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 8t