature of Goerner's correspondence and I don't think we can publish private correspondence on the website.

Betty donated the original notebook to TIGHAR and we have it here.

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:53:15 EST
From:         Mike Everett
Subject:      Submerged Batteries

Regarding Bob Sherman's posting:

What he says about batteries is perfectly reasonable with respect to fresh water.  But salt water is a whole different environment.

If you immerse a storage battery in salt water, and the salt water enters the cells to mix with the sulfuric acid, a chemical reaction takes place immediately which releases chlorine gas.  This will in short order, result in a sufficient amount of chlorine gas inside the aircraft to make it dangerous to life for anyone inside.

Given the technology of the times, it is an excellent bet that the batteries aboard the a/c were vented, which means the water could easily enter the cells.

Chlorine gas, produced when sea water hits battery acid, was one of the most dangerous aspects of submarine service in pre-nuke days.

This is beside the fact that salt water is an excellent conductor of electricity; and when the top of the battery gets wet, a real fine resistive short will result, between the terminals.  How severe this is and how fast it would ruin the battery is dependent upon how much dried-out deposits are present on the battery itself.

If fresh water enters battery cells, all it does is dilute the acid.

Regarding my own posting about the transmitter, and the dynamotor's location:

I wish I could find a photo or drawing of this rig.  While another look at the schematic now leads me to believe the dynamotor was inside the transmitter housing, the bench test diagrams in Morgan (which I looked at again this morning) make it appear that the power supply could indeed have been inside a separate box.  That is what I based my initial opinion upon.

Indeed, at the time I originally researched this, I could not quite see that transmitter weighing fifty pounds, despite what the books said, if all it had inside were the tubes, and circuitry.  But with a big hulkin' dyno inside, it easily could.

I have looked and looked for a maintenance manual on this radio, with no luck yet.

73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:06:38 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

For Michael Van Holsbeck

I think Marty Moleski answered your question. He and I spent a lot of time and energy trying to track down a transcript and or the tape, but struck out. I do have the 3 minute Dec 37 recap, but it does not contain any of the words, phrases, numbers that Betty's notebook has. It was not a MOT broadcast she heard.

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:07:48 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Oscar writes:

> I am merely suggesting that if she flew at the 38 gph setting for 10 hours,speed
> increased steadily during that time - and that the aircraft's speed at theend of
> the 10 hours would have been 10 or 12 or 15 mph faster than at thebeginning
> of that period, on the same horsepower and at the same altitude. FN could
> handle that.

If the Electra flew for ten hours at 130 Knots TAS it is instantly obvious it flew 1300nm no wind. On the other hand if it flew 10 hours starting at 130k and ending at 145 k  I don't know how far it flew. The distance traveled does not increase at a constant amount. One could not figure that distance by using an average speed of 137.5 k. I know it can be computed but not easily. If the inaccurate result is only 5 nm it would have been enough to miss Howland.

Oscar, so we don't bore everyone you can email me off forum at acaldwell@aol.com

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:08:33 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook -- Was it you know who?

Gary LaPook wrote:

> To your first point, even at low tide, there is a minimum of 36 feet of
> water over Winslow Reef.

Was that also true in July of 1937, Gary?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:10:40 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      1930s Coast Guard Radio

Found old radio website with this story about a 5 watt portable battery powered transmitter/receiver used by the U.S. Coast Guard in the 1930's. Even if Electra radio was underwater, AE could have post-loss transmitted using one of these...??

http://www.antiqueradio.com/Jan03_Dubois_CoastGuard.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:12:07 EST
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Astronomy stuff

A couple of astronomy questions have popped up in the last few days, so I figured I would try to answer them.

Someone mentioned planets and celestial navigation a week ago.  Stars don't change their position over the course of a night (or a month), and measuring the changes over years requires a real telescope. Planets move around a lot though, and I wouldn't want to use them if I had nice, shiny stars to use instead.  I don't know if Noonan had an almanac along that predicted planetary positions.

During the flight to Howland, Noonan would have had a nice view of the Summer Triangle (the bright stars Deneb, Altair and Vega) for most of the night.  These are all easy stars to see out the left side of the plane, and more than bright enough to see through a window (you can see dimmer stars in an airliner).  In the early morning before sunrise, there would still have been ample bright stars off to the left.  There are also stars to the right side, and a couple of good targets that would be well viewed from the front seat.  So, if the weather was good, he should have had an easy time of it finding stars to sight.

Someone pointed out that the Earth's atmosphere affects the position of objects near the horizon.  This is true, but it is also well known how to correct for the atmospheric refraction.  As a trained navigator, Noonan should have known how to handle it.

Ok, now to play around a little.....  ;)

On the morning of July 2, 1937, the Sun should have risen about 23 degrees N of the East point on the horizon; the perpendicular line to that would be oriented 157/337.  In other words, the flight was right on course at sunrise, if I'm understanding the navigation terminology correctly.  From an astronomy point of view, they were flying the correct course at that point...or, their instruments were working well enough for Noonan to be able to calculate the line of position accurately.

Now, this navigation stuff is all summarized on the TIGHAR website somewhere :) , and Noonan obviously did his job well in generating the LOP at sunrise.  Where he might have made an error is in accounting for the difference in atmospheric refraction, which would put them short (or long), but still on course when they hit the LOP.  I know, I just said that he should have known how to account for that, but let's go with it.  Leaving out the refraction is about a half of a degree error in the calculation, or an advancement along the course equal to that amount.  In other words, Noonan would have calculated that they had progressed further than they had, which may have been within the error of his chronometers and the indicators.  It might have also disguised a stronger wind than he expected.

What I'm trying to point out is that Noonan should have had a relatively easy time calculating his course, and should have nailed down that calculation at sunrise.  Getting a direction is actually not too difficult if you have good instruments.  Where Noonan had the most probability of going wrong was in his calculation of *when* they would hit the LOP through Howland; any error in the speed, wind, calculation of the angles, etc, might have made them turn short, or go past the island before turning to the LOP.  The biggest part in this is figuring out where the errors are, and how large they could be.

Also, if you look at a map of the area, the only way to hit Gardner without seeing another island is to turn early to the 157/337 line, and always be S of Baker.

When I get a minute, I'm going to go through what the measurements *should have been* (if Noonan had perfect equipment), and then try to see what effects certain errors cause.  I'm sure this has been done before by lots of people, but I'm going to look at it from an astronomer's perspective and see if I can find anything.  Does anyone happen to know what Noonan had onboard as reference material?  I haven't found that yet, and it might be instructive.

You are all also welcome to tell me not to waste my time.  :)

Reed
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:13:12 EST
From:         David Kelly
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Ric wrote:

>To my way of thinking, the argument against the climb is that it
>prevents you from seeing the surrounding ocean and perhaps a
>place to land for a protracted period of time.

My thoughts exactly.  The 10E is a low wing aircraft and if you climb your nose goes up you cannot see a thing below, only sky above.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:16:03 EST
From:         Adam
Subject:      Betty's Notebook -- Was it you know who?

Gary LaPook wrote:

>To your first point, even at low tide, there is a minimum of 36 feet of
>water over Winslow Reef.  DMA Pub. 126, Sailing Directions for the Pacific
>Islands, 1988 ed. describes Winslow Reef at 1-36 S, 175-57 W as about 1
>mile long E-W and 1/2 mile wide N-S with "a minimum depth of 11 m (6 fm).."
>That's 36 feet! So no place for AE to land. She would have sunk there just
>the same as if she were over the Marianas Trench.

Right.  That WAS my point.  That to the best of my understanding, she couldn't have landed there, or anywhere else that was significantly closer to Howland than Niku.

>It is also possible that she did say "south and north" but that the radioman
>wrote it down in the reversed order because of common "north and south"
>expression.
>
>It is also possible that they had already made several passes both north and
>south in an effort to find Howland prior to the transmission.

Very true.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:16:38 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      March of Time Earhart Broadcasts

Another possible source to check for the MOT programs would be the Society to Preserve and Encourage Radio Drama, Variety and Comedy (SPERDVAC), P.O. Box 7177, Van Nuys, Ca. 91409.  Their membership includes many people who were involved in network radio back in the 1930's and '40's.  Many of them have their own private recordings of programs they were involved in.  These private collections have been donated to SPERDVAC, which maintains its own extensive library of rare radio show recordings.

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:17:30 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ron Bright wrote:

> So if I  understand it, the max distance AE could have been at 0843 was 200
> nautical miles from ITASCA.  At that distance, the "90th percentile SNR was
> 13dB, indicating a signal that was readable les than 10% of the time."
>
> This suggests that it would have been less than signal strength 5. But I may
> be misinterpreting that Matrix. Maybe Bob or Ric could answer if at 200 miles
> the ITASCA could reach her at "5".

If by ". . . reach her . . ." you mean could the Itasca's signal be heard at Gardner, the answer is yes.  The Itasca's transmitter had a maximum output power of 200 watts.

If you meant ". . . read her . . . ", you will find it helpful to read the section titled "SNR considerations for Amplitude Modulated Signals" in Chapter V of the 8th Edition, and then look at the matrix discussion again.   I think you will see that the 13 dB SNR in the matrix denotes very marginal readability, and that usable readability would occur  less than 10 percent of the time.

LTM,
Bob
#2286
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:18:34 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Submerged Batteries

Mike Everette wrote:

> I have looked and looked for a maintenance manual on this radio, with no
> luck yet.

Mike, since radios were not standard equipment, I'm led to believe, would it be that the placement of various boxes might be catch as catch can?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:13:02 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

> AMELIA EARHART AND
> FREDERICK NOONAN CALLING THE ITASCA ....AND ASKING THEM RUSH ASSISTANCE AS
> THEY CAN ONLY LAST SHORT TIME LONGER.

Inspiration for some another, younger "broadcaster" using a ham transmitter, or a ship/shore radio on a yacht or fishing boat?

Hue
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Possibly, but only after July 8th.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:19:22 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      End run around the radio

1) At 4:30 PM Florida, "water's high" outside the plane Any water in cabin is negligible, not high enuff to touch receiver antenna post.

2) Page 2 of Notebook, receiver is still operative. FN: "Amelia, take it [headphone]. Time of page 2 events, crudely extrapolating, and i admit here i am guesstimating only, 4:50 PM Florida. Water is not high enuff in cabin to touch any power or antenna connection on receiver, or get inside. This means negligible water level in cabin.

3) At 5:10 PM Florida, "water's high" inside the plane. Knee high, that is. Receiver rendered inoperative. Plane developed leak, due to landing damage, or fast rising tide. Water had gone knee deep in about ~20 minutes.

4) At 6:00 PM Florida, "water's knee deep" still. Practically no increase in water level in last ~40 minutes.

So, of these 3 mentions of high water:

2 refer to high water inside the cabin

1 refers to high water outside the cabin

I note also that at 6:00 PM AE says, "Knee deep, over"

Over to whom? Or just out of habit?
 
But at ~6 PM FL, AE is asking, "Are you there?", like she has been talking to someone. Would she ask this, if the receiver was under water and she clearly could expect no answer?

Also, i want to ask if anyone recalls listening to the olde shortwave telephone ship-shore service. Did boats sometimes call the operator like this: New York Marine, New York Marine, this is Lucky Star".  Seems like i heard this format used, some years back, when i used to listen to Seattle Marine Operator. (Or, when i WAS the Seattle Marine Operator. Good ole' KOW2 :-)  Yes, now i'm sure of it, because i did it: "Seattle Marine calling the XYZ." This have any possible bearing on "NY NY NY Marie Marie" ???

Just trying to make sense of it all.

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I can't make any sense of it if the receiver is underwater.  I can only make sense of it if the airplane is on the reef and the tidal conditions are similar to what we think they were at that time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:19:03 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Imponderables

If on the Lockheed plane, one engine had to be running, to run the radio transmitter, wouldn't that make a pretty good racket in the cabin? That's why the carbon-grain microphones used for such mobile communications are intended for close-talking, designed to minimize noises other than the one doing the close talking. However, in the Lockheed at Niku, we have an aircraft microphone that clearly broadcasts the squabling of the 2 cabin occupants. A sensitive microphone, apparently, for whatever purpose. But, a listener fails to mention any engine noise background. Altho at times the received radio signal was clearly stronger than any  atmospheric noises.

Betty did not retune her radio during her listening session. However, several have commented here that a radio of that vintage, on the shortwave "top band" of its range, drifts - does not stay put on one frequency, and in fact requires retuning periodically to maintain the desired station. Betty did not retune her radio. So, was she listening to different stations, perhaps, was the drift cyclical (returning to home point), or was she really tuned to a lower ham band, like in the 4000 or 7000 range, where you could have daylight short skip, with periodic fading, but the radio would be pretty well stablized, as compared to frequencies 2 or 3 times this?

Hue Miller

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The recurrence of words and phrases, such as references to water and the word "Amelia" occur throughout the notebook.  Do you really want to suggest that her radio drifted through several stations, all of which had conversations in similar voices that included these phrases?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:19:36 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Buy This Notebook

Ric wrote:

> Perhaps you'd like to construct your own script of what a genuine
> transmission from Earhart should sound like.

Yes, thanks.

I would use the day frequency.

I  would use my right name.

I would stick to the basics on the radio, or if the situation was dire, would get the hell out of there, not keep my thumb mashed on the push-to-talk button and talk about suitcases and uncle. I wouldn't call Marie, or New York Marine. I would give my call letters together with the SOS like i had been taught. I would send long dashes to signal that i had survived this far, and maybe give the Navy and PAA shore DF stations a break, instead of reminding them to "come quick". ( Presumably, SOS signal means it's understood rescuer will not check their appointment book first.) I wouldn't say, "Take it away, Howland!" - this is no time to be joking.

-Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:19:49 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: copyright

> If concern about copyright is really the reason that Cam wouldn't
> support his claims we'll be happy to give him written assurance that we won't
> reproduce it without his permission.

You had your chance, Gillespie, and you blew it!

(And you know perfectly well I DID support my claims with adequate citations.)

Cam Warren
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The support you offered is a matter of record.  I think you have answered Daryll's question.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:19:59 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: What is a Dynamotor?

Ric asks:

>Let me make sure I've got this right.  The battery puts out DC but at low
>voltage.  The transmitter needs relatively high voltage DC.  The dynamotor
>boosts the voltage to a usable level.  Yes?

Correct

> >In the case of the WE equipment aboard NR16020, the receiver and transmitter
> >each operated from separate dynamotors.
>
>Do we have a handle on the dimensions of each dynamotor?  I've seen reference
>to only one - the one under the pilot's seat.  Is it possible that the "baby"
>receiver dynamotor was housed with the receiver?

The receiver dynamotor would be relatively small, say about 3 to 3-1/2 inches in diameter and 5 to 6 inches long.

It was not housed within the receiver.  I have seen photos of the receiver's interior and there is no place to mount it within the case.  Most likely (speculation, but I think properly entertained) it was mounted on a junction box into which the separate cabling from the transmitter and receiver terminated, and which contained the primary power fuses for the system.

The schematic diagram for the receiver clearly shows that the DC voltages that operated it were brought into the set through the interconnecting cable.  The power supply was external.

The diagram also shows that the receiver's primary power input (on-off switching) was controlled independently from the transmitter's, so it was possible to operate the receiver while the transmitter was turned completely off.

The dynamotor for the transmitter could be close to three times the size, roughly, of the one for the receiver.  This is admittedly speculation, but based upon the physical dimensions of dynamotors with similar output voltage and current capability, that I am familiar with up close and personal.

I had first thought the transmitter's power supply (dynamotor and control circuitry) was a separate "box."  After studying the schematic diagram again, it appears that the power supply is actually contained within the transmitter cabinet; that there is one "subchassis" for the power supply and the main chassis contains the RF and audio section.  The overall size of the radio is about right, and the published weight of 50 pounds for the complete transmitter suggests that this may be true.

At least half of that weight sounds like "dynamotor iron" to me... the case, frame and chassis are aluminum and there isn't much way the aluminum and circuitry alone can equal 50 pounds.  It's quite reasonable and consistent with the times for the equipment to be constructed in such a manner, too.

The only photos I have seen of the transmitter show it with all covers in place.

To anticipate a question: Could the same dynamotor, contained within the transmitter, operate both the receiver and transmitter?

No.  The schematic is quite clear that the transmitter dynamotor had only one output from the generator side: 1050 volts DC. There is no "voltage divider network" included, either, which might be used to reduce that output to the 200 volts for the receiver... which by the way, would be an extremely inefficient and wasteful method of doing this.  (Read, "ridiculous.")  The receiver was, for certain, operated from a separate, "lower" high voltage power supply putting out 200 volts DC.

The dynamotor-under-the-seat almost (99.999%) certainly refers to the one for the receiver.

That transmitter dynamotor would be big enough that it'd be darn hard to stick it under a seat... though I was faced with some strange things when working in avionics.  Not impossible, but D@*#! difficult.

By the way, large dynamotors like the one powering the transmitter sound a lot like a Hoover vacuum cleaner when they spool-up.

73
Mike E.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I copy you loud and clear.  So the dynamotor under the seat is almost certainly the one for the receiver and it submergence or non-submergence is irrelevant to the question of whether the airplane could transmit while afloat.

Let's envision an Electra floating in the ocean in such a way that the transmitter (with its dynamotor), the auxiliary battery, and the antenna lead-in through the side of the fuselage are out of the water.  To do that the airplane must be floating very much nose-down with the aft cabin and tail sticking up in the air.  Given the forward CG and massive engines, such an attitude does not seem unreasonable.  Under such circumstances, all of the components necessary for transmitting are clear of the water - except one. Earhart's transmitter was operated, and as far as I know could only be operated,  through a remote that was mounted on the "shelf" portion of the instrument panel in the cockpit (in front of the co-pilot's knees).  If the tail was high enough to keep the tranmitter, etc., dry, the nose was low enough that the remote had to be submerged.

So we're back where we started from.  No transmissions if the plane is floating.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:20:48 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      Betty's father's occupation

All I know about Betty is what I've read in the Earhart Forum.  Several days ago, it was mentioned that Betty's father was a sign painter, which is why he was working on a Saturday.  Last June, I seem to remember reading that her father had an executive position (with the local power company?) which helped to explain why he was able to afford a Zenith 1000Z Stratosphere radio which was about 3-4 times more expensive than the average radio of that time.  (I don't doubt that he owned a Strat, I was just curious as to what I remembered as conflicting information.)  Can someone set me straight?

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA.

****************************************************************************
From Ric

Betty's father was not an executive. He worked for the power company.  I'm sure she told us more specifiacally about what he did but I don't recall the details. I'll have to review the interview.  I do know that there was no apparent disparity between his job and his family's very normal middle-class circumstances.  He did sign-painting on weekends because he enjoyed it and it brought in some extra money.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:20:21 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Did he say anything about probabilities at strength 5 at this maximum range? I think I recall that he addressed this in some way vis-a-vis range.

I believe a nautical mile is about 6000 feet,  and wonder what you would use for a conversion factor to convert knots to miles (statute) per hour (also, was Brandenburg's figure airspeed or knots measured along the ground)?  What I am trying to do is to get agreed measurement standards to run Brandenburg's numbers and the numbers I suggested earlier.

Thanks,
--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Quoting directly again:

"At that distance (200 nm) the 90th percentile SNR was 13 dB, indicating a signal that was readable less than 10% of the time."

My interpretation of the above:  If the aircraft was indeed 200 nm from Howland at 2013 GCT then the chances are fairly low that a signal would be heard by Itasca at Strength 5.  The airplane was more likely somewhat closer or the signal was, in reality, somewhat weaker (as the "?" may imply or as Elgen Long alleges) or some combination of the two.  Obviously, if the airplane is somewhat closer to Howland it would have to travel somewhat faster to get to Gardner by 2130.  This is what I was talking about when we started this conversation.  We can't hope to pin down the plane's location or actions.  We can only describe a range of possibilities based on the presumed accuracy of our assumptions.

A nautical mile is 1.1508 statute miles.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:21:17 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Betty's memory

Does Betty venture input on such questions as what WOJ or W4OK are doing in the AE log? Who was speaking, for example, when "Take it away, Howland" was said? Or did she just "channel" the material while in an altered state of consciousness, then hand off the book - "it's your baby now to figure out" ?

Her father was what, a sign painter or electrician? Employees were offered discounts on electrical appliances, so he buys the best radio a civilian could buy, an extravagence, but he's a signpainter and lives in a small house? Just trying to get the picture.

Hue Miller

***************************************************************************
From Ric

No Hue, you're not just trying to get the picture.  That's pretty apparent.

Betty understood that by coming forward with her information she would have to expect that there would be skeptics and that there might even be those who would question her honesty.  In the two and a half years since we first became aware of Betty and her notebook we have tried our best to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of its possible authenticity.  I think the records of this forum attest to that.  Through it all, Betty has been unfailingly responsive, patient, and pleasant in responding to informed and reasoned questions about the circumstances surrounding the notebook.  But your attacks on her credibility are neither informed nor reasoned.

You ordered, paid for, and received (at 12:11 on January 10th according to FedEx), a copy of the videotape of her interview.  Had you bothered to watch it you'd have the answers to your insulting questions.

Please confine your ad hominem attacks to me instead of little old ladies. I think you owe Betty an apology.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:21:06 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: RIght engine run radio?

> Whether she could receive a HAM in Florida and/or KGMB are very different
> questions.  HAM in Florida ( a weak amateur station umpteen thousand miles
> away) - probably not.   KGMB (a super-powerful commercial station in Hawaii
> whose frequency she should have had) - very probably.

Well, let's flog this again.

Daylight, Niku. Daylight, Florida. Anyone in FL is not going to be able to hear Niku on 3105 or 6210. Or, 8000 either. And vice versa. Now,  AE's receiver, and loop for sure, did NOT tune above 8000.

>AE did NOT hear W4OK, WOJ.

Why are they in Betty's log?

KGMB. How powerful was this super powerful station? I think we went over this way back, and "super-powerful" did not quite apply ( To put it politiely. ) What was the power, 1 kw, 10 kw? Also, AE did NOT hear KGMB after local ( Niku) sunrise.  Right, Mike? What is the NM from Hawaii to Niku?

-Hue Miller

****************************************************************************
From Ric
Bob Brandenburg has shown that it was possible (not probable, but certainly possible) for Betty to have heard Earhart on a harmonic of 3105 or 6210.  His paper is on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/03_15_01Bulletin/03_15_01bulletin.html
If you have more than opinions with which to refute his calculations, please present them.

I don't know why "W40K or WOJ" appears in Betty's log.  Neither do you.  I do know that the presence of those letters and numbers does not disqualify the notebook as a record of authentic transmissions from Earhart.

My recollection is that KGMB transmitted at 10,000 watts but Randy or Mike can check me on that.  Whatever the station's power we do know that its transmissions could be heard in the Phoenix Islands. To wit:

From: COLORADO
Action: UNIPRESS
Date: 07/09/37

Text:  HONOLULU PLANES UNSUCCESSFULLY SEARCH MCLEAN (sic), GARDNER,
CARDONDELET [sic] AND WATER BETWEEN [this] MORNING, DROPPING LOW OVER ISLANDS
[to] INSURE THOROUGHNESS.  UNCEASING SEARCH RADIO WAVES CONTINUES.   [Planes
will] SCOUT HULL,  SIDNEY [this] AFTERNOON THEN UPSWING RENDEZVOUS SWAN [at]
CANTON ISLAND [on] SATURDAY [to] OBTAIN PLANE GAS.  KGU KGMB BROADCAST
EXCELLENT SIGNAL.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:25:55 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: transmitter power?

Bob Brandenburg wrote:

>  The Itasca's transmitter had a maximum output
> power of 200 watts.

How does your math produce this figure? I have packed my books up, but i seem to recall the plate voltage being somewhere near 1000v and the plate current, 100 & some mA. Also recall, the transmitter is grid modulated. Clearly, even at instantaneous maximum modulation, the power output is nowhere near this. With each branch of the V antenna at near 25 ft, we can of course disregard antenna gain. I hope you do not base your distance signal strength on the power of the carrier, because the receiving station in our case is not expecting to receive a keyed- carrier signal.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:27:02 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

>Stars
>don't change their position over the course of a night (or a month),
>and measuring the changes over years requires a real telescope.
>Planets move around a lot though, and I wouldn't want to use them if I
>had nice, shiny stars to use instead.  I don't know if Noonan had an
>almanac along that predicted planetary positions.

Time to take Astronomy 101 again.  The stars don't move much, but the earth does.  If you take a long exposure (hours) photograph of the North Star, you will see circular tracks of stars circling it, as they "move" around the North Star.  Since AE's flight was near the equator, the North Star is very near the horizon, and the stars appear to rise over one horizon, and set on the opposite side.  I don't know how you could do celestial navigation
without an almanac.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:27:54 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

For Bob Brandenburg

Thanks for the refresher course. Let me rephrase the question.  Could AE's signal at 0843  be copied by Itasca at signal strength "5"? Then  let's posit that she was at your maximum distance of 200 miles for a readability signal, could it be a "5"? The way I read your matrix is that she could be heard by ITASCA at 0843 but barely readable if she were say 200 miles southeast.

Appreciate your time.
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:29:38 EST
From:         Ed
Subject:      Re: Submerged Batteries

To Mike

Did you happen to try the AT&T "attic" in Warren, NJ. They may have info (schematics, manuals, or other files on Earhart's radio). This location is the AT&T warehouse where they store all of the vintage equipment (e.g., a wringer washer made by Western Electric) and old significant files. I was there in the late eighties and it is huge place. Best of luck!

Ed of PSL #2415
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:33:28 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Reed Riddle wrote:

> ... Where he might have made an error is in accounting for
> the difference in atmospheric refraction, which would put them short
> (or long), but still on course when they hit the LOP.  ...

I'm not sure that you've got a firm grip on the idea of a "line of position" (LOP).

Every celestial sighting produces one LOP on a nav chart.  All you know from one sighting, regardless of what object is used, is that you are somewhere on that line.  To find out where you are more specifically, you need two or more LOPS.  The intersection of the lines is where you are, more or less.  Working with handheld equipment on an unstable platform will increase the time to make the observation and decrease the precision. Noonan also had to compensate for the altitude of the plane as well as for any atmospheric effects near the horizon.

Even after doing the sightings, it takes some work to calculate the LOP from the angle of the sighting and the time it was recorded.  When all is said and done, if you're careful, quick, and accurate, you'll have a pretty good idea of where you were, plus or minus some margin of error, when the sightings were taken.  From that region, you have to guesstimate what happened while you were hunched over your tables solving the trig that lets you draw the LOP on the chart.

Now add in sixteen or eighteen hours of anxious flying through the night over a huge ocean, the ear-splitting thrum of the prop and engine noise, exhaustion from close to a month of flying around the world, the need to have done calculations like these all night long, and any other human factors you'd like to imagine.  It doesn't take a lot to get distracted and make a mistake under the best of circumstances, and AE and FN were not flying under the best of circumstances.

If they had had two-way voice communication with the Itasca, they could have figured out how to get a bearing to Howland and they'd have been on the ground with lots of fuel left over and lots of stories to tell on their book tours.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:34:02 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: March of Time Earhart Broadcasts

Eric wrote:

> Another possible source to check for the MOT programs would be the
> Society to Preserve and Encourage Radio Drama, Variety and Comedy
> (SPERDVAC), P.O. Box 7177, Van Nuys, Ca. 91409.  Their membership
> includes many people who were involved in network radio back in the
> 1930's and '40's.  Many of them have their own private recordings of
> programs they were involved in.  These private collections have been
> donated to SPERDVAC, which maintains its own extensive library of rare
> radio show recordings.

OK, I've called them and sent them an e-mail.

Thanks for the tip, Eric!

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:35:13 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: End run around the radio

Ric wrote:

> I can't make any sense of it if the receiver is underwater.  I can only
> make sense of it if the airplane is on the reef and the tidal conditions
> are similar to what we think they were at that time.

If it was necessary to run the right engine in order to power the dynamos for the TX & RX, "deep water" might mean "getting near the tip of the prop."

I don't have any feel for how much ground clearance the Electra would have. But my guess is that the engine would be disabled long before any water could reach a substantial height inside the fuselage.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:37:52 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Reed Riddle wrote:

> A couple of astronomy questions have popped up in the last few days, so
> I figured I would try to answer them.
>
> Someone mentioned planets and celestial navigation a week ago.  Stars
> don't change their position over the course of a night (or a month),
> and measuring the changes over years requires a real telescope.
> Planets move around a lot though, and I wouldn't want to use them if I
> had nice, shiny stars to use instead.  I don't know if Noonan had an
> almanac along that predicted planetary positions.
>
>
> When I get a minute, I'm going to go through what the measurements
> *should have been* (if Noonan had perfect equipment), and then try to
> see what effects certain errors cause.  I'm sure this has been done
> before by lots of people, but I'm going to look at it from an
> astronomer's perspective and see if I can find anything.  Does anyone
> happen to know what Noonan had onboard as reference material?  I
> haven't found that yet, and it might be instructive.
>
> You are all also welcome to tell me not to waste my time.  :)

I don't think your wasting your time, although I think that others have probably taken this on. As a long time lurker, I decided to plot out a few of the details just to help me understand what *could* have happened. I realized my fairly primitive methods wouldn't impress this group, but I enjoyed the exercise and it helped me see the situation clearer. Here is what I did.

1. Plot current lat/long coordinates for Howland, Baker, McKean and Gardner on a sheet of graph paper to a reasonable scale.

2. Draw 20 mile radius circles around all the islands (Possible max distance for "seeing the islands").

3. Draw 100 mile radius circle around Howland (Radio log estimate).

3. Draw 200 mile radius around Howland (Based upon landing time in Betty's notebook on Niku).

4. Advance the LOP every ten or 20 miles through the island chain and see where a path takes you far enough from the other islands to miss them, but still come close enough to Niku to find it.

Folks, I know there are tons of variables, but like I said, it was a good start for me I enjoyed seeing the results.

Good luck Reed.

Bob Lee
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:40:09 EST
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Imponderables

> The recurrence of words and phrases, such as references to water and the word
> "Amelia" occur throughout the notebook.  Do you really want to suggest that
> her radio drifted through several stations, all of which had conversations in
> similar voices that included these phrases?

Actually, it sounds like this isn't a bad hypothesis.  If there was in fact "channel hopping" going on, then it would seem pretty strange when reading the transcript.  And, the calls to the other radio operators jumbled in there would make sense.

It could also be stronger or closer broadcasts washing over the (presumably) faint ones of Amelia (think about being on the highway and having two radio stations competing).  Betty was hearing things her neighbor wasn't, so it's likely that no one else around heard what she heard either, and they were merrily broadcasting away.  Damn them!  :)

I don't think "similar voices" can be considered contrary evidence either, since we don't know how the microphones of the day modified the sound of the voice they transmitted.  We're used to mostly accurate sound being transmitted across the globe...I'm sure that wasn't the case, technology wise, in the 30's (though someone will probably prove me wrong ;) ).

The problem is that it is almost impossible to say now whether any of that took place, or to determine what was said by Amelia or Fred, and what was said by (whatever number of) other broadcasters.  About the only person who could say, definitely, whether all of the statements made were by the same two people is Betty, and, unfortunately, she probably can't say that after all this time.

Reed

--
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations
Iowa State University, Department of Physics & Astronomy
Email:  riddle@iastate.edu
Homepage:  http://www3.iitap.iastate.edu/~riddle/

"This life has been a test.  If it had been an actual life, you would
 have received actual instructions on where to go and what to do."
                                -- Angela Chase, "My so-called life"
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:40:56 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

Alan Caldwell says:

>  If the Electra flew for ten hours at 130 Knots TAS it is instantly obvious it
> flew 1300nm no wind. On the other hand if it flew 10 hours starting at 130k
> and ending at 145 k  I don't know how far it flew.

Two points:

(1) if you are navigating, you shouldn't go to sleep for 10 hours and then try to figure out where you are; you should keep up-to-date on airspeed every half hour or so. You will therefore know very closely what your true airspeed was in every hour.

(2) if, in your example, you did use "137.5 kknots" for 10 hours run, my hunch is that you would not be very far wrong, as dead reckoning goes. You suggest a "5 mile" error in 10 hours, or 1/2 mile per hour in estimating cruising speed - you can't call the wind that close TODAY much less in 1937 over the Pacific, and a 1/2 degree compass error over 10 hours equals about 25 miles (2 1/2 miles per hour).

Dead reckoning any appreciable distance without landmarks to a small island is a tough deal, but it's not the slight hourly increase in airspeed that makes it so - it's just one small factor contributing to the difficulty.

Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:41:39 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: What is a Dynamotor?

Remotes for eg the Philco 803T which is a contemporary car radio, were operated by bowden cable rather than electrically. Perhaps the WE used the same idea?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:42:41 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

> We can only describe a range of possibilities based on the
> presumed
> accuracy of our assumptions.

I think "a range of probabilities" might be closer. I think Chris is again trying to quantify the unknown. And I suspect the purpose is to shoot at the conclusions rather than for any positive reason. Good luck.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:44:17 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Reed Riddle writes:

>Someone pointed out that the Earth's atmosphere affects the position of
>objects near the horizon.  This is true, but it is also well known how to
>correct for the atmospheric refraction.  As a trained navigator, Noonan
>should have known how to handle it.
>
>The distortion is not a constant and the shot at low altitude is not reliable 
>and is not recommended. If you will look at most any celestial navigation 
>instruction book you will see that warning cited.

Reed, the 157/337 LOP could have been calculated and drawn on Noonan's map prior to take off. It could have been also at any time during the flight. Nothing about the LOP gives you any information on what course the Electra was on at any given time on July 2, 1937.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:45:08 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Reed Riddle wrote:

> Also, if you look at a map of the area, the only way to hit Gardner
> without seeing another island is to turn early to the
> 157/337 line, and always be S of Baker.

That isn't true, Reed. The Electra could have flown directly over Baker and it not been seen due to cloud cover, climbing attitude or the Electra could have flown even past Baker before heading toward the SE. When you make such absolute statements you only get folks confused.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:45:52 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Reed Riddle wrote:

> Where Noonan had the most
> probability of going wrong was in his calculation of *when* they would
> hit the LOP through Howland; any error in the speed, wind, calculation
> of the angles, etc, might have made them turn short, or go past the
> island before turning to the LOP.

That is quite correct. And therein may well lay the answer to why they missed Howland. As trying to quantify any possible or probable error you are tilting at windmills. It will just be fun math with no practical use.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:46:46 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuffl

Reed Riddle wrote:

> I'm going to go through what the measurements
> *should have been* (if Noonan had perfect equipment),

I think there are too many variables to make this a good exercize, Reed. We don't know how stable FN's shooting platform was at any given time nor the weather conditions. As to other instruments he had a drift meter as you know and a Whiskey compass and a DG. From years of experience flying I can tell you those were not precision instruments. If you wanted to head west you could do it but if you wanted to head 269 degrees forget it. Plus or minus, yes.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:00:00 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Reed Riddle wrote:

>Planets move around a lot though, and I wouldn't want to use them if I
>had nice, shiny stars to use instead.

Even at their brightest Venus and Jupiter are dimmed considerably through the optics of a sextant.

>Bright stars next best. I don't know if Noonan had an
>almanac along that predicted planetary positions.

If he had the Nautical Almanac then he could know several planets' coordinates, and those of the Sun and Moon.

>Someone pointed out that the Earth's atmosphere affects the position of
>objects near the horizon. This is true, but it is also well known how
>to correct for the atmospheric refraction. As a trained navigator,
>Noonan should have known how to handle it.

The nominal values for atmospheric refraction differ with different sources; but for low sights the refraction can vary from the tabulated amount, and an observer who doesn't know his position will not know by how much.

>On the morning of July 2, 1937, the Sun should have risen about 23
>degrees N of the East point on the horizon; the perpendicular line to
>that would be oriented 157/337. In other words, the flight was right
>on course at sunrise, if I'm understanding the navigation terminology
>correctly.

The Sun would have risen about 23 degrees N of True East over an area too large for that approximate azimuth to be of value in determining whether they were left or right of the planned course.

>From an astronomy point of view, they were flying the
>correct course at that point...or, their instruments were working well
>enough for Noonan to be able to calculate the line of position
>accurately.

The time of sunrise alone would be useful, since it could be compared with a precomputed time of Sunrise over Howland; the difference would give an idea of how much longitude separated the aircraft's LOP from a parallel LOP crossing over Howland.

>Where he might have made an error is in accounting for
>the difference in atmospheric refraction,

--Or if nonstandard refraction was the actual condition that morning.

>which would put them short
>(or long), but still on course when they hit the LOP. I know, I just
>said that he should have known how to account for that, but let's go
>with it. Leaving out the refraction is about a half of a degree error
>in the calculation, or an advancement along the course equal to that
>amount.

The refraction computation has its complications.  It would take some forethought. Bowditch gave the atmospheric refraction for a (0 degree 00 minute) sunrise observation sight variously as -34', or .36.5'. Then there is the terrestrial refraction affecting Noonan's sight of the horizon. From about 10,000' AMSL the geometric horizon is about 96 NM away, but the visible horizon is 114.6 NM away. --Hence about negative 18.6' more refraction to consider, for a total of about -52.6' to -55.1' total standard refraction for the timed sunrise as seen from 10,000' AMSL.

Later Sun observations with a sextant would for a while involve negative angles, and a refraction correction which would be changing rapidly with changing Sun altitude.  In the case of very low bodies, the refraction correction would more accurately be made to the Sun's sighted height than (as customary in aeronautics) to a height precomputed for an assumed position.

>In other words, Noonan would have calculated that they had
>progressed further than they had, which may have been within the error
>of his chronometers and the indicators. It might have also disguised a
>stronger wind than he expected.
>
>What I'm trying to point out is that Noonan should have had a
>relatively easy time calculating his course,

Maybe with night and dawnstar and planet observations, but not on the basis of Sun azimuth. The Sun's subpoint was too distant for its azimuth to differ by even a degree even if the plane were off course hundreds of  miles.  The Sun's apparent azimuth (corrected for local magnetic variation) would only give an indication of how accurate the heading indicator was.

>and should have nailed
>down that calculation at sunrise. Getting a direction is actually not
>too difficult if you have good instruments. Where Noonan had the most
>probability of going wrong was in his calculation of *when* they would
>hit the LOP through Howland;

But as the Sun got above 10 degrees the refraction's variability should be less and further observations more reliable.

>any error in the speed, wind, calculation
>of the angles, etc, might have made them turn short, or go past the
>island before turning to the LOP. The biggest part in this is figuring
>out where the errors are, and how large they could be.

With ideal observing conditions for the navigator, very careful and attentive heading adjustments might  keep the plane's track within 5 miles of a precomputed Sun line that would cross over Howland. It would be a difficult task at the end of a long flight, and the attention spent on precise flying, Sun sights, and computation would take away from time spent scanning for Howland, Baker, or USS Itasca.

>When I get a minute, I'm going to go through what the measurements
>*should have been* (if Noonan had perfect equipment), and then try to
>see what effects certain errors cause.

It is a very interesting project.

>I'm sure this has been done
>before by lots of people, but I'm going to look at it from an
>astronomer's perspective and see if I can find anything. Does anyone
>happen to know what Noonan had onboard as reference material? I
>haven't found that yet, and it might be instructive.

The year's nautical almanac, and (H.O. Pub. No. 208) "Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators" were listed in an inventory of items found on board the Electra in Hawaii.

>You are all also welcome to tell me not to waste my time.

It is not a waste of time. It is a very interesting thing to do.

Mark Prange
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:00:44 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Right engine run radio?

Re: KGMB power

According to Donna Halper, radio historian, she looked up the power output, of KGMB in 1937 was 1,000 watts on 1320 AM. As Tighar has pointed out ITASCA heard KGMB near Howland just fine.  Her souce was the Federal Records Commission, 1938 Radio Annual. Most libraries have this book.

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:02:53 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Marty Moleski wrote:

>...I called the CBS archives in NYC when I was trying to track down
>recordings or transcripts.  They wouldn't say whether they've got
>anything.  Their records are not open to the public.  If anyone has
>CBS press credentials, they might be able to get further than I did.
>
>I checked some other archives of radio recordings with no success.
>Things may have changed since I last searched."

I posted an article on the forum a few weeks ago confirming that March of Time radio broadcasts were created and funded by Time Magazine.  The past few weeks I e-mailed Time Magazine several times inquiring about MOT archival material, but unfortunately they have not yet responded.  Maybe I need press credentials??   I will wait.

Also, I read your forum posting from September 29, 2000 about the disappointing attempt to get MOT information from Ron Staley. I have avoided contacting him since you met a dead-end.  Also been checking many old time radio website archives of recordings, but  with no success as you have experienced.  Tonight, I e-mailed a person in communication academia that has done research specifically on the MOT radio program broadcasts. Also, following several other leads.  I will wait.

Your comments about the MOT music breaks, plus as I stated in previous forum postings about Betty not hearing and documenting obvious words that should have been used frequently in a dramatization such as, "KHAQQ", "ITASCA", etc. makes it improbable that Betty was hearing the MOT broadcasts.  However, finding a recording or actor script from the actual July 8, 1937 broadcast should help remove all doubt.

Unfortunately, I suspect things haven't changed since you last searched.

Sincerely,
Tom Riggs #2427
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:08:14 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Charts

Randy wrote:

>This information obtained from the map collection at the Purdue
> University Libary's Special Collection.

Thanks Randy.

Is this map collection online? Who was the supplier of the aerological maps?

Regards Angus

****************************************

Purdue is in the process of mounting all of its Earhart collection on line, but I don't know if that includes maps --- which are very large. We have some photographs of the maps. I will ask Ric to dig them out.

Their website is http://www.lib.purdue.edu/aearhart/   At this time, it looks
like the maps are not available on line.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:30:54 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Imponderables

Reed Riddle says:

>About the only person who
>could say, definitely, whether all of the statements made were by the same
>two people is Betty, and, unfortunately, she
>probably can't say that after all this time.

For what it's worth, Betty is adamant that it was the same two voices from first to last.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:38:50 EST
From:         John Hathaway
Subject:      Re: Buy This Notebook

For a few months in '67 I worked in the command bunker of 3d Bn 3d Marines as a journal clerk.  Part of the job was to edit the radio operator's transcriptions into a more concise and understandable form.  From this experience and others gained on my gov't sponsored field trip,  I think it is nearly impossible for anyone to predict what they or anybody else will do or say in a high stress situation.

Even the most competent radio operator can get flustered and forget procedure.

A considerable amount of Betty's notes seem to be exchange between Earhart and Noonan,  transmitted through the mysteriously open mic.  (Dynamotor relay or associated circuit damaged on impact,  Earhart struggling to keep mic. from the now deranged Noonan,  or Earhart just maintaining a grip on her lifeline?)  There is frustratingly very little information in the notes of use to rescuers,  but that doesn't mean that Earhart didn't try to send any. That information, if sent , could have been lost in the ether or in transcription. Or maybe she didn't want to give away her position to the Japanese. (Bad joke)

To pile conjecture upon conjecture (sounds and smells better than bs.)  I have read "take it away Howland" to be "....take it away.  Howland......"  as if Noonan is waving a rubber chicken, tappet spanner,  or some other useless object in Earhart's face.  Or maybe Noonan wants Earhart to taxi the plane elsewhere.  "knee deep over" I read as meaning the water is now over knee deep.

I agree with Ric that Betty is owed an apology from Hue Miller and hope to see such in the next mailing. Betty is a guiless person who did her best as a young girl to help two doomed people,  kept her notes and memories all these years as a perceived duty, even though I believe the memory was a large burden.

LTM, who doesn't like taking crap from whippersnappers
John Hathaway
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:50:14 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: March of Time Earhart Broadcasts

Except you might expect  the March of Time would do a more professional job, like get AE's name straight, use the call letters, mention Itasca, and dispense with that corny "water is high", "can't bail out" mel - LOW - drama. Those young folks who made this broadcast, needed to take some classes in radio drama writing.

Hue Miller
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah.  Those kids seem to have spent all their prep time studying the cockpit of Lockheed Electras and figuring out that somebody trying to get out through the cockpit hatch would have to get by the person sitting in the pilot's seat and that the main battery was situated where, if the cover was removed for some reason, it would be hard to avoid stepping on the battery.  They also wasted a bunch of time digging up trivia, such as the fact that Earhart and Putnam had two houses - one in New York and one in California - so that they could cleverly have the Amelia impersonator specify to "George" that she meant the closet in California.  But you know how kids are - never paying attention to what's really important.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:08:23 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Maximum Range Speed

So, as we have it reckoned, AE did hear the Itasca's ~10:00 AM  series of A's. So she responds by broadcasting on 3105 - and maybe 6210. However, battery is running down, "water's high" outside and inside, so instead of sending some similar signal back (she had to realize interrupted carrier, was more distinctive a signal than voice, under poor condiitions), she talks about suitcase in closet, uncle, Bob, Bud, New York, Marie, airport.....only call sign or name related to this adventure is KGMB and Howland. But maybe AE was suffering amnesia, or maybe AE was actually only 15 years old.

Oh- but Betty didn't write 'KGMB' in with the AE material. And in fact i DON'T believe AE mentioned KGMB at all. Do you ever get the feeling that Betty's crediblity is looking  worse all the time?

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Had you been paying attention you'd know that I said, "From 10:03 to 10:05 Itasca is trying to contact Earhart on 7500." No "A"s were being sent at that time.  The actual log entry is:

KHAQQ DE NRUI WE HEARD YOU ON 3105 KCS, ETC. - 7500       10:03-05

And yet you seem to be privy to all kinds of information:
- you know that the battery is running down
- you know what "waters high" refers to
- you know that Amelia understands that an interrupted carrier carries better than voice

>Do you ever get the feeling that Betty's crediblity is
>looking  worse all the time?

I certainly get the feeling that somebody's credibility is getting worse all the time.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:18:39 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Doodling

Betty sounds like a little on the airhead side. Sombody's crying, dying, and Betty fiddles. Doodling in the intermissions of the pathos. Just "like" she was listening to an entertaining radio show. Hmmmmm.....

Now me, i can't draw, or even doodle. When i lissen to radio drama, i like to eat vegetarian, low-calorie snacks.

-Hue

************************************************************************
From Ric

Betty has said that there were often extended periods between receptions - just how long is very hard to say - but I wouldn't describe as an "airhead" someone who carefully writes down what she thinks are the most important parts of what she hears and remains cool enough and patient enough to wait for the next reception and even perhaps tries to work on her drawings while she waits for the next transmission.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:20:40 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: RIght engine run radio?

Hue writes

> Daylight, Niku. Daylight, Florida. Anyone in FL is not going to be able to
>hear Niku on 3105 or 6210. Or, 8000 either. And vice versa. Now,  AE's
>receiver, and loop for sure, did NOT tune above 8000.
>
>AE did NOT hear W4OK, WOJ.
>
> Why are they in Betty's log?

That's interesting, Hue. I'm trying my best to understand all this and I've read the paper that says otherwise. will you please explain why you are correct and Bob is wrong?

"W4OK, WOJ."

Can you assure me that those letter/number combinations were heard correctly, written down correctly and were not part of extraneous transmissions other than just opinion?

It seems to me based on my own experience in the 30s of listening almost daily to short wave that there was always a mix of transmissions from different stations. No one station owned the rights to 3105, 6210 or any other frequency. Why would anyone think that every single entry in Betty's notebook was 100% accurate or that it all came 100% from AE? To attempt such an argument about some specific entry, Hue, seems foolish and purely argumentative.

I know you meant well, please don't get me wrong, but I don't see this as productive. I don't know who said "W40K" or if that was actually what was said. I would think the positive approach would be to try and find a reasonable answer to what that meant if anything rather than oppose its existence.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:27:17 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Take it away Howland

RE: Take it away Howland - could this be two conversations? FN holds something out toward AE while she is in the middle of a transmission - she says: "Take it away", then immediately starts or continues a phrase: "....Howland........."

**********************************************
From Ric

That's always a question in transcriptions of fragmentary receptions.  The first part of the 281 message, for instance, is usually written as: "281 north Howland - call KHAQQ.."  but what if it's "281 north - Howland, call KHAQQ"?

I think it's worth considering when something makes no sense the way it appears but I think you need to be able to make a very strong case before you can call it anythng but speculation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:30:06 EST
From:         Terry Simpson
Subject:      Betty

Thanks Ric for standing up for Betty. I felt like smacking the moniter.Only somebody with your guts could keep this going for 14 years. I wish I could do more to help.....Terry #2396(LTM)

*****************************************
From Ric

Thanks Terry
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:37:11 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Imponderables

Ric wrote:

> The recurrence of words and phrases, such as references to water and the word
> "Amelia" occur throughout the notebook.  Do you really want to suggest that
> her radio drifted through several stations, all of which had conversations in
> similar voices that included these phrases?

Can you come up with a better explanation? How about the radio tuning-drift issue? I didn't invent that. How does Betty look as a witness now?

Hue

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't neeed a better explanation.  The notebook itself testfies that it was the same source throughout.  There is nothing in the notebook that addresses whether or not Betty retuned to hold on to the transmissions.  That information comes entirely from her 60+ year old recollections whihc may or may not be accurate.  If we have to choose between a contempraneous written document and anecdotal recollection, the docuemnt always wins.  Our "witness" is the notebook, not the woman who now tries to help us understand it - and I think they both look awfully good.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:47:18 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's memory

Sorry, Ric, i do not think i owe anyone an apology. Neither do i believe anyone is sacred. This side of the veil, anyway.

With each insconsistency, each point of illogic, the chance of this miracle is relentlessly mulitiplied by a smaller probability. It's not I who have tortured logic, or the English language, to try to make this logbook fit some cherished scenario.

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

My argument, Hue, is not with your skepticism but with your willingness to level charges that are gainsaid by information that is readily available to you.  It creates the appearance of someone with an agenda rather than someone who is interested in the facts - which is precisely your criticism of those who disagree with you.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:24:18 EST
From:         Randy Mills
Subject:      Re: Imponderables

I am new to the investigation.  How do I get a copy of Betty's Book ?

Randy H Mills
***********************************************************
From Ric

Go to the TIGHAR website (www.tighar.org)
click on Earhart Project
then scroll down and click on Documents
and scroll down until you find Betty's Notebook.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:24:22 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Engine run and minutiae

Ric wrote

> Bob Brandenburg has shown that it was possible (not probable, but certainly
> possible) for Betty to have heard Earhart on a harmonic of 3105 or 6210.
> If you have more than opinions with which to refute his calculations, please
> present them.

I suspect his analysis begins with less than firm assumptions, and i will try to demonstrate the fatal flaw in due time. I am working on this. If i am wrong, i will also post that.

> I don't know why "W40K or WOJ" appears in Betty's log.

Well, you have a witness, do you not???? On page 1, it's clear that "WOJ or W4OK" is associated with AE speaking. So, Betty says AE said  one of these call letters. So, let's try to think about when AE heard WOJ or W4OK, and how. I don't think your rejoinder, :"I don't know why....neither do you", is very progressive. Is this the approach to a conundrum? You already kinda know my explanation. Now let's have yours. Okay, if you're still working on it, that is fine, too. Do you have any clues?

Re hearing KGMB on Niku: i am willing to learn. I have put out requests for direct experience from over-ocean flyers, on another list, so i may have some replies on this question in the next day.

> know that the presence of those letters and numbers does not disqualify the
> notebook as a record of authentic transmissions from Earhart.

Some day, the preponderence of evidence, i mean problems, may unconvince even you. Unless the conclusion comes down to, " it's an issue of faith: either you believe, or not."

On to other tidbits to work over:

Re the radio transmitter only being workable when one engine is running. We have this by an 'authority'. I have no way to disprove that, i only comment, strange way to build an aircraft. Suppose this one engine goes out, and you're in a critical situation, now also your radio won't work, so you're doubly screwed. Very strange.

Betty, page 5.  "3630" in the ham radio world, is a  hamband frequency, by convention used for telegraphy.

Betty, page 5,  "38.3" or "38-3", in ham radio, 3830 is a hamband frequency, used commonly for medium- distance, voice-mode chit-chat.

Betty, page 3: "fig 8-3". Figure 8-3 ??? On what page of what book?

Betty, doodle page:  "KGMB". Do i have this correctly, that Betty went to the doodle page when there were periods she could not hear AE? If so, whence "KGMB" ?  AE was trying to inform KGMB of her crash landing, around 10:00AM 7/02 Niku, because she listened to KGMB, when? Back when she was in Hawaii, or that morning, right after tuning in the Itasca from Niku, and shortly before the receiver flooded? Or, she called KGMB because they were what, an old, good friend? . KGMB had not tried to reach her by that point, am i correct? So AE tried to initiate some communication with KGMB? Or was it Betty who heard KGMB? No - Betty did NOT hear KGMB. She might have heard "KGMB" letters from AE, or from ?"someone"? else, or she may have read it. "3105" on same doodle page. ( altho written 31.05, that makes no sense, as a geo coordinate or as a radio wavelength.) Why is this aircraft night channel written on Betty's doodle page? AE mentioned it? If so, why not in with the AE material, why written on the doodle page?

Betty, page 3: "We can't bail out". Of course not. Why would you try to bail out the cabin, when more water is just going to come in? And if you're up on the reef at Niku, who cares? You're not going to sink.

Betty, page 2: "different suffer":  "we are differently suffering" ??? "We are suffering" ??? Okay, maybe. But this is followed at once by "Take it away, Howland" Take what away, Howland, the suffering? Or take the microphone, for the remainder of the broadcast?

Betty, page 1: "SOS ---stop".  Is this some naive person's idea of "telegraph speak" ??

And so on. To be continued, if i'm not booted.

But- am i the only **** idiot to not "get" the notebook? Do any of you foot soldiers out there suspect, maybe, maybe, this notebook is next to useless, and in fact, harmful to Betty's story?

That Betty's story would not be more believeable without this hodepodge? That maybe, the USCG personnel had to suppress a laugh when they were offered  the notebook?

( And note, i am not necessarily saying she made it all up.) Or, are you all "deeply moved by this chilling account"?

Hue Miller
********************************************************************
From Ric

With regard to W40K or WOJ:

As with everything else in the notebook, all I know is that the letters and numbers appear and that it is Betty's recollection that Amelia said something which caused to her to write them down.  I do not feel compelled to explain them any more than I am compelled to explain any of the other many words and phrases that have no immediate meaning to us.  We can, and should, look for reasonable explanations, but we start from the assumption that the transcriptions are fragmentary and many are probably flawed.  At present I can't make any sense out of W40K or WOJ being in the notebook.

>Re hearing KGMB on Niku: i am willing to learn. I have put out requests for
>direct experience from over-ocean flyers.

I don't understand.  As I quoted, we have a contemporaneous July 1937 official government account of direct experience of loud and clear reception of KGMB transmissions in the immediate vicinity fo Gardner Island.  How could anything you got from over-ocean flyers (unless you're channeling Johnny Lambrecht) be better than that?

>Unless the conclusion comes down to, " it's an issue of faith: either you
>believe, or not."

I have said before and I will say again that I don't think it is possible to prove or disprove that Betty's notebook represents genuine transmissions from Earhart uness we get a deathbed confession from a hoaxer.  So yes, it will probably always be "an issue of faith: either you believe, or not."

You have a great many questions about why various words and numbers appear in the notebook.  So do we.  As has been said many time by me and by others, it is the very fact that much of the notebook seems nonsensical that argues against it being a hoax - either one contrived by Betty or innocently heard by Betty.  We've been unable to construct a sensible hoax scenario that could produce the notebook - and so far, I haven't heard one from you.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:25:01 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

What sort of maximum error in nm might one expect in the position of a sunrise LOP due to abnormal refraction not corresponding to listed correction a) assuming a the aircraft at sea-level, b) at 1000ft?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:27:08 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Astronomy stuff

I don't know if Noonan had an almanac along that predicted planetary positions. If he had the Nautical Almanac then he could know several planets' coordinates, and those of the Sun and Moon.

I could be wrong about Noonan's almanac predicting planet coordinates. The 1937 American Nautical Almanac came in two editions. One was for astronomers; it was larger and tabulated information for Sun, star, Moon, and some planets. The smaller edition was for navigators; it tabulated information for Sun,star, and Moon. I can't rememeber if it tabulated any planet information. 

Mark Prange
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:27:49 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: March of Time Earhart Broadcasts

> Eric wrote:

>> Another possible source to check for the MOT programs would be the
>> Society to Preserve and Encourage Radio Drama, Variety and Comedy
>> (SPERDVAC), P.O. Box 7177, Van Nuys, Ca. 91409.  ...

No joy.  I got e-mail and a phone call both from Bob (nice guy!) and he says they do not have the MoT stuff in their collection.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:29:23 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Reed, the 157/337 LOP could have been calculated ...

Yes.

> ... and drawn on Noonan's map
> prior to take off.

No.  Prior to takeoff, Noonan would not know the TIME at which he would observe sunrise.  That is the critical observation that lets him put a LOP on his chart and say (plus or minus some percentage) that he knows they are somewhere on that line.  This is why it was so important for him to get his chronometer set to the right time before takeoff.  To use vague, round numbers to make the point: if he saw sunrise at 0500 GMT, the slanting NW/SE line would go down on his map at one longitude; if he saw sunrise at 0600 GMT, the 337/157 LOP on his map would be something like 800 or 1000 miles WESTWARD of the 0500 GMT line.

In other words, from making an accurate reading of his chronometer at the time he makes his sighting of the sun, Noonon learns how far WEST he is from the 337/157 line that passes through Howland.  From that single sighting he does NOT know whether he has to turn NE or SW along the parallel LOP, but he does know how much mileage along the "ground" (ocean) they have to cover from where he is to a LOP that would guide them to Howland.

Now all he has to do is figure out their true air speed by factoring in drift due to wind and the course that they are making good across the "ground" (ocean).  Then watch the clock.  When enough time has passed, he is morally certain that turning NW or SE along 337/157 will bring them to the landing strip.  All he needs is a little help from his friends telling them which way to turn, and he won't even need to worry about the LOP any more--they can get a direct bearing to Howland and just follow it right in.  Piece o' cake.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:30:08 EST
From:         ?
Subject:      Re: Doodling

I think personal attacks on Betty herself are way out of line.  Attack the contents of the notebook maybe, you make it sound like a teenaged girl at home one day had the responsibility of a court room reporter.  The book was offered up to TIGHAR and the task of seeing if it fits with all the other pieces is what this is about.  If you dont think it fits, fine.  Tell us why but leave your insults out.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:25:53 EST
From:         Peter
Subject:      Batteries & High School Chemistry

Mike E wrote:

>If you immerse a storage battery in salt water, and the salt water
>enters the cells to mix with the sulfuric acid, a chemical reaction takes place
>immediately which releases chlorine gas.  This will in short order,
>result in a sufficient amount of chlorine gas inside the aircraft to
>make it dangerous to life for anyone inside."

Not so. Battery acid is a moderately concentrated solution of sulphuric acid. Sea water is a dilute solution of a number of minerals, the main one being sodium chloride. Sulphuric acid does not react with dilute sodium chloride solution, although heat is evolved on dilution of the acid). When concentrated sulphuric acid reacts with solid sodium chloride the product is not chlorine, but hydrogen chloride gas. Sea water is an electrolytic conductor. Any chlorine evolved when a lead accumulator is immersed in sea water would come about from the electrolytic discharge of chloride ions, at the positive terminal (anode) of the battery, But, bearing in mind the low concentration of Cl-minus, the major anode product would be oxygen (fom the water) At the negative terminal, hydrogen gas would be produced.

LTM (who just loved labs)
Peter
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:28:59 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Doodling

Hue Miller wrote:

>Betty sounds like a little on the airhead side.

It's interesting how two people can perceive a situation differently. My take is that Betty was (and is) intelligent, articulate and perceptive.

I welcome different points of view, but your statement is a cheap shot. In my view, your logic is flawed and your understanding of the situation shallow. Some people, finding themselves on the loosing side of an argument, employ name calling and character assassination as techniques designed to discredit their opponent. You appear to be included in this group.

Just my opinion....
***************************************************************************
From Phil Tanner

> Betty sounds like a little on the airhead side.

I think this is below the belt. Betty was just a little older in 1937 than my daughter is now. Obviously the circumstances could never be repeated, but I'd be well pleased if my teenager stuck to the task as Betty did. And even more if as a senior citizen she stayed true to what she heard. It can never be proved, but I think she heard Earhart.  What clinches it for me is the logic that if the broadcast was a hoax or drama emanating from the continental US, many more people would have reported hearing it at the time and it wouldn't
be a revelation 60-plus years on.

LTM Phil Tanner 2276

***************************************************************************
From Hue Miller

> Betty sounds.....

I do apologize for this.  Uncalled for.

H.M.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:29:46 EST
From:         Alfred
Subject:      Re Doodling

Hue: Please do not insult Betty on this forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:30:58 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Charts

> Their website is http://www.lib.purdue.edu/aearhart/   At this time, it looks
> like the maps are not available on line.

Has anyone figured out how to use the collection? I have had very little luck in reading documents posted by Purdue.

Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:34:23 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Astronomy stuff

Marty Moleski wrote:

>Alan Caldwell wrote:
>
>>... the 157/337 LOP could have been calculated ...
>>... and drawn on Noonan's map prior to take off.
>
>From Marty
>
>No. Prior to takeoff, Noonan would not know the TIME
>at which he would observe sunrise. That is the critical
>observation that lets him put a LOP on his chart

But a 157/337 across Howland could have been drawn on Noonan's map. That might have been Alan's meaning.

Mark Prange
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:36:48 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Here is a link to excerpts of the 1937 Nautical Almanac

http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/almanac.html

Unfortunately the arrangement of the almanac then was different than it is now and did not have information for all bodies on one daily page. The posted pages only have data for the sun and moon but the 1937 Nautical Almanac did have planetary and stellar data. If you are really curious you can contact the librarian at the U.S. Naval Observatory in DC and she will fax you the necessary pages. Re your other post, planets are very useful for navigation because of their brightness making them easy to identify and observe. Although they do move in reference to the background stars their positions are just as easy to determine from the Nautical Almanac as any other body, you use exactly the same procedures.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:41:13 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Water depth/global warming

According to the United Nations 1996 report on "Global Warming" sea level has risen between 10 and 25 centimeters in the last century, (For the metrically challenged, that is only 4 to 10 inches <G>) so that couldn't account for a major change in the depth of the water over the reef in the last 65 years. ( Maybe the reef was only 35- 1/2 feet below sea level in 1937.)

The other possible explanation for more water over the reef now than in 1937 would be subsidence of the reef. Since the reefs are on the same tectonic plate as the Phoenix islands, if the reef subsided 36 feet in the last 65 years then Gardner should have also and would now be way underwater too. Subsidence takes place on a geological time scale (can we say eons?) and so would also not account for a perceptible change either. (The only geological processes that occur an a time scale that a human would live long enough to notice are earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. If you want to check for subsidence of the reef go there and measure its depth. Then write it down so that your great-great-great-great grand children can go back there and measure to see if there has been any change.) Do you have any source that would indicate that there has been a significant change in the water depth over the reef in the last 65 years?

gl
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I wonder how the 4 to 10 inch rise in water levels over the last century might impact our tide calculations for the reef at Niku.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:44:08 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Astronomy stuff

Angus wrote:

>What sort of maximum error in nm might one expect in the position of a
>sunrise LOP due to abnormal refraction not corresponding to listed
>correction
>a) assuming a the aircraft at sea-level,
>b) at 1000ft?

A Naval Observatory FAQ page touches on this.

"Changes in the refraction near the equator will change the time of sunrise. There is a 32% chance that the time of sunrise will be off by *more* than 38 seconds." 
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/first_sunrise.html#refraction

More than 38 seconds is more than 9.5 minutes of longitude shift near the equator. According to the USNO's admonition, there is a 32% chance that a sunrise LOP will be (perpendicularly) off by more than 8.7 nm. [The product of 9.5 nmand the sine of  67 degrees equals about 8.7 nm]

Mark Prange
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:21:53 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      KGMB/Time, Distance Calculation

The mention of the notebook's KGMB and the 31.05 notation  in a previous posting raises some interesting and potentially useful questions in dating and authenticating this notebook as a record of receptions from Earhart.  If  the theory is that Betty's notebook records receptions from Earhart on Gardner on July 2d at between 1000 a.m. to 1145 a.m. Gardner time (4:30 p.m. to about 6:15 p.m. St. Pete time),  then the following questions come up concerning the KGMB/ 31.05 notations:

1.  Why would one expect to see the KGMB notations and the 31.05  in the notebook at all during this time (1000 a.m. to 1145 a.m. on July 2)? Was KGMB broadcasting for Earhart to respond this early? What records do we have as to the time that KGMB started broadcasting for Earhart to respond (these records would be independent of Betty's notebook)?

2.  If the 31.05 is Betty's transcription of the 3105 frequency, isn't that Earhart's nightime frequency?  So,  if somehow the transmissions were from Earhart TO KGMB, then why would she mention the 3105 frequency during the day, especially towards noon?  After all, we have a record that at 0843 Earhart said she was shifting from 3105 (nighttime frequency) to 6210 (daytime frequency).  Much like Earhart's "on the line" transmission is applied as evidence for the LOP to Gardner theory, this 0843 transmission would seem to rule out that Earhart would change BACK to 31.05?  So, this seems to indicate that Earhart is not the source of the notation, which gets us back to the question of when KGMB began broadcasting to Earhart.

3.  The KGMB and 31.05 notations appear on a doodle page, and are not part of the transmissions Betty records.  I thought Betty said she went back to doodling during breaks in the Earhart transmission?  If so, shouldn't we expect to see KGMB and 31.05 in the section of the notebook where Betty records what she heard from Earhart?

Thanks for the Brandenburg "Radio Riddle" and nautical mile conversion information.  I will run the numbers and get back to you.

--Chris Kennedy
****************************************************************************
From Ric

As those who have seen the Betty interview can attest, Betty explained that she worked on her drawings on other pages while waiting to see if Earhart would come back on.  She doesn't specifically remember making the KGMB and 31.05 notations and, in fact, didn't know they were there or might have any significance until I found them and pointed them out to her.  Her best guess - and that's all it is - is that Earhart suddenly came back on the air and she quickly made the notation on the page she was working on before flipping back to the transcription pages.  Makes sense to me.
 
Why would Earhart say anything about KGMB or 3105 on the morning of July 2nd? KGMB did not make it's first broadcast specifically to Earhart until 7 o'clock (Niku Time) that night, so clearly AE couldn't have been replying that broadcast.  (Replies to KGMB's later broadcasts to Earhart were heard by numerous stations and were believed to be authentic - but that's a different issue.)  KGMB was, however, on the air with regular programming throughout the day on July 2nd and may very well have carried the breaking news of Earhart's failure to arrive at Howland Island.  Would Earhart have known KGMB's frequency?  Almost certainly.  She was, after all, planning to fly to Hawaii next.

Having no luck getting useful information, only code, from Itasca on 7500, might she have tried to pick up KGMB to see if there was any news about efforts to find her?  She had listened to news reports about herself on a commercial station during the leg of the World Flight from Miami to Puerto Rico.  (See "Last Flight" chapter "The Start")  Might she have said something like, "We can hear KGMB.  Please tell them we're calling on 3105."

Why use 3105 in the daytime?   Why not?  She had been warned in New Guinea that her radio wasn't so great on 6210 and, contrary to your reasoning above, her 08:43 statement that she would switch to 6210 certainly does not preclude the possibility that she might back.  Indeed, we have no evidence that she ever did switch to 6210 and, in fact, a further transmission came in on 3105 after she said she was switching.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:22:51 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: transmitter power?

Hue Miller wrote:

> Bob Brandenburg wrote:
>
> >  The Itasca's transmitter had a maximum output
> > power of 200 watts.
>
> How does your math produce this figure?

My information about the Itasca's transmitter was provided by the Coast Guard historian.  Where did you get yours?

LTM,
Bob
#2286
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:23:51 EST
From:         Christy Creyts
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

I also attempted to acquire the MOT programs from Ron Staley.  I believe they were listed as "available" in his old radio program catalog.  I spoke to him on the telephone.

In a nutshell, Staley said he had the programs, the recordings were not of good quality and needed "cleaned-up".

People associated with and not associated with Tighar had approached him.

The recordings/transcripts would/should be removed from his catalog.

I offered to purchase, as in his catalog, whatever he had, in whatever condition it was.  He flatly refused.  I don't know why.

I think this conversation took place maybe a year ago (I'm horrible with time passages).

christy creyts
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:25:12 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      W40K

> So, let's try to think about when AE heard WOJ or W4OK, and how.

W4 is part of / or the end of a statement followed by the word OKAY - just another piece of speculation, but like all puzzles, sometimes that's all we have to work with.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:30:59 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: RIght engine run radio?

Betty said she heard Amelia Earhart saying "W40K Howland Port or WOJ HOWLAND port." That is a pretty good source. Betty didn't equivocate on those entries. She has said the same voices were heard throughout the transmissions. She has in effect "authenticated" that it was a woman she thought was Amelia saying those call signs.

They are nicely,clearly written as one of the very first entries in the notebook. Right opposite the "help me" remark. No question mark. [Both happen to be legit call signs.]  You have looked at that a thousand times.

So how in the world can you possible say that Betty didn't hear Amelia say those call signs? You are trying to open the door that Betty "misunderstood" the transmission or that the numbers appeared through some divine nature.

I would refer this matter to Betty, not your interpretation.

Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It's misleading to say that "Betty heard Amelia say those callsigns".  Betty wrote down something that can be interpreted as callsigns but that doesn't make them callsigns.  The "Howland port" part is just as mysterious as the W40K or WOJ.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:33:40 EST
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: Engine run and minutiae

A couple of comments:

1) I think some folk (like Hue) have the "radio transmitter operation/#2 engine operation as having to occur simultaneously. My understanding is that #2 engine charged the battery, which was able to operate the transmitter by itself, though without the #2 engine running, would discharge soon. This has been gone over on the forum in the past.

2) There has been lots of discussion about the effects of atmospheric refraction on celestial shots. I believe that atmospheric refraction affects only the observed angle above the horizon (H-whatever), not the azimuth of the body (from which the 157/337 LOP, we think, was derived).

3) I have often wondered about the pronunciation problem of "zero" vs "oh" in Betty's transcripts. Whether or not it makes a difference is up to the TIGHARS.

Regards, and all the best, Peter Boor in PA #856
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:39:01 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Engine run and minutiae

Didn't someone sometime ago opine that the W40K and or WOJ Howland Port call signs originated from the Ham, Francis Carroll [W40K], at Ft Worth, who may have heard the same signal that Betty heard at the same time. He then attempted to contact AE as any Ham would do and AE repeats those back, assuming she heard them. He was on the same great circle, etc. Technically, maybe possible or impossible? Betty heard those call signs and there has to be a rational explanation.He was the guy that said years later that he once "talked to Amelia" or something close to it. Your cousin was attempting to locate the Carroll logs of his 1937 comments.

REB/2342
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It's not a huge stretch to say the Carrol may have heard the same transmission Betty heard.  The stretch comes in Carrol being able to get a signal to AE.  As I understand it, that's about as close to impossible as things get, given the frequencies that Carrol could legally transmit on, the power available to him, and limitations of Earhart's receiver.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:47:52 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Dynamotor

Mike Everette wrote:

>I wish I could find a photo or drawing of this rig.  While another look at
>the schematic now leads me to believe the dynamotor was inside the
>transmitter housing, the bench test diagrams in Morgan (which I looked at
>again this morning) make it appear that the power supply could indeed have
>been inside a separate box.

As a matter of interest, I posted a link on last forum for an old radio website I found showing a portable battery-powered transmitter/receiver used by the U.S. Coast Guard in the 1930's.  Figure 5 at the bottom of the article shows a pictorial diagram of the radio including a dynamotor.  I'm guessing the dynamotor for this rig is made to be portable because it looks like a carry handle is mounted on top.  From your previous descriptions of AE's Electra dynamotor design, I suspect it would not look anything like the one for this Coast Guard radio.   If interested...here is the link again: 

http://www.antiqueradio.com/Jan03_Dubois_CoastGuard.html

Tom Riggs #2427
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Tom.  That's the CGR-22 portable radio that Radioman Frank Cipriani had on Howland for communicating back to the Itasca.  I hadn't seen a picture of one before.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:49:00 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

> No.  Prior to takeoff, Noonan would not know the TIME
> at which he would observe sunrise.

Why not? My navigator ALWAYS precomped our missions. That doesn't mean we would hit it on the button but we still had the whole mission precomped. Noonan could do the same.

And for that matter we still don't know when Noonan saw the sun rise. Or where he was when he did. He was some place between the Gilbert's and Howland but that's all we know.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:49:43 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Astronomy stuff

> This is why it was so
> important for him to get his chronometer set to the
> right time before takeoff.

Not at all. The reason he needed to set his chronometers accurately was for ALL his celestial navigation.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:52:19 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Marty, the LOP drawn through Howland was not a sun shot. It was an advanced parallel to a sun shot. The 157/337 line was derived earlier on the inbound leg not at Howland at the very least.

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

I think Marty knows that.  You guys are arguing at cross-purposes.  The line can be drawn on the map prior to departure but only as a guess (if all goes as planned we should be here at sunup.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:57:19 EST
From:         Craig Knowles
Subject:      Not "Getting" the Notebook

>But am i the only **** idiot to not "get" the
>notebook? Do any of you foot soldiers out there
>suspect, maybe, maybe, this notebook is next to
>useless, and in fact, harmful to Betty's story?

It may be possible that you're the only **** idiot not to "get" the notebook, but that's not for me to say.  I will say that I share some doubts about things, but I'm sure everyone here has doubts of some sort, because there's not enough here to prove much anything on its own.

  I want to start by saying that some people on the forum are listening to what you have to say, but you're coming off as a bit too direct and imposing with your postings.  The adage here, as most other places, it you'll attract more flies with honey.  If you begin picking apart the credibility nice old ladies, people start to get offended.

  Now, as far as not getting the notebook, I can't speak for anyone else, but this is my take, divided into three categories, which I believe this subject can be best considered in:

The Transmission Itself
-----------------------
AE either made a transmission, or she didn't.  If she did, the signal either traveled to Florida, or it didn't.

- I'm not convinced that a transmission from the Niku/Howland region could have been heard in Florida, yet not be heard by anyone in the Howland area, but I admit I have no knowledge of radio propagation, frequencies, etc.  I'm willing to put my trust in the people here on the forum.  If they say it's possible, than I'm willing to consider it possible.

- I'm not convinced the transmission was from AE herself, but due to the approximate date/time Betty heard it, and the knowledge hoaxers could have had about AE's predicament at that time, I'm not sure.  I go back and forth on this one.

Betty
------
Either Betty is lying, or she is not.  Either she heard a transmission or she didn't.

- I believe Betty is telling the truth, and heard a transmission.
- I believe she wrote down what she heard.
- I believe what's written in the notebook is an accurate reflection of what she heard.
- I am not entirely convinced it was AE that she heard.

The Notebook Content
--------------------
Either the content is a reasonably correct (partial) transcription of what she heard, or it's not.

- I think it is a transcription of what Betty heard.
- I have more questions than answers about the content of the notebook.
- The fragmentation of phrases makes it hard to decipher what was going on, but the transmission may have been that way anyway.
- There are entries, numbers and phrases that are EXTREMELY coincidental to AE's predicament.
- There are entries that I can't make any sense of, or even imagine how they could be associated with AE.
- My brain still cannot come to terms with the AE phrases being perfectly written (showing little signs of rushing), while the song lyrics are written down in obvious haste.  Ric's explanation does seem plausible to me though - that she was being extra careful when writing this stuff, knowing it may be important.

  I have a lot more questions than answers - probably like numerous other people - but from what I believe, it allows me to lean one way or the other.  You can come to terms with each of the parts.

- Could AE have plausibly sent a signal? Maybe
- Could it have possibly been heard in Florida? Maybe

- Did Betty really hear something? Yes
- Was it AE? Maybe

- Did she faithfully write down what she heard? Likely.

  I think it's ok to be skeptical on some parts, while accepting others.  Everyone has a certain level of skepticism that has to be crossed before they accept something as possible or even plausible.

  I don't believe that picking apart the notebook will take us much further, but it very well may.  I think outside things have to prove or disprove the likelihood that the transcription in the notebook was AE.

  Like what?  Like the March of Time - several people have ruled that out already, but I'd feel more comfortable after we hear it.  Like nailing down the day when Betty heard this.  Like determining the likelihood that AE could have made it to Niku in time to make a transmission that Betty could have heard.

  The unfortunate part to this is that we likely will never know what the phrases in the notebook mean.  We may never prove it was a hoax or the real McCoy.  If we find the plane down near an island, only then may it lend credence to AE actually making the transmission.  We may have to find the plane to come to the conclusion that the transmission was most likely legit.

  In a final analysis, all the notebook really does is lend credence to AE landing somewhere she chould have transmitted from.  If she could not transmit from an open ocean landing, and it's doubtful that she would complain of water being knee deep while still flying at 1000ft, then we're left with fewer and fewer possibilities.

  Craig
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:57:58 EST
From:         David Kelley
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

The one thing that has struck me about Betty and her notebooks (regardless of whether or not it was AE she heard) is that for a young teenager, she acted in a very mature and responsible manner.  She believed that she was doing something very important in taking the notes and she did it as well as anyone probably could in the circumstances.

For that she deserves congratulations.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:01:22 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      L10E 16020 Batteries?

Mike Everette,

   Considering L10E 16020 was basically an all electric systems aircraft, flaps, landing gear,etc - Is it possible that there was more than one primary 12 volt battery plus an auxilliary 12 volt on board? - I'm guessing but believe a 12 volt A/C battery in 1937 would have somewhere near a 70 amp/hr rating - Would I be safe with assuming that amp/hr rating?- One last question - Could the radio equipment on board L10E 16020 be operated by either primary or auxilliary batteries or both together?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I know of no way to prove that more batteries weren't loaded aboard the airplane than are mentioned in the Bureau of air commerce paperwork and shown in the photos - but I know of no reason to think that such a thing was done.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:14:25 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      summary of disbelief

Alan wrote:

> That's interesting, Hue. I'm trying my best to understand all this and I've
> read the paper that says otherwise. will you please explain why you are
> correct and Bob is wrong?

Fine, i will be wrong. Why don't you get Bob's opinion on signal strength required for a daylight-to-daylight radio path for signals in the low HF ange, say, 3 - 8 Mhz?

Since that proved unworkable, the "harmonic theory" arose: that an overtone from AE's radio on a multiple, actually carried to FL. These higher frequencies are "open", usable during the daylight hour via long distance skywave reflection.

The same rule applies in the reverse path, FL > Niku, so Niku only hears FL in the same range of frequencies. But, neither AE's radio or its antenna (most of us seem to think the loop-unit was the only working antenna at this point) tunes above 8000 or so. This rules out  AE's reception of WOJ or W anything in FL on AE's radio after local, Niku sunrise. Then, why did AE pronounce these callsigns, or even one of them?

> "W4OK, WOJ."
>
> Can you assure me that those letter/number combinations were heard correctly,
> written down correctly and were not part of extraneous transmissions other
> than just opinion?

Can you assure me anything in the notebook is correct?

Maybe we can start with the assumption that the "form" of things, minus any occasional digit or letter charater, fell out, but the overall form should hold, agreed? And possibly an occasional word.


> It seems to me based on my own experience in the 30s of listening almost
> daily to short wave that there was always a mix of transmissions from
> different stations. No one station owned the rights to 3105, 6210 or any
> other frequency. Why would anyone think that every single entry in Betty's
> notebook was 100% accurate or that it all came 100% from AE? To attempt such
> an argument about some specific entry, Hue, seems foolish and purely
> argumentative.

If you can recall your 1930s experiences, how long did your radio stay put, on say 15 or 18 Mhz, while you were listening?  Actually, i thank you for helping me make my point, that this reception may be a hodge podge of sources. It's possible 15525 had a bunch of stations alternating. Do you think it did? Does 15525 or 18630 sound like a channel that has high occupancy, like, say for example, one of the marine channels in the 2-3 range or a ham radio frequency, or even 6210? To make sure you get this question, how crowded do you think 15525 was? You have experience in shortwave, understand frequency band allocations, so this question should be do-able for you.

> I know you meant well, please don't get me wrong, but I don't see this as
> productive. I don't know who said "W40K" or if that was actually what was
> said. I would think the positive approach would be to try and find a
> reasonable answer to what that meant if anything rather than oppose it's
> existence.

Well, why don't we try to work it out? We can maybe figure who was least likely to say one of these call letters. Or what call letters AE would have been likely to use. (Her own,  for a starter. Along with her right name. And yes, as in this specific example it is best to rely on the original document, rather than some recent revisionary statement )

We agree that the transcription has "holes". Nothing devious about that, everyone has tried to take down information, even from a college class. Errors, omissions, misses come in. But when there are repetitions, and repetitions of errors, or oddities, you get a picture.

I have been challenged to supply a possible explanation, rather than just knocking the one promoted here. Try this:

Betty did not have a top of the line receiver, her family had an ordinary floor model, a console. The family's antenna was better, higher and longer than the neighbors', but it was straight from the user instruction sheet and was nothing particularly technical. On the day in question, which despite Betty's declarations was probably NOT 7/02, and most probably after 7/02, a couple of high school kids get on their dad's ham transmitter on 80 meter AM band, or turn on a radio in a yacht or fishing boat. They put on a show, throwing in names and numbers everybody knows from the newspaper coverage, with some confused formulations, such as "Amelia Putnam" or "Howland Port", plus extemporizing  other stuff as filler. After an hour or so, they've had enough. Of course local hams and others pick them up too, but dismiss it immediately as nonsense, and of course no one answers them back. ("Don't speak to them, or argue, it only encourages them further" is the common advice for dealing with radio troublemakers.)

Meanwhile, in another town up to a few hundreds of miles away, a young girl has tuned in the broadcast. She had had only a mild interest in the story, nothing especial, previously, but the crying and shouting and dire scene she hears on the radio move her to write down some key words. She is entirely taken in. Sincere, but at 15, and not a close follower of the news, she  does not recognize  the warning signs in the broadcast  that turn off the few older folks who have tuned across the broadcast - and kept going.

So, we have a staged scene of  "water rising",  cryptic messages saying to get a suitcase, please come quick, uncle, Bob, Bud, Amelia Putnam, Howland Airport,  SOS - stop, starts out crying as water is rising, but has presence of mind to give direction on fetching suitcase,  ham or commercial radio station call letters thrown in, Marie hey, hey Marie, KGMB, 3105, 3 15, 3630, New York, South 391065 Z or E, figure 8-3, watch that battery, do what?, 3E MJ 3B,  take it away Howland, and more. This plus technical challenges to the supposed reception, we have already discussed.

Does this form some kind of picture for you? I mean, we could say, i don't understand it, so we'll let it go at that. Or, does this outline of the broadcast suggest to you, instead, some amateurish and juvenile production? Or, should Hue Miller simply understand that "high water" means deep and rough water bordering the reef, that AE would have used 2 or 3 other call letters and never hers, that she was concerned about Marie, or so out of their minds that she and Bob, or Bud, or George, were raving? I should understand that "Take it away, Howland" does not mean what any radio listener of the 1930s would recognize it as, instead she meant "take our suffering away", "take our plane away" or something as equally a crime against logic. More power to you, believers, if you can manage to massage and polish everything to fit the vision, and what parts simply cannot be worked in, leave til "never".

Now, which explanation requires more faith?

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The substance of your explanation relies upon Betty being wrong about what kind of radio her family had and the very specific description she provided about where the antenna went (from the corner of the house to the garage to a power pole across the yard) all of which match up with research that was done at the still-existing property and with old city planning maps.

In short, to explain away the story you have to change the story.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:44:24 EST
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      bettys memory

Why does Hue Miller bother to hang around with the rest of us??  Maybe there is more than just me who dont care what Hue Millers believes, or assumes. I cant remember where it is written that this is the Hue Miller MIssionary forum. There are many intellegent folks discussing Bettys Notebook and I dont see why we need to bother with Hue Miller .

ltm
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Because if we only preach to the choir we're no better than the Crashed and Sankers and the Japanese Capture Crowd.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:51:14 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Buy This Notebook

John Hathaway wrote:

> For a few months in '67 I worked in the command bunker of 3d Bn 3d Marines as
> a journal clerk.  Part of the job was to edit the radio operator's
> transcriptions into a more concise and understandable form.  Even the
>most competent radio operator can get flustered and forget procedure.

John: anybody forget their recognition sign (= call sign) for a whole sequence of transmissions, but recall other irrelevant callsigns?

> A considerable amount of Betty's notes seem to be exchange between Earhart
> and Noonan,  transmitted through the mysteriously open mic

Yes- mysterious.  A whole lot of mysteries, i.e. low probabilities, navigated in sequence.

> from the now deranged Noonan,  or Earhart just maintaining a grip on her
> lifeline?)  There is frustratingly very little information in the notes of
> use to rescuers,  but that doesn't mean that Earhart didn't try to send any.

What vital information did she try to send, except SOS, and her name? I'm Amelia Earheart Putnam- the water is rising- send help quick. One and a half hours to send this vital information.

> That information, if sent , could have been lost in the ether or in
> transcription. Or maybe she didn't want to give away her position to the
> Japanese. (Bad joke)

Okay, i will grant transcriber may have missed it. Suitcase may have seemed more important. I will not argue this.

> To pile conjecture upon conjecture (sounds and smells better than bs.)  I
> have read "take it away Howland" to be "....take it away.  Howland......" as

Okay, your explanation.

"Take it away.   Howland...."

Howland WHAT??? Howland port? Which explanation requires more work?

Good reading, John. You read between the lines,

i merely read them.

> if Noonan is waving a rubber chicken, tappet spanner,  or some other useless
> object in Earhart's face.  Or maybe Noonan wants Earhart to taxi the plane
> elsewhere.

Okay. It means, "Take it the plane away over there, Amelai"

>"knee deep over" I read as meaning the water is now over knee  deep.

Over i will think this explanation.

John, you really done  good, you made all the pieces fit!

Everyone else, just remember, if it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!

I do apologize to Betty. I do not truly believe you are duplicitous or less than competent.

Betty, i also feel sorry you were duped. It did seem so real.

Hue Miller
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm trying to think of this as a test of patience.  None of us can make you see that your conclusion that the transmission that Betty heard was a hoax requires more assumptions and illogical leaps than does its acceptance as a legitimate event.  Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:52:36 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Charts

I've never seen pictures of the maps on line at Purdue, but there are some HUGE TIFF files (some 50 mb - that's megabytes - or more) that I've never wanted to wait to look at.  Some, I am sure, are identical to jpeg files that I have looked at, but there are others that I'm not sure what the subject matter is. It may be that the index list describes those, but I've never looked.

If someone has high speed access, and wants to wait, they can download. Otherwise, maybe Purdue could be persuaded to provide either a CD or hard copy.

ltm
jon
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:51:54 EST
From:         Gary laPook
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Celestial nav in an airplane is done differently than on a boat. Since the plane is moving  30 times faster than a boat it is very important to be able to derive the LOP as quickly as possible after the sight is taken. On a boat you take the sight then go below and start doing your computations. If it takes 15 minutes to do the math and plot the fix you have only traveled maybe 1 or 1-1/2 miles. In a plane you would have traveled 30 to 50 miles in a prop  and over 100 NM in a jet.

So in the plane you plan out what time you want a fix, do the computations and some of the plotting. Then on schedule you take the observations and you can get a 3 star fix on the chart in under 2 minutes after the last star sight. In addition, it was common practice to do the computations prior to takeoff for so they could be done the night before under better conditions when there was less chance for error.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:05:31 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Betty

I've been watching this unfolding over the past few days, and I'm extremely disappointed in Hue Miller's remarks.  I'm not surprised, however.  This same phenomenon pops up in the law enforcement community with regularity.  When the defense has no leg to stand on, they invariably put the cops on trial.

The way I see it, this is nothing more than an attempt at distraction and obfuscation.  But really, Ric, I think Hue has far outpaced Carol.  One more personal-attack nasty-gram, and I think you should switch him over to Cam's channel.

The notebook should be subject to analysis.  That's expected.  Slander should be flushed.

ltm
jon
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Hue has apologized for his questioning of Betty's honest and competence.  I believe that his disbelief is sincere and I've tried to give him every opportunity to justify it.  As we've seen so many times in the past, explaining why you hold a particular position tells your listeners as much about yourself as about the position you espouse.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:06:31 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      MOT

Marty wrote:

> No joy.  I got e-mail and a phone call both from Bob (nice guy!)
> and he says they do not have the MoT stuff in their
> collection.

There is always the possibility that MOT recordings exist in the collections  of people who worked in network radio back then.  (I once got hold of some rare recordings of CHICAGO THEATER OF THE AIR broadcasts from a former WGN station engineer who had salvaged the original transcription discs when the station threw them away in the 1960's.) I suggest that you ask SPERDVAC to put something in their monthly magazine stating that you are looking for these particular MOT broadcasts.  It will reach many old time radio people and it just might jog someone's memory that they have them in their garage or basement.

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:07:58 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

Mark Prange wrote:

> But a 157/337 across Howland could have been drawn on Noonan's map. That
> might have been Alan's meaning.

True enough.

If that's what Alan meant, then I apologize.  :o)

The three hardest words for men to say: "I was wrong."  :-O

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:21:24 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: skeptic's summary

>What clinches it for me is the logic
> that if the broadcast was a hoax or drama emanating from the continental US,
> many more people would have reported hearing it at the time and it wouldn't
> be a revelation 60-plus years on.
> LTM Phil Tanner 2276

I call this, from calculator terminology, "Reverse Polish Logic".

So, ONE blessed location in Florida received AE from Niku- oops, there was also that professionallly equiped youngster in Wyoming, and also the other woman up North - so actually you have a figure between your and my figueres. Between zero listeners and big bunches. Then there's the Florida ham: "Oh yeah, i talked to her". (paraphrase). Altho talking to AE on the radio would have been the ham coup of his lifetime, he apparently was publicity shy, and public-spirit shy. Plus if you take him at his word, you'd have to explain just how his equipment and AE's worked on the same frequencies. Remember that round the world flight by the composite materials aircraft, a few years back? Were you aware their air-ground communications were jammed by troublemakers? Didn't exactly make the bigtime news, because you don't want to encourage the flakes.

You have a shortwave industry in those days, 3-4 montly magazines, radio building clubs, awards for listening contests, columns for hot catches on the radio bands, and ONE blessed location in FL is chosen by the gods to hear AE. Now, i do know some of you will say, "This proves it!". That's the way radio works. No one knows why no one else reported it. It's just one lonely frequency among others. How do we know how many people were listening at those hours? Most people were at work, etc. etc. etc. You would be safe to assume thousands of people in the continental USA were listening around on the bands, and we have this drama going on for an hour and a half. It's pretty clear except for a true believer, the material heard was not AE, or you have to be embarassed by the paucity of verifiable detail, and you can't weasel out of the suitcase material, Bud, etc. without some of your major logic stretches, but some of you are happy with Putnam family closet explanations and such. 90 minutes and NO location information, no call sign- NO USEFUL information for rescuers except "Come quick". That's it! The kids or whoever using a radio that day, of course they couldn't give any useful information on where AE was! Could AE have? Betty somehow left it out, didn't think it was important? Signal faded out during the one time AE mentioned location???  Okay, head injuries and heat stroke to both our aviators.  What's the one unique indentifier among the material "AE" sent, that the aircraft had a battery? I will grant that Betty heard something, and scrupulously tried to get it down. But what was it she heard - that's the issue that's still open, as far as i can see. Which theory takes a greater act of faith to follow? I'm not willing to play the games that suitcase, Howland airport, Bud, New York Marine, water deep over [knees], etc. require. AE mentions Howland, but not where she is?? Suitccase, but not where she is? This is hard to buy, unless you really, really want to believe.

I remember years ago playing with "wireless broadcaster" sets by Allied Radio and others. These go about 1/4 mile or so. Later i built a much more powerful one for  another neighbor kid, but i got the blame went he went on the air and used cuss words and another neighbor heard the "broadcast". No harmonic suppression on that gem, i assure you. It does not take all that much to get on the air, altho your range might be limited.

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

"Earhart's messages lacked any useful position information and consisted of generalities."

A quote excerpted from your comments above?  No.  A quote from Commander Warner Thompson's July 1937 report "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" page 47, "Flight Summary".
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:22:32 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook: Was it Amelia?

Ron Bright wrote:

> Thanks for the refresher course. Let me rephrase the question.  Could AE's
> signal at 0843  be copied by Itasca at signal strength "5"? Then  let's posit
> that she was at your maximum distance of 200 miles for a readability signal,
> could it be a "5"? The way I read your matrix is that she could be heard by
> ITASCA at 0843 but barely readable if she were say 200 miles southeast.

The short answer is yes.  Itasca could have heard the signal as strength "5", but that would have been an unusual event.   Given the signal statistics of the situation, there was a 10 percent probability that the SNR would exceed the "barely readable" level, but only a 2.8 percent probability that it would exceed the S5, or 100% intelligibility, level.   Since the operator's estimate of signal strength was subjective, we can't be sure that it actually was S5 in absolute terms.  If the question mark in the log entry indicates uncertainty about exactly what AE said, that would suggest a signal strength below the 100% intelligibility level.

LTM,
Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:23:34 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Someone posted to the forum some time ago that the Naval Observatory said that time could be 2 minutes out. This seems to only apply toward the poles according to the website you cite.

This seems to indicate that taking a sunrise shot does not generally introduce great inaccuracy as has often been claimed. Or is judging the position of the limb of the sun (rather than centre for an higher angle shot) subject to considerable error? Does the additional path through the atmosphere for shots from altitude increase the error?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:25:11 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      QRD

Forgive me if this is redundant, but i was off-list for a long spell.

Betty, page 5:  "3q rd 36"

If letters "q r d" are read together, they form "qrd". Now, QRD can also be a meaning from the Q-code. You have different codes to abreviate radio use. These codes have nothing to do with secrecy, they are to streamline communication and minimize misunderstandings.

Like the "Ten code".  "10-4"   which you hear on CB,( ten-four ) means: yes, acknowledge.

Thanks to Gary LaPook:

"QRD" means "Where are you bound and where are you from?"

The source is :

"The American Flight Navigator" by John Dohm 1958 published by Pan American Naigation Service.

H. M. continues: The Q codes date back to around 1920.  Q codes were used by aircraft AND ships. (altho the military aircraft mostly went to a specialized code, the "Z code". )

If i recall right, Radio News magazine in the 1930s even had a column for ship radio men, called "QRD". This Q code explanation is not too far out, if you maybe consider the "New York Marine" interpretation of an entry in the Betty notebook also.

If i had been listening along with Betty, my question would have been, QRZ?

("what station is calling?")

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:30:08 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: KGMB heard at Niku

Ron Brightwrote:

>   Re: KGMB power
>
> According to Donna Halper, radio historian, she looked up the power output,
> of KGMB in 1937 was 1,000 watts on 1320 AM. As Tighar has pointed out ITASCA
> heard KGMB near Howland just fine.  Her souce was the Federal Records
> Commission, 1938 Radio Annual. Most libraries have this book.

1000 watts is not a whole lot of power. Itasca could hear it at nght, granted. But AE hear a 1000 watt station at 10 AM, on 'Broadcast Band', daylight? That pushes credulity. But i'm still fishing for input on this, elsewhere. So far, any comments on such long distance reception have seemed to have depended on 50 kw more recent stations. 50 kw, not 1 kw. Anyway, whether AE heard KGMB on Niku proves nothing, does not support the Betty reception at all. I also wonder why AE, if the cabin was filling with water, plane in danger of being washed off reef, Fred incoherent and violent, air stuffy and hot in cabin, AE decides to tune in the AM broadcast band? Tuning around with the loop unit and receiver is almost a 2-hands job: you have to tune the radio to the frequency, then change the band range on the loop, then tune the loop to the same frequency, adjusting it for max signal, because the dial markings are not good enough to rely on by themselves. So it's not just a matter of "i think i'll pop down to the AM broadcast band for a second, and see what's on". However, as i've said, this is a question, but it's a diversion, and in no way explains KGMB in Betty's notebook.

Hue
************************************************************************
From Ric

To repeat my earlier reply to Chris Kennedy on this same question:

Why would Earhart say anything about KGMB or 3105 on the morning of July 2nd?  KGMB did not make it's first broadcast specifically to Earhart until 7 o'clock (Niku Time) that night, so clearly AE couldn't have been replying that broadcast.  (Replies to KGMB's later broadcasts to Earhart were heard by numerous stations and were believed to be authentic - but that's a different issue.)  KGMB was, however, on the air with regular programming throughout the day on July 2nd and may very well have carried the breaking news of Earhart's failure to arrive at Howland Island.  Would Earhart have known KGMB's frequency?  Almost certainly.  She was, after all, planning to fly to Hawaii next.

Having no luck getting useful information, only code, from Itasca on 7500, might she have tried to pick up KGMB to see if there was any news about efforts to find her?  She had listened to news reports about herself on a commercial station during the leg of the World Flight from Miami to Puerto Rico.  (See "Last Flight" chapter "The Start")  Might she have said something like, "We can hear KGMB.  Please tell them we're calling on 3105."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:30:54 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: What is a Dynamotor?

Angus Murray wrote:

> Remotes for eg the Philco 803T which is a contemporary car radio, were
> operated by bowden cable rather than electrically. Perhaps the WE used the
> same idea?

Yes- for the tuning and band-change controls.

Hue
=========================================================================  
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:31:57 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

> From Alan
>>
>> No.  Prior to takeoff, Noonan would not know the TIME
>> at which he would observe sunrise.
>
> Why not?

Because the time at which he saw sunrise would be determined by where he was.

Where he was would be determined by things not predictable (winds aloft, difference between the course he asked for and the course actually steered, human factors).

> My navigator ALWAYS precomped our missions. That doesn't mean we 
> would hit it on the button but we still had the whole mission precomped.
> Noonan could do the same.

I'm sure that FN did have some good guesses about where he would be at dawn even before he left.  I'm sure that he worked out from almanacs (just as TIGHAR navigators have done) that whenever he saw the sun out in that patch of the Pacific, he would know he was located on a line that ran 337/157.  And we know that he worked hard to get his watch set to the correct time so that when he made any of his sightings, they would give him a useful line of position (LOP) for figuring out where he was over the ocean.

> And for that matter we still don't know when Noonan saw the sun rise.

Agreed.  That's the whole dawn LOP problem in a nutshell. He didn't need to record or calculate from any azimuths at the time of that sighting; they were predetermined by the geometry of the earth's rotation and orbit around the sun.  The one observation he had to make correctly (and correct for altitude and atmospheric distortion) was the time that he saw the sun.  It is the TIME observation that tells him how far they have traveled across the ocean during the night and how far they have left to go to
reach a parrallel line passing through Howland. 

> Or
> where he was when he did. He was some place between the Gilbert's and
> Howland but that's all we know.

Agreed.  But that's not all he'd know.  From his time check at sunrise, he would know how much further they had to fly east before reaching a LOP parallel to the dawn LOP.  This would be useful information for him to know.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:35:47 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Buy This Notebook

Ric wrote:

> I'm trying to think of this as a test of patience.  None of us can make you
> see that your conclusion that the transmission that Betty heard was a hoax
> requires more assumptions and illogical leaps than does its acceptance as a
> legitimate event.  Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Okay, agreed. I was going to post on the drift-in-radios issue, and i think I can cite example and easy theory, but let it all rest.

All i see remaining, is to demonstrate via tramsmitter test, that the 5th harmonic of 3105 cannot develop sufficient  power to satisfy Brandenburg's, or any other analysis of signal path losses, on the circuit to North America. I expect that conclusion will meet with equal outrage.

Hue Miller.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Not if you can find Amelia's transmitter to test.  We'll keep an eye out for it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:13:45 EST
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Raising voltage - why and how

With modern integrated circuits running at voltages as low as 3.3 volts, it may be hard for some "whipper-snappers" to understand why the radios in the Electra had to convert the electricity available by such clumsy means as a generator hooked to an electric motor.  One must remember that we are talking vacuum tube technology, and tubes, especially output tubes require high voltages to function.  Depending upon circuit design, an output tube requires a "bias" voltage applied to it of between 250 and 500 volts - in a push-pull arrangement, that may require achieving voltages of 1000 to 4000, depending on how many pairs of output tubes and how they are wired.  (Solid state devices require bias as well, but the voltages are low enough to be supplied by as little as 2 AA batteries in some cases).  It's easy to go DOWN in voltage - very hard to go up, without some trickery.  The way most automotive ignitions accomplish the trick is to establish a current through a coil, and then repeatedly interrupt it.  As the magnetic field collapses, very high voltages are generated, which are stored in a type of capacitor called a condenser.  Old tube-type car radios used a similar technology, called a vibrator, where a circuit is constantly opened and closed through coil - that's what caused the buzzy, raspy reception on those old sets.  The problem with stepping up voltage in this manner lies in the side-effects - lots of radio frequency noise on all wavelengths in the immediate vicinity of these devices.  As anyone who has had the misfortune of driving behind someone with "non-suppression" ignition wires can tell you, radio reception is pretty much wiped out for up to 50 feet.  The old car radio vibrators were small enough that they could be at least partially shielded, and the car radio was "seeking" a relatively strong signal, so its limitations were accepted.  Further, the RF generated wasn't going to interfere with anything else in the car, and if it was, you still had the breaker points/coil ignition to deal with anyway.  An airplane is another matter - as a potential platform for RDF loops, radio compasses, guide beacons, and not to mention possibly needing to "copy" relatively low-powered traffic from other aircraft or control towers, an RF spitting vibrator INSIDE the aluminum fuselage Faraday cage is the last thing you want.  (At least the engine ignitions are outside on the wings.)  Hence the heavy, inefficient "dynamotor", which could at least be partially tamed, noise-wise,  through careful design and installation.  IF "Betty" did hear AE on July 2, two things are true - 

1.  Gardner seems to be the only suitable landing area with a possibility of a touchdown in the time available.

2.  The starboard engine had to be run, at least intermittently, to sustain transmissions of such length, unless her particular bird was modified to have a generator mounted to BOTH engines.

I am further convinced by the circumstances related in "Betty's" notebook that the transmissions, if genuine, are an account of an immediate post-loss situation.  The confusion over exiting the airplane, the water level, and the presence of an uncooperative Fred Noonan, (and the absence of position data) all argue for this.  If this was a later date, I know of no one that contends they would have stayed in the aircraft through at least one day and two high tides.  Further, if this is a re-occupation of the Electra, there is no need for Fred to be there at all, much less any confusion about tides and egress.  I can't say this strongly enough - the notebook, if a genuine record of transmissions from Amelia's plane, MUST have occurred on July 2, and MUST have been from Gardner Island - a ditch landing is "no-go" for transmission, and she must have landed in good enough order to run an engine.

Given the above, and given the great drain on batteries and fuel to transmit, I still have severe reservations.  I am sure that "Betty" is sincere in what she believes she heard, but the following gives me pause:

"New York"  - nine times

"Gardner" - not once

"Marie"     - six times

"Island"   - not once

meaningless numbers - 12 times

Lat.Long, Gardner - not once

"SOS' (incorrect usage) - once

"Help me" or variation, (incorrect usage) - six times

"Mayday" -(correct usage - not once

"reef" - not once

"shipwreck" - not once

est. direction and distance from Howland - not once, unless Fred was WAAAYYY off!

"Howland (Port?)" - twice

"Itasca" or her call sign - not once

I can see how it would convince a fifteen year old girl - but it doesn't convince me, (at least yet).  Add in the melodramatic details of Amelia crying, Fred going loony tunes, and the mysterious briefcase, (not to mention KGMB and W40J), and .....

LTM  (who once was lost, but now is found...)
Rich Young
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:14:34 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Harmonics

I understand the concept of harmonics but am curious that if the transmitter drifts off a couple of kcs is that difference reflected also in the harmonic?  Example 3105 drifts up to 3108.  Would the harmonics be exact multiples of those freqs 6210, 9315 etc. and 6216, 9324 etc.or would the harmonics reflect only multiples of 3105?

LTM, who can't play a harmonica either
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:20:18 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: bettys memory

> Because if we only preach to the choir we're no better than the Crashed and
> Sankers and the Japanese Capture Crowd.

Hey, us Crashed and Sankers are actually nice guys, really!

From Bill   #2577
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Absolutely.  In fact, Elgen Long is one of the most congenial gentlemen I've ever met, but there is nothing in the world of Crashed and Sank or Captured by the Japanese to compare with the open exchange of ideas we see on this forum.  That's why they come hear to argue.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:21:41 EST
From:        Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: skeptic's summary

Hue Miller writes:

>> .  What clinches it for me is the logic

OK Hue. First thanks for the apology to Betty.

When we are discussing the radio broadcasts and the entries in Betty's notebook, let's not forget that we are seeing a transcription of a broken conversation over a long distance. It's going to be difficult for anyone to transcribe, let alone a teenager, who does not play the role of a court reporter, but is making judgements on what *she* thinks is important or dramatic.

The broadcast that Betty heard, if authentic, was certainly not first attempt at communication during the late stages of the flight. It may have been the initial call after landing the plane, but not their first communication. Sure, logically, we land and immediately try and broadcast what we know specifically about our current position to aid any rescue attempt. However, for the last couple (or longer) hours of trying the use the radio without any real success, that has probably taken quite a toll. Factor in being tired and frustrated, perhaps even injured and we might just be hearing a person who is beginning to break down physically and emotionally -- that could certainly explain a disjointed and rambling diatribe that would be really difficult to follow.

All pure conjecture on my part. I just don't think that we can impose our view of 'sound jugdement' when we are dealing with people who have been through the nightmare that FN and AE have suffered through. Perhaps we can have a 'cracked and died' theory to go with the 'crashed and sank' theory. Just kidding....

Bob Lee (who is not the same Bob Lee from the archives of years ago)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:29:59 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: KGMB/Time, Distance Calculation

Thanks.

What was the further transmission that came in on 3105 after Earhart said she was switching to 6210?  I have looked at the website discussion of the 0843 transmission, and I see the word "wait" following Earhart's advice she was switching to 6210.  Is this what you are referring to?

****************************************************************************
From Ric

She says "Wait" and then the operator logs in that the transmission was heard on 3105 in voice at Strength 5, and that it was received at 08:43.  Then he goes on to do some other things but suddenly Earhart is back on saying something about running on the line north and south (known in Earhart mythology as "running north and south").  This second transmission is crammed into the log after the previous notations and requires xing out the original time notation.  It clearly came in on 3105 at least a minute or more after Earhart said she was switching frequencies.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:04:03 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: MOT

Eric wrote:

> There is always the possibility that MOT recordings exist in the
> collections of people who worked in network radio back then.

True.  Ron Staley said he knew someone who had a wax recording of the show.  It's possible that he was mistaken.

> I
> suggest that you ask SPERDVAC to put something in their monthly magazine
> stating that you are looking for these particular MOT broadcasts.

OK, I've written an e-mail and telephoned to make this request.

LTM.
Marty #2359
*************************************************************************
From Tom Riggs

Searched the Library of Congress Audio Collection (SONIC) for information about March of Times.  LOC has many recordings of the March of Times radio shows in their archives.  Unfortunately, another dead-end.  Their collection started October of 1937 onward.

  FYI, while searching, I stumbled across the following listings for Amelia Earhart-related audio recordings.  No, these probably won't help us find out what happened to AE and FN, but may be of interest to someone?  The LOC will make audio copies for approx. $55 per 30-minutes of audio ($110 per hour).

  Will continue quest for March of Times info.


  Tom Riggs  #2427

  ----------------------------------------------------------------

  Shelf no.  RWA 1442 A2-B1

  Title  The Mary Margaret McBride show

  Date  Broadcast : 06/30/1948

  Time  1:00 p.m.

  Type  Non-music

  Medium  Radio broadcast

  Broadcast Series  Yes

  Source  WNBC

  Recording Note   Duplicated from a WNBC radio program broadcast of June 30, 1948; 1:00 p.m.-1:45 p.m.

  Summary    McBride's guest is Amy Otis Earhart, mother of Amelia and Murial. They discuss the family and life style of the Earharts growing up. Mrs. Earhart is 80 years old.

  Genre(s)  Talk shows--Radio Interviews

  Name(s)    McBride, Mary Margaret, 1899-1976. (host)  Earhart, Amy Otis. (interviewee)

  Physical Item  RWA 1442 A2-B1. 1 sound tape reel : 7.5ips, double-track ; 10-inch, 1/4-inch (polyester). Recording Laboratory 1980. Duration: 004500. Collection/Donor name: Mary Margaret McBride Collection.

------------------------------

Shelf no.   RWA 2334 A4

  Title  Let's talk it over

  Date  Broadcast : 11/09/1938

  Time  1:15 p.m.

  Medium  Radio broadcast

  Source  NBC Red network

  Performer(s)  George Putnam.

  Recording Note  Duplicated from a NBC Red network radio program broadcast of Nov. 9, 1938; 1:15 p.m.-1:30 p.m.

  Summary   Amelia Earhart's husband appears on this program.

  Genre(s)  Talk shows--Radio  Interviews

  Subject  Earhart, Amelia, 1897-1937

  Name(s)  Putnam, George.

  Physical Item  RWA 2334 A4. 1 sound reel : 7.5ips, double-track ; 10-inch, 1/4-inch (polyester). Recording Laboratory 1981. Duration: 001500. Collection/Donor name: NBC Radio Collection.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shelf no.  National Vocarium CS 046636 (78A)

  Title  Woman's Place in science

  Publication Status  Published

  Type  Non-music

  Medium  Recording

  Work(s)  Woman's Place in science. Performed by Amelia Earhart (1936). Speech. 126.

  Physical Item  National Vocarium CS 046636 (78A). sound disc : 78 rpm, mono ; 12-inch, standard (shellac) : National Vocarium (CS 046636)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Shelf no.   RGA 3631 track 4

  Title  Woman's place in science / Amelia Earhart

  Date  Recording : 00/00/1936

  Publication Status  Published

  Type  Non-music

  Medium  Recording

  Performer(s)  Amelia Earhart, speaker.

  Recording Note  Recorded in 1936, at Santa Ana, Calif.

  Summary  Amelia Earhart discusses opportunities for women in aviation.

  Subject  Women in aeronautics  Women air pilots--United States

  Name(s)  Earhart, Amelia. (speaker)

  Physical Item   RGA 3631 track 4. 1 digital sound cassette, digital (polyester). Recording Laboratory 1997.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:04:45 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Angus Murray wrote:

> Someone posted to the forum some time ago that the Naval Observatory said
> that time could be 2 minutes out.
>
> This seems to indicate that taking a sunrise shot does not generally
> introduce great inaccuracy as has often been claimed.

Two minutes of time equals something like 35 statute miles near the equator.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:29:40 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: 0843 Transmission/3105/6210

Thanks.  This is interesting.  So, if Earhart comes back on about one minute later after the "Wait" at 0843, do we have an 0843 transmission and an 0844 transmission on 3105?  Two transmissions, in other words, spaced about one minute apart? If so, then Earhart was basically transmitting not at some pre-arranged interval by the time of her last confirmed communications, but about one minute apart, and on 3105, and being received at the "strength 5"?

--Chris Kennedy
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No.  We all forget how much work has been done on this stuff.  I even forget research I did myself.  You'll find a complete analysis of the 0843 message on the website at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/06_05_02Bulletin/analysis.html

It's in Research Bulletins section and is part of the "Itasca Radio Logs" bulletin of June 5, 2002.

The bottom line is that there probably was only one transmission.  In any event, it's very apparent from the log that Earhart WAS transmitting on her pre-arranged schedule but was willing to also transmitted off-schedule if the need arose, such as when she said at 0800 that she heard the signals on 7500 but couldn't get a minimum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:30:49 EST
From:         Alan
Subject:      Re: Astronomy stuff

> If that's what Alan meant, then I apologize.  :o)

Marty, there is no way we can understand everything we each write here. Language is too imprecise and so is our writing.

I have no doubt FN had a line drawn on his map through Howland at 157/337. All I was saying is we can only surmise that he did. Although I suspect the line went through the erroneous Howland position. I only say that because he had an hour to chase down the little island and during that time I would assume he was trying to recheck and recheck his position. Unless he made mistake after mistake he ought to have figured out a fairly accurate LOP by 8:43L. Yet he STILL didn't find Howland. I think the reason was that he had a wrong position for the island. Of course one could think up other possibilities but that one seems most likely to me.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:34:09 EST
From:         Michael
Subject:      Re: skeptic's summary

Hue,

    Did you ever stop to think that she was only writing fragments that SHE THOUGHT were important.  NAV talk may have been above her head and she wouldnt find that important.  Also the transmissin was not CLEAR so I think the codes she did write down may have been the position reports as best they knew.  Who knows if Fred had a map that showed Gardner Is and he obviously made a wrong turn somewhere.  Adams post about the numbers being LOP 158\338 and possibly she phonetically mistook, due to the low quality of the signal, the numbers and letters she heard.  ZEE and THREE do sound alike.  AE and FN might not have been able to give better position reports.  and if they were not getting response to there calls, not give every bit of detail. (as if they knew)  Also the figure 8 might not be figure number 8.  She may have said we flew in a figure 8 and betty heard it all and only wrote FIG 8 or that is the only word she made out. 

There are too many veriables to know for sure.  Even with a recording of that I am sure many would dismiss it off hand, but if it is from AE then all it does is give better leads based on times of when she came in contact with water and any transmissions had to come from land so it would be a loss for the SANK group.  This does nothing to help the search for castaways, or wreckage, or smoking guns, but may help in establishing a timeline and if the smoking gun is found to come from NIKU, then it help to paint a better picture of the sequence of events from that day. 

There will never be a way to verify all this and the only living soul that heard it contributed it and has been grilled about it now, and I am sure since she believes in her heart that it was real and not staged, all the debate here on this forum must trouble her greatly.  She believes what she heard, never tried to sell a story, make money in any way that I have heard.  And when she found out that someone WAS interested in it, she told her story, donated the notebook and has answered and clarified many things. 

I really like most of the postings on this and the great think tank that this forum is.  With the book everyone goes off and looks for every detail to prove or disprove it was AE heard that day.  The lyrics being confirmed for the same months, the tide tables being reviewed, the speed and position of the aircraft issues, the radio experts, everyone involved to disect this and all just to get a better idea of what happend.

Michael (#2569)  Great TIGHAR number, thank Ric n Pat  Its easy to remember.
My birthday is 8-(25-69)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:39:36 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      alternate airports

This is a real basic question. What airports were within 2000 nm of Howland on July 2, 1937? I have not seen this info posted.

****************************************************************
From Ric

That's easy.  There were several airports in the Territory of Hawaii.  There may have been an airstrip somewhere in Samoa, but we don't know of one.

That's it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:41:14 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Harmonics

Yes it would be reflected in the harmonics which would stay even multiples of the base freq. So if the transmitter drifted up 5 kc the 5th harmonic would drift up 25 kc. But, the transmitter was crystal controlled so it should not have drifted.

The problem with drift would probably be at the receiver end since the local oscillator was not crystal controlled.

gl
***************************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

Earhart's transmitters used crystal controlled oscillators and were unlikely to drift during a duration of a few hours or days.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:43:13 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: transmitter power?

Bob Brandenburg wrote:

> My information about the Itasca's transmitter was provided by the Coast Guard
> historian.  Where did you get yours?

Sorry, i must have misread the original post, which i will have to look for. I thought we were discussing the aircraft transmitter.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:42:32 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Engine run and minutiae

Okay, the ham said he talked to Earhart - she would have flown very near Ft. Worth on the Oakland to Miami leg. Maybe she talked to him on that leg of the flight, wrote down or remembered the call sign, and in desperation is trying to see if she can get him back again! After all, if no one else is responding, she might be calling in the dark to whomever she thinks might respond.

LTM,
Dave Bush
************************************************************************
From Ric

You mean Ft. Lauderdale.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:44:22 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Harmonics

Any change in the fundamental frequency is reflected in the harmonic.  If the fundamental at let's say, 6210 drifts up to 6211, the second harmonic will be 12422, etc etc.

This transmitter was crystal controlled and the crystals were temperature controlled by "ovens."  It wouldn't drift much at all.  And don't get started on "how much will it drift" etc.  I don't know... but the change would be insignificant, and totally immaterial to the problem anyway.

LTN (who is always constant)
and
73
mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:45:19 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Harmonics

Dennis McGee wrote:

>if the
> transmitter drifts off a couple of kcs is that difference reflected also in
> the harmonic?

The drift problem is not with the transmitter, but with the receiver.

LTM (who drifts a lot more than she used to)
Kerry Tiller
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:50:44 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      W4OK

Peter Boor wrote:

> 3) I have often wondered about the pronunciation problem of "zero" vs "oh"
> in Betty's transcripts. Whether or not it makes a difference is up to the
> TIGHARS.

A minor point here, for those trying to make sense of the words Betty heard. I often see the assumed Amateur call sign W4OK (Double-u four Oh Kay) written on this forum as W40K (Double-u four Zero Kay). (My e-mail font slashes zeros.) Mike E. or someone, correct me if I am wrong (what an unnecessary request to make on this forum), even in 1937, amateur radio call signs only contained one number. It occurred in the regional prefix. Francis Carroll's call sign had to have been Whiskey Four Oscar Kilo, vice Whiskey Four Zero Kilo.

LTM,
Kerry Tiller (ex- WN2IVM and WB7SIQ)
************************************************************************
From Ric

So....the sound of someone saying Carrol's call sign be "Double-u four Oh Kay".  The sound of someone saying WOJ would be "Double-u Oh Jay".  Something is not right here.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:51:56 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Dynamotor

For Tom Riggs:

Thanks for the info.  I do have a pretty good idea of what that WE dynamotor must look like, based upon familiarity with other equipment from the same period.

As a matter of fact I am thinking the transmitter dynamotor was, indeed, a separate unit apart from the transmitter, as I originally surmised from study of the diagrams.  This thinking is partly founded upon some further information provided to me regarding the weight of the transmitter.  It was at least ten pounds lighter than the 50-pound figure quoted in the reference material originally available to me.

I'd still like to find a manual on the equipment.

As for portable emergency radios, most of these were designed to be powered by hand crank generators.  (A dynamotor requires a storage battery... a rather LARGE storage battery, for sustaining even a fairly small dyno for any length of time takes a lot of energy.)

Cranking one of these generators was a job.  Imagine the upper-body ergonomic machines in the gym... then take the effort up about 10 times. Having used the machines, and having had the "fun" experience of cranking a generator for a field radio, I feel the pain....

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:55:23 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Oscar Boswell wrote:

>From Angus Murray
>>
>> Someone posted to the forum some time ago that the Naval Observatory 
>> said that time could be 2 minutes out.
>>
> > This seems to indicate that taking a sunrise shot does not generally
>> introduce great inaccuracy as has often been claimed.
>
> Two minutes of time equals something like 35 statute miles near the equator.

I think you miss the point. A two minute error due to refraction variability is of very low probability at the equator and only occurs at greater latitudes. Mark pointed out the chance of being more than 9.5 miles out in longitude due to this reason at the equator is only 32%. The order of possible error from this source at the equator is almost never as much 70 miles but more like ten and usually less.

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:03:36 EST
From:         James Burnett
Subject:      Re: 0843 Transmission/3105/6210

Ric wrote:

>You'll find a complete analysis of the 0843 message on the webiste at
>http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/06_05_02Bulletin/analysis.html

The link shown in the e-mail generates a 404 error message.

James
*****************************************************************
From Ric

That often happens when a long url gets broken up by unintended line returns.  The surest way to access the bulletin is to navigate to it by going to the TIGHAR website (www.tighar.org) and clicking on The Earhart Project then Research Bulletins then Itasca Radio Logs then Analysis of 0843 Message.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:04:14 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

Oscar,

Since the sun's terminator  is moving at 900 mph 2 min = 30 miles so I don't know where you get 35 from. BTW I should have written "is almost never as much as 30 miles", not "70 miles".

A.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:18:08 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      Battery Power

For Tom Strang & Ric,

Ric wrote:

>I know of know way to prove that more batteries weren't loaded aboard
>the airplane than are mentioned in the Bureau of air commerce paperwork
>and shown in the photos - but I know of know reason to think that such a
>thing was done.

Tom mentions an auxiliary battery, You refer to "batteries" (pl) & B of Air commerce paperwork.

The word "Auxiliary" to me means fixed in place and plumbed into the electrical system, like an aux fuel tank is plumbed into the fuel lines. The Coast Guard uses the word "spare" ( ....ONE SPARE BATTERY IN CABIN PERIOD...). Who told them to use the word "spare"? It was somebody in California familiar with what was being carried. The average person can carry a spare battery or spare gas can in the trunk of a car for unusual situations or LONG TRIPS.

The word "SPARE" to me means carried outside of the fixed components in the system. The state of charge is independent of the aircraft charging system. Carrying a spare battery when your primary means of transportation has a pair of 1340 engines is only prudent. Spares would not be found in aircraft documentation.

>Because if we only preach to the choir we're no better than the Crashed
>and Sankers and the Japanese Capture Crowd.

Is that your opinion of the quality of our research and that our own research is not subject to scrutiny by our own membership?

Sounds to me like you're trying to take some heat off of Betty's notebook.

OK then......

Take for example post loss messages and the electrical power question. The standard contemporaneous line has been that radio transmission were not possible from the Electra because of water, antenna, equipment arrangement, battery power etc etc. Some of our respected Marshall Island researchers accept that notion that NO post loss messages could possibly be real for the above reasons. At the same time those researchers believe in the Marshall island splash down.

Logic seems to confront logic when you have a contemporaneous post loss radio message (281 message) that adds the missing link between Howland and the Marshall islands.

It's like arguing the existence of the sun when you're standing in daylight.

I had a "Crash & Sanker" admit to me in a private email that the Marshall Island scenario has the most evidence in support of a theory.

If you want to take some heat off Betty's notebook by poking a stick in this Monkey cage you'd better be prepared for some 12 inch shells.

Daryll
****************************************************************************
From Ric

How long have you been interested in the Earhart disappearance and you're not aware of the photos that clearly show the battery in the cabin "plumbed" into the system?

Your research being subject only to scrutiny of your own membership is precisely what is meant by the expression "preaching to the choir".

I'll leave it to you to describe the inhabitants of your cage but I think that poking sticks is unkind and only causes a lot of noise and the throwing of stuff that smells a lot worse than 12 inch shells.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:19:23 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: 0843 Transmission/3105/6210

Thanks.  O.K., one transmission  at 0843 on 3105, which includes Earhart advising she'll repeat on 6210-- Probably no separate transmission one minute later at 0844 still on 3105, as you mentioned in response to my question concerning Earhart as the source of the KGMB/31.05 notation in Betty's  notebook. We'll just leave it at that.

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:20:26 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability - sm v nm.

Oscar,

I realise now you were working in sm. I work exclusively in nm hence the difference.

A.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:06:23 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability


> The order of
> possible error from this source at the equator is almost
> never as much 70 miles but more like ten and usually less.

Good work, Angus. Let's say the error is 5 to 10 miles just for the sake of discussion but not trying to quantify the issue. That's certainly enough to miss Howland unless they were dead on course. Even then it would compound there problem.


Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:08:08 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: MOT

Although I have serious doubts Betty was listening to the MOT I suppose that issue needs tracked down. Check me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the broadcast was on the 8th of July. What time was it broadcast? I apologize for not knowing but I've not paid all that much attention to the MOT thread which is being beaten to death.

If it is important and it was broadcast during the hours Betty was taking notes then I guess it needs pursued. If it was broadcast at a later time wouldn't that eliminate the possibility?

My son works for CBS and if they have a recording in their archives I'm sure he could get it as he is a news video editor and usually has access to everything they have. It's not a classified item of course and why CBS has not been forthcoming defies understanding.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:10:43 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: W4OK

For Kerry Tiller:

US domestic ham radio call signs in the 30s all began with W (no K calls till after WW2), followed by one number (1 thru 9, depending upon the radio district in which the station was located -- there was no "zero" district till after WW2) and either two, or three letters.

Examples:

W4AA
W9WZE (which was the call sign of Bill Halligan, of "hallicrafters" fame)
W6WX

Prior to WW2, hams in overseas US possessions like Hawaii, the Phillipines, etc used calls beginning with K, followed by one number, followed by two or three letters.

Examples:

KA1AAE (Phillipines)
K6ATX  (Hawaii)
K4AA (Puerto Rico)

To digress a moment from ham calls, and take a quick peek at aircraft:

All aircraft stations were assigned five-letter calls, beginning with "KH." The five letters distinguished them from ship stations which had four-letter calls.  Coastal stations and airways ground stations had three-letter calls.

As information only (since it is a little off topic but may anticipate further questions):

Prior to the 1970s or maybe the early 80s, no US amateur call sign had as its first letter following the number, the letter "X" as such calls were formerly reserved for experimental stations.

Example: W2XMN was not a ham call sign, but rather the call letters of the first US commercial FM station which went on the air in 1939 or 1940, in New Jersey... operated by major Edwin H. Armstrong.

At one time, college radio club stations were issued "2-letter" calls with the letter "Y" as the first letter... example:  W9YB, which I think was the University of Chicago station.  This did not last long however... too many of them came along.  May have become a discontinued practice by the late 20s... since the club call sign at NC State University (Go Wolfpack!) has been W4ATC since Methuselah was a corporal, and it's the original one.

73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:11:52 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Angus Murray writes

> I think you miss the point. A two minute error due to refraction  variability
> is of very low probability at the equator and only occurs at greater
> latitudes. Mark pointed out the chance of being more than 9.5 miles out in
> longitude due to this reason at the equator is only 32%. The order of
> possible error from this source at the equator is almost never as much 70
> miles but more like ten and usually less.

With all respect, I think Angus misses my point -  even 10 miles is a very substantial error. And a 32% chance of a 10 mile error is quite a substantial chance of that error occuring.

The margin of error in the observation of the exact moment of sunrise is just one of the variables. There's also the margin of error in the dead reckoning advance of the LOP and the possible misinformation on the location of Howland. These - and other factors - are independent variables. The errors may cancel out - or they may stack up. The fact that a maximum error occurs only "X %" of the time is small comfort to the person to whom it does happen. There's more than one reason they didn't make it to Howland.

Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:13:24 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

Angus Murray writes

> Since the sun's terminator  is moving at 900 mph 2 min = 30 miles so I don't
> know where you get 35 from. BTW I should have written "is almost never as
> much as 30 miles", not "70 miles".

I got "around" 35 STATUTE miles (as I very plainly wrote) by multiplying 30 NAUTICAL miles by 1.15.

The earth is not moving 900 miles per hour. It is moving 900 NAUTICAL miles per hour, or 900 knots. If you write "miles" it means "statute miles".

I repeat - all this mix and match business about statute miles and nautical miles wastes a lot of time. All the information we have on the plane is in statute miles. The airspeed indicator on the plane read in statute miles. FN gave AE notes in statute miles. We should decide on one or the other, and I vote for statute.

Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:18:29 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Water depth/global warming

Ric, what was the tidal range that you observed at Niku. I've sailed a bit in the Society Islands and my recollection was that the range of the tide there was so minimal that I never had to worry about it. Maybe a foot or so?

gl
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Not sure what you mean by tidal range.  The difference between the water level at low tide and the water level at high is roughly 3 to 4 feet on any given day.  The difference between the high water level at the times of year when at its highest and the high water level at the times of year when its at its lowest can be a couple feet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:21:02 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: W4OK

Ric writes:

> So....the sound of someone saying Carrol's call sign be "Double-u four Oh
> Kay".  The sound of someone saying WOJ would be "Double-u Oh Jay". Something
> is not right here.

"shot noise" and momentary dropouts make this a '"maybe". A lucky shot of either in the right place in each phrase, obscuring part or a whole sound element, under conditions of weak signal, could make it a tough call.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:20:14 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: skeptic's summary

Michael wrote:

> Hue,
>
>     Did you ever stop to think that she was only writing fragments that
> SHE THOUGHT were important.  NAV talk may have been above her head and she
> wouldnt find that important.

I am not sure just what she thought was important. She had periods of rest, when the signal was gone, so she spent that time doodling cartoons. One might think that a life and death distress message might prompt one to use these minutes to fill in some of the missing material.

Over the last day i looked at the additional material on the website, and I have to say, the additional comments are ABSOLUTELY necessary to have some clue as to what is going on in the Betty story. In fact, after putting the two together, I did a 360 degrees for a few minutes, whereas before, without those additional directions, I felt the pages themselves were totally incoherent.

Howsoever, altho i gained respect for the coherence of the events in the log, concomitantly with this i saw more clearly its essential deadly faults. These don't depend even largely on the mysterious numbers. I am writing a commentary on both the strengths and weaknesses of this post landing scene. This may be overload for list members or even so much noise, so maybe i can later post a note with my email address in it, and i can email the summary to anyone interested. ( assuming anyone interested :-)

Now onto something else: can someone refresh me on this, when the transmitter is keyed, does it require the dynamotor to spin up? I have packed up my books preparing for a move, so i can't refer to the wiring diagram. Maybe offlist reply would be appropriate:  kargo_cult@msn.com

-Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:23:42 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Radio on?

Forgive me, another fact i may have missed:

When Betty came home from school, was the radio already playing, did someone already have it on?

Or was no one around, and Betty turned it on, and started tuning around?

Thanks- Hue
***************************************************************
From Ric

Betty does not remember what she was coming home from.  In July it probably wasn't school unless she was going to summer school.  She has never mentioned whether she remembers whether the radio was already on or not.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:27:47 EST
From:         Hue Miller
ubject:      Re: 0843 Transmission/3105/6210

Here's something that puzzles me:

We have:

AE:  "Here put your ear to it"

later,

FN: "Amelia take it. hear it"

What i don't get: AE or FN hears something in radio ( if i get this right), offers headphone to other. While offering the headphone to the other, each pushes the microphone button, waits for the dynamotor to spin up, and transmits the offer/suggestion to the whole world, so we can hear the words, "here put your ear to it". If AE was listening and heard something, why would she go over to transmit, tell him to listen, then (presumably) go back to "receive" so he could hear? Was this so we could know what was going on? I don't get it. If it's that the transmitter was jammed, erratic, as has been suggested here once, how did it know when to release? This is not full-duplex, like a phone: you either receive, or you transmit, alternately.

-Hue Miller

***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm confused again.  I thought that the transmitter and receiver on this airplane were totalyy separate systems.  Why couldn't you be transmitting on one frequency over the dorsal vee antenna and listening on another frequency over the loop at the same time?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:28:37 EST
From:         Hue  Miller
Subject:      Frequency range

If AE was calling "New York Marine", it would be in the fequency range 2000-3500, where these stations operated. Incidently, the 1800-5000 band could logically have NYM, W4OK, and WOJ operating in this range, and Betty's radio would not be subject to the drift that it suffered on the top band, and wouldn't need retuning if set to a frequency here. In addition, the slow, long fadeouts i think, might be more characteristic than the faster-cycling fades experienced on the higher frequency.

-Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:29:09 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      MOT

Two additional places to check:

New York Public Library (they are supposed to have an extensive collection of old radio shows.)

J. David Golden/Radio Yesteryear, Box C, Sandy Hook, CT 06482  (He was collecting old radio transcription discs when everyone else was throwing them away.)

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA 91916
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:29:46 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Engine run and minutiae

Good thinking Dave this could explain the use of the two call signs the real one and the error one. There was a lot of panic in their words, almost to the point of being incoherent.  It is hard to imagine what would go through someone's mind in a panic situation. Grabbing at anything that could help no matter how small or trivial it is, seems to be the normal thing for humans to do.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:30:33 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: transmitter power?

This is a question for Bob Brandenburg and Hue Miller.  If the aircraft was on the surface of the ocean instead of in the air would the water act as an enhancing measure for sending and receiving?  If the antenna was just above the surface say 6 or 8 feet. So if the tide was coming in and the aircraft was in a certain position as to reflect a beam that could come back to earth in the Florida area and also in the Wyoming area?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:31:33 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Betty What If's

Throwing my hat in the forum Betty's Note Book hat dance ring - let me put forth several what if's.

   The impression in the note book and by supplementary comments by Betty in the tape interview alludes to possible head injury to the male crew member - With that said consider the following.

   What if - We consider that there was injuries to both crew members in this drama rather than just the male crew member - Consider the open mic question in the context of both crew members with injuries, such as taping mic to the open position to facilitate use by injured crew members - Now consider the injuries to be extensive enough to explain the lack of egress from a damaged aircraft and the perceived panic in their voice patterns alluded to by Betty in her taped interview (ref. "Knee Deep" several times as an example).

   With that said let the forum hat dance begin.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:34:04 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Esoteric knowledge

Let's look for a moment at some esoteric knowledge: these are facts that are known only to a certain narrow part of any population.

Betty 1:2,3 has AE saying "Howland Port". The "W4OK" or "WOJ" indicates she may be unsure about these words, but the Port business is repeated both lines, so can we assume she was fairly certain about this?

Now, Howland did not have a "Port",  did not have an "Airport",  it had a makeshift strip.

Who would call it a "Port"? Would anyone in the South Pacific call it a "Port" or "Airport"? Would "AE"?

As i pointed out elsewhere, you cannot receive and transmit at the same time. If anyone doubts this, i will explain this offlist. Even IF there was a second receiver, that second receiver would be overloaded by radio field from the transmitter. However, BI:5 has "AE" saying "here put your ear to it". What was AE listening to, while sending? Or, why did she go on air, to ask Fred to listen? Who would know that you don't transmit and receive at the same time, and who would not know that? Would AE know that?

This same question applies to BII:2,3, where Fred says, "Amelia, take it, hear it".

Now, in BII:12,14,16, and BV:19,20 we have "NY" "or something that sounded like New York".   Eleven (11) repetitions. One will really have to stretch to say this was "Nor Wich". The number of repetitions would seem to indicate this is a radio call - or a song being sung. I discount the latter. "Marie" seems unexplained still, but perhaps it refers to "Marine". In either case, unless the reader has a better, nonmystical explanation, it does seem "AE" was trying to raise some New York station. Alright, but since AE's radio wouldn't be expected to raise a station more than about 300 miles away, in good communications quality strength, one might ask why. Can we presume AE actually had enough experience with her radio to know this? Even in a stressed, heatstroke state? On the other hand, what person might not know these elementary facts? Remember also, the Harmonic Theory supposes that AE was transmitting on 3105, the night frequency. How far does this signal go in the daylight hours? 200 miles?

Would AE know this? Would "AE" ?

We can also rule out reaching "New York Marine", as they operated on fixed channels different from the aircraft channels.

As i see it, there is little esoteric in the Betty logbook. TIGHAR suggests the battery situation. Fine, i grant one point to this side. The suitcase business was never proven out, and i dare suggest it was an addition, intended to add the appearance of esoteric knowledge, with something that seemed promising but ultlimately could never be proven or disproven.

The Niku theory does not prove the Harmonic Theory; just because the Notebook portrays a similar situation to that supposed by TIGHAR. One theory does not prove another. Two unproven theories do not make one solid truth. 

Okay, now consider the preponderance of esoteric knowledge.

The information in the Notebook has reached us readers by three nodes: "AE" in the South Pacific, Betty in Florida, and TIGHAR. Now, it seems somewhere, logic problems have crept into the information conveyed. Who along the link would not know these basics of radio communication?

There is more. But if the reader cares to work puzzles, this should keep him busy for a while.

-Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:36:15 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Reasonable answers and extraneous information

Alan writes:

> Hue writes
>> AE did NOT hear W4OK, WOJ.
>> Why are they in Betty's log?
>
> Can you assure me that those letter/number combinations were heard correctly,
> written down correctly and were not part of extraneous transmissions other
> than just opinion?

Betty's log starts with these, together with "Help me". Now, when we start looking at Betty's log, do we have to start with the reservation  that from the very first line, it is subject to extraneous information? Does also "Help me" come from some extaneous source?

Okay, i will accept the suggestion that these "may not be call letters at all". This might seem to open the whole notebook to this possibility for every word. I will accept that. ( However, "Woj" seems a pretty strange word. ) There are sections of the notebook, of course, where repetition rules out the question of misunderstanding in hearing. Eleven repetitions of "New York", so we can probably assume it is reliable. Two repetitions of phrase like "put your ear to it", or "hear it", so we can probably assume we have the gist of those right. These 2 last examples are information that cannot be interpreted out of existence, and examples, in my opinion, that represent major problems with this supposed Niku crash-landing, as i have detailed elsewhere.

> It seems to me based on my own experience in the 30s of listening almost
> daily to short wave that there was always a mix of transmissions from
> different stations. No one station owned the rights to 3105, 6210 or any
> other frequency. Why would anyone think that every single entry in Betty's
> notebook was 100% accurate or that it all came 100% from AE? To attempt such
> an argument about some specific entry, Hue, seems foolish and purely
> argumentative.

Since you have this experience which many of the other readers may not, i want to refresh your memory with a question: would you say this applies more to frequencies in the 2-10 MHz region, or more to the frequencies above 10 MHz? How many stations do you suppose were taking turns using 15525? In your answer, consider what the ITU designated use for  the 15.+ MHz band . Or, do i misunderstand, and you are really saying Betty heard "AE" on the busy channels of 3105 or 6210? Or that Betty heard harmonics from all these stations? I do not believe 15525 was a busy, mult-user traffic channel. I am prepared to defend this. If you want to get into "extraneous" information, we have to go elsewhere.

Did Betty's radio drift so badly that it picked up other stations? Okay, it's not impossible that it drifted away, off frequency, but always came back to rest on 15525? Such things happen, altho thermally-caused drift is more one-way, i would think. Drift would not cause her radio to drift so far as to go out of the 15 MHz international broadcasting band, so Betty might have heard another overseas entertainment program, but not WOJ or W4OK, and probably not anyone else calling for help or anything like that in 2-way traffic. Also, Betty says she did not retune the radio, which has puzzled us who have used vacuum-tube radios. So, how did extaneous information get into the log? ( I formerly thought the "extraneous information" idea might explain some of the strange stuff in Betty's log, but now i totally discount that idea as grasping for straws.) 

> I know you meant well, please don't get me wrong, but I don't see this as
> productive. I don't know who said "W40K" or if that was actually what was
> said. I would think the positive approach would be to try and find a
> reasonable answer to what that meant if anything rather than oppose it's
> existence.

Wait a minit. You say it's not productive, but we should try to find a reasonable answer. I hope this doesn't mean "find the right answer".

Hue
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:37:18 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: March of Time Earhart Broadcasts

Ric wrote:

> Yeah.  Those kids seem to have spent all their prep time studying the cockpit
> of Lockheed Electras

... They also

> wasted a bunch of time digging up trivia, such as the fact that Earhart and
> Putnam had two houses - one in New York and one in California - so that they
> could cleverly have the Amelia impersonator specify to "George" that she
> meant the closet in California.  But you know how kids are - never paying
> attention to what's really important.

And this esoteric knowledge, just how rarified was it? In other words, how difficult was it to know such things? For example, if they had a house in California, how difficult would it be to learn that? Then, that the house had a closet? But they missed, for example, that the aircraft transmitter and receiver cannot operate at same time. More homework needed.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:39:19 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      AE heard KGMB?

Ric wrote:

>Hue Miller wrote:
>> Also, AE did NOT hear KGMB after local ( Niku)
>> sunrise.
>
>Whatever the station's power we do know that its
> transmissions could be heard in the Phoenix Islands. To wit:
>
> From: COLORADO
> Action: UNIPRESS
> Date: 07/09/37
>  KGU KGMB BROADCAST
> EXCELLENT SIGNAL.

The point, gentlemen, is what time of day you could hear a 1000 watt broadcast signal from Hawaii. At nighttime, it's a piece of cake.

Some replies i elicited on other group:

--------------------------------
From: <Radioman390@cs.com>
To: <kargo_cult@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Over-ocean RDF use?

> One point is that I'm on Long Island: as late as 10AM I still get an
> over-water signal on 530 kHz from the Carribbean Island station down in Turks
> and Caicos (I think, but could be another island). La Voz Christiana. They're
> directional with 50 kW transmitter, but main lobe is aimed at NYC generating
> 500 kW effective. Heard here are all night; they even advertise locally in
> the Latino community. 1500 mile path, more or less.

Note these keywords:  "as late as", "1500 mile path", "500 kw effective". ( 500,000 watts).
--------------------------------

From: <BOEING377@aol.com>
To: <milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Cc: <kargo_cult@msn.com>; <Radioman390@cs.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: [Milsurplus] answer to Hue's DF question

>I have some relevant fishing boat experience using 1940s vintage surplus
>ARN 7 Radio Compass (ADF) gear.  The ARN 7 (similar to BC 433) was an
>outstanding LF and BC band dx receiver if you listened through a long wire
>rather than the loop or sense whip antenna....
>
>I could almost always get good DF shots on AM BC 10 KW stations from 100
>miles, often considerably further. I frequently shot the now extinct
>Farallon Island NDB (located about 27 miles off San Francisco) on 318 Kc
>which I think was a 500 watt MCW signal . I always got good shots at
>distances up to 50 miles, sometimes up to 100 miles but the null gets pretty
>wide at those low signal levels.   Mark

Note the distance ballpark figures. Mark is here talking workday, daylight hours, altho he did mention skywave nighttime propagation on these frequencies, which go much farther but are unreliable for DF due to wave polarization being scrambled. Remember the talk on the DU unit here, about 2 years back? The propagation mode you are talking about when you talk about AE tuning in KGMB mid-morning 7/02/1937 is "ground wave propagation". The above 2 copies should give you an idea of what ground wave propagation range is like., and what you're up against, USCG letter nowithstanding,  when you propose that AE tuned in KGMB around 10:00 AM. Did the USCG letter specify day or night? No.

So i  maintain: AE on Niku was NOT  able to hear 1000 watt KGMB in Hawaii, after local Niku sunrise, 7/02/1937. I did hardly any homework to get these reponses, but if i have to prove this out, i will go next to the "Broadcast band dx clubs". Must i do this?

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:40:29 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      AE heard KGMB ?

Here's another one, bearing on whether AE could hear KGMB from her Niku landing site, 7/02/1937. The issue, also, is NOT the year, whether long-distance reception was good or bad in 1937, the issue is medium wave reception at local daylight hours.

----------------------------------
From: <bob@atl.org>
To: "Hue Miller" <kargo_cult@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Over-ocean RDF use?

> I coud isten to KDAY Santa Monica, "and it's
> 78 degrees on the beach" for about an hour a
> day in Fiji. Granted, not in the middle of the
> day. Radio Fiji was good to 100+ km all day long
> over water.

H.M. says, note also:  KDAY = 50,000 watts. An hour a day. Not in middle of day ( or near it!, he means also.) I could not find my copy of WRTH to see what R. Fiji is, but i would wager well above 10,000 watt. I can find the book if i need to. AE did NOT hear KGMB from her landing on Niku, unless it was later that night! -Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:43:22 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Earhart's Microphone

A friend of mine used to be an air controller in the miltary back in the 60s.

He said that both he and the pilots he worked with had microphones that could be switched on and left on for dictating and reading back clearances.

According to the Luke Field inventory, the plane had two Electric type No. 631B microphones.

Anyone know if they had a "stay on" switch? Or if one was rigged on the transmitter? Might explain some of the peculiarities of Betty's notebook.

LTM.
Marty #2359
**********************************************************
From Ric

Good question.  Mike?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:45:04 EST
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      31.05 revisited

With the presence of at least one "Q" code transmission in Betty's notes, I am now convinced we have been blinded by the coincidence with Amelia's daytime frequency, and ignoring a simpler explanation for this figure, (which appears not only on the "doodles" page, but may also have been mis-transcribed as 3.15 in another location).  If, as I suspect, Betty actually heard a malange of transmissions either on an aviation frequency or a harmonic thereof, then "31.05" is an altimeter setting, in response to a request for same, meaning a barometric pressure of 31 and one/twentieth inches of mercury.  Although it would be possible for Amelia to "back-calculate" this figure on Gardner by adjusting her altimeter until it read "0 feet", doing so, and broadcasting the same, makes no sense:  without someone else on Gardner to know the pressure, it doesn't tell anyone anything about where to look for her.

LTM (who's crazy 'bout a Mercury...)
Rich Young
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:30:04 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

Oscar wrote:

>We should decide on one or the other, and I
> vote for statute.

Yes I should indeed have written nautical mph or knots.

Regarding which to work in, I can't believe that Noonan would have worked in statute miles. OK so he had to work with an airspeed indicator in mph. But marine navigators, which Noonan originally was, always work in knots and charts are designed with nm in mind. Indeed the definition of the nautical mile arises from the idea of making navigational calculations easier. I imagine FN gave AE notes in sm because she was using a mph airspeed indicator not because he worked in those units.

Regards Angus.

******************************************************************
From Ric

What evidence is there that Noonan's notes to AE were in statute miles?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:30:42 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: W4OK

Thanks, Mike. You confirmed my statement that the call sign in question is W4 "Oh" K, not W4 "Zero" K.

Kerry Tiller
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:49:56 EST
From:         Herman DeWulf
Subject:      Re: 31.05 revisited

Stands to reason. It would have been a logical thing to do for AE to ask for the local QNH, as the barometric pressure is called today, and set her altimeter in preparation for her arrival and landing. The only station that could provide AE with the local barometric pressure was Itasca. But I don't remember ever having read she asked for it nor that Itasca ever read it to her. Since Itasca was at sea level the value provided by her would actually have been the QFE for Howland and there would have been no need for either Itasca or AE to convert that value to QNH since the altitude of the airfield above sea level was only a few feet I guess.

LTM
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I know of no indication that Earhart had any idea what a "Q code" was and if Itasca had provided her with an altimeter setting (which they did not) anytime on July 2nd it would have been 29.8-somehthing, according to the barometric pressure recorded hourly in the ship's deck log.  In fact, the pressures recorded by Itaca and Colorado throughout the search (including when Colorado was still in Hawaii) never reached as high as 31.00.

I think that Hue was suggesting that Betty heard some airplane much closer to Florida.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:07:45 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: MOT

I agree with Alan that it was highly unlikely that Betty was listening to an MOT broadcast. One on 8 July and one a week later. The three minute MOT tape that I have is representative and was a highlight of the July broadcast.

The Tape is full of very specific conversation between KHAQQ, ITASCA,LOP, and the kind of traffic expected between Belarts and AE. Clearly you can hear the "frantic" calls of ITASCA.

That was not what Betty heard and copied. The MOT was a two way re-creation of the radio room drama, and Betty certainly would have been able to copy those relavant bits and pieces of conversation, no matter how fragmentary. No commercials, lots of voice overs, etc. Any good hoaxter would have added more authenticity to it.

If anyone cares, I can post the transcript I made (unofficial).

REB
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:29:55 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: W4OK

Don't forget KDKA and KQV in Pittsburgh, the "K" station east of the Mississippi.  KDKA was broadcasting before there were commercial radio stations, and retained its "K" callsign for historic reasons.

Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263  LTM (an old Pittsburgher)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:31:59 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

> The fact that a maximum error
> occurs only "X %" of the time is small comfort to the person to whom it  does
> happen. There's more than one reason they didn't make it to Howland.
>
> Oscar

Good point, Oscar. It always bothers me when I see percents quoted. They get in the way of common sense and good logic. Reminds me that the average height of the american male was once quoted as 5' 8" but if all the clothing manufacturers bought into that they would have gone broke. Conceiveably there could have been very few.

there is certainly a use for percentages but in most of our discussions they mean very little. The answer usually is zero or 100%.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:31:05 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: MOT

Alan Caldwell

> Although I have serious doubts Betty was listening to the MOT I suppose
> that issue needs tracked down. Check me if I'm wrong but my understanding
> is that the broadcast was on the 8th of July. What time was it broadcast?

"Friday nights" <http://www.otr.com/march.html>.

It had a narrator and orchestral accompaniment.

It lasted 30 minutes.

> My son works for CBS and if they have a recording in their archives I'm
> sure he could get it as he is a news video editor and usually has access
> to everything they have.

Could you get him on the case?  There were two AE/FN broadcasts, July 8 and July 15.

> It's not a classified item of course and why CBS
> has not been forthcoming defies understanding.

I imagine it's because there are a lot of kooks requesting tapes and transcripts of things.  ;o)

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:33:14 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: transmitter power?

The lower the antenna the worse it will perform for long range communications. For long range communication you need to concentrate the output signal at a very low angle above the horizon so that the signal can "bounce" off the ionosphere. Think of bouncing a ball off the parallel walls of a long hall. The ball will go farther if it is thrown down the hall so it strikes the first wall at a shallow, glancing angle. An antenna located close to the ground, say less than one wavelength (about 100 meters at 3105), concentrates its signal at a very steep angle and in the case of the electra on the ground, mainly straight up. Again using the ball in the hallway analogy, if you threw the ball straight against the wall it will bounce back and forth but staying in one place and not going down the hall.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:34:54 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: 31.05 revisited


One problem with your theory, atmospheric pressure greater than 31.0 is so rare that it is almost unheard of.  It is rare for the pressure to be below 29.7 or above 30.3.. So your thought that someone received or transmitted 31.05 as an altimeter setting doesn't make much sense. Such a high pressure is so rare, in fact, that altimeters only allow a setting up to 31.00! On the extremely rare day when the pressure is above 31.00 the FAA must issue a NOTAM to the effected region setting up a procedure that all aircraft will set their altimeters to 31.00 and the controllers must then make computations to issue modified altitude clearances to deal with the fact that the altimeters will not be accurate. See "Aeronautical Information Manual" page 7-2-1.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:38:29 EST
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Reasonable answers and extraneous information

Hue Miller says:

>Also, Betty says she did not retune the radio, which has puzzled us who have
>used vacuum-tube radios. So, how did extraneous information get into the log?

This is easy to explain and it fits exactly with what Betty said she was doing (doodling while waiting)  When you don't retune the receiver, the transmissions waffle in and out, on and off, come and go.  So if you dont retune the radio, then there are periods of silence from the source you are most interested in, and also there are extraneous intrusions from adjacent frequencies that overlap where you are tuned to on the dial.  Eventually your favorite source returns to the same spot where your tuned without you ever having to retune the dial. This is why Betty got the W4ok and Woj stuff during a period of silence while Amelias transmission was waffeling. Not knowing what it was, she wrote it down.

from The Stoker, tunig in to the vacuum tubes between the ears
ltm who heard the radio waffel many times
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:39:57 EST
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Betty What If's

Tom Strang wrote:

>The impression in the note book and by supplementary comments by Betty in
> the tape interview alludes to possible head injury to the male crew member

If you examine Bettys notes carefully, it is easy to see that Amelia was not concerned in the least with any injuries that may or may not have occurd. She was more concerned with getting out the word on her predicament, and was even giving the male voice the cold sholder.  This is hardly showing concern for an injury.  Perhaps, if the male voice was FN, he was more of a victim of to much happy hour 80 proof rather than an injury which may be why AE treated him with disdain.  If FN was coasting along on a secret stash of 80 proof then it seems to fit the pattern of being incoherent

from the Stoker
ltm
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:40:34 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Betty What If's

Another potential possibility for the open mike could be this - if the airplane did have an abrupt stop that ended in FN being injured, isn't there a possibility that the mike could have been damaged causing a stuck switch? Heck, I've had problems with stuck switches that weren't damaged, just a manuf / age problem.

LTM,

Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:50:10 EST
From:         Gary laPook
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

I could make very good arguments that we should stick to nautical miles and knots, but I won't. Let's just say there are good arguments on both side. I think the best way to handle the ambiguity of the term "miles" is to simply avoid it and to always state which units you are using, either nautical miles (NM), or statute miles (SM). We can all do the 1.15 times thing and convert to our own personal favorite units.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:49:15 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Betty interview tape

Well, i finally saw this video, and here are some initial comments:

1. It was well worth my money. I would reckon it would be the same, for anyone seriously interested in researching the whole AE history.

2. R.G. really did try to ask the incisive questions. 

3. The overall impression i received, altho my skepticism of the source of the broadcast is unchanged, is that Betty is guileless. She did not fabricate the reception event, and i do believe she tried to transcribe what she thought she heard, accurately.

4. There is material in the interview that will provide fuel for both pro and con arguments.

5. An understanding  of the  Notebook absolutely depends on having the supplemental information from the website and from the Q&A interview.website. The Notebook pages alone, as i was trying to understand them until today, are an exercise in frustration.

6. I do have a criticism of TIGHAR: in my opinion, the Notebook should never have been posted on the website without some additional quotations from the interview, even if that meant delaying the posting of the Notebook. I feel that the Notebook without the interview information encouraged a lot of unnecessary churn.

-Hue Miller

***************************************************************************
From Ric

As I've said before, the notebook is the witness - not Betty.  Betty's explanations and elaborations, helpful as they are, are anecdotal recollections.  The notebook has to stand on it's own merits and I intentionally gave it a chance to do that before making all of Betty's additional information public.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:00:05 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: MOT

Ric, if you knew before the rest of the crowd that Betty heard profanity more substantial than "darn", why didn't you mention that by now? Would not this rule out all the posts wasting time on MOT ?

Hue Miller
****************************************************************
From Ric

How can I get across to you the importance of separating contemporaneous sources from anecdotal recollection?  I do not know that Betty heard profanity.  I know that Betty recalls that Earhart used profanity and, in fact, the particular profanity she describes sounds exactly like something AE might say (and very few people knew that she had a mouth on her like sailor when she was angry), but Betty's recollection doesn't make it so any more than Tom Devine's recollection of a burning Electra on Saipan makes it so. Hard as it is for our critics to accept, we apply the same tough standards to ourselves as we do to them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:01:54 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: 31.05 revisited addendum

Adding to my previous post, I checked the Navy Marine Climatic Atlas for the Pacific and in the area near Howland   95% of the time the atmospheric pressure is less than 29.96. It is below 30.29  more than  99.999% of the time so maybe once every 1,000 years it might get up to 31.05 inches.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:04:14 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: 0843 Transmission/3105/6210

Ric wrote:

> I'm confused again.  I thought that the transmitter and receiver on this
> airplane were totally separate systems.  Why couldn't you be transmitting on
> one frequency over the dorsal vee antenna and listening on another frequency
> over the loop at the same time?

Usually there is circuitry to "mute" the receiver during transmit.  I have no access to schematics now: Mike E. or Cam, how did the WE receiver mute? This might require some staring at thin closely drawn parallel lines with a magnifying glass, sorry.

But, if there was a second receiver, unconnected into the WE trans- receiver setup?

I tend to think even a second receiver, independent, would have trouble in the presence of high power from the nearby transmitter. Even with a shielded loop, you have a path inside the airplane, from the transmitter antenna leadin wire, to the feed wire from the loop in the roof to the receiver on the floor. Trouble as in desensitizing or total blocking. Mike?

The larger question is one we need to figure out.  Even Betty's interview, rather than resolve this, feeds the mystery: she describes cabin conversation already going on, then says "She finally got back on the radio" ( 6:00-6:15 PM page ). Hunh? How did we get radio in Florida in the minutes before that, BEFORE "she got back on the radio". Was the transmitter operating continuously, then? I consider it contra-logical to believe that the mic had a hold-in slide or switch. That would be a continual source of annoyance to other channel users. There is a reason, i assume, i have NEVER seen one, not just that i didn't look in the right places.  Now if the transmitter was stuck "ON", how did she listen, hear anything else? How would the batteries hold up for an hour and a half, on 30-40 amps draw? Maybe they would hold up. Remember, when the batts drop to 10 or 9 volts, no more radio.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:01:09 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

I think you guys are getting wrapped around the axle about using the sunrise table in the Nautical Almanac (NA) because you are attempting to use it for a purpose for which it is not intended. The only purpose of this table is for planning purposes so that the navigator knows what time to  be on deck to shoot a round of star sights during the period between morning nautical twilight, which is also tabulated in the NA, and  sunrise when the sky is too bright to see the stars any longer.

This table is NOT USED for computations for navigation purposes (which is what you are trying to do) such as determining the position of a LOP. The actual declination and Greenwich Hour Angle (GHA) of the sun as tabulated in the NA and computed to the exact second is the data used for navigation computations. Because it is only used for planning it is appropriate to give sunrise data to  the nearest minute.

Here is a link to the solar data page in the 1937 NA used by Noonan for his calculations:

http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/almanac-1937-22.JPG

Here is a link to an online NA from which you can get data for any date:

http://www.tecepe.com.br/scripts/AlmanacPagesISAPI.isa

And for July 2, 1937:

http://www.tecepe.com.br/scripts/AlmanacPagesISAPI.isa/pages?date=3D07%2F02%2F1937

The explanation of the sunrise table in the NA states:

"On the right hand pages are given the times of sunrise and sunset, of the beginning and end of civil and nautical twilight...These times, which are given to the nearest minute, are strictly the UT of the phenomena on the Greenwich meridian...they are APPROXIMATELY the Local Mean Times (LMT) of the corresponding phenomena on other meridians"

[UT =3D GMT]

Here is what it says in the "American Practical Navigator" HO Pub 9 about this:

"1908. Rising, Setting, And Twilight

In both Air and Nautical Almanacs, the times of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, and twilight information, at various latitudes between 72*N and 60*S, is listed to the nearest whole minute. By definition, rising or setting occurs when the upper limb of the body is on the visible horizon, assuming standard refraction for zero height of eye. Because of variations in refraction and height of eye, computation to a greater precision than 1 minute of time is not justified."

A link to the online version of this text (which is THE standard authority on all things navigational) is:

http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/pdf/chapt19.pdf

This would be a great place to start studying how celestial is done for those new to this science.

The LOP derived from a sun sight is not inaccurate  due to some great uncertainty with the refraction correction. HO 9, 1975 edition has this to say about refraction:

" Because of their variability, refraction and dip (also affected by refraction) are the principal uncertainties in the accuracy of celestial observations of a careful observer. As a result of this uncertainty, navigators formerly avoided all observations below some arbitrary altitude, usually 15 degrees. While this is still good practice if higher bodies are available, the growing knowledge of atmospheric refraction has increased the confidence with which navigators can use low altitude sights. There is little reason for lack of confidence in sights as low as 5 degrees. Below this, other available corrections should be applied.

"If altitudes below 2 degrees are used, larger probable errors should be anticipated, even with the use of additional corrections.  Generally, the error in tabulated refraction would not exceed two or three minutes, even at the horizon."   Volume II page 544.

The "two or three minutes" refers to angular "minutes" of altitude not minutes of time. Two three minutes of altitude equates to only two or three nautical miles of error in the final LOP and that would only occur at very low altitudes. Above 5 degrees even this small possible error goes away. This is just one reason that Noonan would not use a sunrise observation to determine his LOP but would measure the sun's altitude with his sextant after it had climbed up in the sky. There are about 5 other reasons that he would not use the sunrise observation but I will go into them in another post.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:10:31 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Drift information

What is known about Noonan's likelihood of getting drift information after dawn and before reaching the advanced 157 LOP through Howland? Is there evidence that he took drift readings on previous legs? How long would it take him to get such information after dawn? Since at dawn they had flown a DR course since their last fix,  would such information be of any use? Knowing the wind, he could correct course to fly a true heading the same as the bearing of Howland from their last fix but since they were not at their last fix, what would be the point?

Regards Angus
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I've always figured that he'd be able to get his best drift information after they had descended down to about 1,000 feet and that the main purpose was to get an accurate heading correction and groundspeed so that he's know when he had reached the advanced LOP - but it's not going to help him navigate to Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:28:02 EST
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Amelia couldn't have transmitted and received at the same time - three reasons:

1.  It's long been the contention of TIGHAR that no second receiver, (for the DF loop, for example) was installed in "The Flying Laboratory".  The known, installed transmitter/receiver uses the same antenna lead for both send and receive - the "push-to-talk" button activates a relay that switches the antenna from one to the other, and probably grounds out the input to the receiver.  No antenna - no reception.

2,  This gets into WHY the transmitter turns the receiver off - the receiver is designed to detect, select, and amplify signals measured in microwatts or less generated in the antenna.  Consequently, the circuits that reject signals on other than the selected frequency are designed to handle similar strength signals - a 50 watt signal mere inches away, even if on another antenna,  will bulldoze its way through the selection/rejection circuitry and bleed all over whatever you are trying to receive.  Further, the harmonics, (the ones Betty could theoretically hear in Florida) are much MORE powerful at elbow-length ranges.  Lastly, in close proximity, every wire, component lead, even the grids and filaments of the vacuum tubes act as antennas for these close, strong signals and allow even more bleed-over.

3.  Since you can't receive, if the PTT button is depressed, the only thing that can be in the headphones to listen to is either a tone to confirm transmission, or a copy of the outgoing modulation, (referred to as "talk-back"), again to confirm transmission and quality thereof.

IF betty's notes are an actual AE transmission, the following questions must be addressed -

If the real AE was going to cry, would she keep the PTT depressed to broadcast that?  I've met a bunch of aviators - none of them seemed the type to do that.

What is AE telling Fred to "Listen to - put your ear to it"?  It can't be the headphones if she is transmitting.

Why is the PTT locked down, eating up power at the highest possible rate, and preventing anyone from answering her outgoing messages?  A lot of useless "background noise" is being transmitted in a situation where her transmitting endurance is measured in minutes - that's akin to taking time out of her search for Howland to do a 30 minute aerobatics program - it's wasteful and makes no sense.

LTM,  (who wastes not, wants naught)

Rich Young
***************************************************************************
From Ric

1.  There was no "transmitter/receiver system".  There was a transmitter on the cabin floor in the rear of the airplane.  The lead-in for the transmitter passed through the cabin wall above the transmitter and up to the dorsal vee antenna which I have always maintained was used ONLY for transmitting.  The receiver was under the copilot's seat roughly twenty feet away.  The lead-in for the receiver passed through the cockpit floor to the belly wire antenna which I have always maintained was used as the receiving antenna.  The loop antenna over the cockpit was, I maintain, operated via a "coupling unit" to the receiver under the copilot's seat.  A switch alowed the pilot to select which receiving antenna the receiver would use - belly wire or loop.  I can see no evidence in the available photos that the transmitting system in the tail of the airplane (operated via a remote in the cockpit) and the receiving system in the nose were in any way connected.

2.  The above explains why your second point is moot.

3.  We still need to figure out why it might be that the PTT seems to have been locked down - but you're not helping.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:35:58 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Fwd: AE's 'open' MIC

Don Neumann has asked me to pass the following along to Tom Strang:

>Consider the open mic question in the context of both crew members
>with injuries, such as taping mic to the open position to facilitate use
>by injured crew members'...

**************

Tom,

According to Mike Everette, not a very good idea ! (See enclosed response I received from Mike a little over a year ago, when I raised a similar question.)

**********************

The continuous drain of a keyed transmitter would sap the battery pretty quickly. This radio drew over 50 amps on transmit. Keying it up results in momentary HUGE drains ("spikes") from the dynamotor as it overcomes the inertia of a stationary condition; but the continuous key-down would probably kill the battery quicker. The battery can "recover" slightly during standbys.

Mike

************************************************************************
From Ric

It is certainly the case that a transmission as long as the one Betty heard would require that an engine be running.  The fact that Betty doesn't mention hearing an engine running in the background merely means that she didn't identify any of the sounds she heard as an engine running, but a 1340 turning over enough to maintain a battery charge wouldn't necessarily make much noise, especially if it was downwind, and a 15 year old girl might not have a lot of experience identifying that sound.

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:35:03 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Breaking News

The following information is being mailed today and tomorrow to all TIGHAR members and should be up on the TIGHAR website later today, tomorrow at the latest.

Breaking News

TIGHAR has learned that, last year, a marine biologist who was paying a brief visit to Nikumaroro came across an object that might be an identifiable component of a Lockheed Electra.  He did not photograph or recover the object because he was familiar with TIGHAR's work and assumed that we had already seen it, but we have since interviewed him extensively and have learned as much as he could tell us about what he saw and where he saw it. 

Normally, we would be eager to share everything we've been able learn about this interesting new lead, but experience has shown that Nikumaroro is not as remote a place as it may appear to be.  In 2001 we published detailed information about an anomaly we noticed in a satellite photo of the island. We considered it to be an interesting possibility worthy of further investigation, like many others we have explored on Niku.  The media, however, seized upon the story and blew it way out of proportion.  Within weeks we were contacted by the captain of an oceangoing salvage tug who had happened to be in the region and had diverted to Niku to check out the location shown on the TIGHAR website.  Finding nothing underwater, he had removed a piece of shipwreck debris from the reef.  Had the anomaly in the satellite photo turned out to be aircraft wreckage (instead of an unusual patch of red algae, as we eventually determined) the damage done by the would-be salvager could have been devastating.

 Consequently, in order to protect this newly reported artifact until we can get there to check it out, we are not disclosing any more about it than has been described above.  We trust that everyone will understand that our intention is not to be secretive or to raise speculation that a "smoking gun" has been discovered.  We want to be very clear that we consider this to be nothing more, and nothing less, than the latest in a long series of possible clues to be followed up on.  Some of those clues have led to significant discoveries but most, like the satellite photo anomaly, have been disappointments.  That's just the way the real world of scientific inquiry is.

But, for all the caveats, hope springs eternal and we are, naturally, very eager to get back to the island to inspect the object and, if it looks like it might indeed be an Electra component, recover it for analysis.  An airplane part found at Nikumaroro that could be conclusively linked to a Lockheed Electra might give a significant boost to fundraising for the Niku V expedition now planned for the summer of 2004.

Niku Vp in 2003
By fortunate coincidence, Nai'a Cruises in Fiji is exploring the possibility of making a first-ever tourist scuba-diving cruise to the Phoenix Islands in June of this year.  Since 1997, Nai'a has supported five scientific expeditions to the Phoenix Group, three of them under charter to TIGHAR, and is now hoping to find enough customers who want to experience the wonders of this remote region to justify a commercial cruise to be known as the "2003 Phoenix Rising" expedition.  For TIGHAR, it's a perfect opportunity to send a small team to Nikumaroro for a few days to investigate our exciting new lead.

In fact, even before we learned of this intriguing possibility we were looking for a way to get some much-needed preliminary work done on Niku in preparation for Niku V.  Our Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) conference last summer identified an "overwash" area on the island's west end that will be a major focus of 2004 search.  We need to get a handle on what the vegetation is like in there so that we know what we'll be up against.  We also need to install a tide measuring device to collect data that will enable us to fine-tune our tidal "hindcasting" to 1937.

The Nai'a "Phoenix Rising" trip provides a perfect opportunity for us to piggyback our "Niku Vp" (p for preliminary) expedition. Two members of the 2001 Niku IIII expedition team have volunteered to go at their own expense.  Three other members of the team can put up part, but not all, of the cost of  their participation.  The "Paradise Now" raffle of a week at  a luxury Virgin Islands villa is aimed at making it possible to send these highly qualified TIGHARs to the island this year and to also send a TIGHAR researcher to Fiji  for six weeks to continue the search for the all-important bones taken there from Nikumaroro in 1941.

You Can Join The Expedition
To make sure that Nai'a has enough customers to make the trip economically viable, we're also inviting and encouraging TIGHAR members to sign aboard for the Nai'a 2003 Phoenix Rising cruise.  The price tag per person is $9,300 plus airfare (about $1,200 from Los Angeles), and the five day voyage each way to the Phoenix Group is not for landlubbers, but for those with the desire, the constitution, and the means to participate  --  an especially for scuba divers - it's a chance-of-a-lifetime opportunity to see and experience one of the most beautiful, wild, and untouched regions left on the planet, and probably the only chance anyone will ever get to visit Niku as part of a TIGHAR expedition without having to endure the purgatory of hacking underbrush for weeks on end.  As an added incentive, because you'll be an official member of the TIGHAR expedition, at least a portion of the expense of your participation may be tax deductible.  We'll be happy to provide details for your tax preparer.

Painless Philanthropy
We very much want to put a TIGHAR team on the island this June but to do that we need your support.  Fortunately, expedition team member Andrew McKenna (TIGHAR #1045EC) has made it possible for us to offer an enticement worthy of our need by donating a week at his luxury villa Harbor Lights in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands as the prize in our Paradise Now raffle.  Other members of the Earhart Project Advisory Council have contributed the funds to let us make round-trip airfare for two from anywhere in the continental U.S. part of the package.  At $25 per chance or five chances for $100 this is about as painless as philanthropy gets.  Please see the TIGHAR website (www.tighar.org) for details and get your chances for Paradise ... Now.

NOTE:  You do NOT have to be a TIGHAR member to buy chances and win.

Priorities
In an investigation like The Earhart Project there is always tension between pushing the research forward and reporting on the research that has been done.  Our new lead and the prospect of an expedition to Nikumaroro this year has, necessarily, delayed the completion of the magazine-sized Special Report issue of TIGHAR Tracks.  Having now organized and launched the Paradise Now campaign we can get back to work on that very important publication, which we hope to be able to send out before the end of February.  Once that is done we'll turn our attention to producing the long-awaited Niku IIII documentary film.  Thanks for your patience and understanding.  =========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:37:35 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

Ric wrote:

> What evidence is there that Noonan's notes to AE were in statute miles?

Don't ask me - it was Oscar who said that.

Regards Angus.

**************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, I know.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:50:58 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

>There is little reason for lack of confidence in sights
>as low as 5 degrees. Below this, other available corrections should be applied.
>
>If altitudes below 2 degrees are used, larger probable errors should be
>anticipated, even with the use of additional corrections.  Generally, the error
>in tabulated refraction would not exceed two or three minutes, even at the
>horizon."   Volume II page 544.

However, this assumes that Noonan had the "other available corrections"  (at the time of writing)  for refraction correction. Were the correction figures that Noonan had, if any, correct for very low angle sights (below 5 degrees) or was it only with the advent of a better understanding of refraction that these very low angle corrections became available?

regards Angus Murray
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:58:40 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

Ric asks

> What evidence is there that Noonan's notes to AE were in statute miles?

AE was certainly keeping track in statute miles. See LAST FLIGHT page 76. I think it's a fair inference that FN gave her the data in statute miles - unless you prefer to believe she did the conversions.

Oscar

**************************************************************************
From Ric

In other words, there is no evidence that Noonan's notes to AE were in statute miles. (Sheesh....you've got me sounding like Chris Kennedy.)

If we can state "fair inferences" as facts we solved this case years ago.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:04:39 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Drift information

> I've always figured that he'd be able to get his best drift information after
> they had descended down to about 1,000 feet and that the main purpose was to
> get an accurate heading correction and groundspeed so that he's know when he
> had reached the advanced LOP - but it's not going to help him navigate to
> Howland.

Might there be any advantage to correct his heading to fly a true heading at right angles to his first LOP? It would shorten the distance to the advanced LOP. If he had discovered the wind vector had changed since his last fix it might be an advantage to desist from continuing further off course even if he couldn't correct the whole amount because he didn't know how far off course he was? What is he likely to have done?

Regards Angus
******************************************************************
From Ric

Based on what we can tell from the maps of his earlier flights, he made very few "mid-course corrections" and tended to bull along until he got a firm fix on his position either by striking a coastline or getting a good DF bearing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:05:33 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: 0843 Transmission/3105/6210

"IF" AE had a stuck mike, this might account for the failure on her part to hear incoming messages and why she kept calling "in the dark" trying to reach ANYONE! She might not have realized that the mike was stuck and waited between calls to hear any replies, but with the mike stuck open, her cockpit conversations were heard.

Anyway, that's one possibility.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:10:13 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

Gary LaPook wrote:

> I could make very good arguments that we should stick to nautical miles and
> knots, but I won't. Let's just say there are good arguments on both side. I
> think the best way to handle the ambiguity of the term "miles" is to simply
> avoid it and to always state which units you are using, either nautical miles
> (NM), or statute miles (SM). We can all do the 1.15 times thing and convert to
> our own personal favorite units.

Perhaps we should simply switch to furlongs to ensure complete clarity. Let's see, a furlong is 201.17 meters; a nautical mile is 1852 meters; and so there are 9.206144057 furlong per nautical mile. Converting the "150 statute mile per hour" speed used for flight planning purposes to nautical miles gives 130.3 knots, which converts handily to 1199.56 furlongs per hour (I am rounding a bit to simplify things). We can then convert the gallons of fuel in the tanks to litres, and the fuel consumption of the plane to pounds/hour and have a fine old time.

Look, if you or I were to flight plan tomorrow, we would use nautical miles, for all kinds of reasons. One major reason would be that our cruise charts, instruments, and navigation all use nautical miles. That wasn't the case on AE's flight. It's not that one is "better" than the other (though I give you that the coincidence of nm and degrees is very helpful), it's that one requires less in the way of conversion.

Oscar

****************************************************************
From Ric

As far as forum discussions are concerned I'll leave to you guys to fight out what units of measure you want to use.  (For what it's worth, my horse agrees with Oscar. Furlongs are best.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:11:27 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

I personally have experienced situations in which I forgot to release the ptt after transmitting and found myself somewhat embarrassed afterwards by the cockpit ruminations going out on the air.

Also, I remember reading in one of Stephen Coonts' books about a WWII fighter pilot who was in a shootout with a ME-109 who went thru the whole fight with his mike "open".

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:12:27 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE's 'open' MIC

> the open mic question

Is it possible we are making too much of this issue? If AE has the mike open Noonan is right beside her and if they are easonably close I know of no reason her mike wouldn't pick up both of them, particularly if it was done purposefully.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:13:40 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drift information

> but it's not going to help him navigate to
> Howland.

You're probably right but using the drift meter, even over the ocean, a fairly accurate wind can be obtained, meaning direction and velocity. Please, no one ask me how accurate or what percent of the time he could do that. It would require more than one heading to take the readings and it just seems doubtful to me FN would do that. Drift alone would give him reasonable information including a fair idea of the wind's strength.

I agree that at least one of the reasons for the descent would have been to attempt a drift reading. I couldn't tell you what a reasonable altitude would be but it makes sense that a better drift could be sensed at 1,000 feet than at 10,000 feet.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:15:01 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Gary LaPook wrote:

> ... There are about 5 other reasons that he would not use the sunrise
> observation but I will go into them in another post.

OK, Gary.

Then, when you're all finished with your lecture, please give us your hypothesis about why AE and FN said they were flying on 157/337 in the last transmission received from the aircraft. That is the one scrap of navigational calculation that they have left us.  Any theories you cook up about what Fred coulda, shoulda, woulda done have got to deal with that line.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:16:52 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

> This is just one reason that Noonan would not use a sunrise observation to determine 
>his LOP  but would measure the sun's altitude with his sextant after it had climbed up
> in the sky.

Thanks, Gary. I've been beating that drum since the beginning but maybe your much clearer explanation will get through. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:17:48 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: AE's 'open' MIC

I think that Dave Bush might have something here when he says that it's possible that the mic was damaged and this could be the cause of it being "open". That being a possibility, perhaps what AE wanted FN to hear was unusual nature of the noise on the headset, or perhaps the total lack of it. Hmmmmm.... They weren't intentionally holding the mic open.

Also ever seen anyone get mad at a computer running with a mouse? What takes the heat most everytime - yep, the little mouse. Same with telephone handsets. Frustrated people behave funny sometimes.

Just more thoughts from a freeloader.

Bob Lee
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:19:33 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Lecture in Honolulu

For Forum folk in Hawaii -- I'll be giving an illustrated talk on the Niku hypothesis and TIGHAR's pursuit of it, and signing copies of "Amelia Earhart's Shoes," for the Hawaii Historical Society beginning at 7:30 pm at the Old Archives Building in Honolulu.

***********************************************
From Ric

On what day?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:20:42 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: MOT

> If anyone cares, I can post the transcript I made (unofficial).

I would be interested in that, Ron. I've emailed my son and asked if it is possible he can check with CBS on that. I have not heard back yet but I'm not seeing anything to indicate Betty was taking notes on the MOT.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:33:06 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: MOT

> How can I get across to you the importance of separating contemporaneous
> sources from anecdotal recollection?  .....
> Hard as it is for our critics to accept, we apply the same tough standards to
> ourselves as we do to them.

Unless you yourself have sheltered the notebook since 1937, or done a dating on the ink (impossible), i do not see how you can be sure the notebook has been amended, rewritten, or even written, in the years since. How can you verify the notebook is any more reliable than the voice of the author of that notebook? And song lyrics are no marker either.

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The same could be said of virtually every contemporaneous written source we have - the original Itasca radio logs given to the National Archives by Leo Bellarts, the Chater letter found in a gold mining company file,  the Gallagher telegrams found in the Kiribati National Archive, etc. etc.

This forum spent months authenticating the non-Earhart entries in the notebook and found that they match the alleged spring and summer of 1937 time period perfectly.  As with the other documents we've uncovered, there is no way to distinguish them from a perfect forgery.  (There's a joke that goes, "Somebody broke into my apartment and replaced all my furniture with exact duplicates.")

If we treat apparently authentic original documents as no more reliable than anecdotal recollections we can rewrite an awful lot of history.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:39:51 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Reasonable answers and extraneous information

Claude Stokes wrote:

>When you dont retune the receiver, the transmissions
> waffel in and out, on and off, come and go.

Claude, nice theory, but i wouldn't go to court on it. You suggest the radio drifted and returned to frequency. This is not assured; it's just as likely, in fact i say more likely, it one-way drifted to a resting point different from the frequency it started on. (This is why i asked Ric if the radio had been on, when Betty came home. If it had a couple or three hours to warm up and stabilize, it might have done
the circular return-to-home drift pattern you suggest; if not, i believe (from experience) that it would drift in one direction, continuously, and finally settle down after an hour or more. However, in vacuum tube type radios, the radio is also sensitive to power line voltage fluctuations in the neighborhood.)

Also, you missed my point about 15525: this frequency is in the "19 meter international shortwave broadcast band". You might expect if the radio drifted, maybe 10 kHz in the cycling drift or maybe 20-50 kHz in the one-way drift, you might hear some other *broadcast material*, music, news and such, but not "2 way traffic" such as W4OK or WOJ.

Hue Miller

********************************************************************
From Ric

(Why do I do this?)
So it could drift out and back in, or it could drift out and stay out. Does the notebook suggest some continuity in the nature of the transmissions or does it suggest a wide variation of voices, music and programing?

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:51:05 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Radio matters

To address at least three radio questions from the last day or two:

Microphones:

I am looking at a schematic diagram of a WE 631B microphone as I write this.   There is no indication of a lock-down position for the push-to-talk switch.

I guess it is theoretically possible for there to be some mechanical locking capability, but I seriously doubt such a thing was incorporated.  I have NEVER seen such on an aircraft mic, or any other type of mobile microphone. The possibility for operator error to result in a "stuck microphone" that would hold the transmitter keyed, is just too strong.  These things are designed to be as "idiot proof" as possible... hmm.

The idea that the mic must have been locked-on may be erroneous anyway.

I doubt that what Betty heard was a "continuous" transmission; rather, it was more than likely a SERIES of transmissions.  It makes so little sense to just keep the radio keyed up.  How will one listen for replies?

Besides, the transmitter was not designed for continuous duty operation. Leaving it keyed for so long would seriously risk component failure.

As for the diagram of the 631B, schematically it is identical to the US Army Signal Corps T-17 mic.  That does not mean they were the same thing; but they did operate the same way electrically.  The T-17 mic cannot be "locked down" but its push to talk button (on the handle) is very large and it'd be easy to hold the button down by gripping the mic with either the thumb or first 2 fingers depressing the switch.  Little fatigue involved, compared to some other mics of the time that had to be held down by the thumb and were very "tight" resulting in lots of fatigue to the hand.

Receiving issues:

The WE radio "system" wiring was probably configured to "mute" the receiver, when the transmitter was keyed up.  There were 2 common ways to do this: either remove the receiver's B-plus supply (high voltage) entirely by opening the connection to the receiver dynamotor output (200 volts DC), or by opening the screen-grid voltage supply to the RF and IF amplifier tubes. Both would have been accomplished through a relay, mounted inside a junction box... probably the JB that the receiver dynamotor would be mounted on..

I don't have access to any system diagram... these could and did vary a bit from aircraft to aircraft anyway, depending upon circumstances and requirements.

It is my contention (and Ric will disagree with this I am sure) that the receiver, in COMMUNICATION mode, used the same antenna as the transmitter (the dorsal Vee) and was connected to that antenna through the antenna changeover relay in the transmitter.

Whatever the purpose of the belly antenna -- and I am inclined to believe that it was some sort of sense antenna for the direction finder system, whatever that system may have consisted of (loop coupler unit?  second receiver?) -- I don't necessarily  see it as all that critical to the issue.   Yes, the theory has been offered that she could not receive because she lost that antenna on takeoff.  Maybe, maybe not.  The problem could just as easily come from someone's big feet getting onto the antenna connection to the receiver, under the seat, and knocking it loose... the same circumstance that brought Joe Gurr into the story, after the first attempt.

Transmitter dynamotor operation:

Yes, it must be running in order to transmit.  In the voice mode, the dynamotor is controlled via a starter relay that is activated whenever the push-to-talk switch is depressed.  The dyno starts when the transmission begins and shuts off when it ends.

For CW mode, the transmitter control circuit was not modified to incorporate "break in keying" as was standard practice... why?  Who knows?  Break-in keying means that the dyno runs constantly even in standby, then the radio is used for CW, and the transmitter goes on the air at the touch of the key.   NOT SO with this WE transmitter.

The telegraph key unit contained a switch that had to be thrown to "CW" mode, to start the dyno and throw the antenna changeover relay, before the radio could be "keyed" to transmit.  This switch had to be opened or released, to switch back to receive.  This is a cumbersome procedure.

If AE left her telegraph key behind, she also lost the ability to properly control the radio in CW mode.  The only other way to send CW was by pushing the mic button... which meant the dyno was constantly starting and stopping.   This will result in a very VERY poor-sounding (read: ROTTEN) CW signal, and is destructive to the equipment as well.

Receiving and transmitting at the same time:

If the receiver was not muted on transmit, AND if it indeed used a different antenna, it would be possible to tune to a different frequency and listen while transmitting... but the receiver would be desensitized considerably from the RF field from the transmitter.  "Shot-noise" would be generated in the receiver's tubes, while the transmitter was on... sounds like static on steroids.

50 watts of RF energy won't burn out the circuits in a tube type receiver. Tubes are a lot more tolerant of this than solid state.  But the desense and noise will make it difficult if not impossible to hear much.

73
Mike E.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mike.  Something you just said made my ears prick up.

>The only other way to send CW was by pushing
>the mic button... which meant the dyno was constantly starting and stopping.

To somebody listening for a transmission might this make a sound  "something like a generator starting up and stopping"?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:58:42 EST
From:         Denise
Subject:      "Marie. Marie."

Hue Miller says: "Marie" seems unexplained still.

How about this? Fred's recently seen a stage version of Tennessee Williams "Streetcar Named Desire" and - recently having married Mary - is doing "Mary. Mary." in the mode of Stanley Kowalski (however it's spelled) doing "Stella. Stella."? (Try doing it. It actually works.)

Of course this all hinges on the play already having been written and staged sometime prior to this misadventure and the possibility it was seen by Noonan. When and where was it put on? Does anyone know?

Alternatively, there's always TS Eliot's "The Wasteland" with its line "I cried Marie, Marie, and down we went." Was Noonan a literary fellow by any chance?

LTM (who never liked Marlon Brando)
Denise

****************************************************************************
From Ric

I - uh- don't think so.

Fred's new wife's name was Mary Bea.  We're not sure how he usually addressed her.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:11:36 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Rich, the prevailing (and reasonable IMO) theory is that the lost ventral antenna had been the receive antenna. That this was a holdover from an archaic older system where a trailing antenna was reeled out only when there was a neeed to transmit, otherwise the ventral antenna supplied the receiver's needs. In the setup when the Bendix Navy-type loop/coupler was added, the ventral wire would go the the coupler. The coupler selected wire or loop, and fed the output to the receiver.  So the first part of your analysis may not be quite accurate.

> 2,  This gets into WHY the transmitter turns the receiver off - the receiver
> is designed to detect, select, and amplify signals measured in microwatts

Rich is right, here. If you didn't disconnect the receiver antenna, you run the risk of burning out components in the receiver, even if they're using different antennas.

> 3.  Since you can't receive, if the PTT button is depressed, the only thing
> that can be in the headphones to listen to is either a tone to confirm
> transmission, or a copy of the outgoing modulation, (referred to as
> "talk-back"), again to confirm transmission and quality thereof.

In those days, this was mostly called "sidetone".

> IF betty's notes are an actual AE transmission, the following questions must
> be addressed -
> If the real AE was going to cry, would she keep the PTT depressed to
> broadcast that?

This does seem a bit on the fake side, doesn't it?

> What is AE telling Fred to "Listen to - put your ear to it"?  It can't be
> the headphones if she is transmitting.

Good question! Is this the Silver Bullet?

> Why is the PTT locked down, eating up power at the highest possible rate,
> and preventing anyone from answering her outgoing messages?  Rich Young

Rich, i think we'll see some really creative answers to this one.

***************************************************************************

Ric wrote:

> 1.  There was no "transmitter/receiver system".

Actually, there kinda was. It was controlled by the PTT button. Receive OR transmit. Not receive and optionally, transmit.

> 3.  We still need to figure out why it might be that the PTT seems to have
> been locked down - but you're not helping.

I think Rich IS helping. You just don't want to face the music. I'd say its 'Endgame' for the Betty theory.

Hue Miller
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Mike Everette seems to think that, if you and I are right about the belly antenna, simultaneous transmission/reception WAS possible.  The fact that the quality of the reception would be greatly reduced doesn't seem to be a good reason to discount AE's apparent attempt to convince FN to "here, put your ear to it."  Nor do I see inexpert or even ignorant operation of the radio as evidence that the transmissions couldn't have come from Amelia Earhart.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:12:42 EST
From:         Denise
Subject:      Radio Frequency

Note to Hue Miller: Back in the mid 70s we used to always be able to pick up the New Zealand pirate radio station RADIO HIRAKI from our beach in Deuba in Fiji. It was always as clear as the signals from Radio Fiji (both 1 and 2) ... so much so for over a year we'd throw a beach party most Friday nights and all the teenagers would come for miles around to listen and party. And RADIO HIRAKI was nothing more than rock and roll transmitted from a yacht in Auckland Harbour.

We also used to be able to pick up Korean TV whenever the weather was overcast.

I don't know how this compares with what you're saying isn't possible - but I'm offering it for whatever it's worth.

LTM (who didn't know about the beach parties, so don't tell her.)
Denise
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:38:28 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

To explain further this:

The receiver in its normal use is tuned to the same frequency as the transmitter. So it has to be protected. Also, even if the receive level is low, the chance of audio feedback has to be eliminated: otherwise you could  get a closed feedback  path: microphone >  transmitter > receiver > headphone > microphone (even possible thru nonacoustic path!) > transmitter.....and so on, causing a screech in the headphone. Also, even if the receiver is not damaged, or overloaded, or blocked, or desensitized, and doesn't scream, you can get hellacious loud thumps in the headphone when the transmitter relays kick in, enough to  damage your hearing.  So the receiver is muted, by one or more of: grounding the antenna, disconnecting the antenna, removing the voltage.

That being the case, what were AE and FN listening to, when they handed the headphone to the other? Their own voices in the "sidetone" circuit from the microphone? In my opinion, if this isn't answered, you can write off the Betty reception without further debate.

Why was it dark in the cabin, and AE couldn't find FN?

If the battery was that fragile or vulnerable, how could the plane ever take off, land, or bank?

What was Fred going to "lash out at it" with?

-Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I can't argue with somebody who knows as much as you do. You know that simultaneous tranmsission and reception were impossible, even though Mike Everette doesn't.  You know that it was dark in the cabin, although there's nothing in the notebook about it being dark.  And you know a lot more about the battery than I do.  You also know that Fred was going to lash out at it.

All I know is that normally, in a Lockheed 10, the main battery is in a box in the belly of the airplane that protrudes several inches up into cabin immediately behind the door from the cabin into the cockpit.  The box has a screwed-down plywood cover and to move back and forth between the cabin and cockpit you pretty much have to step on the box.  The battery is routinely accessed via a door under the airplane.  You open the door and the battery drops down on a bungee-cord sprung tray.  However, if for some reason you needed to access the battery from inside the airplane it's pefectly possible to remove the plywood cover, but you'd have to be careful not to step on the battery because you could stomp it right out through the belly fo the airplane.

If you're sitting in the pilot's seat and somebody is back in the cabin on either side of the battery box, you can't see them because they're behind the cockpit bulkhead, and yet they're still very close to you.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:40:04 EST
From:         Adam
Subject:      Re: MOT

Hue Miller wrote:

>Ric, if you knew before the rest of the crowd that Betty
>heard profanity more substantial than "darn", why didn't
>you mention that by now?

He did.  Quite some time ago when the Notebook first was received (check the archives).  I referred to it in a recent post as well.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:49:11 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: 31.05 revisited

Ric wrote:

> I know of no indication that Earhart had any idea what a "Q code" was

Yes- i agree that Earhart had no reason to know this code. Seems to me it was either thrown in there by the spoofers, or was from some other communications on same channel.

But....

> I think that Hue was suggesting that Betty heard some airplane much closer to
> Florida.

No- not any more. I take it that Betty was probably quite right when she says she heard only these 2 people. But note: If the SOS stuff Betty heard was from some hoaxers, that means the reception would not be on some harmonic. Who would have thought of that? It would probably been done using some easily available transmitter. Crystals in those days were more expensive and not as common as post-WW2. So i suggest a 80-meter ( 3.5 MHz ) ham transmitter, or a boat radio operating in the 2-5 MHz range. This would go 100-200 miles in daylight conditions. If at the far end of the range, slow periodic fading would not be unusual. And- Betty's radio would be a lot more stable here, than on 15525 kHz. In fact, once tuned in, it would stay put for a long time. That fits with her statement that she didn't retune the radio once she started listening.

Hue Miller
************************************************************************
From Ric

So we have a male and female team broadcasting a hoax from somehwere within 100 or 200 miles of St. Petersburg that fools Betty and her family but is either not heard by, or does not fool, anyone else.  Do I have that right?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:52:33 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      JPEG image of Niku

Here is a link to a space image of Niku. they also have Baker.

http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/ioweek/archive/01-07-08/Nikumaroro_1280.jpg
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Somebody tell him.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:54:31 EST
From:         Gary laPook
Subject:      JPEG image of Baker

baker island
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/ioweek/archive/00-11-26/RohBakerlsle1024.jpg
********************************************
From Ric

Our island is prettier.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:56:52 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: MOT

I talked to my son last night about the possibility he could check with CBS in re the March of Time program. He said it would take a call to Dan Rather. We both did a lot of research last night and there were a number of sources for old radio archives but none have that particular program. so far the only MOT on Earhart was her January 1937 talk. A university is a repository for much of this stuff but their index shows they do not have it. Several sources indicate CBS was not good at preserving and later in 1937 when NBC took over everything was saved but not so for CBS. The search continues.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:58:57 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Open mike

The stuck open-mike theory is great, now all we have to do is explain how the batteries would last for at least 90 minutes (the duration of Betty's note book) when their normal charge is significantly less than that.  Oh, that's right the engine's running.  I guess we can ignore the possibility of the engine overheating at idle/low power in the mid-day sun at Niku.

LTM, who is always fully charged
Dennis O. McGee #0194EC
**********************************************************************
From Ric

No, that's a fair question.  Anybody have any hard information?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:00:40 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

Ric wrote:

> As far as forum discussions are concerned I'll leave to you guys to fight
> out what units of measure you want to use.  (For what it's worth, my
> horse agrees with Oscar. Furlongs are best.)

If you're going to use furlongs, then the tradition is to calculate furlongs per fortnight.

Proof of the forgoing available upon request.  ;o)

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:02:38 EST
From:        David Katz
 Subject:      Re: MOT

>  (There's a joke that goes,
> "Somebody broke into my apartment and replaced all my furniture with exact
> duplicates.")

That's from the stand-up comic Stephen Wright.

******************************************************
From Ric

Thanks.  I couldn't remember (if I ever knew).  Always good to have proper attribution.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:04:16 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      "Why?"

Hue Miller said:  " i do not see how you can be sure the notebook has been amended, rewritten, or even written, in the years since."

 Hue, aren't you taking this Devil's Advocate stuff a little too far? It's starting to sound like the "Why?" game kids play with their parents. You know the one, when a kid simply asks "Why?" every time you offer an explanation for something.  They do it mostly to aggravate their elders because they found out they can aggravate their elders.  In the vernacular of the day, they feel empowered because they are now controlling the adult, albeit through meaningless questioning, rather than the adult controlling them.  That's heady stuff when your 6 years old.  After about the 14th consecutive "Why?" most parents turn around and bash the little bugger.  My personal limit is three.

LTM, who knows why -- and how
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:22:08 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction


> In other words, there is no evidence that Noonan's notes to AE were in
> statute miles.
> (Sheesh....you've got me sounding like Chris Kennedy.)
>
> If we can state "fair inferences" as facts we solved this case years ago.

Ric, if Chris Kennedy said that, you'd accuse him of playing "cute lawyer word games".

The evidence is there in AE's references to statute miles. I don't know what caused you to pounce on the assertion of what is not only a fair inference, but also an obvious one. The point of my posting was that there's a virtue in the consistent use of one form  of measurement or another in our discussions, not that FN's notes to AE were in nautical miles. But if you truly believe that FN gave AE notes in NM, please state why you believe that, and what "evidence" you think supports that position.

Oscar
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, I agree.  You dont have to be a cute lawyer to play cute lawyer word games, but it doesn't move the ball forward.

So let's see... what direct evidence do we have to tell us whether Noonan's notes to AE referred to statute or nautical units of measure?  The only existing example of such a note is the one in the Purdue collection (it is also reproduced in Last Flight) from the infamous incident on the South Atlantic crossing.  It says, in Noonan's hand: "3:36 change to 36* Estimate 79 miles to Dakar from 3:36 p.m."

Beneath which Earhart wrote: "What - put us north"

There's no way to tell when the note was written and passed to Earhart but it rather clearly indicates that at 3:36 p.m. (whatever in whatever time zone they were using) Noonan expected the airplane to be 79 miles from Dakar - but is that staute or nautical miles?  I don't know any way to tell.

The only other hint we have about units of measure in Noonan's notes is Earhart's transmission back to Lae in which she says,  "Speed 140 knots...".  Elegen Long claims that the number represents indicated airspeed, but her airspeed indicator read in mph.  Why would she convert it to knots?  It would make more sense if the number represents a groundspeed calculated by Noonan and passed to Earhart in a note.

So my point is that we don't know, nor can we fairly infer whether or not Noonan used statute miles in his notes.  I do agree, however that it doesn't make much difference either way.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:23:35 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Lecture in Honolulu

You want to know the DAY?  Where's your sense of mystery?

OK, OK, March 6th.

LTM (who's long past dating)

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:29:15 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: "Marie. Marie."

Streetcar Named Desire was filmed in 1951 a little after our subjects disappearance.
LTM (who likes movies)
Mike Haddock #2438

***********************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds like Endgame for the Betty theory
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:30:20 EST
From:         Dale Intolubbe
Subject:      distances and rates

Furlongs per fortnight has always been a favorite of mine.

Dale
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:31:43 EST
From:        Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Thank You

Thanks to everyone who participated in bringing us Dennis' posting entitled "Why?". I needed the laughter today.

- Alfred
****************************************************************
From Ric

Why?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:33:00 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Ric, I like Hue's "facts" better than yours. They have much more latitude to them. They don't pin things down to all that actual, real, supportable, documented nonsense. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:34:01 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: "Marie. Marie."

The Wasteland was written in 1922.  Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
TTM (Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt Deutsch)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:25:20 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum admin matters

In our constant struggle to make the Earhart Forum as easy as possible for all subscribers to read and use, regardless of what kind of hardware, software and ISP you're using; I'd like to hear from any subscribers who are having difficulties.

Problems we know about:

- If you write a posting in a word processing program (such as Microsoft Word) and then copy/paste it into an email program for submission to the forum, it comes through full of extraneous junk that makes it hard to read. (That's what happend to me yesterday with the Breaking News posting, even though I had changed it to "simple text" before doing the copy/paste.)

- If you write a posting in your email program but the "html" preference is turned on (and you may not even know it unless you look at your "preferences" settings), the message will also come through full of extraneous junk.

- Some postings come through with truncated lines and double spacing.  We're not sure what causes it but it's very consistent with certain individuals.

If you're having a lot of problems please let us know.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:27:15 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      nautical vs statute

May I add my two cents here? As the first trans ocean air navigators were former naval navigators (like Noonan) it stands to reason they would continue the practice of calculating distances and speeds in knots, there being no reason to change a good system they were all familiar with and replace it by another one using statute miles that wouldn't make sense to them. Therefore I am inclined to believe AE would limit the use of miles per hour to when she watched her ASI at take off and landing (as many of us still do when the airspeed is still indicated in mph) and use FN's nautical miles and knots en route (as we all do). When talking to ships it would have been confusing to use statute miles as sailors would have to figure out how long or how far that exactly was... As for ground speeds. There were no instruments at the time that told pilots what their ground speed was. It was therefore calculated by FN. Since he used familiar nautical miles for his calculations speed would be expressed in knots of course. What else?

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:28:11 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: JPEG image of Niku

Gary LaPook wrote:

> Here is a link to a space image of Niku. they also have Baker.
>
>http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/ioweek/archive/01-07-08/Nikumaroro_1280.jpg

And you can get your own poster-sized copy of the picture taken at TIGHAR's expense with cute little grids superimposed on it so that you can follow along with the account of the work done on Niku IIII.  For members only.  Details available on TIGHAR's web site.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:28:55 EST
From:        Marjorie
 Subject:      Re: "Marie. Marie."

And Tennessee William's original play opened in December, 1947.

Denise -- you can easily check this sort of thing by going to imdb.com (Internet Movie Database) or ibdb.com (Internet Broadway database) and searching for the title you're interested in. It's free and takes about 30 seconds.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:31:39 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability -correction

Ric wrote:

> So my point is that we don't know, nor can we fairly infer whether or not
> Noonan used statute miles in his notes.  I do agree, however that it doesn't
> make much difference either way.

Well - you're close to convincing me that this whole affair is hopeless. We went through the "140 knot" transmission a couple of years ago, and I am not going to waste your time or mine repeating the whole thing. I accept that you believe that "it makes more sense" to assume what you say. I don't agree. And I think your inference from the "140 knot" transmission is a lot more tenuous than the one I suggest. (And how did you find out that it was "groundspeed"?)

(Note in LAST FLIGHT - in the reproduced handwritten notes - AE writes "indicated our speed 140" [crossing the Atlantic] and "120" [throttled back on the way in to Hawaii] - without any indication of statute or nautical. Since I know - I think - approximately what the performance of the plane would have been, and also that the airspeed indicator was in mph, I assume these refer to statute miles, not nautical. I note also the mileage (total and covered) on the Atlantic crossing and the speed made are in statute miles. Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps this means nothing. Perhaps FN passed AE notes in nautical miles simply to confuse the issue, and she converted them to statute.  Perhaps the person who heard the "140" added the "knots"; or perhaps he converted it himself from what he did hear; or perhaps she said "speed 140, not as fast as we expected" and part of the transmission was lost. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.)

Oscar
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We're in agreement.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:32:37 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Drift information

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> You're probably right but using the drift meter, even over the ocean, a
> fairly accurate wind can be obtained,

I don't mean to be contentious <G> but do we know that there was a drift meter on board?

Bob
#2286
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:37:45 EST
From:         Terry Simpson
Subject:      Re: JPEG image of Niku

Aw Ric,cut Gary some slack he just wanted to help...Terry (#2396) LTM

**********************************************************
From Ric

I know.  I just didn't want to take the time to explain something so basic. I'd probably respond the same way to someone who asked, "So why don't you go search the island?"
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:51:50 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

> your hypothesis about why AE and
> FN said they were flying on 157/337 in the
> last transmission received from the aircraft.

Marty, we may be missing something with the 157/337 LOP. There is no evidence to indicate it was a celestial line of position. We have just always assumed that. Noonan could just as well have drawn that line in that manner because it went generally through Howland, Baker and on to the Phoenix Islands. Don't anyone argue it doesn't exactly hit all those places until you can tell me exactly what coordinates Noonan had for all those islands. During the search it was found that the islands' coordinates were different than thought.

That line could also have been a precomp for a sun shot or a moon shot OR it could have actually been derived from a sun or moon shot sometime between 5:00am and 6:45am.

Noonan's celestial shots may have produced LOPs with slightly different degrees than 157/337. He would have still advanced his LOP through Howland but it is not necessary that it was 157/337.

Alan
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Another example of reminding ourselves how little we really know.  It's so easy for fair or even obvious inferences to morph into "facts".  All Earhart said is that "We are on the line 157 337."  She didn't say where the line came from.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:00:26 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: JPEG image of Niku

> From Ric
>
> Somebody tell him.

I've got a picture just like that on the wall next to my computer with little alpha-numeric grid squares superimposed on it. (And, of course, the TIGHAR logo in the corner.)

LTM
***********************************************************
From Claude Stokes

>> Somebody tell him.

Not me,, the Stoker

**********************************************************
From Ric

You guys........
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:09:33 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: "Marie. Marie."

Mike Haddock wrote:

> Streetcar Named Desire was filmed in 1951 a little after our subjects
> disappearance.

Just for the record, the original stage play opened on Broadway in 1947. Marlon Brando played Stanley Kowalski on the stage too. (He was reprising his stage performance in the movie.)

LTM (who wasn't a Brando fan either)
Kerry Tiller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:17:52 EST
From:         Greg --- first post and possibly last - go easy
Subject:      Re: Open mike

>I guess we can ignore the
>possibility of the engine overheating at idle/low power in the mid-day sun
>at Niku.

Not hard information on that particular engine system, but anecdote. Having several thousand hours on various radial engine aircraft in hot weather I suggest that there is no reason why an air cooled radial engine should overheat at idle or low power - say 1000 RPM or so. Remember that a piston aircraft engine is deliberately set to run at a richer mixture than necessary when at idle/low power, so that the excess fuel in the wet mixture can help to keep the cylinder temperatures cooler - the mixture does not burn as hot as a peak efficiency mixture. This is done because it is assumed that an aeroplane engine which is idling is sitting still or taxying on the ground and there is less cooling airflow across the engine and through the oil cooler. In simpler terms the engine designers thought about this very problem and took care of it.

I have often operated radial engines in temperatures up to about 43 degrees celcius (109 Fahrenheit) which result in cabin temperatures before takeoff in the order of 60 degrees C. Running an engine continuously whilst stationary in very hot weather at - to pluck a number - say 2000 RPM or above would pose a problem eventually, but I don't think that would stop our heroes who are trying to save their lives - so what if the engine runs hot for the last hour of it's life? So the question is what RPM is necessary to enable the generator in this aircraft to "come online". Typical figures in aircraft I have operated are around 800-1100 RPM. To provide enough rate of charge to power HF radio transmissions and also to keep the battery charged up may require a little higher RPM. As you know, when fuel is exhausted or the engine shutdown then a fully charged battery will continue to provide power for the HF for a while longer. Anyone know the RPM figures for the Lockheed to bring the generator on line and also to obtain full generator output?

Incidentally I don't think that the heat in the cabin or cockpit would make me get out if I was trying to get a life saving message out. Uncomfortable, fatiguing and sweating faster than the body can absorb whatever drinking water they had yes, but not life threatening for a short while. I might even welcome a bit of sea water sloshing around for a chance to cool down! 
Regards, Greg, Australia

**********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Greg.  My experience with radials in hot weather (although not nearly as hot as you describe) is similar.  The difficulties I've had with hot radials has been in getting them started again while they're still hot.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:31:07 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Radio matters

Mike Everette wrote:

> Whatever the purpose of the belly antenna -- and I am inclined to believe
> that it was some sort of sense antenna for the direction finder system,
> whatever that system may have consisted of (loop coupler unit?  second
> receiver?) -- I don't necessarily  see it as all that critical to the issue.

Mike, not to argue with you on this, just to remind (and you are probably well aware of this) that the sense antenna goes right to the loop unit. This still puzzles me, as it seems like a longish run from either the ventral antenna or dorsal antenna to this unit. But yes, logic is probably on the side of the ventral antenna being the sense.

BTW, it just occurrred to me, Mike, that the suggestion that the dorsal antenna served both transmit AND receive, actually strongly argues for total muting and protection of the receiver. Look at 3105, operating into a short antenna. You have maybe up to 1000 volts RF on the antenna post of the transmitter under 'receive' condition. ( Not "maybe", i can establish this to anyone's satisfaction.) 1000 volts  this close to the receiver surely could damage the receiver input. True, the vacuum tubes can stand voltage til they flash over inside; the weak  point is the tuned circuits in the front end of the receiver, these can burn out!

> Receiving and transmitting at the same time:
> If the receiver was not muted on transmit, AND if it indeed used a different
> antenna, it would be possible to tune to a different frequency and listen
> while transmitting... but the receiver would be desensitized considerably
> from the RF field from the transmitter.  "Shot-noise" would be generated in
> the receiver's tubes, while the transmitter was on... sounds like static on
> steroids.
>
> 50 watts of RF energy won't burn out the circuits in a tube type receiver.
> Tubes are a lot more tolerant of this than solid state.  But the desense and
> noise will make it difficult if not impossible to hear much.

Mike, the receiver was intended just as much for receiving on the same transmit frequency as it was for receiving on other frequencies. So just to be clear, when calling on 3105, the receiver was not silenced, it was just desensitized, by the strong transmitter pickup,  is this right?

So, say AE hears Lae calling her. She turns down the volume on her receiver, or takes off the headphones, answers, then puts headphone back on, turns up the volume? Have you ever used an unmuted receiver close to a transmitter? You did and you still retain your hearing? Sorry, i consider this solution tendentious in the same way the defenders are striving for some creative way to lock down that microphone button.

Hue Miller
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Allow me to remind everybody that Earhart did not use the radio the same way we use aircraft radios today.  There was no anticipated call and reply with conversation back and forth like a telephone.  She transmitted messages at quarter past and quarter to the hour.  She listened for messages on the hour and half hour.

And let's be clear that there is no requirement for the mic to be "locked down".  Betty did not hear an hour and three-quarters of constant transmission.  AE did apparently hold the PTT down at some times when she was talking to Fred rather than into the mic but, as Mike has said, that may not have been hard to do, and if you had to wait for the dynamotor to spool up everytime you wanted to transmit you might very well tend to hold it down.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:32:12 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: MOT

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> I talked to my son last night about the possibility he could check with CBS
> in re the March of Time program. He said it would take a call to Dan Rather.

Now, if he could get Dan Rather interested in the whole  AE search story, that might really lead to something. ( assuming publicity is good, which is not necessarily true.)

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:33:41 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: "Why?"

Dennis says:

>Hue, aren't you taking this Devil's Advocate stuff a little too far?
> It's starting to sound like the "Why?" game kids play with their parents.

Well, Ric seems to be saying the Notebook is Holy Writ, and Betty's latter memories, as in the interview, are questionable, altho the notebook has only one surviving testifier to its unaltered condition - the same person in the interview!

 Sorry i ask questions.
Hue
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:35:48 EST
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Reasonable answers and extraneous information

Hue Miller said:

> Claude, nice theory, but i wouldn't go to court on it. You suggest the
> radio drifted and returned to frequency. This is not assured; it's just as ikely, in
> fact

Ever since 1940, I have spent many many hours listening to skip-wave signals on the AM radio band, and on short wave bands.  I have experienced both circumstances of frequency drift, where the signal does infact return, and also where it does drift off somewhere else.  Ive chased after the signal with the tuner, and ive just sat and waited to see what would happen.  Chasing the signal is not very rewarding, however, just waiting to see what happens many times gives the reward of a return signal.  It appears to me that what Betty is clearly saying is that she just sat and doodled when there was no voice.  She clearly says she heard fragments of sentences, and periods of scilence, and maybe even other stuff that she did not write down, If she was chasing with the tuner then she would have gotten other frequencies mixed with other stuff not related to AE. How pray tell could she differientiate what was AE and what was not if she chased the frequency and tuned into other live broadcasts totally unrelated.  Experience is good if you have it.

I was not responding to any  other part of your post about anything other than the above since it was way to confusing.

regards, The Stoker
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:02:40 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: 31.05 revisited

Ric wrote:

> So we have a male and female team broadcasting a hoax from somehwere within
> 100 or 200 miles of St. Petersburg that fools Betty and her family but is
> either not heard by, or does not fool, anyone else.  Do I have that right?

Ric, i think you're getting it! We have 15 year old Betty. How does she impress you as a judge of a fairly sophisticated hoax? ( I am asking this after having  watched with due attention the interview.) We have also the young guy in Wyoming. You aren't touting his report, no Notebook. It didn't fool the ham in Texas (was it?) either, except for the barest admission.  Is this thing looking better all the time? Betty thinks that AE was in a large, dark place. Where did Fred go, AE  can't find him. They hand off the headphone when there's nothing to be heard because the transmitter is on. We hear conversation, and THEN AE goes on the radio? Fred is lashing out, endangering the battery? And you think I'M farfetched?  Betty doesn't retune the tube-type radio on 15525 for 90 minutes or more? AE says "QRD" "W4OK", "Howland PORT", and you think  *I*  need a better defense? No one else reports this scam and that becomes an argument in favor? Microphone button locked down? Seems like i read this here a couple years back: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  I have questions. ( Some of your readers hate questions, they are content with chapter:verse) Seems to me some answers need to be forthcoming. It's not really that i am attacking something that, my goodness, everyone but me knows is TRUE.

Hue

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof and you seem determined to forget or ignore our oft-stated admonition that Betty's notebook is fundamentally unprovable as either genuine or false. In your campaign to prove it false you persist in presenting your own speculation as fact and then using it to support your case.  There's a lot of that going around but it won't fly here.

- There is nothing in the notebook about a large dark place.
- I have explained how it is very easy for someone in the front of Lockheed to be close to, but not visible to, the pilot.
- A radio expert with credentials and familarity with the equipment that are better than yours says that simultaneous transmission and reception were a possibility.
- There is nothing in the notebook about Fred "lashing out".
- We don't know what frequency Betty was listening on and we don't know for sure whether or not she retuned the radio.
- No one knows the meaning of many words and phrases copied in the notebook, including   "3q rd 36" which you represent a "QRD"
- There is no requirement that the microphone be "locked down".
- You attribute what Betty heard to a "fairly sophisticated hoax" and then argue that only a 15 year-old girl would fall for this scam.

I think this forum has been more than patient in listening to your arguments but it becomes increasingly apparent who it is that KNOWS what is true.  You don't need a better defense.  You need a better handle on the investigative process.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:03:44 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Revisionary revisionism

By the way, earlier i suggested "Marie" might be "Marine", i now want to keep that as a possibility, but as a distant possibility. After watching the interview, in which Betty describes FN as "out of his head" and ranting and shouting, i saw that "Marie"  may be consistent with the  behavior Betty reported. I now think all quotes from "the man" need not be analyzed particularly for content, in this light.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:43:33 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Statute/nautical

I didn't think I was going to touch this issue but I need to ask a couple questions in that regard.

My understanding is that Noonan generally rode up front and the "navigator" station in the back was essentially removed for the second flight. Is that so?

At any rate the plane had an indicated airspeed gauge in MPH not knots and there was no TAS. Is that correct?

Finally, all the maps I have and have used since the early 50s were in nautical miles. What was Noonan's maps? Nautical or statute?

AE called 200 miles out and possibly called 100 miles out. Am I correct she meant statute miles? Or was that nautical miles? On an early call she referred to 140 knots. If Noonan's maps were in nautical miles then there was a lot of converting going on or she was 200 nm and 100 nm out. I'm confused but only because I've been at this all day and it is now after midnight. <G>

Someone straighten me out. Maybe I should reword that. Would someone please answer my questions. Scary!

Alan
**********************************************************************
From Ric

We don't know much about how the back of the airplane was set up for the second attempt.  All of the photos we have that show the interior of the cabin were taken before the first attempt and represent what Mantz and Manning thought would be needed.  All of that had to be torn out during the repairs and we don't know how much was put back in.  All we can say is that there was apparently some kind of low table and the pelorus mounts were still installed below each cabin window.  There were no instruments mounted beside the starboard cabin window as there had been during the first attempt.

Photos and movies taken during the World Flight, and various comments in Last Flight, make it clear that Noonan spent most of his time up front in the copilots seat.   There is also reason to think that the copilot's yoke was removed to give him more room.

The airspeed indicator was in MPH, yes.  There was no TAS indicator.

We don't know what maps Noonan used for the Lae/Howland flight.  The strip maps prepared for Earhart by Clarence Williams were in statute miles but they were never used (or they wouldn't now be in the Purdue collection). 

To know whether Earhart meant statute or nautical miles in her transmissions to Itasca you'll need someone with better psychic powers than mine.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:44:31 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Receive and transmit at same time

Mike, and possibly others, re the WECo.  aircraft radio equipment, one of the books on aircraft communications shows the control wiring peripheral to the this specific equipment. I don't think it's the Sandretto book, it may be the Morgan book, or possibly even Nilsun & Hornung. I definitely did see it. Cannot recall where right now though. ( This is re the issue, "Receive and transmit at same time?" )

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:45:24 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: AE's 'open' MIC

Maybe you guys have already covered this but was 1937 to early for noise cancelling mics? If this mic was that type then it wouldn't pick up Noonan unless his lips were up against it.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:57:22 EST
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Re; Breaking news

So, a mysterious marine biologist is on Niku. He or she stumbles on an artifact which may belong to an Electra 10E. Knowing of TIGHAR and Ameilia Earhart, he or she does not disturb the scene. Hmmmmmmmm. I presume he or she had a camera or video recorder, but no mention of that is in your news release. Instead, he or she contacts TIGHAR and reports his or her findings. If this was a small item, let me say, smaller than a bread box, he or she would have probably taken it to the local authorities, but no, he or she leaves it there, subject to storms, and eventual loss. If the object was too large to handle, then photo documentation would be a natural, he or she being a professional would have considered the ramifications of this tremendous find.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Good questions.  Keep going.  It's really quite interesting to hear the speculation.  Usually it's us doing the speculating from sketchy information provided by Chater, or Gallagher, or Earhart herself.  We didn't intend this as a controlled experiment in logical deduction but it is fascinating.  Once we've had a chance to check it out, regardless of how it checks out, we'll of course be happy to tell the whole story.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:03:35 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Microphone

Marty Moleski wrote:

> According to the Luke Field inventory, the
> plane had two Electric type No. 631B microphones.

Marty or anyone else, does this inventory list one pair of headphones, or 2 ?

Thanks-

Hue Miller
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Hue, the inventory has been on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Luke_Field.html
since October 18, 1999.

You'll find that Item 20 is 3 "Western Electric Radio Head Phones, type No. 588A (2 equipped with ear cushions)".
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:04:32 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Ric, I like Hue's "facts" better than yours. They have much more latitude to
> them. They don't pin things down to all that actual, real, supportable,
> documented nonsense. <G>

Thanks, Alan. Now over to you to creatively explain how AE heard KGMB at Niku at 10:00 AM, how an aircraft radio can tranmit and receive at same time, and several other questions. Yes, you can use TIGHAR "facts".

Hue
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:14:01 EST
From:         Jim Thompson
Subject:      Raffle

I just read the Forum today and saw the breaking news. I'd like to do my part: I'll support the TIGHAR by purchasing $250 of raffle tickets. Please charge my credit card accordingly.

Thanks!

jim
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Jim.  It's taking a bit longer than anticipated to get the secure raffle chances purchase part of the website up and running but we can handle orders like yours for TIGHAR members with just a nod of the head.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:17:52 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Forum admin matters

I use Microsoft IE5 and if I post to the Forum in plain text and single spacing (like this message), it comes back with double spacing. Post in "rich text" or HTML, however, and the single spacing is preserved. No idea what it looks like at Ric's end, of course.

Phil 2276.
*******************************************************************
From Ric

The above submission came through single spaced with no garble.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:26:28 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Phoenix Rising

Hi, Ric.  The Phoenix Rising link to the Nai'a website indicates that the trip is definately "on" for June.  Yet, TIGHAR's own website and your email of yesterday says that Nai'a is still "exploring the possibility of making the first ever tourist-scuba diving cruise to the Phoenix Islands in June of this year....", and that to make sure there are "enough customers to make the trip economically viable, we're also inviting and encouraging TIGHAR members to sign aboard...."  Has TIGHAR committed itself, financially, to the cruise?  For example, do "X" number of TIGHAR's have to sign-up or TIGHAR loses Charter Hire, the
cruise is cancelled etc.?

--Chris Kennedy
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Phoenix Rising 2003  is "on" pending enough passengers signing up to make the trip economically viable for Nai'a.  TIGHAR is not chartering the boat at all.  As explained in my posting:

"Two members of the  2001 Niku IIII expedition team have volunteered to go at their own expense.

"Three other members of the team can put up part, but not all, of the cost of their participation. The "Paradise Now" raffle of a week at a luxury Virgin Islands villa is aimed at making it possible to send these highly qualified TIGHARs to the island this year and to also send a TIGHAR researcher to Fiji for six weeks to continue the search for the all-important bones taken there from Nikumaroro in 1941."

Nai'a is not asking for any deposits or payment until they know they have enough passengers to make the trip.   If enough passengers do not sign up the trip will be cancelled and the money we raise from the raffle will be applied to the Fiji bone research and toward preparations for Niku V.

You oughta sign up.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:28:18 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: nautical vs statute

I find the discussion on statute vs. nautical miles that FN would use interesting.  However, a couple of points I'd like to make:

Any good navigator worth his salt would be facile in both statute and nautical miles.

Fred Noonan marked on the chart of the Atlantic Crossing 30 minute cross-hatches on the rhumb line, and marked them in statue miles.  The distance marked was 75 miles, which was in statute miles.  These markings imply that he assumed a nominal still-air speed of the aircraft of 150 statute miles per hour, or 130 knots, regardless of whether the flight was in the early or latter stages.

Fred preferred the use of GMT time when navigating.

From all I can see, Fred used these nominal markings and "dead reckoning" positions for comparison to his actual position fixes, which were then useful to determine wind set and drift speeds.  When the plane was sufficiently far off-course, he would instruct Earhart to change course to get closer to being "on-track".
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:29:09 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Drift information

Will someone please explain to me the details of a drift meter measurement?

What is measured, how is it done, how does the device work,  what are the results of the measurement and roughly what kind of accuracies were achieved?

   thanks,

harvey #2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:30:59 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Drift information

Bob Brandenburg writes:

> I don't mean to be contentious <G> but do we know that there was a drift
> meter on board?

So far as I know, TIGHAR has not yet found an inventory of what was taken aboard on the fatal flight and what was left behind.

Evidence that there MIGHT have been equipment like that on board comes from the inventory of the contents of the plane after the crash in Hawaii:

The whole document is here:
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Luke_Field.html

Some items of interest:

28. 1 Box Kite   [no mention of an aerial with it]

31. 7 Aluminum Direction Bombs  [to drop into the water at night]

107. 1 Speed & drift indicator, type D-270, with handbook

117. 4 Clocks, Start & Stop "Omega"

122. 1 Pelorus drift sight, MK II B with extra base

There's also a nice ax and a jacknife.  No sextants or octants listed.  No parachutes or rubber rafts listed.

Just because this stuff was on board on the first world attempt does not mean it was on board for the second. Who knows what AE and FN chose to take the second time around?

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:50:57 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability


Alan wrote:

> Marty, we may be missing something with the 157/337 LOP. There is no
> evidence to indicate it was a celestial line of position. We have just
> always assumed that.

All I've ever said is what I learned from TIGHAR: at that time of year, in that part of the ocean, one would expect (precompute) a 157/337 LOP based on the standard navigation tables and one might draw a LOP on a nav chart at dawn if one  1) compensated for the altitude of the observation and any refraction  2) had an accurate watch to time the observation.  That seems to be a reasonable guess about what FN might have done.  It is consistent with what was heard on the radio.  It makes good sense to dead reckon from a dawn LOP to an advanced LOP passing through Howland and the Phoenix group.

None of Gary's lectures have made me change my guess that the dawn sighting is where the transmitted LOP came from.  If FN didn't have a 157/337 LOP derived from a celestial sighting, then he wouldn't have much rationale for picking that course to fly in search of Howland or the Phoenix islands because he was lost and didn't know where he was.  What reason would he have without a dawn LOP to think he had reached the "convenient line" drawn between Howland & the other islands?

This is, and always has been, a hypothesis.  It covers two facts:

    1. The dawn LOP expected was 157/337.

    2. The announced line being flown a couple of hours later was 157/337.

I'm not saying I can force anyone to buy this theory. I do suggest that anyone offering alternative theories should make sure that they fit the 0843 transmission.

LTM.
Marty #2359
************************************************************************
From Ric

I think I see Marty's point.  Let's say that the significance of the 157 337 line is nothing more than it's the line you get by connecting the dots of Howland, Baker and, more or less, Gardner.  Let's also say that Fred uses a different line derived by a pre-dawn star of moon shot, or a significantly post-dawn sun shot, which he advances through Howland. He then flies until he reaches the advanced line but, ooops, no Howland.  He can't then just start flying the 157 337 line because he has no way of knowing where he is in relation to the 157 337 that passes through Howland, etc.  His two lines cross at only one point - Howland - and that's the one place he knows he ain't.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:57:44 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Open mike

Ric - everyone keeps supposing that its very hot in the cockpit of the Electra when sitting on the ground. However, since there is a hatch on the top and a door in the back that can be opened, it should be possible to get a decent air flow thru the cabin to keep one "relatively" cool. I had a chevy van that they tried to sell me a rear ac unit for, but I told them I didn't need it since the van was paneled and insulated and had a pop up hatch at the back. If I cracked that hatch just about an inch to create a slight vacuum effect, it kept the van very cool. In fact, with 12 people in the van in the hottest part of summer here in south Texas I still had to turn the ac fan down to keep everyone from getting chilled!

LTM,
Dave Bush
*************************************************************************
From Ric

With all due respect to south Texas ( I spent a couple of summers stationed at Ft. Hood in central Texas) the reef at Niku is a whole 'nother ballgame. I agree with Greg that the temperature in an airplane cockpit would probably not reach life-threatening levels but even with everything opened up it could easily get well up over 100 degree F in there.  No fun at all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:18:04 EST
From:         Ed Croft
Subject:      Re: Breaking News --- Repost

Put me up for $100 for the raffle.  You should have my credit card on file.

*******************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Ed.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:35:31 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Copyright clarification

We've had an inquiry from a TIGHAR member asking for some clarification about TIGHAR's policy concerning copyright.  He was worried that if he made use of information on the TIGHAR website in conducting his own research, TIGHAR might assert some kind of ownership to the product of his research. We, of course, would not do that.

The information is there to be used.  We only ask that before you copy it out verbatim and reproduce it,  you ask us first.  We like to know where the stuff is going and that it remains clear where it came from.

We assert ownership of all forum postings so that we can archive them for everyone's future use.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:20:28 EST
From:         Jonathan
Subject:      Re: Forum admin matters

Phil Tanner writes:

> I use Microsoft IE5 and if I post to the Forum in plain text and single
> spacing (like this message), it comes back with double spacing. Post in
> "rich text" or HTML, however, and the single spacing is preserved. No idea
> what it looks like at Ric's end, of course.
>
> Phil 2276.
> *******************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> The above submission came through single spaced with no garble.

As you can probably see, I got it double spaced (using Outlook, plain text format).

    -Jonathan.
***************************************************************************
From Kerry Tiller

> The above submission came through single spaced with no garble.

If it helps any, it came through to me on the forum double spaced (with no garble). I use Outlook Express for e-mail. BTW, your breaking news post came through just fine the first time (exactly how it came through on the re-transmission version), but that may be a MAC to MAC thing (my MAC loves
"simple text").

Kerry Tiller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The answer is clear.  Everybody needs to upgrade to a MAC. :-)

*************************************************************************
From Claude Stokes

Im not having difficulties, except the double spacing, but for what its worth if you want to pre type an email and then copy and paste it in your mailbox use the microsoft NOTEPAD that comes with all windows apps.  NOTEPAD does not have the rich formating like WORD, WORDPAD, or MSWORKS  so it wont muck up your text.  I use it to write HTML code.  Also if you have an HTML editor like CUTEHTML  then you can use this to pre type mail without the rich style formating.  regards to all,

Claude Stokes
**************************************************************************
From Ric

So, if single-spaced text is coming through double-spaced, I just need to figure out how to send out text with no spacing at all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:24:58 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Query

If AE was able to land on the Niku reef flat, minimal water cover, both wheels down, at least one engine running, 1.5 hours fuel remaining, would it have made pilot sense to taxi the aircraft onto the beach -- or at least as close in as possible?

I can think of several good reasons for doing so (preserve the plane, easier access to contents, provide shelter and a clear landmark for searchers) and none for leaving it a couple hundred yards out.  But maybe I'm missing something. The question for Forum pilots is simply whether this would have been a reasonable thing for Earhart to attempt.

Pat Gaston

****************************************************************************
From Ric

What you're missing are the umpteen previous postings that have explained that the nature of the reef surface prohibits any taxiing to the shore.  Only the first couple hundred feet of reef near the ocean is smooth enough to land or taxi on.  Move any closer to shore and the reef becomes deeply pitted and jagged.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:31:54 EST
From:         Jonathan
Subject:      Breaking News speculation

OK, here's some more raw speculation:

- The artifact was found in a place where TIGHAR expeditions have not spent a lot of time lately; a place where a marine biologist would be likely to go, and where an artifact might possibly turn up suddenly. How about the lagoon?

- Unless the finder happens to be a pilot or aviation buff on the side (which is possible since he or she knows about TIGHAR), the artifact would have to be recognizable to a layman as a piece of an old airplane. I would think random pieces of sheet metal, glass, cables or wiring are out.  As Lawrence said, it would be too large to move easily.  This would also rule against instrument panel fragments and the like.

- The finder did not photograph the object and assumed TIGHAR had already seen it.  Upon checking the TIGHAR web site, and seeing no mention of the object there, he or she would probably have assumed TIGHAR had decided the object was not Earhart-related.  This makes me think there's something ambiguous about the object -- it COULD be part of an old airplane, but maybe not.  If I stumbled across something like, say, a propeller, or part of a radial engine, I would know that TIGHAR
hadn't seen it before.  Something so obvious would have been snapped up. In that case,  I'd photograph the fool out of it and get on the horn as soon as I got back home.

So my vote is for something:
- relatively large;
- easy to identify as, but not conclusively, part of an airplane;
- if it was indeed found in the lagoon, it would be light enough to wash in from the reef.

So my vote is for a tire, or a fuel tank of some kind.  Flame away.

    -Jonathan.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No, no, no .......this is fascinating.  I'm going to save all of these and we'll re-examine them here on the forum when we can release the full story. I think we may learn a few things about the speculative process.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:51:22 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Clips

Drift, Sun Angles, Harmonics, Microphones, Statute miles or Nautical miles; I'm lost in these discussions.

In my judgment, the proof of The Hypothesis lies in the physical realm, not in conjecture. First it was the wreck photo, then it was the underwater search, now I have fixated myself on the little clips found on Niku. I refer to the small angle-shaped and flat-shaped, serrated pieces, with accompanying screws (Artifacts 2-6-S-o3a and 2-6-S-03b). These are interesting things. Is any more known about them, beyond what has been published in the Tracks and Research Reports? Or has the solution to "The Knob That Wasn't" dampened the enthusiasm for these a bit? I think I shall use my own limited resources to study these further.

LTM, I think she likes these fasteners, too.
- Alfred (I think I'm Member #2583)
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I really like them too.  Angus Murray has done quite a bit of work on them. What we know so far is:

- The screws are identical and fit the specs for brass American-made #8 wood screws dating from the early 1930s until the 1970s.

- The plates (one rounded and one rectangular) seem to be aluminum, but not Alclad aircraft-grade aluminum.

- The plates are definitely "home-made" rather than manufactured.

Whatever these things are, they do not appear to be a standard part of anything.  They could be home-made replacements for standard parts that wore out or were broken, or they could be unique unto themselves.  It seems safe to safe that they were once part of a larger something-or-other that was made, at least partly, of wood.

Their "home-madeness" makes it a lot harder to identify them but also makes them potentially much more valuable.  If, for example, we found a picture of somebody (Gallagher, a Coast Guardsman, or Amelia Earhart) holding an object on which these little do-hickeys were visible, we could be pretty sure that we were looking at the same objects that are now in our possession.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:58:19 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Phoenix Rising

Thanks.  Just looking after my investment, and I guess I got the mistaken impression this was an "on" trip from the statement from Nai'a "The deliberations are over. The dates are set.  Nai'a will embark on her sixth journey [to the Phoenix Islands]...." and "teaming up" with TIGHAR and the New England Aquarium.   It is looking pretty good, though, as Nai'a says that a total of 16 passengers are going that there are only a few berths still available and that one of these is reserved, by Nai'a, for a top marine biologist, but that they hoped to attract additional funding for additional scientists.  Who do you have planned for the Fiji and Niku teams?

--Chris Kennedy
*************************************************************************
From Ric

TIGHAR board member and expedition veteran Skeet Gifford and dive team member Walt Holm are definitely going (assuming that the trip goes) and we'd like to also send Dive Team leader Van Hunn, New Zealand reef geologist Howard Alldred, and Dive Team member Andrew McKenna.  We're hoping to send Marty Moleski to Fiji to continue the bone search.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:59:39 EST
From:         David Carmack
Subject:      Re: Open mike

May I add to your and Daves postings about temperatures and their effects on people------this is another individual thing--what constitutes comfortable or life-threatening temperatures to one does not mean its the same for someone else. In fact , what might be considered comfortable or tolerable to one person may indeed be life-threatening to someone else because of their unique body make-up. This is a common mistake we all make--assuming that what feels ok to one personally must feel ok to everyone else also, especially if the majority of other people feel the same way as you do. One must try to not make this easy to do mistake--whether its in this context or any other. Thanks, David
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:01:19 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Ric wrote:

> 3.  We still need to figure out why it might be that the PTT seems to have
> been locked down - but you're not helping.

It has been my observation that personnel inexperienced with two-way radio, when confronted with an emergency will, from time to time, grab the mike, hold the button down to talk, and then just simply forget to let go.  I don't know how extensive AE's experience with using the radios in a crisis was, but it is one possibility.

Shucks, you see it all the time on TV and in the movies, with actors pretending to talk on hand mikes or portable radios - and they're not even in a crisis. They just don't let go.  Of course they're people pretending to be something they're not, pretending to talk on radios that aren't.

ltm
jon
*************************************************************************
From Ric

And, as we've since said, there really is no requirement that the mic was "locked down".
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:35:55 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: AE's 'open' MIC

This has probably already been asked and answered at some point in time, but I don't recall.  While I know that communications from back in the cabin to AE in the cockpit were accomplished with the celebrated bamboo fishing pole, were communications within the cockpit just shouted back and forth, or was there some kind of closed intercom system?  Along that line, is there any evidence of a second set of earphones and microphone at the copilot's station that FN could have been using.  If there was, that could help account for the fact that both voices were coming through.

ltm
jon
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We don't know whether the celebrated bamboo pole was even aboard and we're quite sure that the airpane had no intercom system.  There could have been a second set of headphones and/or a second mic in the cockpit but that I can't imagine why.

Any vocal communication in the cockpit would have to be shouted and, after the better part of a day exposed to that level of noise, their hearing was probably shot - so written notes were the most likely form of communication.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:38:27 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re; Breaking news

> Good questions.  Keep going.  It's really quite interesting to hear the
> speculation.

Since it was a marine biologist,  we can't altogether rule out the possibility that he may have seen it in the sea (marine biologists making brief visits don't pussyfoot around too much on land). Since he thought Tighar must have already seen it, and he was only there briefly, it must be something fairly large and reasonably easily seen if you know where to look. Since he was a marine biologist he probably wouldn't know an aileron from a supermarket trolley so it must be readily identifiable as an aircraft part and not just a hunk of metal. If it was something small which could be easily washed away, Ric wouldn't wait till June. If it was a candidate for an electra part it must look old. So..... its big, its old, its heavy, ( No not Ric), its in the water, its easily identifiable as an aircraft part and it has survived the salt-water for all these years so...it must be either the landing gear or the second engine. As he was only there briefly, its likely our marine biologist would have gone somewhere where there was accessible and interesting marine life and close to where his boat could be controlled by the rest of the party offshore. When you've been aboard for a while its nice to get ashore to stretch your legs - which could mean the blasted channel area. And its unlikely to be where Tighar have looked already. Stuff moves south with time but an engine is large mass, small surface area so my guess is that its an S3H-1  R1340 engine off Ritiati or north of Nutiran.

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:41:06 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      MARCH OF  TIME TAPE

For Alan

Here is my transcript of a March of Time broadcast made in Dec 1937.  I don't know if it is a "highlight" of the July 8,1937, broadcast from the networks, or if it is a slightly different version. The tape is about 2 minutes long and filled with radio static, music and voice overs.  

ANNOUNCER;  Somewhere over the South Pacific inside the ITASCA radio room:

(Official sounding voice)

Voice 1

ITASCA CALLING KHAQQ, CALLING AMELIA EARHART.  DIRECTION  FINDER FREQUENCY 550-270. PLEASE TRANSMIT ON 500 KILOCYLCES SO WE CAN CUT YOU IN ... KHAQQ GO AHEAD.

Voice 2

SHE CAN'T BE FAR AWAY, SHE MAY HAVE  OVER SHOT US.

AMELIA EARHART

ITASCA ... . SEARCHING ... . (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ... . HOWLAND... .
                         
Voice 2

CAN'T HEAR HER ... . SHE MAY NEVER FIND THE ISLAND.

AMELIA EARHART

... (STATIC) ... ... .UNINTELLIGIBLE ... .

Voice  1

IF  THAT IS ALL THE GAS SHE HAS SHE WON'T MAKE THE ISLAND

EARHART

KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA ... .(UNINTELLIGIBLE) ... STATIC

Voice 2

CALL THE ISLAND AT THE LAND STATION ... THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET HER.

EARHART

SOS ... (Unintelligible) ... . (lots of static )... HIT THE WATER ... (static ... .then 
music over her voice.)

VOICE

THAT WAS THE LAST MESSAGE THE WORLD WOULD HEAR FROM AVIATRIX EARHART, LOST AT SEA WITH HER NAVIGATOR FRED NOONAN.

DRAMATIC MUSIC

End.

Note: When you listen to this tape one would swear you were listening to the actual voice transmissions between Itasca and Earhart. The static, fading, sound authentic. And Earharts impersonated voice sounds like the real McCoy. ( I have heard AE many, many times on those old movie clips)

I would invite all to compare the above with Betty's notebook for a smoking similarity!

Other than "SOS","500" and "Howland", none standout.

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:54:57 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

> He can't then just start flying the 157 337 line because he has no way of
> knowing where he is in relation to the 157 337 that passes through Howland,
> etc.  His two lines cross at only one point - Howland - and that's the one
> place he knows he ain't.
>

Ric, Noonan has no more ability to find the 157 line than he has any other line regardless of its source. For example for the sake of argument, say he drew the 157 line before take off to simply run through Howland, Baker and on into the Phoenix Islands. Now suppose he got an inbound LOP celestially of 155 or something else. (Please no one go into the almanac and tell me he couldn't get 155. ANY number other than 157 for my example) He advances 155 to run through Howland and when he gets there there is no Howland. He looks around for an hour and can't find Howland. At this point he doesn't know where he is so he doesn't know WHAT line will take him where he wants to go. He doesn't even know where either line is except on his map. He DOES know that 157 will at least parallel his desired route although he doesn't know how far off of it he is. So it doesn't matter what LOPs he used to get to where he thought Howland was. He will use whatever LOP his celestial gives him.

During the hour looking around I would assume he would try to refine his east/west position. Once he has done that and not found Howland he would head SE on a 157 course because that's the closest course to get where he wants to go that he can compute without knowing his position.

At that time of day if he has sky visibility he should be able to pin his location down pretty closely. The sun is not the only celestial object available. And while I'm at it I'll correct something said long ago in re to the moon being a waning 34% moon. That refers to the amount of the disc viewable not the lack of intensity of the moon's light.

Now if Noonan was able to refine his position and STILL not find Howland then there are at least three possibilities. One, Howland was not where he had it plotted. Two, his refined position was just not correct or accurate enough. Three environmental conditions were such that they just missed seeing the island. I would opt for number one.

In any case he has to have sufficient confidence to do one of two things. Keep looking or head somewhere else where there is more of a chance to spot land. In my view that would be SE. If he had located himself other than where he had Howland plotted then he would have picked a different line to follow to the Phoenix group. For example if he now plotted himself 50 miles further east his direction to the Phoenix Islands would have been more to the South. Since he stuck with 157 in my view he must have thought he was very close to where Howland ought to have been.

Having said all that I am not trying to say Noonan's 157/337 LOP was NOT derived celestially at whatever time. It probably was. All I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily so.

As to keeping in agreement with what AE said in the 8:43 L radio call there was nothing in that call that specifies 157 was an LOP derived celestially, precomped, or just the course they decided would best find Howland, Baker or the Phoenix Group.

Replotting the last few hours of their flight it is clear that obtaining a 157/337 LOP was hardly difficult given a view of the sky. It is also clear they had more going for them than a simple sun shot. I am becoming more inclined to believe Howland was plotted incorrectly and glare, haze, and clouds reduced their ability to locate the island. Even at 1,000 feet they should have had nearly ten miles view around them.

In the alternative I would have to guess they were significantly far off their target and were unable to refine their position.

Alan
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I like the alternative.

My argument for the 157 337 line being a sunshot LOP advanced through Howland is that  it's the only way he can get to the advanced line, not see Howland, and then start running on the line and have any confidence that that it will eventually bring him to an island.

At 1912Z they've clearly reached some point where they expected to see Howland.  At 2013Z they're on the line 157 337 and running on the line north and south.  What makes sense to me is that they have been running on the line since shortly after the 1912Z transmission.  They ran north and now they're running south.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:55:46 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

> how AE heard KGMB at Niku at 10:00 AM, how
> an aircraft radio can tranmit and receive at same time

Hue, I know of nothing that shows either issue to be so.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:03:41 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Drift information

Harvey asked:

> Will someone please explain to me the details of a drift meter
> measurement?

Duties and Responsibilities of THE NAVIGATOR

Excerpt from the Pilot Training Manual of the B-17 Flying Fortress

When flying over water, desert, or barren land, where no reliable pilotage  points are available, accurate DR navigation still can be performed. By  means of the drift meter the navigator is able to determine drift, the  angle between the heading of the airplane and its track over the ground.  The true heading of the airplane is obtained by application of compass  error to the compass reading. The true heading plus or minus the drift (as  read on the drift meter) gives the track of the airplane. At a constant  airspeed, drift on 2 or more headings will give the navigator information  necessary to obtain the wind by use of his computer. Groundspeed is computed easily once the wind, heading, and airspeed are known. So, by constant recording of true heading, true airspeed, drift, and groundspeed, the navigator is able to determine accurately the position of the airplane at any given time. For greatest accuracy, the pilot must maintain constant courses and airspeeds. If course or airspeed is changed, notify the navigator so he can record these changes.

http://www.merkki.com/kaplanmilton.htm

>    What is measured ...

The discrepancy between which way the nose of the plane is pointing (heading) and the actual track made good over the surface of the earth.

From that calculation, it is possible to derive a good measurement of the windspeed and the direction that it is coming from.

> how is it done, how does the device work,

Well, you need a good compass to show you the direction the nose of the plane is pointing in, then you need a telescope with some kind of sighting mechanism that you can align with the actual direction of flight across the ground. Get your compass beat into good shape, line up the drift meter telescope, and read the results off some part of the instrument. Or run some paper through the thing and have it record the drift meter observations for you.

Photo of a drift meter in the nose of a B-29:

http://www.ultimatesacrifice.com/images/Sal_pic_1181_400.jpg
http://www.ultimatesacrifice.com/images/Sal_pic_1188_400.jpg

> what are the
> results of the measurement

You get some idea of where you're going, how fast you're travelling, how hard the wind is blowing, and from what direction.

> and roughly what kind of accuracies were
> achieved?

Ooooh, that opened an interesting can of worms! Here's some stuff from the Federal Aviation Regulations Appendix A to Part 63 - Test Requirements for Flight Navigator Certificate (I'm not sure of the date this was implemented or whether it's still in force):

(4) Take and plot one 3-star fix and 3 LOP's of the sun. Plotted fix or an average of LOP's must fall within 5 miles of the actual position of the observer.

(5) Prepare a cruise control (howgozit) chart from the operator's data.

Drat.  The site doesn't answer your question directly, but I'm gonna go with 5% average error:

(15) Determine track, ground speed, and wind by the double drift method. When a drift meter is not part of the aircraft's equipment, an oral examination on  the use of the drift meter and a double drift problem shall be completed.

(16) Determine ground speed and wind by the timing method with a drift meter. When a drift meter is not part of the aircraft's equipment, an oral examination on the procedure and a problem shall be completed.

(17) Demonstrate the use of air plot for determining wind between fixes and for plotting pressure lines of position when using pressure and absolute altimeter comparisons.

(18) Give ETA's to well defined check points at least once each hour after the second hour of flight. The average error shall not be more than 5 percent of the intervening time intervals, and the maximum error of any one ETA shall not be more than 10 percent.

(33) Interpret single LOP's for most probable position, and show how a series of single LOP's of the same body may be used to indicate the probable track and ground speed. Also, show how a series of single LOP's (celestial or radio) from the same celestial body or radio station may be used to determine position when the change of azimuth or bearing is 30* or more between observations.

(34) Select one of the celestial LOP's used during the flight and explain how to make a single line of position approach to a point selected by the agent or examiner, giving headings, times, and ETA's.

(37) Take celestial fixes at hourly intervals when conditions permit. The accuracy of these fixes shall be checked by means of a Loran, radio, or visual fix whenever practicable. After allowing for the probable error of a Loran, radio, or visual fix, a celestial fix under favorable conditions should plot within 10 miles of the actual position.

For some 1943 military navigators:

"A good score was coming in within five miles left or right, and within three to five minutes of ETA. During these flights the student navigators had to keep a flight log, making an entry every five minutes of airspeed, compass and temperature readings, time, true course and compass course. And every half-hour we had to enter a longitude and latitude position report. This kept us very busy. We also had some night flight missions doing the same type navigation as the daylight missions."

http://www.geocities.com/tempelhof.geo/miltch1b.html

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:04:49 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drift information

> I don't mean to be contentious <G> but do we know that there was a drift meter on
> board?
>
> Bob
> #2286

Good point, Bob. It is my understanding that we only know three items for certain on the plane. AE, FN and the fuel. Perhaps we know of more items but I don't know what they are off hand.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:05:55 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

> Another example of reminding ourselves how little we really know.  It's so
> easy for fair or even obvious inferences to morph into "facts".  All Earhart
> said is that "We are on the line 157 337."  She didn't say where the line
> came from.

Not only that, Ric but even though this was a recent thought of mine I find it was hardly original. That idea was posted to TIGHAR Nearly four years ago. I just happened to run across it last night while looking for information on Noonan's maps.

It might not be a bad idea for everyone to periodically review the archives on the web site. Possibly we would not keep inventing "new" ideas.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:09:41 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      nautical vs statute

Ric and Oscar, even I agree. <G> Seriously I think you have all helped me answer several such questions in that regard. I have long suspected the "140" comment was mph ground speed. Only ground speed was significant to report. No one could use or would be interested in indicated or TAS. Oscar is probably correct that "knots" was an error or added in error.

This also makes me feel the 200 mile and 100 mile call referred to statute miles as someone pointed out the Atlantic crossing map was annotated in statute. For either AE or FN to waste time converting to nautical seems unlikely and to no purpose.

In addition I find that statute makes more sense to me as I replot the last few hours of their flight. If any of that appears significant I will post my thoughts. Should I do this please be aware that at no time will I use provable facts or injure any animals in the process.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:12:33 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Marty we may be having a misunderstanding. I am 100% certain that the 157-337 LOP was derived from one (and probably a lot more than one) sun line observation with Noonan's sextant. My point is that it would not be a "dawn sight" taken only at the time that the sun peeked up over the horizon. For many reasons Noonan would have taken his observation when the sun was well above the horizon and would continue to take additional observations so he could determine how close they were getting to the 157-337 LOP that ran through Howland. Based on the azimuth of the sun, that didn't change from 067 for a little more than an hour  after sunrise, the observations of the sun that established this LOP could have been taken at any time during that period. This would cover the period from sunrise through about 1845 Z (0715 Itasca time). It could have lasted a little longer, in fact, if NR16020 were still to the west of the LOP after 1845 Z. Then the azimuth would stay 066 until 1923 Z. For practical navigation this one degree change could be ignored. So Noonan could have continued to shoot the sun until at least 1923 Z (since the azimuth changed slowly even after that) and still use the sun sight to orient himself in reference to whether he was east or west or right on the 157-337 line through Howland.

The speculation that this LOP was based on an observation of the moon or a planet does not hold water. The only time on July 2, 1937 that an observation of the moon while in the Vicinity of Howland was 1620 through 1626 Z way before NR16020 would have been close to Howland. Venus would produce the same azimuth only during the period 1752-1801 Z which is after sun rise when it would be very difficult or impossible to observe Venus. Plus, what would be the point since the sun would be up and a lot easier to find and shoot than Venus. Neither Jupiter of Saturn would ever have produced such a position line since they both rose east south east and then proceeded clockwise around the horizon never passing through 067.

In addition the use of these bodies misses the point of having the sun continuously available for a long period to allow additional observations and correction onto the LOP through Howland. Go to :

http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/landfall.html

for access to reference materials on just how the single LOP landfall procedure works.

The flight departed Lae at exactly 0000 Z on July 2nd, this was no accident. It would appear that Noonan flight planned that it would take about 18+45 to reach Howland and did his precomputations based on arrival by 1845 Z, hence he drew his LOP through Howland as 157-337 which is the correct orientation for anytime after sunrise until at least 1845 Z. This is reasonable since 18+45 would correspond to about 120 Knots ( 135 SM/hr) ground speed which is a reasonable for the electra.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:14:05 EST
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

I'm glad my astronomy notes started a lot of conversation.  :)  I just finished up an NSF grant, so I may have a bit of free time now to look at what should have happened, astronomy wise, on the flight, and see if I can figure out from what we know of the flight how the celestial navigation was going.

One note:  the 157/337 line is the perpendicular line to the horizon sunrise point on that day.  In order for Noonan to find that line accurately, he absolutely must have taken a shot of the Sun when it rose.  Atmospheric refraction does not affect the measurement of an azimuth angle, it only affects the measurement of the *time* of rising.   Noonan should have been able to compensate for the time measurement after the Sun rose above 15 degrees (which was a little less than an hour after they hit sunrise, since they were flying East), but the time measurement is more inherently subject to errors in measurement.

Noonan likely predicted where he expected to be when the Sun rose, and knew that the LOP would be at that angle, but it's a meaningless line *unless* he measured it when the Sun rose/  It makes no sense to use it as a reference without a measurement that morning, as they wouldn't know where the line really was without an accurate measurement of the sunrise azimuth.  That's why I'm so sure that they had to know their course angle, within the errors of their instruments, at sunrise; Earhart would not have been flying that LOP unless Noonan knew, with certainty, what the angle was.

Measuring azimuthal angles against a compass is easy.  It's the "time angles", like longitude or right ascension, that always get you.

For the record, thirteen years ago I had to do a lab where we found our position, using a sextant and transit, as part of our astronomy lab. My group got within 35 miles, which isn't bad for beginners; I would expect someone like Noonan, using similar equipment (sextants haven't changed much in 60 years, I'd wager, and ours was an old one), to get within 10 miles or better.  I don't know how being in a plane would affect the accuracy though.  You also really need three measurements to find your position; two will get you by, but it's not nearly as accurate.  I also write telescope control software, and we don't bother with any atmospheric corrections in azimuth, only in altitude.  I don't understand how navigators were trained to do their job, but I'll work on that.  :)  I'm going to go work on this for a while now...hopefully, I'll come back with something interesting.

                    Reed
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:15:53 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: MOT

> My son works for CBS and if they have a recording in their archives I'm
> sure he could get it as he is a news video editor and usually has access
> to everything they have.

Could you get him on the case?  There were two AE/FN broadcasts, July 8 and July 15.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Numerous places I've researched MOT indicates they were broadcast by NBC, not CBS.  For example, I cut/pasted the following information from the Library of Congress SONIC database for one of their many MOT recordings:

Title: March of time
Date: Broadcast : 10/14/1937
Time: 8:30 p.m.
Medium: Radio broadcast
Broadcast Series: Yes
Source: NBC
Recording Note:  Duplicated from an NBC radio program broadcast of Oct. 14, 1937; 8:30 p.m.-9:00 p.m.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:16:37 EST
From:         David Kelly
Subject:      Re: Breaking News

All I can say is good luck to you and your team.  I am sure that if this is a "smoking gun" type find or even if it is more anecdotal like previous finds, you will recover it in a very professional manner.

Regards
David
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:17:33 EST
From:         David Kelley
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Perhaps after being unable to find there destination, AE was suggesting that FN puts his ear to a turning prop which was powering the radio.  It would also explain his head injury.

But being serious, we don't know if AE was referring to the radio, it could have been the engine making strange noises,  It could have been put your ear to the floor because I can hear something outside, maybe it was put your ear to the petrol tank and tap it to see how much fuel we have left......

Regards
David
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:18:36 EST
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Re: JPEG image of Niku

Does not the weather ever change on that Island, I noticed the clouds on the picture I received from Tighar last year are in the same place as the clouds on the picture at this new site???

LTM ( I dislike change )
Bruce
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It's the same picture.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:19:45 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Microphone

Ric wrote:

> Hue, the inventory has been on the website at
> http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Luke_Field.html
> since October 18, 1999.
>
> You'll find that Item 20 is 3 "Western Electric Radio Head Phones, type No.
> 588A (2 equipped with ear cushions)".

I guess my next  question  would be for Mike or Cam or anyone else with access to the schematic, is, did the WECo. receiver have dual outputs? In other words, were there 2 headphone sets hooked to the receiver? If not, well and good. If so ( this is the way i would expect ), i would then question why AE or FN had to hand the a headphone to the other.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:22:18 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Closest Point of Approach (CPA)

This question, argueably , has been one of the most important aspects to the Earhart mystery.  Just how close did Amelia get to Howland?

Brandenburg attempted to solve it with his radio riddle analyis. In sum at 7:42 am the Electra's signal strength was "5", and that a "S-5" signal implies a median SNR greater than 16dB. Using his matrix, the CPA was indicated as a maximum of 80 miles, more likely less.

Here is another computation that may be helpful. (Or perhaps it has already been reviewed). I found an article  in May 12, 1938, Washington Star newspaper  with a Newspaper Alliance byline. No reporter named. The Coast Guard released the confidential ITASCA LOG and Thompson's report at Oakland, Ca.

In the middle of the article describing the times and entries of the radio log, the writer notes that at 8:00am AE received the "A's" in code transmitted on 7500 kcs indicating that meant  AE was within 30-35 miles at the time, the "maximum (distance) that 7500 kcs" could be heard by AE.

Safford says in "Flight into Yesterday", chpt 11, "The Electra had no chance of hearing the ITASCA's 7500 KC signals at night, nor of taking a bearing on them by day until within about 40 miles of the ship."  A bit confusing, but it seems to confirm that 7500 kc signals could be heard by AE if within 40 miles.

If this is a pretty accurate estimate of distance at 7:42 and 8:00 am, one could calculate roughly how far away she would be 44 minutes later if she were flying at  120 kts, 130kts, for example on the LOP southeast. Of course she could have circled around, or headed for a group of islands, or just ditched.

What say the radio experts about the 7500kc distance?

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:31:16 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: 31.05 revisited

From Hue Miller

Ric wrote:

> Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof and you seem determined
> to forget or ignore our oft-stated admonition that Betty's notebook is
> fundamentally unprovable as either genuine or false.

Is this the same case for Betty's whole reception event?

>In your campaign to prove it false

I am sorry you misunderstand me, but I, unlike you, have no agenda, except to keep you honest. I don't care how this investigation turns out. It would be wonderful if Betty's report proved true, but it seems to me with every understanding, every branch issue, it is seen to be less and less likely. Unfortunately, the odds of it proving true do not increase with every new difficulty that the reception sneaks past. You're not home free, for example, when you ignore one difficulty for the  story, such as the fact the AE did not hear KGMB on Niku at 10:00, for one one example.

>you persist in presenting your own speculation as fact and
> then using it to support your case.  There's a lot of that going around but
> it won't fly here.

Now, i ask, who is presenting speculation? For example, contrary to every radio installation the reader may care to investigate or read about or see the wiring documentation, we have, an argument that yes, AE may have been able to transmit and receive at the same time. One testimonial. Somehow, a "may" of exceedingly low probability comes to the rescue of the reception story.

> - There is nothing in the notebook about a large dark place.

This is from Betty's interview. Remember? Betty Brown? The same B. B. who wrote the notebook.

> - I have explained how it is very easy for someone in the front of Lockheed
> to be close to, but not visible to, the pilot.

Okay, AE can't find him, i won't pursue this.

> - A radio expert with credentials and familarity with the equipment that are
> better than yours says that simultaneous transmission and reception were a
> possibility.

Right, Ric, AE did not have to settle for any normal rational radio installation. I forget that everything about this story is special.

> - There is nothing in the notebook about Fred "lashing out".

Betty's interview, remember, Ric? You were there too. Betty in the interview and Betty from the Notebook are the same person, are they not?

> - We don't know what frequency Betty was listening on and we don't know for
> sure whether or not she retuned the radio.

Okay, i will have to look thru my archives. I thought i have one post from you that stated her reception was in the upper band range of the radio. And that Betty had stated she did not retune the radio from its setting once she started listening.

As to frequency, Ric, what are possible frequencies that this reception theory is based on? Now, where do these frequencies occurr on the band ranges of Betty's radio?

> - No one knows the meaning of many words and phrases copied in the notebook,
> including   "3q rd 36" which you represent as "QRD"

Yes, i know you presented this argument when stumped by why "W4OK" "WOJ" appeared in the Notebook. I would ask does this apply to letters such as "HELP" etc. ? 

However, Betty seemed pretty clear when she read the letters "W4OK" and "WOJ" aloud during the interview, that these were call letters, or sounded a whole lot like call letters. One or the other was heard correctly by her,  because she repeats this line twice in the Notebook, indicating she heard one or the other. Can we assume these were call letters, or are you arguing they are a random assignment of letters, like a car license plate? Which case answers the test of probability, in this particular context? Which one of us is reaching for speculation here, and which is playing defense lawyer?

Nor is there a defense that this may be extraneous information, from other source. Betty is adamant that she heard the same 2 voices throughout this experience. When i heard Betty read "3qrd...36" it did sound to me a lot like "QRD" was in there. Does QRD fit in a radio context? Maybe not. Maybe these are just letters, randomly associated. Since this question discomforts you, i will ask again, why did AE pronounce a callsign of a station she had no way to contact? Or hear? How does your investigative process deal with such anomalies?

> - There is no requirement that the microphone be "locked down".
> - You attribute what Betty heard to a "fairly sophisticated hoax" and then
> argue that only a 15 year-old girl would fall for this scam.

I knew after i posted it that you would like that description, it gives you something to jump on. What i should have expressed there, is that what seems awesome to a 15-year old, does not necessarily impress an adult. How sophisticated does a hoax, or rebroadcast, or whatever it was, have to to be, to impress this particular 15 year old?

> I think this forum has been more than patient in listening to your arguments
> but it becomes increasingly apparent who it is that KNOWS what is true.

If the verdict of the forum is "guilty", the Moderator should kick my a** off.

> You don't need a better defense.  You need a better handle on the investigative  process.

To repeat,. I have no agenda, no stake in the event being true or fabricated. I have nothing to win or lose in this, and likewise i have no need to cram facts to fit what's already been decided. Or gloss over salient problems with the theory. What i see of the investigative process here, in how evidence is weighed, or selected, does not impress me.

Hue Miller
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Because they're the ones who have to read all this stuff (or delete it), I'll take your suggestion and leave it up to the forum to decide whether I need to spend my time and theirs responding to your efforts to keep me honest.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:35:34 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Open mike

Ric: Ft. Hood is in NORTH Texas. In Killeen which is a few hundred miles north of here!

LTM,
Dave Bush
***************************************************************
From Ric

Sure looks "central" to me but I'm sure Texans have their own definitions for such things.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:37:53 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Anomalies

Just a couple things i noticed that may or may not be grist for some mill.

In the Notebook B5:3, AE says "What are you doing?" The next notation by Betty contains the letters qrd, which i suggest is the same as QRD, radio shorthand for "Where are you bound/ I am bound for...." IF the ".....qrd......." is in fact = "QRD", the fact that no sailing/ flying direction follows, indicates the QRD is an interrogative. ( It can be both interrogative, "QRD?", and statement, "QRD Seattle from Portand", for example.)

Now if this "QRD" represents "QRD?", note it is closely associated with another question, What are you doing, in the line before. ( There is no precise time correlation that we can know.) I suggest that its correlation (of 2 questions) argues for its use as entirely intended and complete, i.e. not a random sequence of letters. Then, the next question would be, why would AE use this phrase, QRD? I would think, for the same reason this person used the call letters WOJ or W4OK, and the term "Howland Port".

Now, in Betty 4:5, AE says "......hear from me........hear from me". In the interview, Betty explains this as AE was saying "Are you there? Can you hear from me, hear from me?". No conclusion from this, except seems a pretty unusual use of the language. Is this what AE would have said?

Also interesting from the interview:

"....She can't find him again. When she can't seem to find him, I don't understand it, but it's' like he's trying to get out at those times".

"There were times when they were just talking, and not on the radio".

"Like she thought she heard somebody....said 'here, put your ear to it''.

"To hear it, it was a pretty good sized space".

-Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:38:44 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Receive and transmit same time?

I would ask Ric's radio expert to explain, please, how the radio was used when calling another station. According to Ric, the receiver and transmitter were independent functions. What i am asking about, is full duplex operation on a single frequency. Or, how the receiver was controlled or handled when the transmitter was on.

Thanks-
Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:39:27 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Drift information

Usually you have some sort of drift meter or pelorus that allows you to tell how much you are drifting from traveling straight ahead across the surface of the earth. This drift is caused by the wind. A drift meter is simply a sighting device that you look through at objects on the ground. By reference to a series of lines in the field of view (in some types)  or by reading a scale on the mount that indicates how much you had to  turn the sighting tube to keep the object in sight, you can tell the number of degrees you are actually drifting off to the left or to the right from where the nose is pointed. It is easy to measure to within one degree of accuracy. Some early aviators just painted lines on the wing marked in degrees to use as a reference. Some, including Chichester, just estimated the drift by eyeball.

Over land you sight on fixed objects but over water it is a little trickier. If there are whitecaps you can sight on them if they persist for a while. Each whitecap stays in one place. Or you can drop a marker which can make a spot on the water or a smoke bomb or a flare at night which you sight on back behind you. If you have to look 10 degrees to the left to keep the marker in sight as you travel away from it it is obvious that you are drifting 10 degrees to the right. If the marker stays directly behind you then there is no drift.

Some more modern drift meters (not the kind used by Noonan) also allowed you to measure your ground speed by timing how long it took for an object on the surface to move between two lines on the reticule and then multiplying by a factor based on your altitude. Another type (that allowed you to also measure the vertical angle to the object on the ground) has you measuring how long it takes for the vertical angle to the object to change a certain number of degrees and then multiplying by a factor related to your altitude. For example, you look straight down (90 degrees) at an object and then keep it in sight as it moves behind you. You keep track of the time until it is at a 45 degree angle down behind you. Lets say it took one minute and you are at 12,000 feet. By trig we can tell that we have traveled across the earth the same distance as our altitude, 12,000 feet, approximately 2 NM. Since this took one minute our ground speed must be 120 Knots. Since the multiplication factor is dependent on our altitude, if there is an error in our altimeter then it will show up as an error in the ground speed.

O.K. what can we do with this drift information?

First, we can use it to stay on course. Lets say we want to maintain a course of 090 degrees. We point the nose on 090 and measure the drift as 10 degrees to the right. This means that instead of maintaining a course over the ground of 090 we are actually traveling on a course of 100 degrees. This much of a drift would take us 400 NM off course after traveling 2400 NM about the distance from Lae to Howland. Once we see what is happening we change our heading by the same 10 degree drift angle but in the opposite direction to 080 to correct for the angle of drift. Then we measure the drift again. It may still be about 10 degrees to the right which when added to our heading of 080 means we are now making good our course of 090. But lets say it changed to only 9 right so we are only making good 089 now just slightly off course. So we change to 081 and with such a small heading change the drift shouldn't change appreciably so it stays at 9 right plus our heading of 081 buts us right on course of 090.

We are now staying  on course and that is a good thing but we probably can't tell what our ground speed is. If there was no drift it could mean that there is no wind or that it is a straight headwind or tailwind which could be speeding us up or slowing us down. Our drift meter only measures the cross wind component but not the along course component of the wind. But what if we changed or heading by 90 degrees?  Then the drift would represent the along course wind component and if we measure the drift on this other heading we could figure out the along course component of the wind. In practice we only have to change our heading by 30 degrees. Standard practice is to measure the on course heading drift, turn 30 degrees right and hold that heading for two minutes and measure the drift on that heading. Then we turn to the left 60 degrees, 30 puts us back onto the on course heading and another 30 takes us to 30 degrees to the left of course. We hold this for two minutes and measure the drift. We then turn back on course. All of this turning has only cost us 2 minutes travel along the course.

With 3 drifts measured on three headings we can draw a vector diagram on a piece of paper or on a special plotting device called a computer, well known to all pilots as an E6B. Since all of these drifts were caused by the same wind this diagram tells us what the actual wind is, its direction and speed. The wind is easy to figure within a couple of knots and within a few degrees. Now that we know the wind we can compute the heading needed to say on course, our ground speed, the ETA and if there is still enough fuel on board to make it to destination.

It is a lot easier to actually do than it is to describe.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:40:48 EST
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Research process

Here are a couple examples of my "speculation" versus TIGHAR's research process:

R.G. suggests AE heard KGMB on Niku at 10:00 A.M. local  ( KGMB is "superpower 1 kw", recall. ) Rather than support this exceptional claim with more the one letter with NO time of day reference point, it's up to the doubter to prove it DIDN'T happen.

Rather than hazard a theory why AE would say "W4OK" or "WOJ", it's "WHAT call letters?"

Rather than explain the vanishing probability that AE would chose the radio switching system that MAY have allowed the Betty report to fit, it's up to the infidel to prove why AE would NOT CHOOSE a backward, primitive, and impractical setup that her peers didn't.

-Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:48:00 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Missing Cowling

Hi Ric, Has there been any debate on the missing cowling of the mystery crashed plane? I say that because that might help Identify the plane. Or is Tighar no longer interested in this?

We have seen some pictures of Japanese planes flying without cowlings. I don't know why this is except maybe the engines can run cooler in the lower latitudes. The left engine looks like it flew without a cowling.

How hard is it for a cowling to come off in a crash? Looking at the mystery photo it the left engines seems quite intact - the prop isn't even bent and its up off the ground (probably due to its undercarriage being down).

To me it looks like an earier Electra-type plane that the Japanese bought from Lockheed - the later models had 3-bladed props.

Cheers from Bill Shea
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Aaaaargh