Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:19:17 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Wreck Photo Niki Wow, great work. Very interesting. The engine cowling issue is very compelling. Thanks for the contribution, and please don't go back to lurking. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:25:45 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Missing Antenna Although I think of Lae as being a rather "lush" tropical climate, I believe that the May-October (or so) monsoon season is actually somewhat dry. From my experience living in the desert, even a significant amount of rain after a dry period often just washes away, not penetrating very far into the ground. This *could* result in a puff of dirt as something strikes even recently wet ground if more than just the very surface of the soil is involved. Just a thought Bob ******************************************************************** From Jack Clark Re Bertie Heath's statement about dust kicked up at take off. I have viewed the TIGHAR web site film many times and cannot see any dust puff at the take off point the earlier puff (whatever it's cause may be) is quite distinct. Do you know of any other accounts that mention a dust puff at take off ? The only one I have seen is Mr Heath's account in Mary Lovell's book "Sound of Wings" which is credited to Anne Pellegreno's book "World Flight" Jack Clark #2564 ************************************************************************* From Ric I agree with you. I can't see Bertie's swirl of dust either. I think he saw the same dust we're talking about. Remember that he is recounting to Pellegreno his recollection of an event that happened 30 years ago. None of the other eyewitnesses (Chater and Collopy) mention the dust. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:34:47 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Primary Sources/ 30 mins or low on fuel? > The radio log transcription of the 08:43 message is a mess. See > http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/37_ItascaLogs/Itascalog.html Ric, I was in command and control in the Air Force and had to read this stuff all day every day. It doesn't look all that bad to me. Your description certainly sounds like it was a mess but maybe not. I certainly don't know 1937 ship radio operator shorthand and procedure but are we making too much of the "44-" or whatever minute? I understand what it means to write 44-46 but what was written if it was a transmission of only a few seconds? It started at 44 but did not last until 45. Would they write 44-44 or just 44-? I Didn't take it as a message not finished but that it was just very short. The word "wait" is an attention getter, however, and although AE was not much of a radio person it no doubt has the meaning everyone gives it - hang on I have more. That may be reading too much into it. FN could have said something to interrupt her but she really didn't have more to say. Without the "wait" I read her transmission as saying where she was (on the line 157/337) and that she was going to repeat her position on 6210. An hour has passed since the low fuel comment and there is no mention of her fuel situation. Whatever her voice tone was her words are not those of someone flying on empty and about to die. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric The log entry may not be a mess in the context of your Air Force experience, but it is a mess in the context of the rest of the Itasca radio log. The 08:43 entry is clearly two separate transmissions. When Earhart said "wait", the operator didn't and went ahead and logged the first part of the transmission. Then she came back on unexpectedly and the operator was not at all sure he heard it right, hence the question mark. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:18:46 EDT From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: Lae weather Jack, can you provide a reference to the Lae rainy weather report you quoted? perhaps it is available for our perusal? Ric,is the film of the Oakland takeoff available in TIGHAR's archives as is the Lae takeoff? It would be of interest to some of us. harvey 2387 ****************************************************************** From Ric My videotape of the Oakland takeoff is from newsreel coverage on a demo tape of Earhart footage available from the UCLA archive. It's copyright protected. We'd need to pay them for "broadcast" rights. The clip doesn't show the whole takeoff anyway, just a couple of seconds of splashing through puddles. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 10:54:04 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... Thank you EVERYONE for the "thumbs-up" on the website... (BTW, I just made a small update - engine mount and a little more on the cowling issue...) http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html (...for those of you who[m] didn't carve it into your monitor frame yet...) For Ric: >Niki stated: > >>At one point, there appears to be something breaking away just >>under the nose in the area of the starboard pitot tube. Ric asked: > Why would something break away at that time? Short answer: As Amelia enters the camera's field of view, the aircraft is so low that ground clearance seems to be non-existent. I believe it to be at this point that the mast gets torn away. In being pulled towards the rear, the antenna pulls on the pitot tube connection, breaking it off. If you study the frames just before the sequence ends, it appears that SOMETHING breaks off at that point (viewed just above the starboard gear tire) and makes an appearance for, at least, two frames of the clip. Granted, there are numerous splotches and glitches that appear all through the sequence... however, this "artifact" is on 2 adjacent frames. Glitches (generally) appear for only 1 frame at a time. If the glitch on any particular frame has been caused by storage techniques (humidity, bio-organisms, etc.) an equally geometrical glitch will be found down the length of the footage anywhere from approx. 20 to 200 frames away from where the first glitch occurred (by virtue of the diameter of the reels upon which the footage has been stored; and where in the thickness of the film wrap the second glitched frame overlays the first.) The same identical artifact that appears in this particular sequence, lasts for not only 2 frames in series; but appear in exactly the same place in each frame. (...quite an accomplishment for a glitch...) If the mast DID break off at this point; it may explain why the camera operator diverts his attention and pans behind the aircraft. (...the operator may have invariably thought this was just "junk" that the aircraft passed over, and didn't feel the need to mention it to anyone...) Note: I use the term "generally" in lieu of the fact that I do not have the take up reel diameter, film type, shutter speed, nor do I have any other specs on the particular camera used to make this footage. Long answer: I am in the process of doing the analysis work on this clip and will post my hypothesis and findings to the website when completed. Ric, is the clip of the Oakland Take-Off available anywhere? For Rich Young: > Excellent site, Niki! Another datum I hadn't noticed until I looked at your > site is the engine mounting centerline relative to the wing... Thanks for the kind words and the excellent observation... In scaling Amelia's "borrowed" Wasp engine for the engine mount, I made the same observation that the nacelles on the Ki-54 appeared to be mounted lower on the wings than the nacelles on Amelia's 10E. But in studying multiple images of each aircraft, it seemed to be a toss-up if that observation was legit... (One image of the Ki-54 shows that the port nacelle was mounted higher than the 10E!) So rather than commit this idea as a "positive", I decided to wait until I collected more data on the construction of the Ki-54. For Andrew McKenna: >Thanks for the contribution, and please don't go back to lurking. Thanks, Andrew. I'm now in the process of working on the Lae take-off and searching for that "second" film... but I'll try to create as much mayhem as I can muster up (...sending some blood-pressure pills to Ric...) LTM Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric Enjoy. Regrettably I don't have time to struggle with the Lae takeoff film again right now but the primary argument I would have against the antenna break coming when you suggest is that nobody who was present for the takeoff seems to have noticed that the antenna suffered any damage. There is no mention of such an incident in Collopy's letter or in Chater's much more extensive report, or in the later anecdotal recollections of Harry Balfour or Bertie Heath. There does seem to have been a rumor floating around Lae in later years (during WWII) about a piece of antenna wire being found on the runway after Earhart left. It is a lot easier for me to believe that the loss occurred way out on the runway during the takeoff than right in front of the observers. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 10:57:27 EDT From: Craig Knowles Subject: Newsreel Footage Ric wrote: > My videotape of the Oakland takeoff is from newsreel > coverage on a demo tape of Earhart footage > available from the UCLA archive. It's copyright > protected. We'd need to pay them for "broadcast" > rights. There is some footage, including newsreel footage, available for free public use at http://www.archive.org/ for those of you who are interested. Searching for "amelia earhart" you will find the following list of films. I have not yet looked at any of them, but transcriptions of the footage content is listed on the website for most of these. 1. Look to Lockheed for Leadership (Part I) Innovations in aviation history and technology. Producer and director: Shirley Burden. Photography: Floyd Crosby, Al Wetzel.... Producer: Tradefilms, Inc. Downloads: 303 Media Type: movies Collection: prelinger 2. Pathe News Digest (1937, No. 3) Newsreel compilation of key events of 1937.... Producer: Pathe News Downloads: 281 Media Type: movies Collection: prelinger 3. Look to Lockheed for Leadership (Part II) Innovations in aviation history and technology. Producer and director: Shirley Burden. Photography: Floyd Crosby, Al Wetzel.... Producer: Tradefilms, Inc. Downloads: 198 Media Type: movies Collection: prelinger 4. Women Aviators of the Silent (and Sound) Era Edited program for Orphans II, by Laura Kissel Fox Movietone News Collection, Newsfilm Library, University of South Carolina ~ 30 mins. BetaSP ... Producer: Downloads: 107 Media Type: movies Collection: usc.hide ********************************************** From Ric Thanks Craig. Ah, the wonders of the Internet. Maybe somebody could check those out. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:03:20 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: Missing Antenna Bob, I doubt if the ground at Lae would ever be really dry, it is a very humid climate mostly. I think the significant feature for our purposes is that the banks of rain cloud hang along the south coast of New Britain at the season we are interested in, the SW season April to Oct. This fact is documented in " The War History of the Australian Met. Service" which records how the Japanese forces took advantage of this phenomenon to shelter their troop convoys Rabaul to Lae from air attacks. ref. www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/0642.html I think more rain may fall during Dec to April, the NW season, but it lies along the North coast of New Britain. Ref also Purdue Files World attempt 2 Search by Subject. Weather Harvey. The rainfall I quote was obtained from The Australian Meterological Office at webclim@bom.gov.au and gives a list of rainfall figures for Lae from March to Dec. 1937. If you care to post an E-mail address I will try to send you a copy. Re the Oaklands take off film. There is a Pathe Newsreel film clip available which I think shows the Oakland take off. Details re accessing this are in Hue Millars 14/Jan/03 posting. I thought at first the film showed the Lae take off but I now agree with Ric's opinion it is probably the Oaklands take off. Ref. my posting 21/Jan/03. If you follow Hue's details you should get it Ok. Jack Clark #2564, ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:24:32 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Ausmetoff rainfall figures I'd be interested in your rainfall figures if you have a moment. Thanks Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:37:57 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... While Niki is at it, there's also an old photo of the Seven Site which may show a building of some sort, and some other structure as well as a path---it's difficult to tell. This may be the famous "house built for Gallagher", maybe not. In any event, it would be good to have Niki look at it if he is willing to do so, as he seems to have pretty much definitively shown that the wreck photo is not Earhart's plane. That being the case, let's put the wreck photo to bed. --Chris Kennedy ******************************************************************** From Ric I think you're referring to the 1941 aerial photo taken by the U.S. Navy. Pulling detail from that image is a very different process from comparing airplane structures in the Wreck Photo. I'd like to know a little bit more about Niki's forensic imaging qualifications before we turn him loose on it. For example, is he professionally trained? What certifications does he hold? Does he make a living as a forensic imaging specialist or is it a hobby? Is he a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:48:56 EDT From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: Missing Antenna Thank you Jack for your consideration and information. Yes, I would appreciate receiving the rainfall figures. My email is poppyof2@nyc.rr.com. I will also check to see if the surface winds at Lae on July 2nd are available from the met.office web site. What is your opinion as to the height of the grass and ground condition at Lae and at Oakland?(i.e. short, med long, damp, wet, flooded, etc.) thanks again, harvey #2387 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:52:26 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Newsreel Footage Getting off-topic a bit here, but for fellow Tighars who also love the Byrds and CSNY, the Floyd Crosby who took these films was the father of David. Phil Tanner, 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:53:17 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: Missing Antenna/Ausmet rainfall figures Harvey I doubt if you will get any other info from the Australian Met. Office. I understood the rainfall figures were all they had from the Lae area. I was told by one Met officer they lost many records when Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin Christmas Eve 1974. I don't know much about Oakland's airfield especially in 1937. If the film I referenced is Oakland then it was certainly very wet that day. I don't know much more about Lae than what is generally known and available on the TIGHAR web site. In view of the rain figures I quoted I think it would be very damp if not wet at take off time, although there is no sign of puddles as the aircraft taxis out. Angus I am quite happy to send you the rainfall figures if you give me an address to send to . Personally I don't think there is any thing else to be deduced from them apart from what I have previously posted, that in my opinion the ground would be too damp/wet to produce a dust puff, and there would be large banks of cloud along the south coast of New Britain causing AE to take a "dog leg " course on leaving Lae. Jack Clark #2564 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:16:00 EDT From: Woody Brison Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Just for fun, I want to take the part of devils advocate here just a bit, to see how hard it is. I have no personal stake in this. I merely want to provide a service if possible, to let people have a bit of opposition to their ideas, see how well could they stand up with just a little bit of picking apart. The webpage http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html is a great piece of work. On that page, the third pic down from the top (WreckWindowRadiusX.jpg) shows an inset taken from Amelia Earhart's Model 10E. The radius of the windshield corner clearly does not match what's in the wreck photo. Looking carefully at the inset, I notice that the area of the radius is very white. I believe this means that the process by which this image comes to us has been saturated; there may have been details in this area which have been 'washed out', made all white. I would like to see how that radius was implemented but this is obscured by the saturation. Was there a center post, covered by a skin? Was the radius just in the skin or in the post also? Could the wreck photo be showing us this same plane, with the skin at that point ripped away? and consequently the radius is not there any more? I cannot percieve from the photos of the 10E and Ki54 what the angle of the center post was or wasn't. Also, I don't understand how forces great enough to remove most of the centerpost would necessarily leave the stump of it at the same angle it was. The holes in the nose show the frame structure underneath. I seem to remember some discussion on this, what was the consensus, does this structure match the frame of the Model 10? The general shape doesn't match, to my eye, either the 10E or the Ki-54. It looks to me like the wreck nose has a flat top, where both candidates have more cylindrical tops. Maybe the wreck was distorted in shape. Engines The webpage features five photos of AE's engines, there is a large light colored disk behind the prop. In the photo of the Ki-54 showing both engines, neither have this feature. If it's there then it's much darker. In the wreck photo I see a light area that looks to me like this same disk from AE's plane. It's not as light as it should be for a Model 10 but lighter than it should be for a Ki-54. I'd have to rate this one as ambiguous. It might have lost its paint (either dark or light) or rusted. I'm thinking TIGHAR has some better photos of the Ki54 engine, yes? The engine cowlings look like the Ki-54, with this caveat: in the photo showing the cowlings removed from the 10E, they were removed carefully by mechanics. We have no such situation in the wreck photo; they were removed by raging forces presumably. Could they have separated at a seam giving the appearance we see? Did these 10E cowlings really have no attach points forward? We cannot see the other side, where the fairing might be present or absent. If 10E cowlings were ripped off on the side toward us, could it look like this? In the two photos of the Ki54, one shows a large object in front of the prop, like a beehive. I forget the exact term, nose cone? The other side view shows a smaller structure like the 10E has. The crash photo seems to show a smaller structure like this. I don't understand the arguments on the webpage relating to engine size and position so I can't evaluate them. Viewing the photos WreckEngine1X.jpg and WreckEngine2X.jpg in a viewer, flipping back and forth between the two, they make a nice animation of the engine pumping in and out, but I don't know what this means. It doesn't seem to tell much. The engine in 2X is definitely positioned farther back than in 1X. But, doing the same trick to 1X against the wreck photo and then 2X against the wreck photo, it looks to me like the engine is positioned too far forward in both 1X and 2X, judging by that light colored disk behind the prop. I don't know how the position was decided upon in either. There's no prop on the AE engine here, and I don't see any port engine mount in the wreck photo at all. The reconstructions of the starboard engine mount look tricky to me. It's very easy to elute details from a grainy photo that are what you want to see. [Case in point: the analyses of the Moorman polaroid in the JFK assasination case.] In the photo EngineMount3X.jpg, I don't understand what I'm looking at in terms of the starboard engine mount. That huge engine was mounted on that rickety little frame? Why is there skin inside that frame, on the wing surface? Or is it skin I'm seeing? The jpg is a little too wavy to understand clearly. I think what's needed here is to create two more photos: 1) The 10E engine superimposed over the Wreck photo, farther back 2) the Ki-54 engine superimposed over the wreck photo. Position both so that details of the fairings, etc. can be compared. I think this would resolve the identity. Woody Brison (non-member but admirer of great work such as TIGHAR has done) ********************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Woody. I've been (and remain) hesitant to embroil myself in this again. I agree that the airplane in the Wreck Photo is not Earhart's but not for the reasons Niki cites. As shown clearly on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html there IS a radius at the base of the windshield centerpost that matches the Electra. I think much of what Niki has done is quite creative, but it's not forensic imaging. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:17:40 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Missing Antenna/Ausmet rainfall figures If the ground was too wet to raise a "puff of dust", as seems to be the current theory, couldn't that same effect have been caused by a cloud of mist generated by the same phenomenon? (ie: antenna post/wire drag and snag). Just a thought. ltm jon ***************************************************************** From Ric It's pretty obvious that SOMETHING "puffed". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:20:33 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Going south I don't know if Paige has ever read any of my many posts showing that AE WOULD know whether she was north or south of Howland and would have a very good estimate of the possible distance most likely less than 60 NM and probably more like 30 NM. Are the old messages available from an archive on the Tighar web site for review? Gary LaPook ************************************************************ From Ric Yes, there is a searchable archive on the website. Paige may have read some of the many messages in which I said that every time somebody uses the term "would have" it means he is guessing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:23:35 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... Chris Kennedy stated: > While Niki is at it, there's also an old photo of the Seven Site... > ...In any event, it would be good to have Niki look at it if he is willing > to do so... Ric replied: > I think you're referring to the 1941 aerial photo taken by the U.S. Navy. > Pulling detail from that image is a very different process from >comparing airplane structures in the Wreck Photo. I'd like to know a >little bit more about Niki's forensic imaging qualifications before we > turn him loose on it... Ric, you are absolutely correct in that the processing methods I would use would vary considerably in a topography analysis. This could be anything from Imaging Spectroscopy to Bit-Array Spectroscopy (...one of the algorithms I've developed for photos taken of a fast moving object with a slow shutter speed; in essence, a blurred object). Then again, in the spirit of keeping it "Razor-ish" a good "associative eyeball" may be all that is required. (I'll be sending you what my qualifications are (...or ain't...) off list). Ric, if the matter of what fees or expense in time or equipment would be presented to Tighar for any photo analysis, or for ANY service I can contribute to this project, is being one of the primary concerns in this case; let me state now that I would deem it an honor to make any contribution (however insignificant it may be) to the "advancement of the ball" in this endeavor... ...it would be my way of donating to the cause. Therefore, it wouldn't cost Tighar or it's members one thick nickel. LTM, Niki ************************************************************* From Ric I appreciate your generous offer and look forward to reviewing your qualifications. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:28:19 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Thompson and the radio log. RE: High profile military-media event insight Ric, Please understand this is my own viewpoint, but it does come from a fly on the wall prospective - Consider that there are two varieties of high profile military-media events, planned and that caused by circumstance - These events induce an adrenaline rush of service pride if all goes well, but will be considered routine and quickly forgotten - But if a high profile military-media event goes wrong, it becomes a career ending experience for some of the participants and for others a tale to tell - Amelia Earhart's Howland Island landfall attempt and subsequent search has all the characteristics of a failed high profile military-media event. -------- Characteristics of a failed event ------- I'll try to simplify this explanation as much as possible but keep in mind the devil is in the details and that a failed event with loss of life is an emotional watershed event in itself. A fail event begins with a developing sense of uneasiness due to circumstances perceived to be un-expected - This situation unless reacted to and handled quickly has the potential to escalate out of control to the point of a cat herding exercise run amuck - Once loss of control happens inordinate amounts of adult supervision is applied from different quarters directly proportional to the perceived high profile nature of the event - Over time failure will be recognized and the event will appear to come to an ambiguous conclusion of its own volition - Followed in due course by efforts of damage control in conjunction with random acts of self defense by some of the failed events participants - Sound familiar? I find this helps me arrange some of the puzzle pieces with regards to the military/government involvement in the Earhart event. Respectfully:Tom Strang ******************************************************* From Ric Wow. You have described the Earhart Search to a T. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:40:55 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: AE's character Would it be true to say that AE generally understated any problems she had when flying? If so, do you think this was a natural tendency to sang-froid or was it perhaps more likely a sensitivity to image-consciousness and a reluctance to be seen as a "helpless woman" (when her agenda was very much the emancipation of women)? Is Hooven's assessmen of her reluctance to share the spotlight with anyone else accurate? Regards Angus ******************************************************************** From Ric Amelia's agenda was self-aggrandizement, plain and simple. She and Putnam were extremely protective of her image and would never admit to anything that smacked of cowardice or incompetence. Piloting errors were blamed on weather or mechanical failure. Noonan was so invisible that the men aboard the Itasca were not even sure he had been aboard until several days after the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:49:49 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niki and the Wreck Photo Can you post Niki's qualifications, education, background, etc. ? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ************************************************************** From Ric Not without his permission. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:09:30 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niki and the Wreck Photo Niki: Will you permit posting of your qualifications? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 *************************************** From Ric I have yet to receive them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:36:32 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: AE's character For lack of a better term "stunt flying" made AE who she was. This is what got her to where she was socially and financially. She had to protect that image under all circumstances. I don't think that she flew to advance the technology of flying, but rather to protect her reputation to ensure that remained in the spotlight and enjoyed the fruits of being a celebrity. I got most of this insight from Susan Butler's book on AE, 'East to the Dawn'. Bob ********************************************************************* From Ric It's interesting that you got that insight from Butler's book. She is probably the most worshipful of the Earhart biographers. ************************************************************** From Patrick Gaston Ric wrote: "Amelia's agenda was self-aggrandizement, plain and simple." I think that's an awfully harsh judgment. Amelia (and even George) were a lot more complex than that. While it's true that the Last Flight was a somewhat-desperate attempt to recapture AE's faded glory --and incidentally fill the Putnams' depleted coffers -- the private letters reprinted in "Whistled Like A Bird" shed new light on both the flight and the AE/GP relationship. Putnam was worried and more than once told AE that if she wanted to call the whole thing off, it was fine with him. AE's attitude towards her own fame was paradoxical at best. She seems to have tolerated rather than relished it, because it gave her the chance to do what she loved, which was flying. And in her later years it gave her a platform to speak out on women's rights. While FN definitely played a subordinate role (probably George's idea), AE frequently sang his praises. And she seems to have been unfailingly kind to her fans, especially young people. Check out some of the letters written to GP after her disappearance, available on the Purdue website. Pat Gaston ************************************************************* From Ric Everyone is complex and AE had many sides - but if all she really wanted to do is fly she could have done that without the celebrity career you doubt that she relished. Amelia didn't want to be just a pilot. She wanted to be the world's most famous woman pilot. I can only make sense of Earhart as a person who craved attention and, from an early age, used a crazy-brave willingness to take unreasonable risks to get it. I think that the real significance of Earhart's career has been largely missed or misunderstood. She was perhaps the first example of a media-manufactured celebrity. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:41:06 EDT From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Missing Antenna/Ausmet rainfall figures How's about an engine miss-firing. Condensation in the fuel tanks. Even a carbon clinker loosening??????? ************************************************** From Ric Are you talking about a cause for the "puff"? It doesn't come from an engine and I don't see how condensation could cause it. I don't know what "carbon clinker" is. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:43:48 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE's character Angus writes > Would it be true to say that AE generally understated any problems she had > when flying? Good question Angus. Does anyone know of any problems Amelia had while flying that she understated? Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric Amelia almost always flew alone. How would you know if a problem she described later was overstated or understated? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:54:58 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Going south Gary wrote: > I don't know if Paige has ever read any of my many posts showing that AE > WOULD know whether she was north or south of Howland Ric, this is different. Not a "would have." It is a "would." That is pretty definite and I, for one, can't recall any showing that AE had to know whether she was north or south of Howland. Have I misread you, Gary? Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric No, the meaning is no different. <> means the same as "AE would have known whether she was north or south of Howland." Grammatically it's a distinction without a difference. Either way, it's a guess. He did not say, because he doesn't dare say: "AE knew whether she was north or south of Howland." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:15:17 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: Missing Antenna/Ausmet rainfall figures I don't think that my opinion of the puff on take off is by any means the current theory. It was just my thoughts on the matter. What you say about a dragging antenna causing the Splash /Puff is also valid. I find it difficult to envisage an event that would either pull the mast from it's mounting or snap it off. It would take quite a substantial "whack" to do this. AE was taxing out on a well used airstrip, I cannot see what sort of obstruction she would encounter to do this. The antenna is not particularly close to the ground, 2 to 3 ft. I would estimate. If the tail wheel fell into a hole sufficient for the antenna to contact the ground I think there would be quite a bit of fuselage damage which I doubt would go unnoticed. Jack Clark #2564 ************************************************************************* From Ric Actually, the clearance between the bottom of the aft antenna mast and the ground when the aircraft is lightly loaded and standing on a hardstand is about 12 inches. When the loaded aircraft taxis out at Lae the antenna tip is almost brushing the grass. Any significant perturbation in the ground surface might be enough to cause the antenna, which was a very lightweight structure, to contact the ground and break off. The strain on the mounting bracket might cause some minor wrinkling of the skin at the attach point but given the great weight of the aircraft I can't imagine that it would be felt up front. My guess is that it happened when Earhart swung the tail around to align with the runway especially if she went into the overrun to maximize the available runway. The antenna was designed to take strain fore and aft. As the tail came around, any side load from striking the ground might easily snap the shaft which would (I'm guessing) then be dragged by the antenna wire until, at some point in the takeoff run, it snagged on the ground causing the "puff" we see in the film and pulling the wire free from the aircraft. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:16:39 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Did AE know her North-South position? Gary LaPook says: >I don't know if Paige has ever read any of my many posts showing that AE >WOULD know whether she was north or south of Howland and would have a >very good estimate of the possible distance most likely less than 60 NM >and probably more like 30 NM. Are the old messages available from an >archive on the Tighar web site for review? At one time, I think I read every message available on the TIGHAR web site. Not that I understood all of them, and I certainly can't remember all of them. I am quite sure that you, Gary, know more about astronomy and navigation and probably a few other subjects than I will ever know. I am also quite sure that Fred Noonan's computed position, at the time when AE says to Itasca "We must be on you", was incorrect. It might have been incorrect north-south, or it might have been incorrect east-west, or a combination thereof. So, if I take your statement above as a starting point for discussion, if they knew whether they were north or south of Howland, within 60 NM and probably within 30NM, and they still couldn't find Howland, then what was their error? That leaves an east-west error. Is that what you are claiming? Or have I missed your point? LTM (who never could remember if the sun set in the east or if the sun set in the west) Paige Miller #2565 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:17:23 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Newsreel Footage I could get to the page with the picture titles, but none of them would play. You can see thumbnails on 3 of the 4 titles, but they don't really reveal anything. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:33:51 EDT From: Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... I encountered some very interesting aerial photos and drawings of crashed and submerged B-24 bombers in the US Marshall Islands. Couldn't help but think of the Electra in light of how these comparative behemoths have disintegrated over time. If interested: http://marshall.csu.edu.au/html/B24/B24_Majuro.html The wreck of a Consolidated B-24J "Liberator" off Laura, Majuro Atoll by Dirk H.R. Spennemann. Describes the history and current condition of a B-24J-CO Liberator' bomber (serial ##42-41205) which crash landed on 28 December 1943 in the lagoon off Majuro Island ('Laura'), Majuro Atoll. The plane belonged to the 431st Squadron, 11th Bomb Group, VIIthArmy Air Force, then headquartered on Funafuti, G&EIC (now Tuvalu). The crew was captured and disappeared in the days of the US assault on Kwajalein in February 1944. http://marshall.csu.edu.au/html/B24/B24_Arno.html Wreckage of a Consolidated B-24D "Liberator" off Jab'u, Arno Atoll by Dirk H.R. Spennemann. Describes the history and current condition of a B-24D-145-CO 'Liberator' bomber (serial ##42-41205) which crash landed on 2 January 1944 in the lagoon off Jab'u, Arno Atoll. The plane belonged to the 98th Bomb Squadron, 11th Bomb Group, VIIthArmy Air Force, then headquartered on Funafuti, G&EIC (now Tuvalu). The crew was captured and disappeared in the days of the US assault on Kwajalein in February 1944. My apologies to the forum if this information has been cited before. S. Wesley Smith ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:46:15 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis I made a major update on my website as to why I feel that the Wreck photo shows a Ki-54; if anyone cares to comment... http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html For Ric: > I agree that the airplane in the Wreck Photo is not Earhart's but not > for the reasons Niki cites... Ric, would you say again what convinced you? Was it scaling the prop to the cowling? If so, do you know what the specs on the Wreck photo prop are to create such a scale? > As shown clearly on the TIGHAR website at > http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html > there IS a radius at the base of the windshield centerpost that matches the > Electra. Yes, perhaps I should have said, "...the photo contains a very small radius as compared to a 10E..." I've made corrections. > I think much of what Niki has done is quite creative, but it's not forensic > imaging. Thank you - but I never said what I found was the result of forensic imaging. To my eye, there was so many indications of the wreck not being a 10E, that forensic imaging wasn't really required... perhaps my methods were too simple... To Everyone: The question of what my background qualifications were came up on the list and, yes, I did say I would send them to you Ric - and I will... ...however, I wonder if I may conduct a little "Freudian" experiment before I do send them - just a coupl'a questions if I may: Of course, this does not pertain to such areas as law, brain surgery, or any field where there are "strict absolutes" that must be adhered to; but in the case of forensic imaging, just how would you go about qualifying - to any degree - the ability a person has in observing what is, or is not in a photograph? Would you agree that it would take a certain degree of "creativity", in that a very broad spectrum of concepts and ideas are required before a forensic "imagist" can determine that he is indeed seeing a horsey and not a ducky? (I've always felt that Roger should have been called a "shrubbist"...) ...and how would you qualify that degree? A qualification (the paper kind) presumably shows the world that a person was educated in a classroom for a certain method or process... ...but how would that same person become qualified if he or she developed another method or process that achieves the same or greater results? Would having that "piece of paper" be the last word as an authority on the outcome of an analysis? Case in point: Jeff Glickman was called upon to analyze the "bent pitot poser". If I read the report correctly, at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/26_Antenna2/26_Antenna2.html ...Jeff's final authoritative word on the matter was, "an optical illusion". Now that should be the end of that, no? After all, Jeff is a Board Certified Forensic Examiner; and also Fellows at the American College of Forensic Examiners. However, if I understand that report in the correct sense, Ric disagrees; as he stated: "The light seems to be catching only one of the two pitots in the Lae takeoff photo, but drawing the same lines as in the photo above leaves no doubt that the pitot tube that is visible has been significantly deformed downward and backward." Now, can someone please explain to me what value Jeff's degrees were towards this matter? In the end, Ric is the final judge (...and rightfully so...) of any and all research and analysis that goes on... That being the case, I must ask again: To what degree can a person be qualified in the field of "forensic imaging"; and to what value would those qualifications serve? LTM, Niki ************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Niki. You've answered my questions. >Ric, would you say again what convinced you? The discrepancy between the cowling opening diameter on Earhart's 10E and the airplane in the Wreck Photo. My amateur opinions about the pitot tubes pre-dated Jeff's professional analysis. I was wrong. Jeff is right. >Would you agree that it would take a certain degree of "creativity", in >that a very broad spectrum of concepts and ideas are required before a >forensic "imagist" can determine that he is indeed seeing a horsey and >not a ducky? No, I would not agree. Forensic imaging is a science that relies upon mathematical algorithms. The whole point is to NOT be creative. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:22:44 EDT From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time... When I was flying for AirMic in 77-80, we used to see that wreck every time we went through Majuro and heard all kinds of stories from our local employees. It made for good speculation. I remember the wreck was in pretty good shape and in shallow water. The locals had stripped a lot of things off it. Jim Preston ************************************************************** From Ric You're speaking of the B-24. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:05:18 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Missing Antenna Ric said: > My guess is that it happened when Earhart swung the tail around to > align with the runway especially if she went into the overrun to maximize the > available runway. One thing you don't mention Ric is the dynamic effect of a 50% gross overload on the gear. When the aircraft encounters a bump in the ground, the inertial loading on the oleo struts would have been proportionately increased resulting in them compressing to well beyond their design compression limit for rough ground. The ground clearance would be momentarily reduced accordingly. Smooth ground - a reduced clearance but no problem. Even a small bump however could easily result in the antenna contacting the ground although static clearance might still seem adequate. Regards Angus. ***************************************************************** From Mike Juliano I should realize by now that I have to back up statements with reasonable explanations. In relation to the "Puff" of smoke or dust in the film strip being caused by an antenna being torn off the aircraft I don't this is the case and this is why: 1. condensation in the fuel-lines is always a possibility when there is a temperature change even if the a/c is hangered. This can cause a backfire which is usually a puff of white smoke and a loud bang or a noticeable skip in the engine sound. 2. The DVD "The American Experience: Amelia Earhart-The Price of Courage" has both the Florida take off and the Lae take off. In the Florida take off segment you can see as the Electra becomes airborne a "puff" of smoke from the starbord engine area. In the Lae take off (going frame by frame) near the beginning of the take off run you can see a dark shadow from the same area (the starboard engine).This is just before the "puff" appears. 3. AE used 100 octane (leaded) for take off and climb. An older mechanic I had talked to said that the practice was to start your take off roll and as soon as the engines reached full rpm switch to the higher octane to get the extra power. This sometimes caused dislodging of carbon deposits which could momentarily cause a valve to hang up causing a miss-fire or back fire. 4. Going frame by frame you can almost see the belly antenna and at least two or three frames show the masts still in place after the "puff". 5. Antennas aren't that easy to pull off. It would have made one heck of a racket even over the engine roars and not fallen off in one piece. 6. The Florida take off showed a considerable amount of dust in the propeller vortices. The Lae take off showed none although she could have hit a puddle of water. This also is possible considering there was water droplets on the camera lens. For these reasons I don't feel that they lost an antenna at the Lae take off. Respectfully, ltm, Mike J. *********************************************************************** From Ric >1.condensation in the fuel-lines is always a possibility when there is a >temperature change even if the a/c is hangered.This can cause a backfire >which is usually a puff of white smoke and a loud bang or a noticeable skip >in the engine sound. I think my fellow pilots on the forum would agree that the chances of an engine "backfiring" during a takeoff run at full throttle are just about nil. >2. The DVD "The American Experience: Amelia Earhart-The Price of Courage" >has both the Florida take off and the Lae take off. In the Florida take off segment >you can see as the Electra becomes airborne a "puff" of smoke from the starboard >engine area. In the Lae take off (going frame by frame) near the beginning of the take >off run you can see a dark shadow from the same area (the starbord engine).This is just >before the "puff" appears. I don't have a copy that video here but I do not recall that it showed the Miami takeoff. I am not aware that there is motion picture footage of the Miami takeoff. It was made at 05:56 a.m. If the American Experience documentary claimed or implied that it was showing the Miami takeoff, that doesn't make it true. That is one the worst of the many TV documentaries that have made about Earhart. >3. AE used 100 octane(leaded)for take off and climb. An older mechanic I had >talked to said that the practice was to start your take off roll and as soon >as the engines reached full rpm switch to the higher octane to get the extra >power. This sometimes caused dislodging of carbon deposits which could >momentarily cause a valve to hang up causing a miss-fire or back fire. I don't know who you've been talking to but the idea of switching tanks in the middle of a take-off is utter insanity. >4. Going frame by frame you can almost see the belly antenna and at least >two or three frames show the masts still in place after the "puff". If so, then you are able to see something that a very hi-tech forensic imaging study by Photek couldn't see. >5. Antennas aren't that easy to pull off. It would have made one heck of a >racket even over the engine roars and not fallen off in one piece. Your knowledge of such matters is impressive. >6.The Florida take off showed a considerable amount of dust in the >propeller vortices. The Lae take off showed none although she could have hit a >puddle of water. This also is possible considering there was water droplets >on the camera lens. I don't see any water droplets on the camera lens. LTM, Ric ******************************************************************** From Dave Bush You say that the structure is lightweight - what type of antennae post did she have? The majority of that type of antennae post that I've seen was a heavy wooden piece about two feet in length with only about 10 inches protruding from the airframe and the rest in a cradle. The wood acts as an insulator. Seems like it would cause severe damage to the airframe if it were broken off. LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************** From Ric We're talking about Lockheed Part Number 68967, Mast - Belly Antenna. It's a streamlined aluminum tube anchored to the belly by a bracket with six screws. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:07:15 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Carbon Clinker A chunk of carbon from an engine's combustion chamber that breaks off and flies out of the exhaust tail pipe as a fiery, glowing, 'coal'. Clinker comes from the residue of burned coal; sort of a very hard 'coalesced' chunk of ash left after every bit of burnable material has been consumed. 'Clinkers' got stuck in the grates of coal furnaces & had to be removed with a large pair of 'tongs'. A 'clinker' flying out of an engine exhaust, is like the huge boulder that was removed from one's eye .. a bit of hyperbole .. Cheers, RC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:15:45 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Bird-strike I am interested in the subject of possible injury to FN and/or AE by bird strike whilst landing. Most such incidents happen within 100ft of the ground and at speeds of between 100 and 150kt, reflecting the speed and reaction times of birds although lower speed accidents do occur. How substantial was the Electra windshield and what would be the effect of a strike by an average Gardner seabird at say 80mph. How likely do you think such an event might be bearing in mind your experience of Niku and the fact that the birds there are little used to the dangers of aicraft. Considering that the aircraft had belts (were these full harness??) the possibility of injury from a landing that would still allow continued use of one engine seems otherwise fairly low. It would further seem remarkable if neither AE or FN used their belts in such an emergency landing on a potentially rough and dangerous coral reef. Regards Angus. ********************************************************************** From Ric I have no data on how well a Lockheed 10 windshield could withstand a bird strike. I can say that, although there are usually a few birds around the reef at Niku there are no huge flocks like we've seen at McKean and were reported at Howland. I wouldn't consider bird strike to be a major hazard to landing at Niku. The Electra was equipped with seatbelts but not shoulder harnesses. I would expect that the belts were used. The greatest hazard to a landing on the reef at Niku, in my opinion, would be hitting a "pot-hole" in the otherwise acceptably smooth part of the reef. Such an event could blow a tire or even collapse a gear leg. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:33:57 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > Thanks Niki. You've answered my questions. Quite the contrary, Ric... seeing how you interpreted what I asked and your response to that interpretation tells much about how it was equated. At no time did I state that I did not own a degree (or two, or maybe three); but yet your response conveys that you've already LTM'd that I do not... Although there was a bit of "reverse psychology" involved with my original question (...I thought for sure you'd pick up on that when I used the term "Freudian experiment"...); I must confess it was a 'loaded' question. (...and no, I do not have a degree in psychology...) >>Ric, would you say again what convinced you? > > The discrepancy between the cowling opening diameter on Earhart's 10E > and the airplane in the Wreck Photo. I must ask again, how did you arrive at the scaling factor for that conclusion? Assuming the wreck engine swung a 9' prop just because the 10E did is not good science: you can't achieve an unknown from an unknown. (See Alan, I pay attention...) > My amateur opinions about the pitot tubes pre-dated Jeff's professional > analysis. I was wrong. Jeff is right. Then may I suggest you make a correction to that report? While we're on the subject, your position is that the antenna was ripped from the plane but the pitot tube remained undamaged... yes? >>Would you agree that it would take a certain degree of "creativity", in >> that a very broad spectrum of concepts and ideas are required before a >> forensic "imagist" can determine that he is indeed seeing a horsey and >> not a ducky? > > No, I would not agree. Forensic imaging is a science that relies upon > mathematical algorithms. The whole point is to NOT be creative. Read that 'loaded' question again, Ric... ...and just how does one develop new "mathematical algorithms" without being creative? Even though I feel that you've skirted my original question, I will send what I said I would on the morrow. Really LTM, Niki ******************************************************************** From Ric I'm not interested in your Freudian experiments and loaded questions. I'm interested in your qualifications. >> The discrepancy between the cowling opening diameter on Earhart's 10E >> and the airplane in the Wreck Photo. > >I must ask again, how did you arrive at the scaling factor for that >conclusion? Assuming the wreck engine swung a 9' prop just because the 10E did >is not good science: you can't achieve an unknown from an unknown. It has nothing to do with the prop. If you have two photos that show the same engine cowling then the ratio of external diameter of the cowling to the diameter of the cowling opening should be the same in both photos. Incidentally, the discrepancy in cowling opening diameters has not been run past Photek. Angus Murray did a basic comparison which made the problem so blatantly obvious that I didn't feel it was worth bothering Jeff Glickman. >Then may I suggest you make a correction to that report? The research bulletins are a historical record of the investigation. We don't go back and change something in an earlier report based on new information. We write a new report. >While we're on the subject, your position is that the antenna was ripped >from the plane but the pitot tube remained undamaged... yes? I don't know whether the pitot was damaged or not. All I know is that forensic imaging work that I trust indicates that there is no apparent damage to the pitot mast. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:35:18 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's character I agree with your assessment of AE's flying skills or lack of. I asked the same thing of you some time back and your answer was that she was at best a stunt flyer. I agree. She tore up a lot of airplanes and she had limited knowledge of navigation and couldn't use Morse Code. She cracked up her autogyro twice I believe in a cross--country flight. For all of her notoriety, a good pilot she wasn't. (just my opinion) LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:41:03 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Seat belts >The Electra was equipped with seatbelts but not shoulder harnesses. I would > expect that the belts were used. Would these "belts" then have just been "lap straps"? Regards Angus. ******************************************************************* From Ric I can't say for sure, but generally speaking, aircraft seatbelts in those days were quite a bit wider than they are today - roughly four inches across. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:42:57 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Missing Antenna Mike Juliano wrote: >I should realize by now that I have to back up statements with reasonable >explanations. Well, Mike, as you can see it doesn't always help or possibly not all your explanations were considered reasonable. But the dialog is good and helps clarify matters. Ric wrote: > I think my fellow pilots on the forum would agree that the chances of an > engine "backfiring" during a takeoff run at full throttle are just about > nil. I can't recall that ever happening to me. Once I had full throttle all that was going to happen had already done so. Ric again: >I don't know who you've been talking to but the idea of switching tanks in >the middle of a take-off is utter insanity. Maybe THAT'S why she ground looped in Hawaii. (Just kidding, Ric) Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:52:52 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Bird-strike Angus writes > How substantial was the Electra windshield and what would be the effect of a > strike by an average Gardner seabird at say 80mph. I don't know either, Angus but the Air Force has, in the past, done a lot of studies on the matter. They used a cannon that fired chicken carcasses at aircraft windshields to determine how safe they were. The British asked to borrow the cannon to do their own studies. Their first test drove a chicken right through the windshield and destroyed the pilot's seat. They, immediately, called our guys for help. The Air Force wired back, "Defrost the chicken first." Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric There was great cartoon that was thumb-tacked to the wall of the briefing room of our aviation battalion. It was a pilot's-eye view through an aircraft windshield of a wide-eyed duck about three inches from impact. The caption read: "Energy equals mass times the velocity squared. In other words, a couple of pounds of feathers can tear the hell out of an airplane." I once had half a seagull (he had come through the prop) put an awful dent in the wing root of my Debonaire, and you wouldn't believe the mess when you take a Canada Goose square on the landing light of DC-3. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:55:54 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE's character Mike, I tend to agree AE might not have been the greatest pilot around but keep in mind this was the early thirties and NO ONE was a great pilot and there were NO GREAT airplanes. The countryside was littered with wrecks in those days. Just consider the TBM training off Florida back in the 40s. Flight 19 is only a fraction of what lies at the bottom of the Atlantic. There are over 150 TBMs down there. Maybe AE wasn't all that bad. Alan *********************************************************** From Ric Them's fightin' words. Oh man, are you gonna catch it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:57:20 EDT From: Joe Weber Subject: Re: Bird-strike A bird strike is unlikely. In large (relatively) slow aircraft 100-150 knots, the birds seem to have no problem getting out of the way. At Moody AFB, (Valdosta) GA, there were millions of red-wing blackbirds wintering in the nearby swamps. They would fly across the base at about 300 feet in streams miles long at sunrise and return at sunset. In the T-37. flying final at 100 Kits, they would easily keep out of our way as they could, supposedly, "feel" us coming. An Electra would disturb the air in front even more. The T-38, being aerodynamically cleaner and also faster was not so lucky. The only bird strike I ever had in a T-37 was at about 200 Kits. The Air Force used Moody to make a film on bird strikes, because of the huge numbers of birds there in the winter. Joe Weber Bedford, IN ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:17:25 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Although degrees and certifications can be an indicator of one's knowledge, training, and experience, it is not a determining factor in all cases. Some of the greatest discoveries in history have been made by individuals without degrees or certifications. Case in point: the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, and neither one had a pilot's certificate. ***************************************************************** From Ric That's very true. But in this case we're talking about an established scientific discipline. The Wrights as "bicycle mechanics" is a popular cliche but the truth is that their success in achieving controlled flight was the result of many years of studying the work of other aeronautical experimenters, testing and validating (and in many cases disproving) their data. The discipline was in its infancy. I would imagine that Boeing hires very few bicycle mechanics these days. You probably wouldn't accept a medical diagnosis from someone who didn't have a medical degree and you couldn't legally let an uncertified mechanic fix your airplane. The great thing about historical investigation is that we can all sling our opinions around and judge for ourselves who is and is not making sense. It's when we delve into highly specialized fields like forensic osteology (bones), metallurgical analysis, and forensic imaging that we have to be careful that the experts are, in fact, experts. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:03:15 EDT From: Niki Subject: Wreck Photo Update I believe I made another discovery about the Wreck photo and would appreciate any comments... http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html It may take a couple of minutes to load; as there are many illustrations. If any of the pix do not load, just hit your browser's refresh button - they'll all load the second time... go figure... Ric, I know you view my work as nothing more than "creative"; but I would really appreciate your input on the second picture, if nothing else. Thanks. LTM, Niki ************************************************************************ From Ric I've looked at the second picture (and the rest of the photos) but the conclusions you've drawn seem to me to be matters of personal interpretation and opinion. You have decided that "What appears to be foliage growing out of the cockpit windows is actually the top of a tree that has fallen in the direction of the camera." You then proceed to engage in elaborate speculation about how the fallen tree may have influenced the photographer. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:08:12 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Bird-strike According to Lambert, the birds were so thick that they had to climb to avoid them. LTM, Dave Bush ****************************************************************** From Ric I think you'll find that Lambrecht was referring to McKean, not Gardner. I've been to both islands and there is no comparison. The birds at McKean are as thick as black flies in Maine in June. Based upon the scary experience at McKean they decided to stay above 400 feet at all of the other islands. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:11:31 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Bird-strike Things could change between 1937 and now, or course, but you didn't have any problem with birds when the fishermen took you for the helicopter ride did you? ltm jon ******************************************************************** From Ric No. There are plenty of birds around but you don't see the huge flocks that you see at places like McKean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:15:38 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Well, all speeches aside let's remember that it was Nikki who finally determined that the wreck photo is not Earhart's plane....not the TIGHAR-approved experts. --Chris Kennedy ******************************************************************* From Ric Check your facts counsellor. Angus reached that conclusion, and I agreed with him, several weeks before Niki showed up. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:20:27 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Bird-strike Ric said: > I have no data on how well a Lockheed 10 windshield could withstand a > bird strike I thought you had studied the original specs for the electra Perspex thicknesses in order to try to identify the perspex fragment? I seem to remember that was 1/10th inch thick. Presumably the windshield was thicker than that. > that we have to be careful that > the experts are, in fact, experts. Yes - well said! My experience is that in almost whatever field you like to choose, experts only appear to be experts until you know something about the subject yourself. In most cases you rapidly find that they are not experts at all but merely maintain an elaborate image to give the impression they are experts. I would perhaps not include academics but as far as people with "real jobs" are concerned it applies to the whole spectrum from doctors and lawyers to mechanics and electricians. Real experts are very few and far between. Most people are not prepared to invest the time and effort involved in becoming an expert if they can pretend to be one and make enough money without doing so. Only the academic, for whom interest, rather than money, is the driving force, is likely to become a real expert. Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric The Electra windshield was shatter-proof glass, not perspex (aka plexiglass), so we never researched that component in trying to identify our fragment of plexi. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:22:21 EDT From: Robert G. Klaus Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Tom said: > Case in point: the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, and neither one > had a pilot's certificate. I have to ask, who would have issued such a certificate to the first pilot? Robert ************************************************************ From Ric I'm sure Tom was being facetious. In fact, the Wrights darned near killed themselves several times learning how to fly their contraptions. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:23:55 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis My certifications may get me a job, but my experience is what allows me to keep it. Bob ************************************************************ From Ric Your experience or your performance? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:27:19 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric asked: >Your experience or your performance? I guess I am a little 'old fashioned' as I take high performance for granted..... Good point though. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:29:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > I'm sure Tom was being facetious. In fact, the Wright's darned near killed > themselves several times learning how to fly their contraptions. And Selfridge AFB was named because of..................... Alan ****************************************************************** From Ric Lt. Tom Selfridge who died in a Wright crash. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:34:59 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Update Ric said: > I've looked at the second picture (and the rest of the photos) but the > conclusions you've drawn seem to me to be matters of personal interpretation > and opinion. You have decided that "What appears to be foliage growing out > of the cockpit windows is actually the top of a tree that has fallen in the > direction of the camera." You then proceed to engage in elaborate speculation > about how the fallen tree may have influenced the photographer. I've visited the site and I'm personally impressed with Niki's techniques and arguments. I can see the fallen tree and the aesthetic argument for the way the picture was composed and focused. The analysis of the stringers & the hatch seem pretty powerful to me. Niki's done a lot of work digging up images of the two airplanes and showing what does and does not "fit" with the wreck photo. "Fit" is a deliberately non-mathematical and imprecise term, but it represents the kind of eyeball judgment on which a great deal of research depends. I also find the cowling argument very persuasive. This does not rely on any kind of scaling or mathematical analysis of perspective. If all we had were the arguments about the shape of the windshield, I might remain undecided. Who knows what might have happened to the wreck windshield in the wreck or in the years afterward? None of Niki's arguments contradict other analysis of the difference in ratios between the size of the cowls and the size of the opening. His or her arguments tend to support that line of reasoning rather than reject it. Science isn't all math. Observation is a legitimate scientific technique. So is dreaming up hypotheses, which, for the most part, are not generated by formal logic even though they may be tested by formal procedures. Scientists use their imaginations and their personal judgment (interpretations) all the time (cf. Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge; Science, Faith and Society; The Tacit Dimension; Polanyi was a successful physical chemist before he started work in economics and philosophy). The aesthetic hypothesis about the composition of the picture could be tested IF the original photographer could be found and interviewed, or IF some documents left behind by the photographer could be found, or IF there were a witness who could testify about who the photographer was and what the purpose of the picture was. The fact that the hypothesis deals with things that are difficult to test does not mean that it is an invalid hypothesis. I haven't the foggiest notion what kind of credentials it takes to discern the salient features of a photograph. Niki is a lot better at that than I am as are others on the forum. I presume that there are some natural gifts involved as well as some training in learning how to look at things. I've heard it said that painters tilt their heads sideways in order to get a better view of the colors that lie before them. By intentionally disordering their visual image, they are able to concentrate better on the actual shades that are right before their eyes. I can't verify this myself. I'm not very good at mixing colors to match reality. But I know others see better than I do. This came up with Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N.: "Taken by America's top-secret keyhole satellites, capable of producing pictures so detailed it is possible to distinguish different makes of car, it is almost impossible for untrained observers to identify the objects on each image. "Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted this before he introduced the evidence to the UN Security Council on Wednesday. 'The photos that I am about to show you are sometimes hard for the average person to interpret, hard for me,' Mr Powell said." I'm sure Niki has some reason for teasing us about his/her credentials. When all is revealed, we may decide that we liked or didn't like the game of "hide and go seek." That's a separate issue from playing "do you see what I see" with the photos on Niki's page. LTM. Marty #2359 ******************************************************* From Ric I've asked Jeff Glickman to look at Niki's page and give us a critique of his methods and conclusions. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:10:28 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Well, if it was Angus several weeks ago, not Nikki, who first proved the wreck photo was not Earhart's plane (Niki's photo work confirming this), then all credit to Angus and Nikki, but, again, as I said, not TIGHAR-approved experts---unless you are now considering Angus a certified TIGHAR-approved expert who submitted detailed qualifications to you for your prior approval for this and other valuable contributions he has made by simply exercising diligence and attention to detail. Did he? If so, fine. Otherwise, this is one of the first times I can remember that someone has to pass a prior purity test before their work or conclusions will even be considered. You can always ask Photek to critique Nikki's conclusions and work if circumstances warrant before accepting it. A good test would be to have Nikki take a (free) look at that 1941(?) photo of the Seven Site which may show the "house built for Gallagher" and other features that has puzzled us all. --Chris Kennedy ********************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall saying anything about "TIGHAR-approved" experts and I do agree with some of Niki's observations that don't rely upon special forensic imaging techniques. The ring cowl discrepancy, for example, is one that we've discussed many times. Angus' cowling opening diameter discrepancy falls into the same category. Angus doesn't claim to be a forensic imaging specialist but his observation doesn't require that expertise. Where I question Niki is when he asks me to accept that he can interpret something better than I can, or you can, because of his special expertise. The fallen tree is an example. I can see how it might be a fallen tree but he states flatly that it IS a fallen tree. I have worked with Jeff Glickman long enough to know that he would NEVER say something like that. Review his work on the numbers on the "knob" and you'll see what I mean. I wasn't aware that all of us have puzzled over the 1941 photo of the Seven Site and wondered if it showed the "house built for Gallagher". I do recall that when Jeff did a very detailed examination of the photo he specifically addressed my question about a feature that sort of looked to me like it might be a small shack of some kind. His conclusion was that it was a bush. I'm in no way opposed to getting a second opinion. It would be pretty neat if it WAS a house instead of a bush. But what I don't want is for someone who does not have expertise at least as good as Jeff's to perform an analysis AS AN EXPERT and proclaim the thing to be a house. I could put the photo on the website and everybody could take a whack at it. Inevitably, some people would have the same opinion I originally had and say it looks like a shack. I don't know what Niki would say but he hasn't shown me anything yet to make me think that his opinion should carry any more weight than yours. If you disgree, tell me why. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:17:40 EDT From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Just thought you might be interested in this web site: http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/electra.html Apparently there were many Electras operated in the South Pacific. LTM (who never switched fuel tanks during takeoffs) Mike J.2591 ************************************************************* From Ric The number of Electras operating in the South Pacific (i.e. Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand) is well documented. All were 10As and 10Bs. None were in service in the South Central Pacific (Fiji, Ellice, Gilbert, Tonga, Tokelau, Phoenix Islands). Earhart's was the only 10E that ever operated anywhere in the Pacific region. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:35:34 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: >Bob Lee wrote: > >> My certifications may get me a job, but my experience is what allows me >> to keep it. > > From Ric > > Your experience or your performance? Thanks, Bob... you've summed up precisely my point to my ranting question. Ric, performance COMES from experience... I would hazard a guess that you probably know, at least, 1 person in a "professional" position that is fully qualified (on paper) for that position; but couldn't find their way out of a 10 foot tunnel with both ends open when that position presented a situation that would call upon a "common sense" resource; which would only be achieved through experience. It's the classic, "...son, don't put your hand in that fire because you'll get burned" scenario. He may say, "OK" which would now qualify his "classroom training" on the subject; but until the child actually does get burned, common sense-wise, the child doesn't have a clue as to what you are talking about. But, will the child do it again because his "classroom training" told him not to; or will the child's performance be based upon his experience? LTM, Niki ***************************************************************** From Ric Let's agree that it's performance that counts, regardless of where it comes from - education, experience or raw talent. The key is in evaluating the performance. You can't rely upon the performer to tell you whether his performance is good. (I've figured out what happened to Amelia Earhart. Just trust me.) You see something that could be a fallen tree and you proclaim it to be fallen tree. A dark splotch is sanctified as a hatch because you say it looks like a hatch. Others look at it and say, "Gee, he's right. It's a hatch." That's how psychics work. Not scientists. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:40:33 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Selfridge I believe he was the first military air fatality in the US. Didn't he start out as a balloon pilot? Dan Postellon ********************************************* From Ric That's right. He was a passenger. Ft. Myer, Virginia. 1909 as I recall. Orville was flying. (Wilbur was in France.) A prop snagged a bracing wire and the machine crashed. Orville was seriously hurt. Dunno about Selfridge being a balloon pilot. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:47:08 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > Tom Riggs wrote: > >> Case in point: the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, and neither one >> had a pilot's certificate. > > From Ric > > That's very true. But in this case we're talking about an established > scientific discipline... > You probably wouldn't accept a medical diagnosis from someone who didn't have > a medical degree and you couldn't legally let an uncertified mechanic fix > your airplane. I couldn't agree more... That's why I pointed out in my question, "...Of course, this does not pertain to such areas as law, brain surgery, or any field where there are "strict absolutes" that must be adhered to;..." MD's and aviation mechanics fit into this category. I was speaking in strict terms of imaging. I don't believe another scientific field exists where there is more conjecture about a result than forensic imaging. Everyone has their own set of eyes that will see, or not see, things in a photo regardless of anything another person says it does, or does not contain. Even though I hold a degree in the Automotive Engineering world, if I showed you a photograph of a '67 Mustang, and told you it was a '57 Chevy, would you accept that simply because I was "qualified" in that field and should know what I'm talking about? I've been involved in many cases where the 2nd party (scientific and otherwise) didn't give a pompous horse's patooty whether the result was established by a "qualified" examiner, or whether it was found by little Johnny down the block who decided to turn on your garden hose and leave it running all night long just for "kicks"... ...all because they themselves didn't or couldn't understand the scientific process involved in reaching that conclusion. LTM, Niki ************************************************************* From Ric If there are no "strict absolutes" in forensic imaging how do you apply the scientific method? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:48:50 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: The Wreck Photo: One of my favorite topics! This wreck photo thread certainly brings out frank exchanges of opinion, doesn't it? Niki: I find your website interesting, thought-provoking, and a heck of a lot of fun. I have studied the photo in the past, and other forumites could attest to my interest in it. The work on your site appears, in some measure, to be the work of a professional. There is considerable conjecture there, but also some work that looks scientific enough to me. I'm not a professional in this arena, so qualifications are of interest to me. And, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you won't share with us your background/experience/credentials. LTM; I maintain she would have liked the Wreck Photo Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:54:40 EDT From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis I guess my question should now be; is the wreck photo a 10A,10B,10E,Ki54,or Ki56? or is that the $64,000. question? LTM Mike J. ******************************************************************* From Ric You'll have to decide for yourself but there appears to be a growing consensus that it's not a Lockheed 10 and if it's not an Electra I, for one, don't much care what it is. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:04:10 EDT From: Niki Subject: Who I is... To Everyone: Let me start out by saying that I am male (...at least, the last time I looked...), and must deeply apologize and thank Ric, Marty, Alfred Tom, Chris, Rich, Lawrence and everyone else on the forum. I didn't intend on playing a "hide and seek", or "I can see this, but you can't" game with anyone... I honestly wanted to see what reaction there would be to my findings without influencing or diluting anyone's thoughts about how they SHOULD or SHOULD FEEL towards the viewing of my work because of any credentials I may possess. I say this because I have found from associating with people from all walks of life, that there is a tendency on their part to feel incompetent, or insignificant; while in the presence - or conversing with - someone who may have a higher education then they have... There are also those that are afraid to let their thoughts be known due to the fear of being ridiculed, or looked down upon by others for their lack of knowledge on whatever subject is up for grabs... ...or if they DO get involved, they feel they have "to adjust" their viewpoint simply because the other person is "degree'd" to present a different view. And then there are those that possess the degree, let it be known; and cause these feelings to manifest in others by their "looking down at you" attitude... Case in point: How many "lurkers" are out there that subscribe to this forum because they have a deep interest in the AE investigation; but are afraid to say anything, or even join TIGHAR - for any of the above reasons... hands please? I did not wish to convey any of those feelings to anyone; and that's why I decided to let my work stand on it's own merit. I didn't realize I would wind-up filling out a job application just to voice my findings and opinions, but since it does seem to affect those involved... ... I hold a degree in Automotive Engineering, Electronics; and yes, Imaging. (I was in the process of "upping" my Imaging qualifications, when a [should've been lethal] dose in a radiation accident kinda hindered that idea... Ric, I DID send you a list of what may be considered "qualifications". I sent it to this forum address, but headed it with "Off List". Is there another address I should use for personal issues? The e-mail was titled, "My Specs" and was sent 5/8/2003 at 8:29 PM EST. Perhaps it was overlooked?... ...or blown-off as spam?) Other interests vary widely: structural engineering, archaeology, astronomy, botany, rocketry, photography, computer imaging, music, aviation, marine archaeology, video and sound reproduction (I have a recording studio), egyptology, geology... ah, who cares, man... ...oh yes, and also being "creative" with the wreck photo. The Cowling/Ratio issue: Please, this is in NO WAY any kind of disrespect to Angus for his brilliant method of confirming the cowl diameter... ...but I must point out a coupla' pitfalls to that method: When an examiner attempts to deduce a scaling or ratio from a photograph, there are certain procedures that MUST be applied - and taken into consideration for the results of that analysis to be as accurate as possible. (There are too many procedures that are carried out in sequence to list here; but I'll hit on just a few just to give the idea of what must be considered) F'rinstance, the lens of a camera views the world not as a flat- plane of reference; but as an "arced" field of view. (...kinda sorta like a section of the circumference of a circle...) The size of this section would be likened to the camera's field of view. The job of the lens is to focus the image and converge the life-size image it "sees" onto a small piece of emulsion covered acetate. In theory, the film-plane is flat... For argument's sake, let's say that the film-plane in the camera is a square; 2 inches on a side. Technically, for an image to be an absolute reproduction of the light striking that film-plane, the lens would have to be a flat, square, optically "perfect", 2 inch square; with no magnification or "convergence" properties whatsoever. (Of course, this is not practical; or else your photo albums would contain photos of small sections of your relatives' body parts...) So, to get more of the image onto the film-plane, a lens with a certain amount of built-in "fish-eye" is incorporated into the camera. By virtue of the way the lens is ground, anything that is not absolutely pinpoint dead-center in front of the lens, ("forensically" speaking), is, to some degree, out of focus. (The how's and why's of this are involved; and much too long to be here...) Add to this the lens' accuracy of "scaling factor" ability introduced to the image being photographed (by virtue of anomalies that may be present throughout the area of the lens), the distortion the lens itself introduces (by virtue of the fact that the image is further away from the "ends" of a convex lens than from the center), and the fact that any light entering that lens from any place other than dead-center, must be "converged" or "funneled" down to that 2x2 inch film-plane in the camera. Oh yes, there's also the issue of the film not lying flat on the film-plane to begin with... (by virtue of film warpage introduced by being rolled-up in a small canister; plus the effects of heat and other storage temperature changes...); but that's in a different sequence... What all this boils down to is that a circle being photographed in an "off-center" condition will become more "elliptical" in shape (and not necessarily in the same proportion - due to lens anomalies) the further it gets from the center of the lens. Therefore, an examiner using any scaling or ratio method to deduce a dimension from an image will, generally, not rely on the result of this one aspect as the sole piece of evidence in a case; rather, it would be used as an additional "supportive" piece of evidence to other findings. Since this is getting REALLY long, I will address the "Fallen Tree" issue in a second text. LTM, Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric I did receive the qualifications you sent "off list." I did not share them with the forum because you specifically sent them "off list." I do my best to avoid posting communications to the forum that are not intended for distribution. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:08:43 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > If there are no "strict absolutes" in forensic imaging how > do you apply the scientific method? By the use of tacit knowledge & personal judgment, according to the norms of a scientific conscience (Polanyi's theory of tacit knowing and personal knowledge). In the last analysis, science cannot be done scientifically, because discoveries depend upon intuition and imagination and the proper application of theory to particular cases requires sound judgment. Not even mathematics, the purest of the sciences, can operate by "strict absolutes." Hilbert's program to formalize the whole of mathematics was demolished by Goedel's demonstration that no system of logic can prove itself to be both consistent and complete. Mathematics is upheld by the belief of mathematicians that reason is trustworthy. This can only be assumed by an act of faith; it cannot be proven to be true. All of the "mixed sciences," ranging from the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) to the human sciences (anthropology, sociology, archeology, psychology, history, linguistics and the like) depend upon people having a "feel" for what counts and what does not count as a significant measurement. All observations in these fields are accompanied by an error bar, whether the observer admits the imprecision or not. In the final analysis of any experiment or observation, the observer must make a conscientious (fallible) judgment whether the data is "close enough" to fit the theory or too discrepant to confirm it. Ptolemy's hypothesis about planetary motion was an awesome accomplishment. It took real genius to imagine such a weird system. It took the labors of hundreds of other geniuses to refine the system so that it came close to the data given by observation. Copernicus' system was clunkier than Ptolemy's. Because Copernicus kept the Greek assumptions about perfect circular motion and unchanging velocity, his system required MORE cycles and epicycles than Ptolemy's and was not as accurate in its match to observations. Galileo bought into Copernicus' system, hook, line and sinker, despite the fact that Kepler had already shown that the planets move in ellipses and that the velocity of the planet varies as it comes closer or draws farther away from the sun. But Galileo is ranked as a great figure in science because he had an unproven intuition that the heliocentric system was correct and that the geocentric system was false. He had zero proof that the heliocentric system was superior. Proof of the planet's motion around its axis didn't come until Foucault developed the pendulum argument in 1851; proof of the planet orbiting the sun didn't come until the observation of stellar parallax in 1828. Galileo died in 1642. Long before proof was in, all good scientists were Copernicans. Einstein's paper on the special theory of relativity (1905) was written while he was working as a patent clerk. It depended on no new data. It was "just" a reorganization of what was already known plus a demolition of some assumptions about space and time that Einstein showed were unfounded. Most physicists adopted Einstein's theories long before the bending of light by gravity was confirmed during the solar eclipse of 1919. It would have been bad science to have waited for "perfect proof." LTM. Marty *********************************************************************** From Ric No one ever "expects" the Spanish Inquisition. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:09:58 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's character You point is well made Alan---but have you ever heard of Jacqueline Cochran? Great pilot from that era with a great flight safety record. (I'm a little prejudiced because she is from my hometown) And just maybe there are so many planes at the bottom of the "Bermuda Triangle" because of bad weather or bad "aliens" lurking down there. Oh well, I have to have a little fun, Alan. And now back to the search for AE....... LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:10:56 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Expert Credentials While I agree that training and experience is crucial in the "making" of most experts, many people in scientific fields develop groundbreaking new discoveries just because they are out there and trying. I developed a new process for improving the quality of a "photo" as a teenager working in my parents printing business. We used a Robertson Meteorite camera to take "pictures" of printing material and then used the negatives in the offset printing process. I had one copy come in that was too light to reproduce, so, not having been told that it couldn't be done and not wanting to spend several hours in driving plus additional costs for the typesetting, I took upon myself to figure a way to make this copy darker. With only a couple of tries I made it work. When I showed it to my dad he was elated and later mentioned it to the people who worked in the sales department of the camera manufacturer. They (the "experts") said it was impossible. I can use a modification of that same process today on a common copier to produce similar results - making a darker copy from a light original. Everyone says it won't work, but I get it to work every time. As you know, you can use the "darken" button on the copier, but the result is never as good as the original and if you try to get it very dark it causes the copy to be "filled in" - that is the letters start to become blobs. I can make it darker without causing fill in. What was my process? Well, I reasoned that we took pictures and prevented them from filling in by using a screen and a "flash" - ie: we photographed the picture, then put a piece of white paper over the picture and exposed the negative again to just the white image for a period of 5 to 10 seconds. I thought about this process and decided to "reverse" it. I used a piece of black paper instead of white and played with the timing to create a usable negative of the item we wanted to copy. You can't run something thru a copier twice, effectively, so what I do is to take a piece of black paper (or very dark paper) and place it behind the item that I am copying. Then I copy it just as I would any other item. Nine times out of ten it comes out fine without any further adjustment. Sometimes I have to play with the "darken" adjustment to fine tune it, but it is minimal, and I always end up with a better copy than the original that I started with. But according to the "experts" it won't work. Go figure! So, experts are sometimes a dime a dozen and that's all they're worth. Others use the gray matter that God gave them and figure out a better mouse trap. I know that "credentials" are important in many areas, but doctors kill patients every day because they make a mistake or are careless. Been there, but survived it anyway - twice! And I know a lot of others who have and many who didn't! My two cents worth. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:17:40 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Bird-strike Ric wrote: > No. There are plenty of birds around but you don't see the huge flocks that > you see at places like McKean. I quote Bevington: Everywhere were fish, birds, and teeming life. Overhead thousands of sea birds wheeled and soared -- there were terns, frigates, boobies, and many other. Maybe there were more in 1937? Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric Maybe, but frankly I doubt it. I think Bevington was waxing poetic. For one thing, only frigates "wheel and soar". The nature of the island was, and is, fundamentally different from islands like Howland and McKean which are devoid of significant vegetation and do not support populations of crabs and rats that devastate bird nests. Again, there are plenty of birds at Gardner but nothing like the clouds seen at some other islands. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:18:55 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > If there are no "strict absolutes" in forensic imaging how do you apply the > scientific method? Ric, when I use the term, "strict absolutes", I'm refering to a procedure that can only be done by using one and the same method each time; with the proper results as the outcome. If you want to succesfully "lap-in" a valve, you must not only use the proper method; you must use the same method every time. Any variation from that method could lead to disaster. When you run a pre-flight check, you use the same method every time. When NASA stages a launch, they use the same method every time. In the case of "forensic imaging", you must become "creative" in which method to apply to each task at hand. When you wanted to identify the true identity of the "knob", you brought it to the U.S. Naval Academy and had it analyzed with their Scanning Electron Microscope. Zip. You then brought it to Jeff Glickman where he used X-Ray analysis. Zip. He then applied a CT Scan analysis. Zip It was only when he applied a "creative" brute-force approach - based on his "experience" - using light, a microscope, and a camera, did he achieve the proper results. No "strict absolutes" here. LTM, Niki ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:20:21 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: re bird strike Once I flew a CAP search mission with an ex- navy flier in a piper supercub. As we flew out over the hills north of Atlanta on our way to the search area, we came upon a hawk soaring in front of us. Suddenly the navy guy began to zero in on this hawk, pulling up, turning hard, diving down trying his best to ram the hawk. Fear gripped my butt since I thought 'this guy is gonna get us killed' However, that hawk just kinda looked back over his shoulder at us and with his superior ability turned and dodged and just as we caught up with him he turned his head back and gave us a look, folded his wings and went straight down just inches from the prop. The guy looked back at my green face and laughed said "I've been trying for years to hit one of those birds and no matter what I do they always out dive me." I think its difficult to hit a hawk, but I don't know about other birds. Not long after that a Lear jet was departing Peachtree airport in Atl and sucked birds in an engine loosing power and crashing into an apartment complex killing all on the plane. A super cub going fast does about 85 mph unless you dive it, and a Lear on departure could be going 200 mph or better. AE landing at Niku was going so slow I cant see where hitting a bird was relevant, much less dangerous at 65 or 70 mph. Birds aren't blind, they can see you coming and unless your going real fast I bet its hard to hit a bird. It's sorta like roadkilling a dog on the highway, the smart ones don't get hit, but occasionally someone will hit a slow dog in a fast car. ltm who always gave me candy when I was good ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:44:29 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Selfridge I can't find anything about balloons in Selfridgde's biography. Although it is off-topic I though it might be interesting to some members of this forum to know more about Lieutenant Selfridge, the world's first aeroplane fatality. In "Who's Who in Aviation History", William H. Longyard writes : SELFRIDGE, LIEUTENANT TOMAS E. (1882-1908) "Selfridge was from San Francisco and after attending West Point became a lieutenant in the Army. In early 1907 he introduced himself to Alexander Graham Bell, who was visiting Washington and told the famous scientist that he had r read about the latter's kite experiments and was himself interested in aviation. Bell immediately invited him to join the Aerial Experiment Association which he was then forming. He went so far as to write to his friend President Roosevelt who promptly ordered Selfridge to be seconded as an observer to Bell. Selfridge was indeed well acquainted with various aeronautical experiments then being conducted around the world. He related what he knew to Bell's group and was appointed to guide the construction of the group's first aircraft. When finished, the craft was named the "Red Wing". On 12 March 1908 it made the first publicly announced flight in America. Casey Baldwin was the pilot. Selfridge did not design the airplane completely on his own, though he did hold the power of veto over any suggestion. However, he never flew the "Red Wing"; his turn to fly came on 19 May 1908 in the AEA's next design, the "White Wing". He made two short flights that day. "In the summer of 1908 he was summoned to Washington to serve on the Signal Corps' Aeronautical Board, which was then engaged in performance t trials of the Baldwin-Curtiss dirigible, the Wright military aeroplane, and other flying machines. In Washington he met Orville Wright who distrusted him because of his association with the AEA. Wright wrote that Selfridge was an intelligent young man who knew much about aircraft and continually pumped Wright for more information. Because of Selfridge's position on the Aeronautical Board, Wright found it impossible to turn down his request to fly in the plane during trials. On 17 September 1908 the pair went up for a flight. Shortly after getting airborne, they hear a tapping sound from the rear. Suddenly, the plane pitched downwards and crashed. Selfridge's head struck a strut and he was knocked unconscious. He later died, the world's first aeroplane fatality." LTM (who would like that rebuilt Wright Flyer if given a chance) *********************************************************************** From Ric Dan Postellon sent me a whole bunch of information on Selfridge earlier. He was heavily involved in lighter-than-air work, as well as flying machines. Note that the above bio mentions: "In the summer of 1908 he was summoned to Washington to serve on the Signal Corps' Aeronautical Board, which was then engaged in performance trials of the Baldwin-Curtiss dirigible,..." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:45:22 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Marty, that was great. I particularly liked, "In the last analysis, science cannot be done scientifically...." In one sentence what does it mean in the context of the Amelia search? Alan (just giving you a hard time, Marty ) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:46:23 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Who I is... Nikki wrote > I honestly wanted to see what reaction there would be to my findings without > influencing or diluting anyone's thoughts about how they SHOULD or SHOULD > NOT FEEL towards the viewing of my work because of any credentials I may > possess. Nikki, it may surprise you to know that not many folks here are impressed or give much thought at all to credentials or the lack of them. We flame one's words not the person. If someone gets a hard time over what they post it's the post that is not credible not the poster. I couldn't care less whether you are male or female are anything else about you. All I am interested in is what you post. It stands on its own not on who you are. This is a serious subject and everything that is posted is subjected to a critical review. Nothing is accepted on its face. We pound some issues to death. We post items hopefully to move the ball forward not to achieve reactions from members or play games. There are no awards or trophies. We're just a bunch of guys trying our darndest to solve a puzzle. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:49:07 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > The number of Electras operating in the South Pacific (i.e. Australia, New > Guinea and New Zealand) is well documented. In addition, I believe all of those aircraft are accounted for, are they not? ltm jon **************************************************************** From Ric In a general sense, yes. But if an aircraft is listed as having been lost in an accident the possibility exists that the wreck Photo is a photo of that accident - at least in theory. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:51:17 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Update Marty Moleski wrote: > The analysis of the stringers & the hatch seem pretty > powerful to me. Niki's done a lot of work digging up > images of the two airplanes and showing what does > and does not "fit" with the wreck photo. One of the things I recall from when we were comparing the wreck photo with the Ki-54 vs the L-10 was the fact that on the drawings of the Ki-54 there are no structures that approximate the panel in/behind the leading edge with the largish round openings. Something very similar does, however, exist in the Electra. Personally, I'm not sure what kind of airplane the wreck photo is of, but I became convinced that it was not the Electra some time ago (was it last year?) when I realized that there was no circular opening in the firewall (on the missing engine side) for the exhaust. The Electra exhaust pipe passes through the firewall on the outer side toward the bottom. Ric pointed out that there appears to be some damage in that area, but not enough, I think, to have rendered such a large opening invisible had it been there to begin with. (Ric, how large are those stacks? They look to be about 4 or 6 inches to me). ltm jon ****************************************************************** From Ric On the Electra? I haven't measured them. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:54:33 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Bird-strike Ric wrote: > Maybe, but frankly I doubt it. I think Bevington was waxing poetic. For one > thing, only frigates "wheel and soar". The nature of the island was, and is, > fundamentally different from islands like Howland and McKean which are devoid > of significant vegetation and do not support populations of crabs and rats > that devastate bird nests. Again, there are plenty of birds at Gardner but > nothing like the clouds seen at some other islands. Rick is right about vegetation: on Xmas the biggest colonies are on ground with no trees or brush. The other thing to consider is the season: when I was on Palmyra, I was told the ol runway, , was absolutely covered with nesting birds at certain times. Beside that man-made runway Palmyra is covered with lush bush. When I was there, only a few dozens stragglers n residents were still occupying the ground. Some resident birds do occupy the trees, like along the shorelines, but only in the hundreds. Only nesting colonies are in the hundreds of thousands, for short periods. From my , , observations, I hasten to add I'm not a bird man! Was Tighar ever on Niku around beg of July? Was the more open ex coastie site colonized by birds? Christian D ************************************************************************* From Ric We've been to Niku in July, August, September, February, and March but we've never seen a significant difference in the bird population. The ex-coastie site is not open. It's now solid scaevola. Different bird species nest on different parts of the island. The frigates nest high in buka forest. The masked boobies nest right out on the ground near the lagoon shore on the west end. The red-tailed tropics nest under the beachfront scaevola. etc. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:00:19 EDT From: Angus Subject: Re: Who I is... Niki. It was exactly because I was well aware of issues like lens focal length, lens distortion, perspective distortion, the prop not lying in the same plane as the cowl etc etc, that I was reluctant to claim that the proportion comparison was the definitive solution and that's why I suggested that further work should be done before definitively dismissing the wreck photo on merely that basis. However, like you, I had pointed out the other anomalies like the nose panel shapes and the shape of the windshield aperture relative to the panel immediately in front of it, the likelihood of the owner/author of the photograph wishing to remain anonymous etc etc and so did not rely entirely on scale. So I simply didn't "rely on one aspect as the sole piece of evidence". We also have to remember that if one can be sure that discrepancies are an order of magnitude larger than the accumulated possible errors that one can have a fair degree of faith in the comparison, errors notwithstanding. I also argued that comparison with a real electra photographed from the same angle with a similar focal length lens would be the best way of making a better comparison as many of the distortions would then be the same in each. You have the disadvantage of not having read the previous postings relating to the matter. However I think your website has usefully and graphically crystallised these points and perhaps persuaded some who had lingering doubts about the idea that the wreck was not an electra - in spite of the fact that you too used scaling without adjustment for distortion in superimposing an R1340 on the wreck photo engine. The propeller, for example, would have had to have stopped at exactly the same angle to the vertical in each case, and the photos taken from the same angle with the same focal length lens for the comparison to be valid. Sauce and geese spring to mind. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:46:19 EDT From: Niki Subject: Wreck Photo - The End Ric stated to Chris Kennedy: > Where I question Niki is when he asks me to accept that he can interpret > something better than I can, or you can, because of his special expertise. First of all, Ric, I've never asked you - nor anyone else - to accept anything... You stated that I, more or less, didn't have the ability to see anything in a photograph unless I was "qualified" to do so... You asked to see my credentials on the matter; I then provided them - thus, I feel, qualifying me to be able to see SOMETHING in a photograph. You now question my ability to be able to "interpret" something better than you can, or Chris can; based on those qualifications... ...I'm SOOOOOO CONFUUUUUSED..... Ric stated: > The fallen tree is an example. I can see how it might be a fallen tree but > he states flatly that it IS a fallen tree. I have worked with Jeff Glickman > long enough to know that he would NEVER say something like that. Review >his work on the numbers on the "knob" and you'll see what I mean. Whatever Jeff Glickman says, does, or indicates - is his prerogative. And, If I remember correctly, you asked Jeff Glickman to decipher the hieroglyphics on the object; NOT to identify what the object was... (Did he not state that the "antenna" on AE's L10 was gone? Sounds pretty conclusive to me... BTW, and this is in no disrespect to Jeff, or his methods; but he drew his conclusion from 3 possible scenarios as to why the antenna "appears" to be missing; however, there is a 4th possibility...) You want to know what I've really had up to my neck, Ric? Look around you - no matter WHAT you look at today - some "professional" is making a cop-out on anything - and EVERYTHING - they do... Pick up any book and you'll find some kind of disclaimer proclaiming that even though the author wrote everything contained in that book, they're "not responsible" for what it contains. Even the publishing company that printed the book disclaims that they are "not responsible" for any printing or "typos" that may occur. Furthermore, they claim any content in that publication is the sole responsibility of the author (!) Software comes with disclaimers that indicate - even though you gave your hard-earned money for their program - they're "not responsible" for the software trashing your computer; or even for the proper outcome that the program was designed to produce... Nobody wants to claim responsibility for anything anymore. They prefer to make statements that lie within a "safety buffer zone" (...what I call the, "Zone of Non-Commitment") Sure, no "professional" these days would DARE make a conclusive statement such as what is in that photo as being a "fallen tree"... Good Lord, what if they were wrong??? ...how could they go on??? The game is to indicate just enough to say what it COULD be; but make absolutely SURE that you give enough double-talk - so that if it ever comes back - you will be in the confidence of that "safety buffer zone" of, "Gee, I never really DID say that it was a definite"... I call that, "Lack of Intestinal Fortitude". I also call it a "Fallen Tree". If you desire to play the "rank" game; my qualifications indicate that I am able to make that statement. Therefore, the statement stands. I've provided the evidence for that statement and backed it with a viable hypothesis of the how's and why's to the reasoning behind the origin of that observation. If you do not agree, than do not do what you accuse others of doing; making a statement against a finding/hypothesis with no reasoning for why you disagree... ...provide evidence to the contrary. Ric stated: > You see something that could be a fallen tree and you proclaim it to be > fallen tree. A dark splotch is sanctified as a hatch because you say it > looks like a hatch. Others look at it and say, "Gee, he's right. It's a > hatch." That's how psychics work. Not scientists. Perhaps you typed a little too quick at that statement; but I really take it to heart as being classified with a group of charlatans and those that feed upon human weaknesses... I do not feel that I've said or done anything to warrant that kind of attack on my character. Ric, I don't know where the animosity came from; but if I did anything to cause it, I apologize. It has become apparent to me that no call will ever be accepted on the matter of imaging; unless it is made by Jeff Glickman. It has also become apparent to me that I really do not have anything to offer this group. Stay well, Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric Believe it or not, I agree with your disgust at the current fashion of refusal to take responsibility, but there is an equally and infinitely more dangerous fashion for accepting bad science (or no science at all) as truth. Whether it's herbal remedies or military "intelligence", gullibility carries consequences that are at best embarrassing and at worst get people killed. Fortunately, the stakes in trying to solve the Earhart mystery are seldom that high but the priniciples are the same. I have come to trust Jeff Glickman because, after working with him for about ten years now, he has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to provide useful information from imagery that we've been able to later verify with "ground truth." For those issues that do not lend themselves to hands-on verification he always makes a clear distinction between replicable scientific fact and his own personal interpretation. I came down pretty hard on you not because your results differed from Jeff's (Jeff never addressed the issues you addressed), but because your methodology and qualifications did not support the certainty with which you presented yourself. I'm sorry if I offended you but this kitchen gets pretty hot and you're not the first to find it too uncomfortable to stick around. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:03:30 EDT From: Rom Strang Subject: Earhart's Fuel Supply? From Tom Strang CDR Thompson and crew assumed on the morning of July 2nd. that Earhart's fuel supply would be exhausted about 12 noon local time - Where did this assumption pertaining to fuel exhaustion originate from? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent question. I can't find a reference in the messages that went back and forth while AE was in New Guinea. In Air Corps Lt. Dan Cooper's report he says that "Gasoline supply was estimated to last 24 hours with a possibility of lasting 30 hours." but he doesn't say where that information came from. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:10:07 EDT From: Lawrence Glazer Subject: Wreck Photo Analysis TO Marty M. Marty, I agree with the broad points you make in your post regarding innovation and the scientific method. However, I have a couple of quibbles with your statements about Einstein. "Einstein's paper on the special theory of relativity (1905) was written while he was working as a patent clerk. " True, but not quite the whole truth. Einstein already had his degree, from the Swiss Polytechnical School. He was working as a patent clerk only because he had not yet been accepted for a university teaching position. "It depended on no new data. It was 'just' a reorganization of what was already known plus a demolition of some assumptions about space and time that Einstein showed were unfounded." True. No quibble here. "Most physicists adopted Einstein's theories long before the bending of light by gravity was confirmed during the solar eclipse of 1919. It would have been bad science to have waited for 'perfect proof.'" True that many accepted Einstein's SPECIAL theory of relativity long before the solar eclipse observation. However, the solar eclipse observation had nothing to do with the SPECIAL theory; it was a test of Einstein's much more revolutionary GENERAL theory of relativity. The SPECIAL theory deals with the equivalence of the non-accelerating frames of reference of all observers, and has nothing to do with gravity. The GENERAL theory deals with accelerating bodies (and accelerating frames of reference), and the nature of gravity. It predicts that light will be "bent" when entering the gravitational field of a massive body. This prediction appeared to be confirmed in 1919 by the observed apparent change in position of certain stars when the light from those stars had to pass near the sun. I submit the above with great respect for your many contributions to the search (undoubtedly more than I will ever contribute). Finally, although I don't agree with all of Nikki's opinions, I do agree that he has performed a good analysis and I understand and agree with his position on formal credentials. Lawrence Glazer #2424 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:12:24 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: birds Angus Quotes Bevington >"Everywhere were fish, birds, and teeming life. Overhead thousands of sea >birds wheeled and soared -- there were terns, frigates, boobies, and many >others. " > >Maybe there were more in 1937? >*********************************************************************** >From Ric > >Maybe, but frankly I doubt it. I think Bevington was waxing poetic. For one >thing, only frigates "wheel and soar" It also depends upon the time of day. The night I spent at the 7 site allowed me to witness the early morning avian rush hour departing the Buka forest . The birds would circle around for a while gaining altitude, then head NE out to sea. Mostly Frigates I believe, but there were others mixed in too. I can easily imagine Bevington "waxing Poetic" about such an early morning sight, as it was truly beautiful to watch. Still, nothing like the roosting at McKean. Only saw this in the early am, long before AE would have been making her approach, or Lambrecht making his overflight. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:21:58 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Alan wrote: > Marty, that was great. I particularly liked, "In the last analysis, science > cannot be done scientifically...." > > In one sentence what does it mean in the context of the Amelia search? The necessary historical investigation of AE & FN's last flight cannot be undertaken and evaluated without the proper use of imagination, intuition, hunches, and summary judgments that are personal rather than absolute. :-P LTM. Marty #2359 ********************************************************************** From Ric Let's make a distinction between hunches, etc., which are the reasons that we follow various lines of inquiry; and "proof", "evidence" whatever you want to call the information that we offer to others in trying to persuade them that our conclusions are justified. Waaay back in 1988 Tom Gannon and Tom Willi explained to me the navigational logic behind what they thought happened to Earhart (she flew down the LOP and reached either McKean of Gardner) and I had a hunch that they were right. Here we are 15 years later still trying to prove it. All inquiry starts with a hunch but it can only end with something that at least looks like an "absolute." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:23:47 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niki and the Forum Thanks, Niki, for telling us about yourself. I'd like to respond to this question of yours: "How many "lurkers" are out there that subscribe to this forum because they have a deep interest in the AE investigation; but are afraid to say anything, or even join TIGHAR - for any of the above reasons... hands please?" Niki, I have not been a member of this forum or this group for any great length of time. I have made a number of postings to this forum, and have participated in a small way in other activities, according to my resources and abilities. I don't know exactly and fully what the other forumites think of me or my efforts generally, but if I became bogged down in worrying about it, I would have to regard that as my problem. I detect generally that the whole of this group appreciates everyone's efforts and postings, and, once posted, we are all free to pile on comments and criticism that are directed at proving the hypothesis. The process gets tense at times, but its not personal, so we don't sweat it. I think your statement about "filling out a job application" is more than a slight exaggeration. And I think your education and interests make for a good fit in this forum. As I said before, your site is interesting and thought-provoking. I'd recommend you move up from "lurker" status! Join the Group and support the work. LTM, which means "a Lurker, Then a Member" Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:26:18 EDT From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Analysis Has anyone seen this photo? >http://www.ijaafpics.com/JB&W/Ki-56-3.jpg < It shows a Japanese transport version of the Hudson. Notice that it flew without a cowling. Not sure who else did this but if there was a two-bladed prop version then we might have our plane. Cheers from Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:02:50 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Analysis Lawrence Glazer wrote: > Marty, I agree with the broad points you make in your post regarding > innovation and the scientific method. However, I have a couple of quibbles > with your statements about Einstein. No problem. Thanks for the lessons on the difference between special and general relativity! ;o) So if the 1919 observation didn't confirm special relativity, the date of confirmation has to be pushed back even further--Michelson & Morely's work on the speed of light was accepted by Lorentz without making Einstein's predictions about the mass/energy relationship or time dilation. One of the recurrent questions in the Forum is deciding when there is "enough" evidence to support or refute a hypothesis. I believe there are absolute standards in formal logic and mathematics for the presentation of proofs, but not in the mixed (observational) sciences. The reason this matters is that when the research on Niku and elsewhere is completed, TIGHAR will not be able to meet standards of "absolute proof." The form of argument will not be deduction from axioms guaranteed to be correct by the application of formal operations, making a chain of argument in which every link is as strong as every other link. Instead, it will be a "consilience of inductions" (Whewell, 19th century) in which several lines of argument converge on the same point: navigational considerations weather reports native anecdotes bones, shoe parts, sextant box, corks, "eyepiece" post-loss radio messages conjectures about why the air search failed and why others did not find the skeleton & artifacts evaluation of "contemporaneous sources" vs. later assertions suppositions about tides & storm surges hiding and revealing aircraft debris observation of native "recycling" programs and products etc. A "consilience of inductions" is more like a rope than a chain. Each strand in the rope is too weak and too short to be a perfect proof itself, but the accumulation of strength of interwoven strands makes the whole much stronger than any of its parts. In deductive reasoning, the chain of argument is only as strong as its weakest link. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:36:59 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Ric wrote: > Let's make a distinction between hunches, etc., which are the reasons that we > follow various lines of inquiry; and "proof", "evidence" whatever you want to > call the information that we offer to others in trying to persuade them that > our conclusions are justified. In principle, that is a reasonable distinction. > ... All inquiry starts with a hunch but it can only end with something that at > least looks like an "absolute." There is no absolute rule in the observational sciences about how much evidence is required to "prove" hypotheses. Deciding what is "enough" is a personal judgment. This is a matter of practical wisdom, also known as prudence. Dayton Miller spent decades trying to show that there was, in fact, "aether drift" and therefore some medium within which light waves move. I'm not sure that there is a settled judgment on what was wrong with his experiments, but (at least for now) there seems to be consensus in mainline physics that despite the huge body of observations he accumulated, he was wrong in his interpretation of the data. Philosophers of science went down the road of "perfect proof" a long time ago. They were called "positivists," because their goal was to develop positive proof of all of the truths of science. They hit a few snags in the road. Their own philosophy was self-referentially inconsistent because it could not meet its own standards of proof. Goedel proved that not even mathematics can create formal ("absolute") systems that demonstrate their own consistency and completeness. In the observational sciences, there is always a irreducible element of imprecision between theory and observation, because no measurement can be made with perfect precision--all observations are "plus or minus" some amount, and a good scientist will provide a calculation of the limits of the instrument. TIGHAR will be measured by the measure with which we measure others. I suggest it is not in TIGHAR's best interests to talk about absolutes when the best we're ever gonna get is a responsible approximation. ;o) (I may be wrong. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. I am certain that I may be wrong because if you could prove me wrong, then you would prove me right.) LTM. Marty #2359 ******************************************************************* From Ric >There is no absolute rule in the observational sciences >about how much evidence is required to "prove" hypotheses. >Deciding what is "enough" is a personal judgment. Ain't THAT the truth. >I suggest it is not in TIGHAR's best >interests to talk about absolutes when the best we're >ever gonna get is a responsible approximation. Point taken, but from a practical perspective there seems (to me at least) to be a threshold of proof beyond which most people - or perhaps more to the point - most news editors, will accept a hypothesis as being adequately established as being true. For example, if Nauticos were to find the Earhart Electra sitting on the bottom of the ocean most of us would accept that the Crashed-and-Sank hypothesis had been shown to be true. Of course, a few die-hard Japanese Capture fans would insist that the plane had been thrown overboard when the Kamoi spotted the Lexington on the horizon, but there's no such thing as universal acceptance of anything. That threshold is what we're after when we pine for a "smoking gun." We all recognize that even a smoking gun could be a red herring (how's THAT for a mixed metaphor?) but what we're really talking about is something that will tip the scales of credibility for that "reasonable and prudent person" the law talks about. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:53:29 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Words to live by I can see it now, folks, in a World History textbook in the year 2084: "A smoking gun could be a red herring" with a credit line to none other than Ric Gillespie !! It reminds me of a prominent person in my industry, Professor Theodore Galambos, who once said, "Anything is everywhere." !! Niki, if you're still there, stick around, and you'll learn plenty! LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:04:02 EDT From: David Katz Subject: Guns and herrings Ric wrote: We all recognize that even a smoking gun could be a red herring (how's THAT for a mixed metaphor?) What if you were caught red-handed with a smoked herring? David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:07:23 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis > ... from a practical perspective there seems (to me at least) to > be a threshold of proof beyond which most people - or perhaps more to the > point - most news editors, will accept a hypothesis as being adequately > established as being true. Agreed. But that is a practical matter--a prudential judgment. It is a standard that varies with what is being tested. > For example, if Nauticos were to find the Earhart > Electra sitting on the bottom of the ocean most of us would accept that the > Crashed-and-Sank hypothesis had been shown to be true. Of course, a few > die-hard Japanese Capture fans would insist that the plane had been thrown > overboard when the Kamoi spotted the Lexington on the horizon ... Yes, exactly. Or planted by the Japanese after the war to cover up their guilt. Or planted by the USA to cover up their mistake in sending AE & FN to their deaths. Or planted by TIGHAR enthusiasts. Or floated in after AE & FN crashed in the water. Or whatever other kind of hypothesis someone might dream up as a counterweight to evidence TIGHAR finds persuasive. > ... but there's no > such thing as universal acceptance of anything. This is a funny proposition. I agree with it as it stands. I think it is knowable but not provable. It is not a truth of mathematics or of the hard sciences, but a judgment about how humans tend to operate. I argue that "people disagree" is an unassailable truth because if you disagree with me, you prove my point. For me, the moral of the story is that seeking "universal acceptance" is a wrong way of evaluating hypotheses. I am content with a lower standard of proof. I believe that sound theories will draw greater support over the course of time (e.g., the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun took some time to win near-universal acceptance). > That threshold is what we're after when we pine for a "smoking gun." We all > recognize that even a smoking gun could be a red herring (how's THAT for a > mixed metaphor?) but what we're really talking about is something that will > tip the scales of credibility for that "reasonable and prudent person" the > law talks about. Yes. Some pieces of evidence are stronger than others. Airplane parts with serial numbers will play a stronger role in persuading doubters than parts without serial numbers. There is, unfortunately, no one "reasonable and prudent" person held in the storage facilities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Everyone involved in making judgments about matters of fact has to imagine such a person and use that figment of their imagination as a check against their own guesses, intuitions, hunches, and enthusiasms. That "performance to self-set standards" (Polanyi) is what makes science and history work. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:08:32 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Wreck Photo analysis Let me see if I understand what you gents are saying - The question of absolute observational science means, no two cowpokes see the landscape the same especially if drinking excessive proof "Absolute" vodka - As you can see I have too much free time and my adult supervision is still distracted with her Mother's Day gifts - Good luck with your respective theories of flight on this subject. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:10:18 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: birds It is also likely that bird numbers and species have changed since Bevington "waxed poetic" due to the massive changes to the flora brought about by clearing and cultivation on a large scale, and by the overgrowth of scaevola on the island. Nesting season may have a little to do with numbers also. Th' WOMBAT ****************************************************************** From Ric Good point. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:26:33 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Betty's Notebook Forum Discussions I just caught up on all the posts for Jan. '03 and read through the above subject in fairly good detail - my how some folks go on. Anyway, I was wondering if in your many talks with Betty, was the question discussed of how her family, friends and neighbors reacted to Earhart's disappearance when it was announced to the world the following day - July 3, 1937. It seems to me that the July 3rd's announcement would have been a "watershed" event in Betty's home and her neighborhood once the word got out that Betty was aware of the lost flyer the previous night. My point being, if there was such a rememberable event as having already learned of Earhart's fate the night before, there is a little more support for the book being a July 2, 1937, transcription. This "discovery" also may have made the local papers and/or could be substantiated by neighbors still living: Thus nailing down the notebook date. Just a thought. Ted Campbell ********************************************************************** From Ric That's an interesting point. Betty has never indicated experiencing any incredulity from the neighbors or the Coast Guard about Earhart being in trouble and no mention of any feeling of vindication when the news came out that Earhart was missing. That seems like a pretty strong indication that the event did not occur on July 2nd. July 3rd is a possibility IF her father coming home from work was coming home from a part-time, weekend handyman job. July 4th is pretty much out because it was holiday. I still like July 5th because her father can come home from work as usual; Earhart's disappearance and reports of post-loss signals are public knowledge; and the time fits with some Itasca transmissions that may be referred to in the transcription. The extreme desperation reflected in the text and our current understanding of the tidal situation also argue for the transmission happening on the 5th. There's some new information that may reflect on the notebook which I am presently writing up for the new TIGHAR Tracks. I'll preview it to the forum. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:40:31 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Wreck Photo - The End Ric wrote: > ... yourself. I'm sorry if I offended you but this kitchen gets pretty hot and > you're not the first to find it too uncomfortable to stick around. Then I'd like to submit a question: why does the kitchen get so hot? Or more to the point: does it have to get hot to begin with??? Are we trying to come up with info etc, or are we challenging ea other on who is the toughest? To comment on another question: I too am one of the semi-lurkers who hesitates and often drops it, before I submit anything at all. I've been hanging out here by a thread, so to speak... For example I didn't bother to mention I have been in Kiribati for over 4 weeks so far... Not much useful I know, here on Xmas, but... I believe I have a tiny bit of present day knowledge on the area, and also have some differing ideas on logistical approaches, but I don't need to come here to take fire, or practice self-aggrandizing with unending postings on every body else single posting that comes across, etc. I have a life outside Tighar, and things to do... My hat off to Nikki for taking the time to put up a website: next time I am near a high speed ISP I'll see if it is still running. Regards Christian D ************************************************************************ From Ric In the Middle Ages there were two ways to conduct a tournament - "a' plaisance" in which the weapons were blunted and the fighting was only for show, and "a' outrance" in which the weapons were pointy and things got serious. TIGHAR's Earhart Project and this forum are conducted a' outrance, not because we necessarily enjoy fighting (some do, some don't) but because we're serious about the outcome. The conclusions we reach, in part, as the result of these discussions are acted upon with the raising and spending of considerable amounts of money and, at times, significant risk to life an limb. This tournament is not for show. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:42:46 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: Wreck Photo - lightening holes Correct me if I'm wrong regarding the much-debated wreck photo, but didn't Ric go to the Smithsonian's Silver Hill facility some time ago and dig out blueprints for the Ki-54 that showed NO lightening holes in the main wing spar, while such holes are evident in the wreck photo? LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189, who tries to check the website before posting a ? ************************************************************** From Ric That's right. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:46:20 EDT From: Denise Murphy Subject: And furthermore, Marty ... Marty says: " Dayton Miller spent decades trying to show that ... huge body of observations he accumulated, he was wrong in his interpretation of the data." Marty, you do know, don't you, that The Flat Earth Society is able to prove, through scientific methodology, including mathematics, that the earth is actually flat. Don't you just love it! I think that says it all! LTM (who had lots of good will towards the Flat Earthers) Denise *********************************************************** From Ric My favorite is the Man Will Never Fly Society which meets once a year at Kittyhawk in North Carolina and counts among its members some of the most famous names in aviation. The society's motto is " Birds fly. Men drink." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:51:34 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Niki and the Forum Alfred Hendrickson wrote: > I detect generally that the whole of this group appreciates everyone's > efforts and postings, and, once posted, we are all free to pile on > comments and criticism that are directed at proving the hypothesis... Bingo, Alfred... "...comments and criticism that are directed at proving the hypothesis..." All the "comments and criticism" I've received from Ric pertaining to this matter; display absolutely nothing towards "proving the hypothesis" that I presented; nor did they answer any of my original questions; nor did they provide any evidence indicating something other than a "fallen tree" in the photograph; nor did they present an alternative to the "hatch area" as being nothing more than a "black splotch" in which I apparently DO possess the "psychic" ability to see hatch-like shapes... Rather, they were all aimed at, I feel, my character and my abilities to even construct such a hypothesis; or differentiate one image from another... I'm sorry, Alfred; but I just can't help seeing the old classic, "If you cannot find fault with the work; attack the worker" syndrome. (It's not the first time; and I think I'm qualified to say it won't be the last...) I also find it interesting that Ric completely avoided the issue of my pointing out an observation; where he stated: "Where I question Niki is when he asks me to accept that he can interpret something better than I can, or you can, because of his special expertise. The fallen tree is an example. I can see how it might be a fallen tree but he states flatly that it IS a fallen tree. I have worked with Jeff Glickman long enough to know that he would NEVER say something like that." Perhaps Ric needs to work with Jeff just a wee-bit longer; as Jeff's report on "The Lost Antenna" states: "Missing. Therefore, through deduction, the antenna masts must be missing from the belly of the fuselage." If THAT isn't a "flatly" stated interpretation and conclusion... Ric stated in another message: "For those issues that do not lend themselves to hands-on verification he [Jeff Glickman] always makes a clear distinction between replicable scientific fact and his own personal interpretation." But in the matter of the "dash-dot" analogy (as well as the antenna analysis above): "Subsequent analysis by Photek established that the "dash-dot" object in the 1937 Bevington photo was shipwreck debris and not aircraft wreckage." Another interpretation and conclusion. Ric also seems to have blown-off the issue of my pointing out that even though Jeff made his conclusion based upon 3 points of why the antenna "appears to be missing from the photograph", there IS another possibility as to why this condition may be so... (It appears to me since Jeff didn't find it, it must not exist...) Even though I attempted to answer all of Ric's questions to the best of my ability, Ric has displayed the uncanny ability to evade the issue of a question - and either answered a question with another issue that further supported his agenda; or simply stated that he wasn't "interested". I'll give you a f'rinstance: Ric stated: "I came down pretty hard on you not because your results differed from Jeff's (Jeff never addressed the issues you addressed), but because your methodology and qualifications did not support the certainty with which you presented yourself." I find this statement interesting; as it now appears that Ric places himself above the institution that granted my degree; 2 major branches of law-enforcement; the state of Florida; and the Bahamian Govt. Hospital Authority [medical imaging analysis] - in addition to 27 years experience - by stating that (my) "...qualifications did not support the certainty with which you presented yourself." (I suspect Ric holds the necessary documents to make this judgment...) But, needless to say; it's Ric's show and Ric's call. No problem. But in addition, he also states, (my) "methodology... did not support the certainty with which you presented yourself." Furthermore, he states: "...there is an equally and infinitely more dangerous fashion for accepting bad science (or no science at all) as truth. Whether it's herbal remedies or military "intelligence", gullibility carries consequences that are at best embarrassing and at worst get people killed." I find these statements particularly interesting because he has already determined that there was no support from my "methodology"; labels that "methodology" as "bad science (or no science at all)"; and indicates that anyone who accepts the possibility of my findings as being "gullible"... ...a conclusion arrived at without knowing WHAT methodology or procedures I've applied to my analysis in the first place, as he never even cared enough to ask. Now THAT'S psychic ability... Ric then shifts the original issue by stating: "I'm sorry if I offended you but this kitchen gets pretty hot and you're not the first to find it too uncomfortable to stick around." ...as if I bailed out because I found it "...too uncomfortable to stick around." Alfred, if the heat in the kitchen were turned up pertaining to proving, or disproving my hypothesis - or the methodology applied to my findings, in a true scientific fashion - as you state: "...comments and criticism that are directed at proving the hypothesis..." ...it would've been, "Let's have at it..." Instead, the kitchen appears to be the "backyard Bar-B-Que"; alight with "personal flames"... (...hows that for "creative"?) It's like being at a weenie-roast... with ME being the weenie... I find no scientific value to "stick around" and become embroiled in a pointless and immature argument over one's character traits. (...that classic, "If you cannot find fault with the work; attack the worker" syndrome) > I think your statement about "filling out a job application" is more > than a slight exaggeration. ...sorry, Alfred ... it was a failed attempt at a humorous little wise-*** remark... > And I think your education and interests make for a good fit in this > forum. As I said before, your site is interesting and thought-provoking. > > I'd recommend you move up from "lurker" status! Join the Group and > support the work. Well, Alfred... I actually thought I was... But thank you... I appreciate your kind statements and offer... However, even though I have extracted more from the wreck photo; and made a "preliminary" on the very low-res 1941 Gardener Is. photo; I do see it as a pointless endeavor on my part to present anything further on this project. (In case you haven't already, copy any pix from the website that you may have any interest in; I'll be taking it down shortly...) Nothing but the best to you and yours, Niki ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:04:03 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niki and the Forum Niki, I read your note. I'm speechless. This entire thread got rather out of hand. I want to take you up on your offer to copy photos from your site. Please let me know, off-forum, how long I have to do this; my e-mail address is below. Regards and LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 *********************************************************** From Dennis McGee Niki said: [Ad nauseum] "However, even though I have extracted more from the wreck photo; and made a "preliminary" on the very low-res 1941 Gardener Is. photo; I do see it as a pointless endeavor on my part to present anything further on this project." Darn! Another genius thwarted and another martyr at the alter of TIGHAR. Will we ever learn? Niki, you're protesting too much. You expressed an opinion and laid out your evidence; Ric and others questioned your results and methodology. It happens all of the time here. Win some, lose some. You did some good work but not everyone agrees with your conclusion, and that is hopefully where it begins and ends. But don't take it too personally because it has been my experience that the more one "owns" an opinion the more difficult it is to change that opinion. The more you lash out at the non-believers, trying to convince them of your position and emphasizing your credentials, the more desperate you sound. Many of us here have been down the same path, including Ric. It's a humbling experience. It'd be a shame for you to sulk in a corner and eat worms simply because your nose is out of joint. It's pretty obvious you enjoy a challenge, and now that you know the rules around here you're in a better position to contribute toward a effort that is meaningful to you. Just answer the bell for Round 2 . . . . :-) LTM, a Dr. Phil fan Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:27:27 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Miami Takeoff For Mike Juliano Thanks for sending me your DVD of the American Experience documentary (I'll send it right back). I've looked at the take-off that is at least implied to be the Miami takeoff on June 1st and I can't see any reason to doubt that it really is that event. The surrounding terrain seems to be very flat - no hills visible. The airplane is clearly heavy and the sun, at one point in the takeoff run, can be seen to be reflected off the right hand side of the nose. The Miami takeoff was made at 5:56 a.m. just after sunrise and, according to Last Flight, made from the southeast corner of the field. A run from SE to NW would put the recently risen sun off to the right of the airplane. The runway is unpaved and white in color - crushed stone and shell would be my guess. The props kick up a tremendous amount of white dust behind the airplane throughout the run. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:41:45 EDT From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Wreck photo Ric: Give the wreck photo (or any other photos) to the Kentucky Derby stewards and you'll have your answer in 24 hours! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:43:41 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: Re: Wreck Photo - lightening holes ...So that means that all of Niki's "photo analysis" that conclusively proves that the Wreck Photo is a Ki-54 is ... wrong? Or am I missing something? LTM, Monty Fowler ****************************************************************** From Simon #2120 Monty Fowler wrote:- > Correct me if I'm wrong regarding the much-debated wreck photo, but > didn't Ric go to the Smithsonian's Silver Hill facility some time ago > and dig out blueprints for the Ki-54 that showed NO lightening holes in > the main wing spar, while such holes are evident in the wreck photo? I think there was some contention over how conclusive this blueprint was. The blueprint in question appears to be just a general arrangement schematic showing spar positions and layout but little or no spar detail. I also maintain that the leading edge (shown faintly ghosted in the blueprint) seems to show a false spar or panel ahead of the front spar which could well be the "hole panel" in question. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any Ki-54 wings still in existence, so I guess we'll never know. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:53:57 EDT From: Carl P Subject: Re: Wreck Photo - The End Ric said: >This tournament is not for show. thanks Ric for making the difference known! we want to know the truth. ******************************************************************* From Mike Haddock Well said!! Mike haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:55:58 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Niki and the Forum Dennis McGee wrote: > Niki said: [Ad nauseum] "However, even though I have extracted more > from the wreck photo; and made a "preliminary" on the very low-res 1941 > Gardener Is. photo; I do see it as a pointless endeavor on my part to > present anything further on this project." > > Darn! Another genius thwarted and another martyr at the altar of > TIGHAR. Will we ever learn? > > Niki, you're protesting too much. You expressed an opinion and laid > out your evidence; Ric and others questioned your results and methodology. > It happens all of the time here. Win some, lose some. Get the facts straight, sir... read the posts: my "results and methodology" were NEVER questioned... > You did some good > work but not everyone agrees with your conclusion, and that is hopefully > where it begins and ends. Well, thank you, Dennis... and there was never a problem; if anyone disagreed with my conclusion and indicated why... > But don't take it too personally because it has been my experience that > the more one "owns" an opinion the more difficult it is to change that > opinion. Please point out where I made the attempt to change anyone's opinion... > The more you lash out at the non-believers, trying to convince them > of your position and emphasizing your credentials, the more desperate > you sound. Say, Dennis; I have an idea: Will the "non-believers" that have presented their views towards my "results and methodology" showing why they disagree - and had a good "lash out" by me - please stand up?... The credentials were "emphasized" because they were asked for on more than one occasion. > Many of us here have been down the same path, including Ric. It's a > humbling experience. It'd be a shame for you to sulk in a corner and eat > worms simply because your nose is out of joint. When more than one accusation has been leveled against me, personally; I prefer to take issue with each of those accusations until they can be justified, or shown to be without merit. I'm sorry if I do not submit to - and handle - a situation in the method you've apparently accepted... > It's pretty obvious you enjoy a challenge, and now that you know the > rules around here you're in a better position to contribute toward a > effort that is meaningful to you. I see... ...and this "path" to a humbling experience" you speak of, is sorta like an "initiation" or "conversion"; no...? So as spokesman for the forum, you're indicating to me that what I took as being a "scientific forum" is nothing more than a free-for-all; where the person, and/or the work; is fair game... ...and "any insults and/or accusations goes"; is the whole of the law? Well, Dennis... thank you for pointing that out to me; I guess I really have been wrong all this time. I apologize. [Ad "more" nauseum] Niki ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:00:19 EDT From: Niki Subject: Wreck Photo Angus Murray wrote: > I also argued that comparison with a > real electra photographed from the same angle with a similar focal length > lens would be the best way of making a better comparison as many of the > distortions would then be the same in each. Yes, infinitely so... There are 3 Electras - not 10 minutes from me. Perhaps I'll attempt the owner's/pilot's permission for such a photo... Have you done any calculations as to what focal length might have been used in the wreck photo? > However I think your website has usefully and graphically crystallized these > points and perhaps persuaded some who had lingering doubts about the idea > that the wreck was not an electra - in spite of the fact that you too used > scaling without adjustment for distortion in superimposing an R1340 on the > wreck photo engine. Good observation - point taken. The method I used was to elongate the engine to the same angle as the photo; however, to achieve (near) perfection, the "posting" resolution (and practical kB size) would not have allowed it to be identified as an R1340 any longer... To compensate, I scaled the engine smaller than the size that should actually be displayed (forcing the pixel calculations in the R1340 image to be processed within the next byte-boundary; thus creating further clarity); and applied a very slight distortion. This seemed to agree with the usable "website resolution". I reasoned that since the size of the R1340 was to a smaller scale than the remainder of the wreck, it would support the evidence further. Thanks for your comments, Niki ********************************************************************** From Ric I'm trying to figure out where somebody could be and have three Electras not 10 minutes away - unless they have an SR-71 down at the airport. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:01:37 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Pound for pound . . . Alan said a couple of days ago: "We pound some issues to death." Yeah, then we bury 'em for a week so they can get nice and ripe. Then we dig 'em up and beat them some, bury them for a week or two, etc. This process continues until the victim/subject is unrecognizable. We've had at least three funerals on the LOP issue, an equal number on the range of the 10E, and a couple on the landing site and the "house for Gallagher" and some other stuff. I recognize the importance of funerals as closure, but I'm going broke buying flowers all the time. :-) LTM, an ex-groundpounder? Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:39:45 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Something new Here's something new to chew on. Some will notice a distinctly smoky taste while others will swear it's just smoked herring. One of the more cryptic passages transcribed in Betty's Notebook is: "George get the suitcase in my closet Calif." Betty's later recollection of the entire phrase was: "Tell my husband George to get the suitcase in my closet in California." It seems like a strange thing for someone in Earhart's supposed position to say. If the voice Betty heard really was Amelia's, the situation was desperate and her survival very much in question. What could possibly be in the suitcase that would be that important? We even asked the Putnam family if they knew of any papers or items that may have been found in a suitcase after AE's death, but they knew of nothing like that. For some, the presence of such an apparently trivial phrase casts serious doubt upon the possible authenticity of the entire incident. Recently, however, we've become aware of a passage in a letter that Amelia wrote to her mother in December of 1934 which provides a possible explanation. AE and her husband, along with Paul Mantz and his wife, had sailed from California for Hawaii on December 20 aboard the Matson liner S.S. Lurline with Amelia's red Lockheed Vega strapped to the aft tennis deck. It was a poorly kept secret that she was planning to attempt the first Hawaii to the U.S. mainland flight. The day after Christmas, as the ship was nearing Honolulu, AE wrote a long chatty letter to her mother Amy who was house-sitting in California. That fall, George and Amelia had decided to move their place of residence from the Putnam home in Rye, New York to the Los Angeles area where GP could be near Paramount Studios for whom he was working at that time and Amelia could be near the Lockheed plant in Burbank where the Vega was undergoing overhaul in preparation for the Honolulu/Oakland flight. They had set up housekeeping in a rented bungalow at 10515 Valley Spring Lane near Toluca Lake in North Hollywood and persuaded Amy, who was living with AE's sister Muriel and her family in Massachusetts, to come out for a long visit. In the December 26 letter to her mother, Amelia covers a multitude of subjects from the tropical weather, to the shipboard gossip her airplane is generating, to preparations for the upcoming flight. Toward the end of the letter she wrote: "G.P. said you were an awfully good sport to stay alone in the little house. I said I had known that a long time. I have taken possession of the stuff in the zipper compartment of my briefcase. Put it away until I turn up and if I don't - burn it. It consists of fragments that mean nothing to anybody but me." Just what it was that she wanted burned in the event of her death could be a subject for endless tabloid speculation, but the nature of the "stuff" is not important to our investigation. What is interesting is the synchronicity between the instructions to her mother in December 1934 and the putative instructions to her husband in 1937. The existence of extremely private papers and/or items that AE kept in a briefcase at home and her instructions to a close family member to retrieve the material for destruction "if I don't turn up" has the appearance of being a documented precedent for the passage in Betty's Notebook and one which a member of the general public could not possibly know about. There are, of course, questions. Why did AE need to "take possession" of such private items? From whose possession did she take them? And how did a briefcase in 1934 become a suitcase in 1937? The answers can only be speculative, but the startling similarity between the two events is undeniable. We are forced to consider which of two highly unlikely events is the more improbable : - that a nonsensical passage in a misunderstood or hoaxed radio transmission happened to mimic a real-life secret. or - a 15 year old girl in Florida heard a desperate call from Amelia Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:40:53 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Ric wrote: > I'm trying to figure out where somebody could be and have three Electras not > 10 minutes away - unless they have an SR-71 down at the airport. L-188 Electras ?? ;-) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:46:12 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Wreck Photo - lightening holes Is the aircraft in the wreck photo a Ki-54 or isn't it? Lets have the problem solved by someone who knows all about Japanese aircraft. Does TIGHAR happen to have any members or forumites in Japan? If not, we could contact some Japanese aviation publication. They exist over there like they exist anywhere else in the world and in any language. There are guys in the UK who know every nut and bolt in a Lancaster or a Spitfire. There are even some ex-service men or crew members around who flew in them or maintained them or built them. I'm sure we can find Japanese counterparts in Japan. I remember there used to be an aviation publication called KOKU FAN (Koku being Japanese for Aviation). I'm sure some Japanese koku enthusiast will be happy to help. LTM (who believes problems are solutions in disguise) ************************************************************************ From Ric Enjoy. Personally I don't care if the thing is a Ki-54 or '57 Chevy. I think the ring-cowl discrepancy alone is enough to show that it's not a Lockheed 10. The other more arguable disqualifiers are icing on the cake. If it's not an Electra it's off topic. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:27:40 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Niki and the Forum Niki wrote: > ...and this "path" to a humbling experience" you speak of, is sorta like > an "initiation" or "conversion"; no...? Stuff happens, even in an educational-purposes forum that is intended to illustrate how to do research using the best-available techniques. Not all of it is good stuff. :o( Michael Polanyi, a physical chemist who developed his own theory of knowing in a book entitled _Personal Knowledge_, explained why there is so much vitriol in scientific debates: "We have seen that to the extent to which it represents a new way of reasoning, we cannot convince others by formal argument, for so long as we argue within their framework, we can never induce them to abandon it. Demonstration must be supplemented, therefore, by forms of persuasion which can induce a conversion. The refusal to enter on the opponent's way of arguing must be justified by making it appear altogether unreasonable. "Such comprehensive rejection cannot fail to discredit the opponent. He will be made to appear as thoroughly deluded, which in the heat of the battle will easily come to imply that he was a fool, a crank, or a fraud. And once we are out to establish such charges we shall readily go on to expose our opponent as a 'metaphysician,' a 'Jesuit,' a 'Jew,' or a 'Bolshevik,' as the case may be-- or, speaking from the other side of the Iron Curtain--as an 'objectivist,' an 'idealist,' and a 'cosmopolitan.' In a clash of intellectual passions each side must inevitably attack the opponent's person." (PK, 151-2). > So as spokesman for the forum, you're indicating to me that what I > took as being a "scientific forum" is nothing more than a free-for-all; > where the person, and/or the work; is fair game... I wouldn't say it's "nothing more than a free-for-all," but there is certainly a very large element of freedom in the conduct of the discussions. In Polanyi's understanding of "personal knowledge," the person and the work stand together because the work is always the work of persons who exercise the best judgment they can. I don't have your experience in photography, engineering, or image analysis. I don't have any credentials upon which I can stand to challenge your credentials. I'm in the forum because I'm an aviation nut who argues for a living. When you tell me that you rotated elements of pictures and moved them into position in other pictures, I take your word for it that you did so responsibly. I don't have the talent or training that you do. I'm not going to try to duplicate your work, either. The stuff I found most persuasive was the tracing of the stringers and the panels on the two noses. So far as I can tell, that argument relies on seeing the lines and counting things up to five or six. I don't have to take your word about that, because I can see it for myself, now that you've pointed it out. I see the fallen tree. I see the symmetry you pointed out between it and the trees around it. I understood at once your conjecture that the photographer wanted to capture the scene from a particular point of view for aesthetic purposes. There is no empirical method by which "aesthetic purposes" can be measured and depersonalized. I like your conjecture, but I wouldn't introduce it in a court of law unless I had testimony from the photographer that would stand up to a good cross-examination. Without that substantiation, the aesthetic conjecture is moot: debatable and undecide-able. The Forum is a peculiar social setting. Sometimes we've compared it to a one-room schoolhouse, where many different groups are working on different tasks simultaneously. There's a lot of noise and confusion in the room. Sometimes tempers flare. Sometimes things are misunderstood. Sometimes we get to talking about things that aren't really on-topic. Sometimes folks resign. Sometimes they get excommunicated. Sometimes they get treated with undue disrespect. Sometimes they get what they deserve and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the game of "show and tell" gets out of hand. I like your work. You see things with "fresh eyes." I hope you come to feel as much at home in the Forum as I do. There are some truly remarkable people here. I hesitate to start listing them for fear I will leave someone out. We've got experts in archeology, forensic anthropology, imaging, oceanography, navigation, engineering, law, aeronautics, accident investigation and on and on. We've got lots of folks without credentials, too, who just love to think and talk about how to solve this particular puzzle and how to solve other similar puzzles. The door to the Forum is open. It swings both ways. People can enter or leave as they see fit. I love it here. YMMV. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:23:05 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: The End, this time I really mean it !! Angus concluded some time ago (late last year, I think) that the 10E was a more "tightly cowled" plane than the plane in the wreck photo. We all went through a prop-to-cowl-diameter exercise, which was, well, a whole lotta fun. In January of this year, Dave Bush posted this: "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." which sort of iced it for me. Niki's thoughts and opinions on the wreck photo plane further support the idea that we are NOT looking at a picture of the 10E. I agree with Ric. It's a '57 Chevy, so it's no longer of interest to us here. LTM, who had a candy-apple red '57, Alfred Hendrickson, PE #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:53:35 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Something new Ric wrote:- >We are forced to consider which of two highly unlikely events is >the more improbable : > >- that a nonsensical passage in a misunderstood or hoaxed radio transmission >happened to mimic a real-life secret. > >or > >- a 15 year old girl in Florida heard a desperate call from Amelia Earhart. Very intriguing ! But a desperate call from AE would surely be more likely concerned with rescue details. Such a statement made on the radio seemingly within the context of the letter seems to imply a doomed resignation i.e. "it's all over for me so get the suitcase from the closet...." which in turn seems paradoxical i.e. why say "if anybody can hear this call then tell George to get the suitcase........" instead of a more expected "if anybody can hear this then please rescue us - we're on an island........" Unless she's delirious of course. LTM Simon Ellwood #2120 ********************************************************************* From Ric I'm not holding this up as a smoking gun and I don't want to get myself into the position of defending it as one - but lots of things happen that I don't particularly want - so here goes: Let's assume for a minute that the date really is July 5th and this is one of the last credible post-loss messages that was sent. She has already said everything she knows about where she is and nothing she has heard has given her any hope of rescue. The rest of the notebook conveys nothing if not near-panic and desperation. Now it looks like they're about to lose the airplane. The letter to her mother reveals AE to be a person who cares very much about how she will be regarded after she's gone. I find it entirely credible that in such a situation she would want George to secure that "stuff". Recall that all she asked her mother to do was "put it away" for now, and all she told George to do was "get" it. She hasn't written herself off but yet but things don't look good and she is putting her affairs (no pun intended) in order. ************************************************************************ From Bob Lee Thanks for the break! AE does seem to have a flair for drama, eh? The "marriage letter" and now this. I know people used to write a great deal more than most of us do now -- including diaries and journals. Whatever fragments she collected, she considered private enough to ensure that info was not made public. I can only assume that the information would be embarrassing enough that when discovered by a trusted person (GP, her mother, etc...) that destroying it would be the only option. Private documents that belie her carefully crafted public image -- Details of her romantic life -- hmmmmmmm. Perhaps her membership card for the ACLU. All in all, it does tend to further solidify Betty's notebook though. Bob *********************************************************************** From Ric The ACLU was founded in 1920 and from what I know about AE's politics she would probably have been proud to be a member (as many are). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:56:51 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: suitcase vs. briefcase AE's comments to her mother are confusing: "I have taken possession of the stuff in the zipper compartment of my briefcase. Put it away until I turn up and if I don't - burn it. It consists of fragments that mean nothing to anybody but me." I take this to mean she now has physical possession of the "stuff," but in the very next sentence she instructs her mother [presumably] to "put it away," which would be difficult since AE has it. Unless the meaning of the phrase "I have taken possession . . ." has changed drastically in the past six-plus decades, it sounds like AE mixed up her thoughts here as she was writing. LTM, who often has mixed up thoughts Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************************************************** From Ric That puzzled me too until Alan Caldwell suggested a meaning that makes perfect sense. Read it as ""I have taken possession of the stuff (which you will find) in the zipper compartment of my briefcase." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:39:53 EDT From: Ric Subject: For Ron Bright I tried to respond to your latest private email to me but AOL says you've blocked me, which I'm sure was unintentional. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:46:33 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: suitcase vs. briefcase There's another possibility > AE's comments to her mother are confusing: "I have taken possession > of the stuff in the zipper compartment of my > briefcase. AE took out whatever was in the zipper compartment - which her mother apparently was aware of. > Put it away until I turn up and if I don't - burn it. It > consists of fragments that mean nothing to anybody but me." "IT" could mean the briefcase itself - with everything else - that she wanted burned. Just a thought. Regardless, I agree that it lends further credibility to Betty's notebook. Whether her anecdotal recollection is accurate or not is neither here nor there, what she wrote at the time appears consistent with AE's prior behavior pattern. ltm jon 2266 *********************************************************************** From Ric > Put it away until I turn up and if I don't - burn it. It > consists of fragments that mean nothing to anybody but me." >"IT" could mean the briefcase itself - with everything else - that she wanted burned. Gotta disagree. The object of the first sentence is "the stuff" and the "it" in the second sentence refers to the object of the first sentence. That's how the English language works. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:14:34 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Something new > "if anybody can hear this call then tell George to > get the suitcase........" I'm not sure we need to assume this meant the briefcase. She not only asked her mother to take care of it but to burn the contents if she didn't return. But that was three years earlier prior to her Vega flight from Honolulu. She DID return from that flight and may well have taken care of the mysterious contents in the interim. She DID have a suitcase and it was full of her trophies, awards and certificates that would have been valuable to George for a book or publicity. It was stored in a Bank vault in New York, at least in 1934, the time of this letter. (December 26, 1934) The contents of the zippered brief case was personal things AE said meant nothing to anyone but her. To me it seems unlikely she would have George get the briefcase and more likely she would want him to retrieve the suitcase. In any case I don't see that the difference in any way diminishes the significance of the comment in Betty's notebook. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric Wait a minute, wait a minute...this is crazy. Earhart did have a suitcase in which she kept her trophies and medals and so forth. It was so highly valued that it was kept in a bank vault (that's why it wasn't burned up in the library fire at the house in Rye, NY). You're suggesting that AE meant for George to get THAT suitcase out of a closet? Why would that be important at that time? If AE had taken possession of the stuff that meant so much to nobody but her and did not destroy it herself, she obviously was holding on to it for sentimental reasons (most of us have stuff like that). I see no reason to think that she would have burned it herself when she got home from Hawaii. In fact, she tells her mother to "put it away" and only burn it "if I don't turn up." Why would she not still have those keepsakes somewhere in the house two and a half years later? This is stuff that is important to her personally but apparently it could also be incriminating and it was important to her that it not fall into the wrong hands in the event of her death. Recall that she was totally up front with GP about her views on marital fidelity even though she did not publicly espouse "open marriage". I see no reason to think that she would be hesitant to enlist his help in making sure that the legacy of Amelia Earhart was not sullied by what the public would see as immorality. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:22:03 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Wreck Photo - lightening holes Since TIGHAR is The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, it seems to me that identification of the "wreck" aircraft is a good project for TIGHAR to identify, whether it is related to AE or not. I'm kinda surprised of the quick dismissal of identification of the aircraft. TIGHAR purports to be now more involved with forensic investigations of aircraft wreckage...what better example of TIGHAR's mission than to identify the mystery plane? ********************************************************************* From Ric We'll be happy to put the Earhart Project on hold while we track down the true identity of the plane in the obscure photo as an exercise in forensic investigation. Of course, we'll still have to pay the bills but I'm sure everyone will agree that this is a vital project and be happy to contribute generously to it. You can lead off with a check to the Wreck Photo ID Project. You know the address. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:39:10 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: A knotty problem I saw this quote from "Amelia My Courageous Sister" on the web (my comments bracketed) "Captain Manning was an experienced ship's captain and navigator who was slow with Morse code. (sounds more like Noonan or AE) Throughout the flight he worked the telegraph key (just in case you thought AE had anything to do with it). In her log Amelia wrote, "At daylight the generator went out. Harry has held the key down so long it grew tired...." Was it indeed exclusively Manning who radioed position and speed reports on this trip? I note that at 1058 GMT we have "At 0028, KHAQQ on phone....." not, it seems, the CW that one might expect from Manning. One also has to wonder if the remark about Manning supposedly being responsible for the loss of the generator merely cast him as a suitable scapegoat since he had now abandoned the enterprise. Was it really perhaps AE, (who seemed to hog the mike most of the time), who really made the transmissions? I see, Ric, you say: >Note that the only speed report is the somewhat cryptic "speed approximately >155 land mph" at 1300. I take this to be a ground speed. Is it possible that by "land-miles" it was meant statute miles and that it actually referred to IAS (which AE had a ready handle on) which was indeed measured in mph? Ground speed would probably have been quoted in knots since it had to be calculated. Surely Manning or Noonan would never have said "land mph". They would more likely have said "knots" or "mph" and qualified it with "airspeed" or "groundspeed" nor, it seems to me, would they in any case have given either an IAS or even TAS as the information was essentially useless to anyone listening. Regards Angus. ******************************************************************* From Ric By the time AE blamed Manning for the generator going out (that portion of what became Last Flight must have been written in the late spring of '37 while the airplane was being repaired) she should have already known that the problem was really a blown fuse in the generator "control box" caused by an improper setting, not any misuse of the radio. The problem was identified and corrected by the Army mechanics who serviced the plane at Wheeler Field following her arrival from California. Of course, she also blamed the takeoff accident on a blown tire. I'm hesitant to take very seriously anything she said on the radio during the flight. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:44:32 EDT From: Marjorie Subject: Re: suitcase vs. briefcase > Gotta disagree. The object of the first sentence is "the stuff" and the "it" > in the second sentence refers to the object of the first sentence. That's > how the English language works. But even goddesses make occasional mistakes in the use of the English language. Otherwise, there'd be no work for editors like me. ********************************************************************* From Ric AE may have been a crumby pilot but, in my opinion, the person who could pull "Denmark's a prison..." out of her head is not likely to have made such a basic object agreement mistake in a sentence. Her many other letters show no such problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:18:51 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: suitcase vs. briefcase >> Put it away until I turn up and if I don't - burn it. It >> consists of fragments that mean nothing to anybody but me." >> >>"IT" could mean the briefcase itself - with everything else - that she wanted burned. > > Gotta disagree. The object of the first sentence is "the stuff" and the "it" > in the second sentence refers to the object of the first sentence. That's > how the English language works. Knowing (a little bit about) how the English language works, and likewise knowing how poorly some of us work it much of the time, maybe what she intended to mean was, "I have taken possession of the stuff in the zipper compartment of my briefcase. Put it [the briefcase] away until I turn up and if I don't - burn it [the stuff]. It [the stuff] consists of fragments that mean nothing to anybody but me." The first part of that section of the letter is a puzzle though. The statement "I have taken possession of the stuff..." seems to imply seizure, or possibly even theft. If "the stuff" was hers, or in her possession to begin with, she wouldn't logically need to explain to her mother that she had "taken possession" of it. It suggests that her mother might otherwise question how AE came about having "the stuff". I wonder if her mother went and looked.... How long after AE got to Hawaii did she fly back to the mainland? Presuming the letter made the trip on the next available ship, it would have to take several days to make the crossing. If she made the flight right away, she might have even beaten the letter home. ltm jon *********************************************************************** From Ric >"I have taken possession of the stuff..." seems to imply seizure, or >possibly even theft. Just a month before this, the fire in the library of the house in Rye, NY had destroyed some of Earhart's papers. The "taking possession" could simply mean the rounding up of the "stuff" from the chaos of material salvaged from the fire. >I wonder if her mother went and looked.... Interesting point. There was apparently nothing in the stuff that she wanted to keep secret from her mother. But then, Amy was probably well-aware of AE's unconventional ideas morality. >How long after AE got to Hawaii did she fly back to the mainland? "Anyway, this letter will go back on the Mariposa tomorrow so you ought to get it within a few days." That was December 26. AE didn't take off for California until January 11. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:42:09 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Something new Is Betty certain that she heard suitcase during the reception she logged in her note book? - Could it have been broadcast as a briefcase instead and as a 15 year old equated to be a suitcase? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************** From Ric Absolutely. In fact, during a discussion of that passage in the notebook Betty actually once said to me that it could have been "briefcase" instead of "suitcase", and that was long before we knew anything about this letter. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:54:37 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: suitcase vs. briefcase Although the phrase "taken possession" seems unusual taken on its own, the fact that materials salvaged from the fire could've been in the hands of some authority and they very well may have used a legalistic term such as we need you to 'take possession on these materials' and she simply repeated the phrase in the letter to her Mom. Bob *********************************************************************** From Lawrence Please...what are you doing here? Assuming that the post lost messages are real, what is Amelia trying to hide? Her Lesbianism, her indiscretions with George Putnam while Vacationing on the Jersey shore with Mrs. Putnam and her son? If the post lost messages real, then she is probably dying, don't you think she would have said something else more directly to the point? ************************************************************************* From Ric I don't know what it was that she wanted burned in the event of her death in 1934, and it doesn't matter. All that matters to our investigation is that, at least at that time, such memorabilia existed, it was in a "briefcase" in her home in California, and she sent instructions to a close family member to go get it. That such a private communication should be paralleled by the passage in Betty's Notebook is a significant point of evidence in assessing whether or not Betty heard Amelia. We can't dismiss it just because it doesn't fit what we might think Earhart should say under the circumstance we imagine her to be in. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:57:38 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Deep Water Search Plans for the upcoming Niku expedition will be to locate and examine the "object" observed in the water by the Marine biologist last year. IF the "object" turns out to be an aircraft part, or even better, a "smoking-gun" piece of NR16020, will Tighar board of directors reconsider shifting the search focus (read as: $funding$) from the well-searched island surface to the deep-water near the object? Such a shift in focus only seems logical in that Tighar's entire Niku theory is based on the scenario the Electra landed on the reef-flat and was pushed over the reef edge into deep water. Seems like deep water would be good place to go look for the rest of the aircraft to which the "object" was once attached. Sincerely, Tom Riggs #2427 ************************************************************************** From Ric You're making a lot of assumptions about the object and where it supposedly is and what it might mean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:02:44 EDT From: Terry Simpson Subject: Re: Niki and the Forum To Alfred Hendrickson, enjoyed your posting, great minds think alike.... T.L. Simpson (#2396) LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 08:53:01 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Ric wrote: > I'm trying to figure out where somebody could be and have three Electras not > 10 minutes away - unless they have an SR-71 down at the airport. Sorry, Ric; I should have qualified that statement with, "...at certain times..." I am situated VERY close to the Ft. Laud. Airport (...so close, that a brand new paint job starts to 'go away' within a week from the 'hydrocarbon rain' that constantly falls...) There are 3 different Electras in and out of here: since I do not know anything about these craft (call signs, etc.), I will refer to them by color. L10/Red makes an occasional appearence now and then; I don't know where it's home base is; L10/Blue also comes and goes - and I believe it's home base is Ft. Laud. Executive Airport. (I've seen it parked next to "Banyon's Air Service" many times. L10/Aluminum is in and out at least 3 times a day; I believe it is used to either transport passengers and/or cargo to and from the Bahamas. (Ironically, it's making a pass not 800' above me as I type this...) I have seen all 3 of these craft in Nassau and Freeport (Bahamas) at various times. And, no; there's no SR-71 here... (I'd be dragging that one home and trying to stuff it in the garage... for sure...) LTM, Niki ********************************************************************** From Ric I suspect that if you perform some forensic imaging on those Electras you'll find that you're looking at Twin Beeches. As far as I know, the only Lockheed 10 in or near Florida is in storage at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 08:55:17 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Deep Water Search Tom writes > Seems like deep water would be good place to go look for the rest of > the aircraft to which the "object" was once attached. At least you, unlike most of the "deep water" search folks, recognize we need certainty the plane landed on Niku first. But all of the deep water people need to understand that stuff doesn't just sink straight down and lie there in plain view waiting for someone to notice it. Before recommending such an undertaking I would suggest researching other deep water searches to see how things move from the surface to the bottom, what surface and underwater currents do, what happens to stuff on the bottom over 65 years, what equipment is needed and what the cost is. THEN if you still think its a good idea make the suggestion. In this case, first assuming the plane landed on Niku and was eventually washed off the reef, we don't know at what point on Niku the plane was sitting when it was washed off. We don't know whether it then floated with the current fifty feet or a thousand miles before it sank or where the underwater currents took it before reaching the bottom. You're looking at something costing far more than you realize and is far more impractical than you seem to think. Compare your idea to the Titanic search. Monstrous size in comparison and they knew where it was when it sank yet it took years to find. The first attempt in 1953 failed and after zillions were spent the Titanic was finally found in 1985. Three prior attempts by a friend of mine in Abilene, Jack Grimm, also failed with a loss of millions of dollars - pocket change for Jack. You would be hard pressed to sell the idea, Tom. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:22:25 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Deep Water Search At least Jack had a possible nibble with his sonar scan that looked like one of the prop blades... > Three prior attempts by a friend of mine in Abilene, Jack > Grimm, also failed with a loss of millions of dollars - pocket change for > Jack. And even the Titanic, as it turned out, wasn't actually where it was reported to have been when it sank. > Compare your idea to the Titanic search. Monstrous size in comparison and > they knew where it was when it sank yet it took years to find. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:23:15 EDT From: Rick Metzger Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Niki, Whoops, you got sucked in as I did a few years back, those are Beechcraft. You also didn't mention the one parked along University Dr. in Hollywood at the North Perry Airport (KHWO) Back to the Electra....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:38:30 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: A knotty problem Ric said, > I'm hesitant to take very seriously anything she said on the radio during the > flight. Your comment on the fact that by the time Last Flight was written, AE should have been aware Manning was not at fault is interesting. However, you make no comment on whether you think the transmissions were really from AE or Manning. Manning was supposed to be the radio expert and one might expect him to make the reports and yet for the reasons quoted in my last posting (see below) there seems some reason to believe the transmissions were from AE rather than Manning. Do you have an opinion on this? Do we know if Manning really was "slow at Morse" (as this could have provided AE with an excuse to take over making position reports by voice)? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric All I can offer is an opinion. I think that the whatever was sent by code was sent by Manning and the voice transmissions were sent by AE. I had never heard that Manning was "slow at Morse". We do have a copy of his Third Class Radio Telephone Operator's Permit issued in Los Angeles on February 4, 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:49:32 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Lae transmitter Where was the transmitter used by Lae to communicate with AE sited? Is there any record of the design of receiving antenna it used, the transmitter's power output or the callsign? Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric The radio at Lae, as I understand it, was owned and operated by Guinea Airways and I would guess that it was located right there on the airfield. I've never seen any details about the station. In the offical message traffic Lae is simple referred to as "Lae", not by its call sign. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:51:46 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: Deep Water Search Ric wrote: "You're making a lot of assumptions about the object and where it supposedly is and what it might mean." Indeed I have. And you could have answered my question given those assumptions. But, you wisely chose to not do so. By answering my question you could have indirectly provided information about where the object is located, and possibly compromised the security of the object. Because of the previous tampering incident, the security of the object is of utmost importance. Therefore, I'm willing to not ask further questions related to the object until Tighar's team of professionals reveals all the details during the upcoming expedition. Tom Riggs #2427 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:01:18 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Artifact No. 2-6-S-46 In looking at the subject artifact 2-6-S-46 (under the web site heading "help wanted") there appears to be two pieces of metal parts assigned the same artifact number. Is this correct? If so, were they once connected and can we get a picture of how they may have been connected. If they are in fact two separate pieces of metal it almost looks like a hoop and lock fastener that were used on "rubber goulashes" back in the days before Velcro. If a single piece, it could be the lock (or over-center locking device) portion of the fastener assembly. It wouldn't surprise me, that if it turns out to be the above, being found on Gardner as I would think that kind of footwear would be common among all the folks that have set foot on the island since 1937. I tried without much luck looking in the US Patent Office site for a picture or drawing of such a locking device. Just a thought. I didn't find a discussion on the Forum along these lines. Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric It's just one artifact. Your impression that there are two objects illustrates how difficult it is to convey what some things look like even with good photos. As noted on the website, we think that it's most likely a cup handle. I'd be very surprised if anybody on Niku ever wore golashes. Mostly they didn't wear any foot gear at all. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:06:08 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: Deep Water Think of it this way. Since many tons of dirt have already been screened for tiny fragments, and the situation is that almost all of the evidence left by AE And FN was biodegradable flesh and bone, long since vanished or eaten, then maybe looking in the water for as much as 9000 lbs of stuff might be more fruitful?? When I think of Nauticos searching over near Howland, It makes me laugh. I don't think Nauticos cares if they ever find a Lockheed Electra or a ton of clams. Nauticos just wants the funding to advance their state of the art stuff and doesn't care what they find. Ill bet they would be willing to search a 100 mile radius around Howland if someone pays for it. Searching with a submersible around Howland seems to be like seeking the holy grail. It might be better to take a page from Mel Fishers book while searching for the Atosha, and locate stuff with a sonar probe first. On the other hand, at Niku island, the search is very narrow in size, there is other evidence, and people are very interested in searching. Why not form up a couple of Tighar teams and play "Junk Yard Wars". Avid Tighars could scour their garages and attics for stuff to build a search device. My initial proposal would be a shoe box with a web cam inside, water-proofed with duck tape, hung on 60 lb monofilament with enough lead sinkers to reach the bottom. Just hang it over the side of your basic 16ft Carolina Skiff and behold, visions from the deep. (ha ha ha yeah I know its just a joke). But I ask you, could there be a serious side to a junk yard wars el-cheapo device??? ltm who never tried to search the deep. *********************************************************************** From Ric If we felt that a deep water search stood a reasonable chance of success we would do whatever we needed to do to get the best available technology deployed on-site. We've done it before. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:20:16 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Wreck Photo I had been browsing through the "Betty's Notebook" posts when it brought back to mind a few incidents that have occurred in the past while doing repairs on a few different law-enforcement mobile radio units. In the posts, it was suggested that an experiment be carried out in bringing a transmitter to Niku in an attempt to see if it were possible to receive any transmissions in the states... I don't know if this will be of any help, but one incident in particular happened approx. 6 years ago at a local law-enforcement agency in Ft. Laud. Florida. I was asked to look at a mobile unit that had lost it's ability to tx and receive. (I can't recall exactly which unit this was; however, it was either a Motorola, or a Midland) The unit was removed from the vehicle and set up on a make-shift workbench near the vehicle. After repairing a cracked solder joint at the antenna feed, it was plugged into the vehicle's whip antenna and found to work without any problems. It was then suggested by one of the guys to try different "antennas" and see what we were able to pick-up on the airwaves. (This wasn't at all unusual; as we've screwed around [...and screwed up...] radios before when we had nothing better to do... You would also be surprised what various crystal/choke/cap tank circuit combos in series with a 1965 Ford Galaxie rear bumper; or the "spoke-array" on a Harley front wheel brings in...) Since there was an electric fence on the property (...a square, maybe about 80' on a side...), one of the officers suggested connecting the lead to one of the insulated grid wires on the fence which should allow us to pull-in Mars. (Since he was so sure that the juice was off, we let HIM hook it up...) It got to the point where I was now swapping all kinds of crystals and running adjustable chokes and caps in series and parallel with what was on the original board; that I didn't have a clue as to what frequencies we were hitting... We were able to receive air traffic, surface vessel traffic; and a multitude of broadcast stations from here to Lord knows where... and it was during one of the "surface vessel" receptions that one of the officers thought he heard something of "police value" and noted some of the call signs that were in use. He then said he was going to visit "Yenta" (...a law-enforcement computer so affectionately named because it knows everybody else's business...) As I continued to fool with the choke, we were back onto air traffic; which I assumed to be the close-by Ft. Laud. Airport - although the reception was a little faint... As we listened, I remember hearing the letters "O" and "G" in the transmission; and the letters "HNL" as well. We also heard the numbers "2" and "20" (which may have been the time; even though it was about 4:30 in the afternoon when all this took place). One of the officers said that he had no idea what the "OG" was; but that "HNL" was definitely a Hawaiian call sign. I thought that perhaps some "Aloha" airliner was landing at either Ft. Laud., or Miami Airport. By this time, the officer that ran the call signs indicated that those "surface vessel" call signs we heard were registered to 3 different water vessels: the first two were registered in Calif.; and the third had a Hawaiian registry... Sure, it's possible that all three of these vessels were in Florida waters... but what were the odds of all of them being there at the same time; and all tx'ing to one another to boot?... We never bothered with the "HNL" call sign, if that's what it was; as it didn't really concern any of us at the time... Now I don't know if the D-Layer changes day-to-day, or even decade-to-decade, for that matter... (perhaps the peninsula of Florida is some major "bounce-point" for skywaves... who knows...) But what all this boils down to is if Betty came to me 6 years ago claiming that she heard what she said she heard - and under the same circumstances... ...based on my own "boat reception" experience, I would have concluded that it was not only possible; but that it was also probable. ...and that ain't no MAYHEM, either. Ric, did Betty ever indicate if she knew the approx. area her father's antenna covered? LTM, Niki ********************************************************************* From Ric Betty remembers the layout of the antenna very well and a TIGHAR researcher (Harry Poole) has actually gone to the house in St. Pete to verify her recollections about how the house and garage are oriented and, using old city property maps, we've confirmed how the streets were laid out in 1937 and where the utility pole stood to which the antenna was connected. Bob Brandenburg computer-modeled the antenna and evaluated its theoretical performance. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:22:03 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Deep Water Search Whilst you understandably want to keep the location and description of the article recently found on Niku confidential for the time being, can you give us any idea of the likelihood (from its description to you) of it being positively identifiable as an Electra part - if indeed it turns out to be even a candidate? Regards Angus. ******************************************************************* From Ric My intent is to be careful, not mysterious, but I can't think of a way to answer your question without saying more than I should and provoking an avalanche of other questions. At this time I can only say that IF the object is what we SUSPECT it might be it will greatly boost the circumstantial case for the Nikumaroro hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:58:01 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Deep Water Search If I remember correctly, you were going to reveal further details once the ship has sailed (end of May?). Is that still the plan? Anxious in Phoenix. Bob ********************************************************************** From Ric That's still the plan, although the expedition details and dates have changed. Niku Vp is now scheduled to depart Pago Pago on July 3rd. The Nai'a Phoenix Rising trip was a no-go because several non-TIGHAR passengers backed out. We'll now have a four-man team on a dedicated mission (instead of piggy-backing on commercial a dive trip) aboard a 56 foot New Zealand-based sailboat. We expect that they'll have a week at Niku instead of the two or three days they would have had on the original plan. Once they're enroute to the island we'll post a research bulletin on the TIGHAR website that tells everything we know and explains what we suspect. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:06:50 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: H. H. Vaskess Has anyone tried to contact either of HHK's sons regarding what may have been left to them by their father re the bones? I found that there were two boys Keith Harrison Vaskess Born 23 Aug 1924 and Colin Francis Vaskess born 12 Sep 1927. Their mother Coral Loloma (Letford) Vaskess died in Canberra on 20 Jul 1990. May be a dead end (no pun intended) but worth a shot. Ted Campbell *************************************************************** From Ric Good idea. Vaskess was the last person known to have had custody of the sextant box. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:29:08 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Deep Water Search Thanks Ric. Nice job keeping the trip alive with all the changes. Bob ************************************************************* From Ric Credit really goes to our reef geologist in New Zealand, Howard Alldred, who researched and organized a stand-by "Plan B" even when it looked like Nai'a was a sure bet. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:14:58 EDT From: Jim Kellen Subject: Niku Vp I've often been accused by my friends of wearing both a belt and suspenders, but over the years have seen the benefits of being cautious. We've waited patiently for so long now, why not wait until the Niku Vp team is known to be on the return trip before releasing details about what we know and suspect. I keep thinking about what happened the last time you gave out details before we got there. And then there was the appearance of that helicopter out of nowhere. There is just too much information being transferred too fast these days if you want to keep a secret. I'm for keeping it a secret until we get there. I can wait a little longer for more info. Lets not take any chances if we don't have to. LTM, Jim Kellen 2331 **************************************************************** From Ric I have to admit that I see your point. Suppose something happened en route and the ship had to turn back? Suppose the team gets there and can't find the thing where it's supposed to be and we have to wonder whether somebody got to it first, no matter how short the time. The time to release the information is the day the ship arrives at Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:05:38 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: H. H. Vaskess OK, how do we kick it off? I've E-mailed the couple who posted the info. on HHV and suggested that they visit TIGHAR's web site and the Bone Chronology documentation hoping to stir an interest in this subject. If I get a response I'll forward it to you off line so you can evaluate the lead and followup if you deem it worth the effort. Are there TIGHAR members in Australia who could run down the Vaskess boys? Ted Campbell ***************************************************************** From Ric Sort of depends on where in Australia they are. It's rather a big place. But, yes, we have several active TIGHAR members down under. ************************************************************* From Lawrence: Regarding Keith and Colin Vaskess. There is a web site http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/moejoe81/roy/names.htm which may help you to locate them. It is under, "Genealogy of Andrew Roy and Helen Letford". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:13:34 EDT From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: H. H. Vaskess On a similar train of thought, has any member/ follower of the cause had a go at tracking down the next of kin and personal effects of the English Officer who found the bones? I seem to remember there was a sextant listed among his personal effects. Since everyone here occasionally leaps off into theories aplenty, mine goes like this. Our young officer spends much time in the company of the bones and the things found with them. By the time the telegrams finish sailing back and forward, it's occurred to him that the bones need to be looked at, and not the sextant, so he keeps it. The officer dies tragically, and before his time. His effects, including a sextant, are shipped back to England. Any more unlikely than some of the postings over the last few months? Rick Boardman ***************************************************************** From Ric The search for Gallagher's personal effects is an on-going project in which we have the enthusiastic assistance of his family, most notably his cousin Gerry Gallagher. Our team now in Fiji hopes to be able to investigate the possibility that the effects that were turned over to a shipping company for transport home to England, in fact, never left Fiji and may still exist in a warehouse somewhere. Admittedly a long shot but there is no record or recollection of the stuff ever arriving in England. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:15:02 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niku Vp info release I agree with Jim Kellen; this is a time and place to be careful. If you decide to put it to a vote, I'd be in favor of keeping it quiet. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:21:25 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Niku Vp I too would agree (if a non member has a vote) to hold off any announcement. If this "thing" has the potential of a "smoking gun" or even a smoldering fuse then once the info is released, found or not found, TIGHAR is going to lose control over any archeological followup activity i.e. later searches, digs, recovery, etc. Best to just announce it is another piece of the bigger puzzle (if it turns out to be of interest) that still needs a lot of work putting together in a comprehensive thesis of what happened in 1937. Ted Campbell ***************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ted. It's not likely that any conclusive identification could be done in the field anyway. If it looks interesting it will be recovered for further analysis. Your non-member status can be easily remedied via the TIGHAR website. :-) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:16:49 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Niku Vp Ric, I am with Jim on this matter of releasing information. Don't say ONE MORE WORD until you know for sure that the team have the item under study or are en route back with it in hand. Indeed, I almost believe more than enough has already been said. Once burned should be twice learned. LTM (who knows that loose lips sink ships) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************* From Tom King >The time to release the >information is the day the ship arrives at Niku. Or the day the ship sails from Niku, or arrives Pago, or analysis is complete on whatever's found..... TK ********************************************************************** From Ric I think that there is a fundamental philosophical point at issue here. When and why do we keep secrets? TIGHAR operates in the public interest with money raised from the public. My view has always been that the only justifiable reason to restrict the release of information is to protect a known or suspected artifact or archaeological site from being looted before we've had a chance to check it out. We've never hesitated to voice our theories, hopes, and speculations knowing full well that we'll probably prove ourselves wrong. The point of the Earhart Project has always been to share the process of investigation and discovery with the TIGHAR membership and those whom we hope will become TIGHAR members. Secrecy, of course, has many rewards. You can't be criticized for something nobody knows you're doing or for reaching conclusions based on evidence that you refuse to disclose. But, especially in a publicly-funded organization, secrecy for the sake of secrecy is, in my opinion, despicable. The specific case of the object seen at Niku presents an interesting challenge. We could have said nothing at all about it and represented the Niku Vp expedition as solely a reconnaissance for next year's trip. That way, if it turned out to be something of no interest the few of us who knew about it would be the only ones to be disappointed and there would be no public perception of a "failure." On the other hand, if it turned out to be something really neat we would have to decide whether to lie and say that we just stumbled upon it, or admit that we had not been forthcoming about the purpose of the expedition. I think we did the right thing in being up front about why we're going and why we're not saying more than we are right now. So now what do we do? We could say that we're only going to release what we know when the evaluation is complete. That could be as soon as the team looks at it and sees that it's obviously not anything associated with the airplane. Or we could bring it home, analyze it, and establish that it really is something neat. Do we then hold it up and say "Look what we found."? How is that better than letting everyone in on the process as soon as we're sure there's no danger from looting? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:22:48 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Gallagher's personal effects Ric wrote: >Our team now in Fiji hopes to be able to investigate the possibility that >the effects that were turned over to a shipping company for transport home >to England, in fact, never left Fiji and may still exist in a warehouse >somewhere. Admittedly a long shot but there is no record or recollection of >the stuff ever arriving in England. There was a war on in Europe at the time - any chance that the items WERE shipped, but that the boat was sunk? Of course, if you can find shipping records in Fiji, the ship's fate can be traced, as can its destination. That should clear up a lot - or create a bigger mystery! LTM, Dave Bush ****************************************************************** From Ric Actually, one of the company's ships was captured by the Japanese in 1943. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:24:42 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: H. H. Vaskess I have tracked down one of the Vaskess grandchildren and hope to have further information soon. Regards Angus. ********************************************************** From Ric Thanks Angus. Okay, let's everybody else back off for now so that we don't muddy the waters. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:59:32 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Niku Vp Ric, you are right on the money on this one. I see no reason to release the info until we've located and done a preliminary ID of the object. I would simply leave it up to you (and other decision makers) on how, what and when to release details. Simply, I trust ya'll. Bob ********************************************************* From Jon Watson We've already announced that there's something there that we're going to look at. Our track record for honest investigation speaks for itself (by example: the navigator's bookcase). I think that once we have secured the site, we can safely reveal the nature of the quest. The team's observations or findings (maybe the evidence can be identified or eliminated on site, or requires further lab evaluation) should not effect how we operate and findings should be made known as soon as we reasonably can do so, with the caveat that until confirmed they are just that - initial observations subject to further scrutiny. ltm jon 2266 *********************************************************************** From Alan Ric, the only necessary reason to withhold information is to safeguard the artifact until our gang gets to it. Once they are there I can't see any problems in anyone saying whatever they want. Obviously a misinterpretation could be posted but what difference would that make? We or someone could be embarrassed but the artifact would no longer be in danger if it ever was. Alan ************************************************************************ From Bill Leary Ric writes: > My view has always been that the only > justifiable reason to restrict the release of information is to protect a known > or suspected artifact or archaeological site from being looted before we've > had a chance to check it out. I agree on this, and what follows. Part of the reason I send in my dollars every year is to be a part (I guess "involved") in all of this. I expect to be told what's going on, as long as doing so doesn't put the agreed upon objectives at risk. From my point of view, I'd like to know what this is about, as much as is known, once the item has been "secured." Define that word as you will. For example: 1. Observed in situ, obviously not related. 2. On the boat and ready to head home Something like that. I'd prefer not to have it announced until it's at least been observed, and would be comfortable not hearing about it (perhaps other than "we got there, we saw it") until the return trip has begun. - Bill ************************************************************************* From Ted Campbell With regard to Ric's comments I'd like to toss in my two cents worth: With regard to the fundamental philosophical practice that TIGHAR has followed: It has proven to be the most beneficial approach - take a look at the contribution from the followers of the forum, member and nonmember, that this web site has captured over the years. Very brainy people in the whole with a plethora of experience, background and expertise; can you imagine what such a team would cost if one had to pay for only the direct support expenses. I've been there, done that, on two ARAC (NTSB/FAA sponsored) aircraft accident investigation teams and the cost is immense. Therefore, I don't have a problem in the way TIGHAR approaches the lead-up to future explorations - face it, funding is a key issue in any archeological endeavor and putting just enough information out there to whet the appetite is, in my opinion, fair enough. With regard to the Secrecy issue: I don't believe the word secrecy should be substituted for the word confidentially. Ric points out the problems associated with something that is deemed a "secret" - geez we have seen this time and time again on this Earhart project - refusal to fully disclose only feeds the fires of more unfounded speculation until the subject of the "secret" is lost and the object lesson becomes those who are keeping the "secret." However, I am a firm believer in keeping preliminary hypotheses, fact finding and object discovery CONFIDENTIAL among those who have a vested interest: Vested interest being defined as those who will explore, those who have directly contributed (in this expedition) financially and those who have contributed to TIGHAR in membership fees: For the record I have done none of the above. Therefore, keep the details of the "thing" confidential among those who have a vested interest in the upcoming exploration. Release enough information on the "thing " (as you already have) to solicit additional financially supported interest. With regard to the current Challenge: There is absolutely nothing wrong in the way this present situation has been handled. I believe if you hadn't presented the current situation the way you did there would have been an outcry of why you were taking a costly "preliminary" expedition. Good grief, after the number of times TIGHAR has been to Gardner, if you don't know where next to look or where next to explore while sitting comfortably in the States then there is something fundamentally wrong with your investigative process. I trust that the Board and the TIGHAR staff have given adequate deliberation on the "thing" subject to justify the expense to go forward with the July 2003 expedition. If not, funding for future expeditions and/or accountability issues of those involved will become a fundamental problem in the months and years to come; there is a lot more at stake here than public perception of a "failure." So what do we do: I argue that in today's world there is always the possibility/high probability that anything of potential commercial value will be looted regardless of the hardships encountered; remember there are two ways of solving any problem - throw enough people or money at it and it will be solved! You owe it to your public followers that if the "thing" is not obviously associated with the airplane then say so. However, you should followup with the reasoning you thought it may have. On the other hand, if you can identify the "thing" as being significant while on location you owe it to your stakeholders (vested interest parties as noted above) to get the word out via a limited e-mail distribution. You can only assume those with a vested interest will keep the issue confidential until the full story of what happened on July 2, 1937, is collated and released to the general public. If the "thing" is recovered and it has significant potential but requires further forensic analysis you owe it to the public to say so. There is no obligation to hypothesize on what it could or couldn't be (look at what transpired regarding speculation on the gun oil cap) until all the scientific analysis is completed. Just state the facts as known and let that be the end of it until more information is obtained. If the "thing" is proved to be significant once you get it home and subsequently analyzed there will have been enough time to alert the Kiribati authorities so protective measures could be put into place and/or a followup expedition could be finalized to nail this sucker down and to protect the site in the interim. Just my two cents worth. Ted Campbell ****************************************************************** From Ric Interesting discussion. I can assure you that the folks who have a "need to know" have known the details for some time. Once the security of the site is assured we'll be more than happy to share our hopes and dreams and frustrations just as we always have. I think the "knob" that turned out to be a can cap is a classic example of the way these things should be handled. I don't regret having publicly speculated that it might be part of an aeronautical sextant or a Lockheed 10 starter button. Hopeful theorizing is an essential part of any investigation and as long as you don't represent it as anything more than hopeful theorizing I see no harm, and I see a lot of benefit, to kicking the idea around publicly. So once the gang gets to Niku we'll tell all and as we investigate what it might be (provided it's still there) we'll share the experience and invite everyone's input. As for the government of Kiribati providing security for Nikumaroro in the event we establish that significant parts of the Earhart Electra are almost certainly present on or near the island - forget it. They simply do not have the physical assets or the money to do anything like that. Securing the island in the event that TIGHAR's Earhart Project becomes publicly acknowledged as an unqualified success is a problem we've struggled with since day one. It could be done, of course. It's just a question of money. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:54:55 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Niku Vp > As for the government of Kiribati providing security for Nikumaroro in the > event we establish that significant parts of the Earhart Electra are almost > certainly present on or near the island - forget it. I'll take my turn standing watch. Alan ****************************************************************** From Ric I 'spect we could find lots of people to keep you company. The tricky part would be keeping you alive until we could relieve the watch. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:31:02 EDT From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: Niki Maybe Niki is really Carol Dow! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:35:23 EDT From: Mike Juliano Subject: "rosy red path" Talking about walking down a "rosy red path" with Niki.. Two weeks worth of work and I find this web site... http//www.cv990.demon.co.uk/wreck/ Nice annotations Ric. LTM Mike J. ****************************************************************** From Ric I think Simon reminded the forum of the work he has done a week or ago. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:41:08 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Niku Vp After reading this posting, I have serious doubts that the Kiribati government will honor any honest finding of the Electra or Amelia on the atoll of Niku. Is there a problem that the forum is unaware of? ************************************************************************ From Ric No there is no problem. We have an excellent relationship with the government of Kiribati. They would be the first ones to tell you that they simply can't afford to provide security for remote archaeological sites. They have much bigger problems to solve. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:54:44 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Niku Vp > I 'spect we could find lots of people to keep you company. The tricky part > would be keeping you alive until we could relieve the watch. Three cases of Coors and 6 cans of mixed nuts - no peanuts. Alan ************************************************************************* From Dave Porter The physical accomplishment of a Niku resupply mission should be very simple. Just get a Herky Bird to air drop a few pallets of MREs and LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) a water blivet out the ramp and onto the beach. I'm sure that somewhere on this forum is someone with Loadmaster experience on a C-130 who could advise go or no-go on the above. The hard part would be convincing the USAF/ANG that the expense and risk would be worth tasking one of their very-busy-these-days aircraft and crew. The convincing, I suspect, would be a bit easier if the case were to be substantially proven by the discovery of an identifiable Electra artifact. In the fairly recent past, recovering the remains of missing Americans has caused greater expenditures than this modest proposal. Personnel rotation could be via C-130 to Kanton, and then helo to Niku. If we promised some of the billions that we won't be giving to Turkey to Kiribati so that the environmental disaster on Kanton could be cleaned up, they might even let us set up a Kanton forward staging area complete with avgas, food, water, etc. Extreme adventurers (read: danger junkies) could parachute into Niku and get out via the Fulton Recovery System. On a more serious note, can I assume by some recent comments of yours that Marty Moleski has safely arrived on Fiji for his TIGHAR mission there? LTM, who suggests that Geraldo Rivera NOT be the embedded reporter on Niku Vp, Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes, TIGHARs Marty Moleski and Roger Kelley are hard at work chasing bones and boxes in Suva. They're doing a great job and I'll report any significant discoveries to the forum. As for dealing with the issue of site security in the event of a major find at Niku, there are a number of options and I'd personally much rather keep the project entirely in the private sector. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:34:53 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Niku Vp When Niku -The Movie begins casting I think that we may need Geraldo tomplay Fred Noonan. Martha Stewart as Amelia is a shoe in. Perhaps if Geraldo proves unavailable mwe could use OJ Simpson. Bob *********************************************************** From Ric Check the forum archives for the last three dozen "casting the film" threads. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:35:54 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Niki to Ric and Jon > From Gary Fajack > > Maybe Niki is really Carol Dow! I... you... WHAT???...... .....where's the window..... YYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa a a a.................. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:39:46 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Off topic request for advice Herman asked: >Can anyone please tell me what LPD and LSD stand for? Didn't Spock get too much of that LDS in the '60's? Dan Postellon ************************************************** From Ric Remember the old days when we used to talk about finding Amelia Earhart? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:05:08 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Bits & Pieces "Martha Stewart as Amelia" No offense, but can we get Sarah Michelle Gellar instead? "Maybe Niki is really Carol Dow! I... you... WHAT???...... where's the window..... YYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa a a a.................." Ric, I think we are on to a way to keep the Forum clear of troublemakers! "Remember the old days when we used to talk about finding Amelia Earhart?" Amelia who? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:07:33 EDT From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: Niku Vp Brilliant! I knew if I waited long enough, someone would mention a skydive! I'm packed and ready! LTM who could have done with a rig like mine... Rick Boardman ****************************************************** From Ric There's an old saying - "Only two things fall out of the sky......" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:10:35 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Betty ? Would you know if Betty's father subscribed to the St. Petersburg Times newspaper during the June - July 1937 time frame? Also was Betty's father an avid reader by nature? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************ From Ric I'll ask. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:13:06 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: Questions from Amelia Earhart's Shoes Having finished reading and pondering "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" (good read, BTW), a couple of questions come to mind that the redoubtable Mr. King might be able to answer: 1) Would it be possible to figure out who Floyd Kilt's talked to to get the bones story? It had to be someone that spoke at least passable English, and I'm guessing that would narrow it down to a small handful of residents in the village. Do the existing PISS records make note of who had a working knowledge of English, and would it be possible - or even worth it - to see if they had any relatives still alive who could collaborate the original story? 2) Regarding the 1978 Kiribati survey party - would it be possible to get a roster or personnel list from the government and then talk to those people, to perhaps shed some more light on the shoe site and expand on what that group may have found, moved, shoved into the fire, etc.? LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:35:53 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: The Old Days Ric says >Remember the old days when we used to talk about finding Amelia Earhart? What? Ric, what are you talking about, have you been holding out on us again? Is Amelia Earhart really lost? What do you think happened to her? Paige Miller #2565 LTM *************************************************************** From Ric I heard she made it some island but got eaten by crabs or something. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:52:25 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Questions from Amelia Earhart's Shoes For Monty Fowler Good ideas, one of which we've given some serious thought to, the other of which we haven't. >1) Would it be possible to figure out who Floyd Kilt's talked to to get the >bones story? It had to be someone that spoke at least passable English, and >I'm guessing that would narrow it down to a small handful of residents in >the village. Do the existing PISS records make note of who had a working >knowledge of English, and would it be possible - or even worth it - to see >if they had any relatives still alive who could collaborate the original story? We've talked about this one and reached more or less the same conclusions you have, but haven't pursued if much because virtually everyone who was an adult in the colony in 1946 seems to have passed on -- at least, we have yet to find one. It's not a bad idea, it just doesn't seem very likely to pan out. >2) Regarding the 1978 Kiribati survey party - would it be possible to get a >roster or personnel list from the government and then talk to those people, >to perhaps shed some more light on the shoe site and expand on what that >group may have found, moved, shoved into the fire, etc.? Actually, there's a roster in the report, and you raise a good point. Duh, why didn't I think of that? Ric, I don't recall whether you had the roster with you when you went to Tarawa, but what do you think, could we check through your Kiribati government contacts about finding these guys? LTM Tom ****************************************************************** From Ric We've actually corresponded with one of the participants in that survey, Tekinaiti Kaiteie ("Tek" for short) who now lives on Kiritimati (Christmas Island), or at least did when we were last in conact with him in 1996. We could probably track down more but we already have a copy of their report and anything more we got about what they may have kicked into a fire would be anecdotal. With the Aukeraime Shoe Site now pretty much discounted it seems like a low priority given the many good leads that need attention. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:38:22 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Radios UGH! with actual message Ric, I know this gets tiresome but the conventional wisdom is that once AE took off from Lae she never responded to Lae's transmissions. Balfour would have been the best source I suppose being the radio operator. Chater, however, in his telegram after AE's takeoff, said they were in two way contact up until 5:18 Lae time or 0718 GMT. Are we pretty certain Chater was wrong? Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric A message was sent from "Lae" to Richard Black aboard the Itasca that simply stated that Earhart had departed at 10 a.m. local time. There was no mention of communications with the aircraft. In Chater's July 25th letter (see The Chater Report on the TIGHAR website) he says: "Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information, but local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible until 2.18 p.m. The Lae Operator heard the following on 6210 KC -"HEIGHT 7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS" and some remark concerning "LAE" then "EVERYTHING OKAY". The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it. The next report was received at 3.19 pm on 6210 KC- "HEIGHT 10000 FEET POSITION 150.7 east 7.3 south CUMULUS CLOUDS EVERYTHING OKAY". The next report received at 5.18 p.m. "POSITION 4.33 SOUTH 159.7 EAST HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS WIND 23 KNOTS"." I see nothing in that to indicate two-way communicatons except possibly the phrase: "The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it." Apparently the transmission from the plane was repeated but there is no way to know whether the repetition was in response to the request. It was Balfour who claimed many years later to have been in two-way communication with Earhart. Forced to choose between conflicting allegations, we have to go with the more contemporary source. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:40:54 EDT From: Ron Badger Subject: Fwd: Bendix and Western Electric This came in off-forum, in case anyone is interested. -------------------- I found your TIGHAR forum while looking for information on the Bendix RA-1B Aircraft Radio. I collect and restore WWII aircraft radios. Several of the forum members have been searching for information and schematics on the RA-1B and presumably the Western Electric RU-19. I have examples of both radios and full technical manuals. I have no interest in joining the forum but members could contact me for information or schematics. I charge only postage. Ron Badger ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:08:32 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Radios UGH! with actual message > I see nothing in that to indicate two-way communications except possibly the > phrase: > "The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get > it." > > Apparently the transmission from the plane was repeated but there is no way > to know whether the repetition was in response to the request. The answer is in the word "still", which strongly implies a response was received to the message. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric "Still" does indeed suggest that the transmission was repeated. Whether the repetition was in response to the request is unknown. ************************************************************************** From Mike Everette You are so right. All that phrase says is, they CALLED the plane. It doesn't say or really imply that they received any acknowledgement. LTM (who never fails to have something to say) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:11:28 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Radios UGH! with actual message The fact that something on the belly of the aircraft struck or rubbed on the rough ground when she was moving around getting ready to take-off doesn't mean that it was broken on the ground. The antenna could broken anywhere along the way. A connector may have been damaged on the ground and then came apart in the air when the aircraft was lighter and in bumpy air. I know this is a (coulda), but something screwed-up their radio so that their communication was fouled at the end of the leg. ********************************************************************** From Ric The question didn't seek to explain the lack of reception. The question was how sure we are that Earhart never heard Lae. I think the answer is, pretty sure but not absolutely certain. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:12:32 EDT From: Betty Brown Subject: Betty reply Betty's reply to Tom Strang: Tom.... We took the Evening Independent only, in those days.. Dad and Mom liked the evening paper Your question about Dad's being an avid reader..He was more a " studier " he wanted to know about things he was interested in, only... Betty Ric I will be waiting to see what you have in the Tighar Tracks Love Betty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:09:53 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Radio concerns You suspect Earhart may never have heard radio transmissions from Lae - If that being true, why no indications of lack of radio receptions by Earhart during any of her radio transmissions received by Lae? - What Earhart transmissions received by Lae seem routine in nature. Respectfully: Tom Strang ********************************************************************** From Ric What is hard for everyone to understand is that Earhart did not use her radio the way radios are used today and did not have the expectations that a pilot has today. She transmitted at set times every hour but really had no idea whether anyone heard her, and she listened for incoming messages at a different times every hour but was neither surprised not particularly concerned if she didn't hear anything. Her attitude toward the radio seems to have been that it was an unreliable luxury. The test flight in Lae on July 1st is the ONLY occasion we know of during the World Flight when her radio was successfully used for two-way communication. Given her cavalier attitude toward the radio, it is hard to imagine that she saw it as a critical element in the flight's ability to find Howland. It follows that she had great faith in Noonan's ability to hit the island without help from the radio. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:23:13 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radios UGH! with actual message Sorry to have restarted this but my curiosity is this. Our assumption has been that AE lost her receiver capability on takeoff. I don't quarrel with that. My problem is that no one in the plane seemed to notice this. That is odd to me. Throughout the world flight they must have heard transmissions but we are assuming that from takeoff at Lae they heard nothing on their radios and made no comment to anyone to that effect or didn't notice the airways were silent. That's a troubling thought to accept. I can see them not being concerned about no response to their position reports but I have difficulty with them not hearing a sound out of their receivers and not being concerned enough to report it or turn back for repairs. I don't find the sense in this. They knew they needed radios and DF getting into Howland. Yet they had neither is our belief. I say that because the DF did not work on AE's test hop on the day before. Should we assume on the second she didn't bother rechecking it? Or that she did and it worked? But why drive on without a radio receiver? It is not conceivable to me they didn't know. Does that leave open the possibility the receiver worked and failed later? If so what does that do to our missing antenna theory? One final question is how is my posting of only questions and not one answer? This really helps our cause. Alan ***************************************************************** From Ric As I said in response to essentially the same question from Tom Strang, I think the answer is context, context, context. AE flew for most of her career without a radio and simply did not see it as an essential piece of equipment. Everything she did testifies to her casual attitude about it. Didn't bother to learn code. Ducked her radio navigation test. Didn't know how to replace a fuse despite repeated occurrences of the same problem. Didn't insist on a successful DF test before leaving Lae. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:29:04 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Radios UGH! with actual message Ric I agree with you, but something had cause the failure of the radio. they had traveled half way around the world with things going okay, sure they had problems but they overcame them. ******************************************************** From Ric That's not the way it was. The radio was a constant problem from the start. AE heard a commercial broadcast from a Miami station on her way to Puerto Rico and she may have heard some code sent by a French airmail plane during the South Atlantic crossing, but those are the only occasions when we know that she heard anything during the World Flight except for the test in Lae and hearing the "A"s on sent by the Itasca. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:31:09 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Navigation in the thirties. Gary/Alan/Anyone, Back in the thirties, what were the various methods of establishing distances between geographical coordinates or establishing new coordinates from the azimuth and distance from the starting point? Did navigators work exclusively from the chart or plotting sheet or did they ever work using approximations eg: Approximate distance in miles = sqrt(x * x + y * y) where x = 69.1 * (lat2 - lat1) and y = 69.1 * (lon2 - lon1) * cos(lat1/57.3) or better, did they use true spherical geometry? And were ellipsoid approximations rather than spherical approximations to the shape of the earth ever used? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:48:55 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Radio concerns The unusual aspect to me is that FN wasn't more concerned and perhaps might have forced the issue. I do realize it was AE's command however, he certainly understood that he would be relying to a fair degree on the radio to ultimately find Howland. The possibility that AE blew off the radio doesn't really surprise me at all: the possibility that both of them did is what seems kinda strange. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:59:40 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Closest Approach Without RDF Did Noonan ever say how close he thought he could get the flight to Howland before RDF would be necessary to pinpoint the island? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, Noonan never said anything (publicly) about any aspect of navigation on the World Flight. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:19:03 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Radio concerns That being the case (your best guess), there was certainly a breakdown in the management aboard the aircraft. I've read somewhere on the Forum that there was/is a theory that Fred didn't necessarily use an offset toward the LOP because he was relying on DF (radios) to get them home. We will never know for sure! Ted Campbell ********************************************************************* From Ric That is correct. There is no evidence that Noonan used an offset and considerable evidence that he did not. Earhart proceeded on the assumption that she would get a DF steer from Itasca who would take a bearing on her voice transmissions. Failing that, she assumed that she could use her own DF to take a bearing on Itasca. Both of those assumptions relied upon radio equipment that she neither understood well nor had used successfully in the past. We have to assume that she thought that Fred could find the island anyway, even if the radios failed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:20:18 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Radios UGH! with actual message > Our assumption has > been that AE lost her receiver capability on takeoff. I don't quarrel with > that. > My problem is that no one in the plane seemed to notice this. Whilst Ric's explanation is probably the real reason, it is also just possible that she assumed that the lack of reception was due to poor propagation conditions. Balfour - I think it was - mentioned the static for the first few hours after their departure. It is not altogether impossible that she did still have some degree of reception capability ( perhaps the dangling remains of one half of the antenna) but was unable to receive intelligible voice. Once again the lack of reception would be attributed to poor propagation conditions. If that was the case, there was no point in mentioning it because there was nothing anyone could do about it. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:21:23 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigation in the thirties. Angus wrote: > Gary/Alan/Anyone, > Back in the thirties, what were the various methods of establishing > distances between geographical coordinates or establishing new coordinates > from the azimuth and distance from the starting point? Angus, I'm not going to be much help as I was only 5 when AE was lost. All I can remember about anyone figuring distances then was my Grandfather saying, "It's over yonder." Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:23:12 EDT From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: Radio concerns I would have thought that her recent experience with the radio beacon assisted landing at Honolulu would have shown both AE and FN the value of the radio as a nav tool. harvey #2387 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:27:23 EDT From: Dan Brown Subject: 10E cowling diameter redux For a control measuring experiment, on page 192 of Jack King's 1981 biography of Henry T. "Dick" Merrill is a photograph of Merrill and Jack Lambie standing in front of the Daily Express NR16059. It shows a clear view of the propellor and cowl opening, with exact alignment of the propellor blade and the tire beneath. The airplane is in three-point stance, which introduces some measurement error because the propellor is not exactly vertical in all geometric planes, but the angle of deviation from vertical would be the same for the propellor and the geometric plane of the face of the cowl. If the propellor in that photo is 9 feet long, then by proportion my best estimate of the interior cowl diameter is 36.5 inches, persuasively close to your original 1997 value of 37 inches. If the propellor in the photo is 9 feet long, it's difficult to reconcile that photo with the Pensacola measurement of a 40.5 inch cowling interior diameter. My graduate students curse me for making them do so many control experiments, but controls are an indispensable component of scientific inquiry. Reference cited: King, J.L. 1981. pp. 152-192 in Wings of Man. Aviation Book Company, Glendale CA. Dan Brown #2408 ******************************************************************* From Ric When I'm looking at a photo of a tape measure laid across a 10E cowling it's hard to consider extrapolations from an old photo to be a "control". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:29:10 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Charts What type of projection was used by Fred for the Atlantic and Oakland to Oahu crossings and who were the map makers in each case? Do we have any information on what type of projection he tended to use generally? Regards Angus. *********************************************************** From Ric Randy? Can you help Angus with this? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:33:03 EDT From: Ben Subject: Breaking news??? I am most dissapointed to have waited all this time, only to be told nothing. Sadly, I dont have much of a life and I have been counting the days until tighar set sail, so I could see what this mysterious marine biologist is thought to have found. I think that if Amelia Earhart had 4 hours worth of fuel left on the morning of July 2nd she would have used it to find Howland Island. Why would she just have decided to "go south?" Because there was eventually to be land to the south?? Why go to all that trouble flying south into God knows what, when She could have used the extra fuel to seach a 'square pattern' and find the Island. She was looking for Howland Island. We all know she never got there. Four hours would have been plenty of time to find Howland. Why veer so far off course into the unknown? Earhart said to Itasca " We must BE ON YOU but cannot see you" She also said " We are on the LOP 157/337 " Tighar has made sure to point out that 157/337 runs right throgh the Phoenix group. IT ALSO RUNS RIGHT THROUGH HOWLAND. I believe Amelia would have searched and searched and searched for Howland ALL DAY if she had to. She was not one to admit she was licked easily. So, the question remains Why turn south into the open pacific when the intendeed destination was right near her? ("we must be on you...") Noonan knew what he was doing, and he knew where he was. Navigator's of the forum, Would it not be more effective to search a square pattern, than to go off course into oblivion? Ben Long time Niku Skeptic ************************************************************************* From Ric The rationale for turning south has been explained many times and was, in fact, what the Navy thought she would do in 1937. You're entitled to your opinion. TIGHAR will set sail on July 3rd and the team should reach the island on or about July 7th. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:52:59 EDT From: unknown Subject: Get Home itis? seems to me, as a pilot, that after much reading: They had the classic case of get home itis at all cost and that is what ultimately cost them everything. along with a massive ego and very little confidence with Radio navigation. ************************************************** From Ric The odd thing is that "get home itis" does not seem to have been a factor. Earhart postponed and delayed her trip several times before continuing her flight. Putnam wanted her home by the 4th of July but she refused to push it. They had repairs done in Java, left there, and then returned when it became apparent that the problem was not fixed. They hung around Lae until Fred was able to get an accurate check on his chronometer. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:55:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Breaking news??? > So, the question remains Why turn south into the open pacific when the > intendeed destination was right near her? ("we must be on you...") > Noonan knew what he was doing, and he knew where he was. > Navigator's of the forum, Would it not be more effective to search a square > pattern, than to go off course into oblivion? Ben, it requires very little of substance to be a skeptic. And it's OK to be one but that gets no one anyplace unless you have a supportable alternative theory. You don't. As to turning south into open ocean that's misleading. They were already in open ocean. Noonan may have known what he was doing but it is rather obvious he didn't know where he was. As a pilot and navigator since 1955 I can only give you my opinion. They searched for an hour with low fuel getting lower. I would have turned SE also. They weren't heading into oblivion but to a large group of islands. Far better odds and hardly arguable. > I am most dissapointed to have waited all this time, only to be told nothing. > Sadly, I dont have much of a life Ben, I'm sorry you feel you don't have much of a life. There are many people who have few interests but the work of TIGHAR hardly revolves around the pleasures of individuals. The reasoning laid out for NOT exposing the plans and goal were quite logical and serves a much higher purpose than bringing excitement to you or me. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:56:09 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radios UGH! with actual message > If that was the case, there was no point in > mentioning it because there was nothing anyone could do about it. Sounds good to me, Angus Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:31:02 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Note to Alan Alan, I am sitting here, more than mildly irritated with the note from Ben the Skeptic, who wants to drag us off the topic and into who knows what. I'm debating either "terse reply" or "ignore". Then, you come along and articulate my thoughts perfectly. Thanks and LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ************************************************************* From Ric It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:35:34 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Radio concerns Did any radio transmissions from Lae (Balfour) to Earhart state an inability on Lae's part to receive transmissions from her? Respectfully: Tom Strang 2559 ********************************************************************** From Ric Of course Lae DID receive transmissions, but not as often or as clearly as they hoped. Everything we know about what was sent and what was heard is contained in Chater's letter. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:41:26 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Noonan's nature I've been thinking lately about FN and his skills as a navigator. From the various postings, I've come to accept that perhaps FN was a "loose" navigator as others have pointed out. I've had a bit of a hard time reconciling that with the amount of experience and notoriety that FN seems to have had. Then something dawned on me this morning during my commute to work. I believe that most of Fred's navigational experience was developed on ships at sea. Now, compared to aircraft, a person would seem to have a great deal more time to calculate, adjust, double-check and plot things at the speed of most ocean going ships as opposed to an airplane. For those who know navigation -- could Fred's seemingly loose navigation be a product of simply not being up to the skill set necessary to navigate an airplane at speed rather than laziness or over-reliance on radio? Just a rambling thought..... Bob ********************************************************************** From Ric Most of Noonan's career was, as you say, as a sailor but he joined Pan American in 1930 specifically to adapt nautical navigation techniques to the special challenges of over-water air navigation. From what we've learned about his practices he does seem to have been a rather "loose" navigator. As for his fame as a navigator, let's remember that, just as with AE, most of the hype came from those who had a dog in the fight. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:47:44 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Charts What type of projection was used by Fred for the Atlantic and Oakland to Oahu crossings and who were the map makers in each case? Do we have any information on what type of projection he tended to use generally? Regards Angus. ************************************************************* From Randy Jacobson Mercator projections were standard on almost all aeronautical and nautical charts of the period, even today. Some catographic charts by the USGS today are modified Orthorhombic projections, IIRC. ************************************************************* From Ric The charts used for the Oakland/Hono flight were produced by Pan American Airways Pacific Division. I don't recall (if I ever knew) who published the South Atlantic chart. It sure wasn't Pan Am. They didn't fly that route. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:48:31 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Charts The Oakland to Hawaii chart was a Mercator projection. I don't know about the others. gl ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:56:11 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Radio concerns Interesting hypothesis (we will never know for sure). Picture yourself in this situation: You, the pilot, are depending on a DF to get you home but as a backup you have a navigator that is A-Number One, good thinking. The navigator, having faith in the pilot, to keep it on course as you have directed throughout the leg from Lea to Howland (winds, compass deviations, etc.), good judgment, you've come almost 3/4 around the world with this pilot. Both thinking the other is going to hit Howland on the nose or are going to be so close that here is a hot shower and a hot meal ahead and so no big deal if they are a few minutes off the expected LOP. Now you get to the LOP and no Howland and no radio communications (via voice that you have asked for). You know you're close, the navigator said so, but you can't receive a DF, the pilot said she could, so what happens in the cockpit. First, there is a discussion of what went wrong with both assumptions: The navigator; I gave you a direct course to Howland without an offset. The pilot; I've followed the course given but did we take into account the winds and magnetic deviations. The navigator; the magnetic deviations have been taken into account as our charts have shown - (albeit we now know there were more adjustments than what is shown on the old charts) - but the winds have been hard to determine, we've been flying all night and it was impossible to get an accurate drift angle. So now what? The pilot; I'll keep trying to get a DF fix on Howland. The Navigator; I'll try and get a drift angle and back calculate the winds since we took the sun shot that gave us the preliminary LOP. Therefore, keep the airplane in a standard rate of turn (circling) until we get this thing sorted out. Drift angle calculated: Navigator, we are south of Howland so turn north to 337 and fly the line and tell Howland what you are doing, and keep trying to get a DF. No Baker, no Howland! The Navigator; we must be further north then current winds (back calculated, plus now known the additional magnetic variations) would account for therefore turn south and run the line 157. Still no Howland or Baker. Now what? Navigator: Let's keep going south where we are sure to run into an island we can identify and, if feasible at the time, return to Howland. No identifiable islands within a reasonable time. Maybe Mckean, but no place to land safely and a very inhospitable place. Now what? The Navigator; we are east of the LOP (Mckean Island identified) so turn west and then north again. The pilot; we are well into our reserves and we know how many miles/hours we are south so the fist island we run into we better take a hard look and put it down if at all possible. Gardner!! Fred's bouncing about from window to window looking for anything that looks like land and isn't strapped in. Amelia is lining up to touch down (totally absorbed picking out a touchdown spot that will do minimum damage to the plane) and forgets about Fred. Boom! Their down and Fred is like a bee-bee in a box car. Hurt but still functional (Betty's notebook three days later) after some tender loving care by Amelia. Amelia stays on the radio and Fred recuperates on the island and does some limited exploration and some limited salvage from the plane to the shore (his stuff - sextant, Benedictine bottle, finds the Norwich stash, etc.). Amelia, runs back and forth to the airplane day after day to send radio calls while Fred continues to explore. Day 7 and both head to Fred's finding of the seven site. Fred gives up and despairs and dies Amelia hangs in there a little longer but too passes. What an event!!!!! Ted Campbell ******************************************************************** From Ric I won't nitpick your scenario but one thing to remember is that any discussion of what went wrong and what to do next had to be conducted either by shouting or writing notes.