Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:15:12 EDT
From:         John
Subject:      Re: Bones and Mason

Freemason & Knights Templar is a fraternal group with secrets.  Most of libraries in the US have books that reveal all of the secrets.

    Regards, John

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

Ahh but how would one know that all of the secrets have been revealed?
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:16:59 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: How Forums Work

Don't forget the 15 who tell us how AE "would have" or "should have" changed her light bulb and why FN didn't care because he was drunk.

Tim
**********************************************************************
From Alan

Unfortunately Suzanne is correct. Possibly we ALL have too much free time on our hands including Suzanne which puts me in which category, Suzanne? <G>

Alan
**************************************************************
From Malcolm

Please thank Suzanne for her joke. It had nothing to do we AE but it set me in a perfect mood for my days' work.

Malcolm Andrews
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:21:52 EDT
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Carol

> Poor old Elgen he just lost his wife, and he's really hurting. He needs a
> wife for hire? Yuk, yuk, yuk.

This is too much, too many, too far, way outta line, way outta hand, way beyond poor taste, and well into shameful.

> Goodbye Carol.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
*********************************************************************
From Russ Matthews (#0509EC)

Ric wrote...

>No, I don't want to comment on any of the above except to say that you
>have graduated from harmlessly stupid to overtly offensive.  Goodbye Carol.

Amen to that.

LTM,

Russ

***********************************************************************
From Chris in Petaluma,

>Poor old Elgen he just lost his wife,
>and he's really hurting. He needs a wife for hire? Yuk, yuk, yuk. It ain't
>me.

I certainly hope that's the last of her outragous ramblings on this forum.

Chris
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Trust me.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:35:40 EDT
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Nauru Radio

We know that Nauru Radio heard Amelia mention seeing a ship (possibly the Murtlebank) around 1030ish PM. What else do we know about what Nauru Radio said? Wouldn't Nauru Radio also have been in touch with the Murtlebank by radio since it arrived into Nauru that next morning? Did Nauru Radio or anyone else check the Murtlebank's logbook to see just where it was at the time Emelia might possibly have seen it. One would expect these questions to have been asked to Nauru Radio after AE and FN were missing.

This would have helped locate where the 10E was at 1030ish PM that night.

Cheers from Bill Shea
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Remember that Nauru Radio was not officially part of the flight and had no responsibility to investigate anything.  All we know about what they heard is what they reported via radio the night of July 3rd.

FAIRLY STRONG SIGNALS, SPEECH NOT INTELLIGIBLE, NO HUM OF PLANE IN BACKGROUND BUT VOICE SIMILAR THAT EMITTED FROM PLANE IN FLIGHT LAST NIGHT BETWEEN 4.30 AND 9.30 P.M.  MESSAGE FROM PLANE WHEN AT LEAST 60 MILES SOUTH OF NAURU RECEIVED 8.30 P.M., SYDNEY TIME, JULY SECOND SAYING "A SHIP IN SIGHT AHEAD". SINCE IDENTIFIED AS STEAMER MYRTLE BANK WHICH ARRIVED NAURU DAYBREAK TODAY. REPORTED NO CONTACT BETWEEN ITASCA AND NAURU RADIO. CONTINUOUS WATCH BEING MAINTAINED BY NAURU RADIO AND SUVA RADIO.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:37:23 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      how do you jack up the plane

As to jacking up the plane, how do you think the Shark tree and Dr. Stone's tree got bent at those 90 and 45 degree angles ;-)

On a more serious note, your hypothesis on how the WoF got there could be tested if there is anyone remaining from the Gardner PISS days whom we could ask about an offshore tie off point near the boathouse.

LTM, and a salute to the Niku Vp team for all their fine work this far.

Dave Porter, 2288
*********************************************************
From Ric

Good idea.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:40:58 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Bones and Mason

Marty wrote:

>I've been inducted into two fraternities.  Both used bones in the induction
>rites.  In both I was sworn to secrecy about the rituals.  I would not
>expect the Masons, as a general rule, to publish the details of their inner
>workings for non-members to inspect.

As I said, I am a Mason, have been inducted thru the standard rituals, and NO bones (real or artificial) were used in any way, shape or form. I have been in several lodges for similar inductions and rituals and again, have seen NO bones of any sort used in the rituals. And, yes, I was and am sworn to secrecy. By telling you what we did NOT do, I am not violating any "secrets".

LTM,

Dave Bush
**************************************************************
From Ric

We had a club when I was about 14 and everything was secret and there were NO GIRLS ALLOWED.  But eventually I grew up - sort of.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:42:26 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Myrtlebank

I like the Myrtlebank theory, particularly since no one on the Ontario has come forward to say it was their ship to the best of my knowledge. There is always a problem when someone comes forward considerably after the fact, however.

Although the exact position of the Myrtlebank is not set in concrete I think that would put our heroes a bit north of course but not unusually so.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:48:07 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Lae Position

A query on coordinates.

I note Randy had the position S06 44 E146 59 for Lae. Is this the position for the town or the airstrip? I seem to remember in Colorado or Lexington's report the position was given as S06 45 E146 55 but once again I don't know if that was the town or the airstrip or if indeed there is any significant difference.

Would you agree that is unlikely that Fred ever bothered to check the positions given to him for departure points by taking a sight since the accuracy of his navigation didn't really warrant it?

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

I don't know but the discrepancy in the two positions quoted above seems
inconsequential anyway.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:50:38 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Staying near the Norwich City

I honestly can't see the castaways hanging out near the Norwich City just for the sake of a landmark.  But maybe they lingered nearby until the supply cache ran out or dwindled down to amounts that were easy to move to the 7 site?  (Am I remembering correctly that supplies were left by the Norwich City crew's rescuers?)  If so, do we have any guesses as to how much was there and how long it would take two people, with one possibly injured, to go through it?  I apologize if this has been hashed over before.

By the way, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" was on cable last weekend.

LTM
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
*******************************************************************
From Ric

What you say seems logical but we really don't have a handle on how many or exactly what kind of provisions were left in the cache.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:52:43 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Jacking it up

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>If Harrison Ford and Anne Hesche could do it so could Fred and Amelia.
>
>Alan
>*******************************************************
>From Ric
>
>Anyone who has ever been out on that reef is rolling on the floor holding
>their sides.

That's odd - I was doing that during the movie.  And it takes a lot of cinematic stupidity to distract me when Harrison Ford has his shirt off...  Sheesh.  Bamboo landing gear.  That film would've been saved as a comedy if they'd only had a cameo appearance from Bob Denver.

Here's a real question:  supposing just for a moment that the WoF is indeed from the Electra and the tire did go flat.  What would have been the damage to the wheel rim; what would it look like?

LTM,
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
***********************************************************
From Ric

I don't know.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:30:43 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

I don't recall ever reading that the Myrtlebank reported an aircraft passing overhead nor one of it's personnel reporting that.  I have read such reports about the USS Ontario and some of its personnel.

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

Randy, do I have this screwed up?
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:41:13 EDT
From:         Daryll
Subject:      For Marty

Marty wrote:

>Possibly--if the original eyewitnesses are correct, then testimony
>about the character of the eyewitnesses may be helpful. This is how I
>understand the "apostolic character" of the Christian tradition, so I
>can't dispute the general principle...If there was only one
>eyewitness of sound character who claimed to have seen AE (or AE & FN)
>and if there were some other strand of evidence to back up the sighting,
>it might make an impressive argument.

Marty, I understand that you are a Jesuit, am I correct? Are you the religious voice of the TIGHAR branch of Earhart research? An avid Earhart researcher would recognize the name of Monsignor Kelly and how the Catholic church was implicated in part of the Earhart story. But this subject is tooo explosive for this forum.

I have thought and maybe even expressed before that Earhart research is akin to a religious experience. A person believes what they want to believe because of their perspective of the evidence. The different research groups, AES, TIGHAR, and the Crash & Sankers have their own belief systems.

It all starts with Amelia Earhart being a real person who walked among us and was loved and respected by a great many people.  08:46 ITASCA time July 2, 1937 is the point where the real Earhart documented world meets the Earhart research world. Finding out what happened to Earhart has been referred to on this forum as the "Holy Grail" of aviation. AES & TIGHAR research involves a resurrection of sorts after 08:46 July 2nd 1937.

We argue back and forth that the lack of evidence for Earhart's fate is the result of "Natural" or "Human" forces.

When Earhart researchers are confronted with contemporaneous evidence like Hull's telegram presumably to recruit British assistance for a boat search in the Gilberts:

Secretary of State Cordial Hull sent on July 30, 1937, to the American
Embassy in London which contained these words:

"Evidence which to many sources seems positive indicates that Amelia Earhart (Mrs. Putnam) was on land the two nights following her disappearance."
[JK / BP]

We, as researchers, have to logically resolve why two people who more than likely made it to dry land in this vast ocean, got themselves disappeared AGAIN.

Daryll
*******************************************************************
From Ric

TIGHAR has no religious voice.

The "Evidence which to many sources seems positive" was clearly the various post-loss radio signals being received and officially judged to be credible at that time.

I agree that you and your fellow AESers subscribe to a different belief system than the rest of us.  I suggest you find some professional help.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:43:14 EDT
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      Re: Jacking it up

To many variables there to know for sure.  But, considering the much higher degree of flexibility of low pressure balloon tires, compared to modern aircraft tires.  I'd say it's entirely conceivable that the tire would have been shredded by the coral surface, if it went flat or blew on landing.  All that might have been left of the tire on the wheel may have been loose pieces and the beads.  The soft metal of the wheel would undoubtedly be beat up some, but to what degree would depend greatly on how hard she was braking, how fast it was still going, how rough was the surface, how much water was there, etc. etc.

Speaking of landing gear.... just a thought, but from the description of the coral flat surface, sounds pretty rough and bumpy, even if the mains did keep rolling I'd bet the tail wheel was trashed, if not departed from the airframe!

Oh, and by the way, who says the aircraft would have had to been jacked for the wheel to be removed?  Suppose the surf had already broken it up and a wing, or part of wing, with landing gear attached became accessible on the coral or beach due to surf action.

Just some thoughts.  K.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:44:57 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Lae Position

Angus asked:

> I note Randy had the position S06 44 E146 59 for Lae. Is this the position
> for the town or the airstrip?

It was the end of the runway.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:46:53 EDT
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

> Although the exact position of the Myrtlebank is not set in concrete I
> think
> that would put our heroes a bit north of course but not unusually so.

Yes, and if you continue flying that bearing it takes you over Ocean Island also lit up at night by the mining lights as Nauru was (my own theory) giving them an exact fix at night.

If they were flying that bearing, passing over the Myrtlebank, wouldn't they continue on that same bearing until getting a new fix ,such as Ocean Island, before going on a new bearing towards Howland? After all, they would have known what the weather was for Ocean Island (wasn't the weather report for OI requested?) and be able to get a great fix( and possibly the only one around that they could see) by seeing the bright lights. I would think that FN would have certainly considered flying on a Bearing to Ocean island and getting a radio fix on the Ontario on the way.

any other Ocean Island Theorists Tighar members out there besides me?

Cheers from Bill Shea.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:27:39 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Lae Position

Thanks Randy,

Its nice to know with such precision. Checking in the meantime I found 06 44, 146 59 given on the net for Lae port and 06 44 19, 146 59 49 for Lae navigational aid, so it would appear that the position of the town and airfield are pretty much one and the same.

Is there any evidence in the literature etc of what was currently believed to be the position of Lae in 1937? I would be interested to know if Lexington's position of 6 45 146 55 was more likely estimated from the chart, or if it was in fact the position (erroneously) generally accepted for Lae at the time. It seems difficult to believe that a highly accurate position (of better than four miles error) was not known for Lae with the large amount of air traffic using the airfield for shipping gold mining equipment up to Bulolo.

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

A pilot has no interest in the lat/long of an airport unless he is using celestial navigation (or GPS).  You can bet that the pilots flying in and out of Lae to the gold fields thought of Lae's position as "on the edge of town down by the water".
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:29:40 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

No you do not have it screwed up.

The Myrtlebank's 3rd mate (not 1st) reported his hearing a plane that evening to TIGHAR circa 1993.  I corresponded with him, asking him questions about the purpose of the ship, where it had come from, the time of his watch, etc., trying to see if there was anything about his testimony that didn't ring true.  Although he could not provide a precise location or time, the approximate time was valid, as was a rough position (based upon  arrival time at Nauru the following morning).  The only inconsistent testimony he provided was that the plane was heard from right to left.

Since the Myrtlebank was heading north, it should have been heard left-to-right.

The Navy got information regarding the Myrtlebank via the Sydney radio message describing Nauru's hearing AE's transmissions, as Ric previously provided.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:38:44 EDT
From:         Ed of PSL
Subject:      Re: Nauru Radio

Using the information of the time Murtlebank was sighted and the time of daybreak in Nauro, wouldn't it be possible to approximate (using the maximum and minimum speeds that the Murtlebank could possibly travel to reach Nauro at daybreak) a banded zone around Nauro that AE had to travel through to sight the ship. Would it be possible then to approximate maximum and minimum course plots (headings) and thereby estimate their zone of location?

The range of speed that the Murtlebank could go (and its distance from Nauro at the time of its sighting) could not posssibly be that great that would disallow an analysis that could yield some useful data. I'm not a pilot or have any navigation skills so my thinking may be way out of kilter. Just some thoughts.

LTM

Ed of PSL #2415
*********************************************************************
From Ric

The island is called Nauru (pronounced nawROO) and the ship was the Myrtlebank as in the plant myrtle.  It was ballpark 60 miles south of Nauru according to Nauru Radio the next day.  Earhart was only about halfway to Howland at that point.  I can't for the life me understand why it's so important to pin down exactly where she was at that moment or, for that matter, to worry about whether she saw the Myrtlebank or the Ontario.  She was pretty much on course and on schedule.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:40:13 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Bill Shea wrote:

> Yes, and if you continue flying that bearing it takes you over Ocean Island
> also lit up at night by the mining lights as Nauru was (my own theory) giving
> them an exact fix at night.

Just why would they need an exact fix at that position? Ocean island was about 870 nm from Howland. As a means of assisting them in finding Howland it was not much use. As for confirming their current position, track and ground speed, Fred had celestial to give him a position to within ten or fifteen miles, plenty accurate enough for his purposes at that stage in the flight, and the sights were ones which he would be taking in any event. Ocean Island was simply an unnecessary diversion. Fred Noonan was a highly experienced and confident aerial navigator. He had no worries about finding Howland and there is no evidence to suggest that he needed to reassure himself by visiting every potential waypoint some distance off his route. Moreover there is no record of the aircraft having been heard in the area of Ocean. Of course if you can think of one iota of evidence to suggest they did travel via Ocean Island, I would be interested to know it but in its absence it is much safer to conclude they did not.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:24:58 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Did he hear it from left to right as he was standing on the deck facing aft or facing forward? Makes a big difference. Also, I have many times thought that I heard a plane approaching from one direction, but due to reflection/refraction of the sound off other objects it turned out to be an illusion.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:25:57 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Regardless of which way the ship was heading which way was the third mate facing, north or south?

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:27:26 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Bill Shea wrote:

> Yes, and if you continue flying that bearing it takes you over Ocean Island

In an off forum exchange I pointed out to Bill that we don't know what "that bearing" was. Where Noonan was in relation to course prior to reaching the Myrtlebank would determine what course he might have been on. We don't know what that is.

At best we can say IF the Electra approached the Myrtlebank (if indeed it did) on a course that would take it over Ocean Island and they remained on that course they would probably overfly Ocean Island. No significance to this.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:35:44 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Carol Dow

> Poor old Elgen he just lost his wife, and he's really hurting. He needs a
> wife for hire? Yuk, yuk, yuk.

I suspect Yuk, yuk, yuk, was not meant to be yuk as in yucky, I wouldn't want to be his wife, but yuk as in an attempt to make "He needs a wife for hire" sound a little light hearted. This, if you look at it, is brought out in the "and he's really hurting". Obviously it failed miserably and the timing was in extremely bad taste.  I don't think Carol realized just how it would look once posted.

Plain stupid, some of her posts may seem.  Irreverent, perhaps.  Irrelevant - well. Malicious?  I don't think I've seen anything from her that wasn't intended either to amuse or raise discussion.

When she realizes exactly how her post sounded I imagine she'll apologize to both the forum and to Elgen Long.

Ross Devitt.
**************************************************************
From Ric

Your attempts to make excuses for her are laudable but misguided.  Her response was to castigate me for ridiculing someone to whom we had just sent a TIGHAR membership renewal notice.  I told her to disregard the notice.  I have removed her from the forum.

I have something of a reputation for not suffering fools gladly - and I plead guilty as charged - but, gladly or not, I think we suffer quite a few fools here on this forum.  But there are limits.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:48:20 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Engine location

Can you remind us of the exact circumstances of the discovery by Bruce of the Canton engine particularly in regard to any clues to its exact position on the reef. The wider circumstances of its discovery are of course on the website but it is with regard to such things as apparent distance from the shore, water depth, proximity or otherwise of the NC, proximity or otherwise of a lagoon passage, reef width from beach at that point etc - small but perhaps significant clues.

Am I right in thinking that Bruce discovered the engine some fairly short distance from the beach and if so, would you agree this rules out the area of reef opposite Tatiman passage?

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

Bruce's recollection was that the engine was off the west end of an island about 50 feet from shore in thigh-deep water.  He has no recollection of a lagoon passage or of ever seeing a shipwreck nearby.  Exhaustive investigation, including interviews with all but one of the pilots and co-pilots of the  helicopters, has been unable to find anyone who was present on Canton at that time who can corroborate Bruce's recollection of an engine ever being slung under a helicopter, nor can we find a record of a trip to Gardner by any helicopter during the time Bruce was there.  Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340.  One possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at Canton in 1943 and was not recovered.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:50:23 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Lae Position

Don't forget there are/have been two Lae airport locations.  The original one, as I understand, was on the coast.

The current one I believe is away from the coast at Nadzab.

This might account for some discrepancy as the airport is miles from the town these days.

Th' WOMBAT
*************************************************************
From Ric

I'm sure that Randy was using the correct airport and, of course, the new airport did not exist in 1937.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:51:52 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

> Although the exact position of the Myrtlebank is not set in concrete I think
> that would put our heroes a bit north of course but not unusually so.
>
> Alan

And from anywhere in the 60-100 miles range if she was anywhere from a few thousand up to ten thousand feet she should have easily seen Nauru (without overflying it) unless she was in constant cloud.  It would have stood out against the ocean as a huge bright star in a very black night.

For that matter, I've picked out towns with less light than Nauru had at night from well in excess of that distance.

I think we worked out that at 10000ft, Nauru would be on the horizon at 110 - 120 miles.  The glow from the mine and the new light would be visible below the horizon.  the light, being higher would add to the distance available.

Add to this that she apparently saw the ship, and it still seems she and Fred could have had a definite navigational fix without ever having to deviate from course.



Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:53:17 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Myrtlebank

> ...wouldn't it be possible to approximate (using the maximum and
> minimum speeds that the Myrtlebank could possibly travel to reach Nauro at
> daybreak)

The problem here is that the minimum possible speed was close to zero knots. The ship had been deliberately slowed , as I understand it, to arrive in daylight because of poor pier facilities in Nauru. This means that - at least in theory -  Myrtlebank could have been 100 yds off the pier at 10 30 GMT and yet still arrived at dawn. As to her maximum distance, dawn was at 18 53 GMT and so she had 8hr 23 min to arrive. She is unlikely to have had a top speed much over 15 knots. At this speed she would travel 126nm. However since the ship was running slow 60 nm is quite reasonable as this would equate to just over 7 knots. Perhaps Randy could give us some more detailed account of the figures used in the calculations he made.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:55:24 EDT
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Angus writes:

> Just why would they need an exact fix at that position? Ocean island was
> about870 nm from Howland. As a means of assisting them in finding
> Howland it was not much use.

HUH?  and just how would FN plot his next leg towards Howland if he didn't know where he was. You are assuming that he was successful in his celestial fixes.  But flying over OI would certainly tell him where they were.

And everyone assumes that FN would have got Celestial fixes all along his route. But do you know this was successful? Give me one instance where he radioed that he got a celestial fix along his fix during the night.  If FN was really that good wouldn't he try to rely on more than celestial fixes?  Why not both Celestial fixes AND flying over some identifiable island lit up such as OI was.

What do we know then that might have persuaded him to take a northern route to Howland?

1) he might have had a good Weather Report for Nauru and Ocean Island.
2) he knew beforehand that Ocean Island (sd well as Nauru) would be lit up at night by the phosphorous mining.
3) it might have been them that flew over the Murtlebank when it was aprox 60 miles south of Nauru. This bearing would take them over OI.
4) He would have tried in vain to get a fix from the Ontario. and he could have done this south or even north of the Ontario as it was a radio signal.

I am suggesting that he might have even planned to fly to Ocean Island (instead of flying a direct line) then turn toward Howland.

Now, try drawing a line from OI to Howland and see if the Electra 10e could have been heard flying over Tabiteuea during the night. I believe they could have been heard.

Cheers from Bill  (who is at least trying to get back on track.)
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:00:30 EDT
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Aviation Archaeology Show

On the History Channel:

http://www.historychannel.com/

Next Airing: Sunday, Aug 3 @ 8pm ET/PT

Historian and adventurer Pat Macha introduces us to the world of aviation archaeology, bringing to life once-majestic planes and the men and women who flew them. "Airplane wrecks that remain undisturbed for years provide us with a sobering opportunity to consider the power of nature and the mistaken judgments of man," Macha explains. Teaming up with forensic experts and aviation authorities, Macha transports us to the past at crash sites and pieces together the puzzle behind the twisted metal.  TV PG

Craig Fuller
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, Pat Macha is a TIGHAR member.  Sounds like an interesting show. (I sure hope nobody ever describes me as an "adventurer".)
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:04:06 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Marty and Daryll

Once again, Daryll, you did not address any of Marty's points. You did however, ramble on about a large amount of unrelated information. I do note, however, that when you Daryll asked Marty a few days ago for clarification about what Marty was talking about, he wrote a very clear explanation that addressed your specific question.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
******************************************************************
From Ric

As Daryll explained, he operates under a different belief system.  He's right.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:05:45 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

> Add to this that she apparently saw the ship, and it still seems she and
> Fred could have had a definite navigational fix without ever having to
> deviate from course.

I agree, Ross. And like Ric said there may be little significance to that part of the navigation leg as it was so far out from Howland and by all appearances they were reasonably on course and on time.

I can tell you the significance of at least some of the interest in that part of the flight and that's the age old attempt to get the plane far north of track and much closer to Mili Atoll. It will never work.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:08:19 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Aviation Archaeology Show

Ric wrote:

> Yes, Pat Macha is a TIGHAR member.  Sounds like an interesting show.
> (I sure hope nobody ever describes me as an "adventurer".)

Ric, to the best of my recollection "adventurer" was not one of the many descriptive words I've heard. <G>

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

Well .... it was something that started with A.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:09:23 EDT
From:         Daryll
Subject:      Professional help?

Ric wrote:

>I agree that you and your fellow AESers subscribe to a different
>belief system than the rest of us. I suggest you find some professional
<help.

Do you mean by "some professional help", to figure out a way to jack up an airplane with no jack, just to fix a flat tire on that airplane, that has no runway or gas left in it's tanks???

Daryll
************************************************************************
From Ric

ummm.....no.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:12:17 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

I wrote:

>As a means of assisting them in finding Howland Ocean Island was not much use.

Bill Shea wrote:

> HUH?  and just how would FN plot his next leg towards Howland if he didn't
> know where he was. You are assuming that he was successful in his celestial
> fixes.  But flying over OI would certainly tell him where they were.

If Fred was unsuccessful with his fixes, he would have no way of finding Ocean Island especially as the reason for unsuccessful fixes would probably be cloud.

> And everyone assumes that FN would have got Celestial fixes all along his
> route. But do you know this was successful? Give me one instance where he
> radioed that he got a celestial fix along his fix during the night.  If FN was
> really that good wouldn't he try to rely on more than celestial fixes?  Why not
> both Celestial fixes AND flying over some identifiable island lit up such as OI
> was.

We DO know that only a few hours before AE was due to pass on course to the south of Ocean Island, the sky there was completely clear.

> What do we know then that might have persuaded him to take a northern route
> to Howland?
> 1) he might have had a good Weather Report for Nauru and Ocean Island.

But no evidence of such

> 2) he knew beforehand that Ocean Island (as well as Nauru) would be lit up at
> night by the phosphorous mining.

So he could see it from a great distance and so would not have to actually go there.

> 3) it might have been them that flew over the Murtlebank when it was aprox 60
> miles south of Nauru. This bearing would take them over OI.

Since their previous reported position was over three hours earlier and all the indications are that it was not a fix - as it was not yet dark at that time (and so was probably DR along course or a sunline crossed with course) we have no way of knowing the exact bearing of their track at Myrtlebank. A few degrees here makes a lot of difference in destination.

> 4) He would have tried in vain to get a fix from the Ontario. and he could
> have done this south or even north of the Ontario as it was a radio signal.

Perhaps he saw Ontario and didn't need a radio bearing. Even if he didn't, a failure to get a bearing from Ontario wouldn't have meant he needed to head for Ocean Is. if he was confident of his star fixes.

> I am suggesting that he might have even planned to fly to Ocean Island
> (instead of flying a direct line) then turn toward Howland.

But there is no evidence that he did.

> Now, try drawing a line from OI to Howland and see if the Electra 10e could
> have been heard flying over Tabiteuea during the night. I believe they could
> have been heard.

Ocean Island and  northern Tabiteuea are both very roughly one degree south. Howland is very roughly one degree north. It is clear therefore that the track from Ocean to Howland does not pass even close to Tabiteuea and probably over 50 miles away. If you could hear an Electra from 50 miles you would need good hearing.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:29:03 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Dave Bush wrote:

>Did he hear it from left to right as he was standing on the deck facing aft
>or facing forward?

My understanding is port to starboard.  On board ship, that's the usual points of reference.  I never thought of clarifying whether he was facing backwards; assumed he was describing relative to the ship.

Here are the points I used for possible Myrtlebank positions at 1030Z:

-2*, 31'S, 167*12'E for the southernmost point and
-2* 7'S, 167* 8'E for the northernmost point.

I based these points on likely cruise speeds, time of arrival at noon at Nauru, and the direction of most likely passage from New Zealand (if I remember that departure point correctly).

When I ran Monte Carlo simulations of the flight path, the best position for the plane at 1030Z was east of Ontario but west of Myrtlebank.  Neither ship appeared to be reasonable one to be sighted when I threw in that constraint.

Here's one possible, speculative scenario: Earhart is using the RDF, using signals from the Ontario, but the source are really behind her.  When she finally sights the Myrtlebank, she thinks it is the Ontario, gives out the radio message, and possibly dips the plane down low to the ship.  That's the best I could come up with.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Earhart's instructions to Ontario (sent on 6/26/37) were:

SUGGEST ONTARIO STANDBY ON FOUR HUNDRED KCS TO TRANSMIT LETTER N FIVE MINUTES [SIC] ONE [SIC - ON] REQUEST WITH STATION CALL LETTER REPEATED TWELVE [SIC - TWICE] END VERY [EVERY?] MINUTE

In other words, Ontario was not supposed to send anything until requested by Earhart.  There is no indication that Earhart ever requested anything from Ontario and I'm aware of no indication that Ontario ever transmitted anything to her.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:29:55 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      W.D. Adams

Innerspace Engineering currently owns the brand name "W. D. Adams".

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:41:27 EDT
From:         Doug
Subject:      Norwich City

Betty's notes state NY (New York). Some have speculated that this may mean Norwich City.

Would FN or EA have known the name of this wrecked vessel?

About the tire/rim, I agree with Ric. They would have no reason to take the tires off the plane nor fix these tires. They landed because they couldn't stay aloft. If they had any gas at all left when they landed they would have fired up the engines to recharge the Radio Batteries.

It may have been the case that they were asleep, or entrenched in the brush and couldn't make it to the open when the plane flew over.

I find it curious that the pilot said there was recent signs of habitation. From the air, you would think he must have seen something(s) significant to give him this impression.

  Doug

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

There is some indication that the name of the ship was still legible in 1937.

What Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation" has been a matter of great debate.  Manmade features that we know, or may have been, there at the time were:

- the wreck of the Norwich City.
- the cache of provisions left by the NC rescuers 8 years earlier.
- the collapsed remains of some corrugated iron buildings from the Arundel coconut planting operation 45 years earlier.
- a flagpole with a placard on it left there by HMS Leith the previous February.

None of these seem to me to be adequate indication of "recent habitation" to prompt "circling and zooming" to try to get someone to respond with an answering wave".

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:48:07 EDT
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Engine Location

>Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the
>shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340.  One
>possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at
>Canton in 1943 and was not recovered.

I guess the problem with this plane being the source for Bruce's engine is that he remembers the engine coming from an island other than Canton, right?

Is this B-24 still sitting there on the reef at Canton?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
********************************************************************
From Ric

There are a couple problems with this being the engine Bruce remembers.  He says the engine came from an island other than Canton and he says the engine was a single row radial - either an R-985 or an R-1340.  The B-24's R-1830s were twin row (two rows of 7 cylinders each).

We don't know if the B-24 is still there.  It would be interesting (but expensive) to find out.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:49:34 EDT
From:         unknown
Subject:      Re: Aviation Archaeology Show

>Do you know when & where Tighar's next crash site investigation will be?

Not yet.  We'll need to decide pretty soon though. Been sorta busy.

Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:53:54 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Randy said:

>I based these points on
> likely cruise speeds, time of arrival at noon at Nauru, ...........

Was it noon or dawn that Myrtlebank arrived at Nauru? Does her log exist?

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

.....STEAMER MYRTLEBANK WHICH ARRIVED NAURU DAYBREAK TODAY .
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:57:22 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Randy, Angus, and Ric said:

>> I based these points on
>> likely cruise speeds, time of arrival at noon at Nauru, ...........
>
> Was it noon or dawn that Myrtlebank arrived at Nauru? Does her log exist?
>
> Regards Angus.
> **************************************************
> From Ric
>
> .....STEAMER MYRTLEBANK WHICH ARRIVED NAURU DAYBREAK TODAY .

Some points to consider from an old salt:

If you are trying to figure out a position for the Myrtlebank at a given time based upon her arrival at Nauru, remember that anchoring or mooring in the dark (especially warping alongside a pier) is a real b..... Now, it might seem logical to adjust speed for the entire cruise to show up at dawn (making position/time calculations fairly accurate), but there are other things to consider. Every ship (steam, motor or gas turbine) has "economical cruising speeds"; go faster OR SLOWER, and you waste fuel. One may want to go a little faster than navigationally necessary to give yourself some room for storm evasion. My point being, the Myrtlebank may well have arrived off Nauru hours before dawn and either sat DIW or cruised in circles, just maintaining steerageway until dawn. It is even possible the ship intended to enter port the previous afternoon but got held up by weather or minor mechanical problems and wound up spending most of the night just off the island.

Kerry Tiller
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:16:24 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: For Marty

Daryll wrote:

> Marty, I understand that you are a Jesuit, am I correct?

Yes, I am.  I teach at a small Jesuit college in Buffalo.

> Are you the
> religious voice of the TIGHAR branch of Earhart research?

Heck, no!  I am religious by temperament and training, and my field is the intersection of philosophy and theology. Once in a while I'll stick my oar in the water for religious or theological reasons, but only because TIGHAR intends its  work to stand as a model for doing sound research. TIGHAR is a purely secular organization and they have let me be associated with them in spite of, not because of my religious identity.

> An avid Earhart researcher would recognize the name of Monsignor Kelly
> and how the Catholic church was implicated in part of the Earhart story.

Doesn't ring a bell with me.  I think I joined TIGHAR in 2000 or thereabouts.  That really was the beginning of my Amelianism.

> I have thought and maybe even expressed before that Earhart research is
> akin to a religious experience.

True.  Religious experiences employ the ordinary human faculties of perception, conception, inference, feeling and judgment.

> A person believes what they want to
> believe because of their perspective of the evidence.

True, assuming that there is no interference from the unconscious, which may have other motives.

> The different
> research groups, AES, TIGHAR, and the Crash & Sankers have their own
> belief systems.

True.  In my Ph.D. work I studied two complementary theories of belief systems.  The ten-cent word for such theories is "epistemology," the branch of philosophy that deals with how we know what we know.

> We, as researchers, have to logically resolve why two people who more
> than likely made it to dry land in this vast ocean, got themselves
> disappeared AGAIN.

True.  And the Niku hypothesis has to account for many people not finding any trace of AE & FN until the bones were found in 1940 (on the assumption that the bones might have belonged to AE--they were too short for FN, I think).

>> From Ric

> TIGHAR has no religious voice.

Agreed.

LTM.

                        Marty #2359
************************************************************
From Ric

Amelianism??   Does that make us Amelianists?  Is a controversial and hotly debated historical topic therefore Amelianistic?  I think you may have made a siginificant contribution to the language.  Tom King is credited with the adjective Earhartian and I lay claim to the noun Ameliana to describe the body of folklore and literature pertaining to the historical character and her
disappearance.  This is fertile ground.

Any day I expect to see the search for WMD described as Saipanistic. :-)
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:24:04 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Engine Location

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

>Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the
>shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340.  One
>possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at
>Canton in 1943 and was not recovered".

However, Bruce said it was a single row radial engine and that clearly indicates it did not belong to a B-24. Lots of WW II airplanes had double radial engines. Therefore the single row engine Bruce was talking about has to be taken into account as possibly having belonged to a  Lockheed 10E. The problem is that we shall never know since the engine cannot be found. Organizing a search for it would cost more than TIGHAR can afford.

LTM (who loves the sound of radials)
*********************************************************************
From Ric

If TIGHAR had an unlimited budget and if we found an engine in the buried dump on Canton we would still not know if it was the engine Bruce found.  If we found an engine from Earhart's plane in the Canton dump we would not know that it is the engine Bruce says he put there.

Bruce Yoho's story is an anecdotal recollection.  He would be a remarkable individual indeed if some of his recollections are not less than accurate.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:51:55 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Kerry: I did indeed take into account that the Myrtlebank was likely loitering south of Nauru so that it could dock at sunrise.  I believe I did give them a half hour or so to get to the pier.  The 3rd mate indicated they were still south of Nauru and underway towards Nauru when he heard the plane.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:57:34 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Engine Location

Ric wrote:

> If TIGHAR had an unlimited budget and if we found an engine in the buried
> dump on Canton we would still not know if it was the engine Bruce found.  If
> we found an engine from Earhart's plane in the Canton dump we would
> not know that it is the engine Bruce says he put there.

Yeah, but it would put an end to the Crashed and Sankers (Sankestrians? Sunkenists?). Of course the Saipanists, Milians, Marshallites et. al. would just add a branch to the conspiracy tree and claim the find proof of a cover-up.

On a somewhat less frivolous note:

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

> Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the
> shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340.  One
> possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at
> Canton in 1943 and was not recovered.

These guys that make up the consensus; were they aware of the B-24 wreckage? Would these fellas know an R-1830 from a 1340? Would they know B-24s had double bank radials? What I'm really asking is did these guys just make the connection of the old decrepit radial with the B-24 wreck, referring to it in anecdote as a "B-24 engine". A more knowledgeable listener to the anecdote might then morph the recollection into an R-1830, thus misidentifying the decrepit shed door stop cum trash dump filler for eternity.

LTM (who is a Congregationalist)
Kerry Tiller
************************************************************
From Ric

The only way the Canton Engine could put an end to Crashed & Sank would be if it was positively identifiable as one of Earhart's engines - an unlikely proposition even it could be found and was indeed one of Earhart's engines.

The guys who remember the engine in the shop are aviation people who remember it as an R-1830.  None of them know anything about the B-24.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:43:24 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: For Marty

Marty says:

>Doesn't ring a bell with me.  I think I joined TIGHAR in
>2000 or thereabouts.  That really was the beginning of
>my Amelianism.

Darn! And I was going to ask you.  Who is Msgr. Kelly?  I suspect that there are a few Monsignors named Kelly, come to think of it.

Daniel Postellon
TIGHAR#2263
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:42:50 EDT
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      The Engine

FYI, for Kerry Tiller, Alfred Hendrickson DID NOT WRITE "Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340.  One possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at Canton in 1943 and was not recovered." Ric wrote that, and I was keying off of it.

I have to come clean; I wouldn't know an R1830 from a can of shoe polish. Or an R1340 from a '57 Chevy. Or either of them from a 1040EZ. I do know now, however, that the former has more cylinders, arranged in two banks. Thanks, all, for educating me. I really need to make more donations to TIGHAR in return for all of this tuition I'm receiving.

Which leads to this: Ric, how are we coming with closing the Niku Vp funding gap?

LTM, who always had plenty of cash, and was willing to spread it around,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Nothing to write home about yet but we really haven't had time to see a return from the TIGHAR Tracks that was mailed out last week.  Thanks for asking.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:45:35 EDT
From:         Dr. Know
Subject:      CONNECTING THE DOTS

FOR ANGUS AND YOU OTHER MYRMIDONS.

GO BACK AND READ MY PREVIOUS EMAILS CONCERNING THE 67 DEGREE COURSE AE TOOK FROM NAURU, YOU WILL NOTE SHE PASSES RIGHT OVER TABITEUEA. DUH!

AS ALWAYS, FELLOW TRUTH-SEEKERS.....

LTM
DR. KNOW
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:34:38 EDT
From:         Dr. Know
Subject:      Connecting The Dots

I have always had a question concerning the time that Nauru says they heard Earhart.  At first I heard it was 10:30am Naura time on July 3rd.  Then later I heard it was 10:30pm on July 2nd. Which one do you think is correct?

I also heard that her message read "Land in sight ahead".  In addition I have heard the message read, "Ship in sight ahead".

Now maybe you will see the significance of these questions:  One the morning of July 3rd a ship called the "Golden Bear" left Tarawa heading for Honolulu. Somewhere in my past records I have a file on this and I believe Golden Bear was carrying lumber from New Guinea to Honolulu with final destination of San Francisco.  Before Golden Bear left New Guinea she got caught up in the volcano eruption and was severely disabled by the falling ash from the volcano.

If my theory is correct, AE passed over Golden Bear, maybe around two or three am Howland Island time.

After AE crashed into the ocean, Golden Bear came within thirty miles of the floating plane.

You can see where I am going with this because if AE said, "Ship in sight ahead" there is a possibility that she saw Golden Bear instead of Myrtlebank.  Now, she could have seen both.

The story of the Golden Bear is very interesting for many reasons.

Please remember that Dr Know has not done any hard research since 1987 so I am having to go by memory. If neccessary, I will have to go back to my three filing cabinets full of research papers...

Remember I said in the beginning that AE hit the water at approximately 6 degrees N latitude and 178 degrees 30 minutes W longitude.

I am not a "Crash and Sinker".  Later on I will give my opinion on how long the plane floated.

Paige, this is for you:  The plane had at least seven thousand pounds of positive buoyancy and I don't care what anyone says, until that buoyancy is dissipated by seawater the plane is going to continue to float.  It is a law of Physics.  She had twelve hundred gallon capacity fuel tanks.  Most likely they were dead empty when she crashed..

I guess Dr. Know will consider this "clue" number 3.....
**********************************************************************
From Ric

For somebody who has all the answers you sure have a lot of questions about real basic stuff.

>the time that Nauru says they heard Earhart. At first I heard it was 10:30am
>Naura time on July 3rd. Then later I heard it was 10:30pm on July 2nd.
>Which one do you think is correct?

What I think is that the best information available is the original source document which says that Nauru heard Earhart say "Ship in sight ahead." at 8:30 p.m. Sydney Time on July 2nd which would be 10:30 p.m. on July 2nd local time in Nauru.

The Golden Bear radioed the Itasca and asked for the weather sometime on July 3rd local Itasca time.  At that time Golden Bear was at 5.38N  179.19 W which puts her roughly 500 nautical miles northwest of Tarawa.  You say the she left Tarawa on July 3rd.  Fast ship.

Tell you what "Dr. Know" - you're the second phoney we've had to expose on this forum in the past few months but at least the last one had enough nerve to use his real name.  Everyone here is open and above board.  I won't post anything more from you unless and until you tell us who you are.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:38:31 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Norwich City

> What Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation" has been a matter of
> great debate.  Manmade features that we know, or may have been, there at the 
> time were:
> - the wreck of the Norwich City.
> - the cache of provisions left by the NC rescuers 8 years earlier.
> - the collapsed remains of some corrugated iron buildings from the Arundel
> coconut planting operation 45 years earlier.
> - a flagpole with a placard on it left there by HMS Leith the previous
> February.
>
> None of these seem to me to be adequate indication of "recent habitation" to
> prompt "circling and zooming" to try to get someone to respond with an
> "answering wave".

The NZ survey party found a relatively intact lifeboat.

Th' WOMBAT.
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Good point.  We have a photo of it.  With a wrecked ship on the reef I don't buy it as "sign of recent habitation".
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:41:26 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Aviation Archaeology Show

> From Ric
>
> Well .... it was something that started with A.

Why is it that your lines are always better than mine? Does Pat write them?

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

No, but she inspires them.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:43:12 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

From Alan,

In the 8th Edition it says, "...we have roughly determined the limits of the Myrtlebank position at 1030GMT: a 20nm by 10nm region oriented at 350 degrees centered at 2 degrees 20'S, 167 degrees 10'E"

Given all else about this flight I'm not sure some other figure would have more significance. Nothing about the Lae to Howland leg smacks of great precision.

Is it significant how this was arrived at? A simple "no" will satisfy me. <G>

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

Randy?
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:51:41 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      paint or zinc chromate on aluminum

I know this was discussed in the forum a year or three ago, but I don't remember the answer.

Why is it significant that no paint or zinc chromate was found on the aluminum parts recently found on Nikumaroro?

--
Paige Miller
*******************************************************************
From Ric

The aluminum skin of all of the WWII aircraft that served in the Central Pacific region was either anodized or coated with zinc chromate wash (often both) to inhibit corrosion.  Many of the aircraft were also painted.  The 24ST alclad skin of Earhart's Lockheed 10 was neither anodized nor coated with zinc chromate and the only parts of the aircraft that were painted were the orange markings edged in black on the wings and horizontal tail, the registration numbers and the Lockheed logo on the tail.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:57:30 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Engine Location

Ric wrote:

> The only way the Canton Engine could put an end to Crashed & Sank would be if
> it was positively identifiable as one of Earhart's engines - an unlikely
> proposition even it could be found and was indeed one of Earhart's engines.
>
> The guys who remember the engine in the shop are aviation people who remember
> it as an R-1830.  None of them know anything about the B-24.

To once again quote our favorite Gilda Radner character:

Never mind.

Kerry Tiller
***********************************************************************
From Don Jordan


   In regards to the "Guys who remember the engine as an old R-1830".  I, as you know, interviewed one of those guys, and he never said anything to me about it being an 1830.  He remembers an old single row radial airplane engine. Who did we find that said it was an 1830?  I think Bruce felt it was the proper size to be a 1340 as well.

Don Jordan
************************************************************************
From Ric

There has been a tremendous amount of work done on this whole question and we'll have a full update on the Canton Engine investigation soon.  I'll have to ask you to be patient.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:01:19 EDT
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Corks and Chains

Where were the corks & chains discovered relative to the water tank found on a previous expedition?   Doubtful, but could the corks/chains somehow be associated with the water tank?

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

We have no idea exactly where the corks and chains were found, but they were found either before the tank was put there or by the same people who put the tank there, so it does not seem likely that they are associated with the tank.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:04:59 EDT
From:         Denise
Subject:      "Myrtlebank"

Am I wrong recalling A.E. said something about "blue light to the north" around the same time she mentioned the ship?  Since the lights going up to and surrounding the mine on Nauru were blue-ish, I always took that to mean she was south of Nauru when she passed over the ship she presumed to be the one marking her halfway point.  Is there a problem with this? And if I didn't get this from your website, where else could I have got it?

LTM (who knew her mining lights)
Denise
***************************************************************
From Ric

You're asking ME where you get this stuff?
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:11:08 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Amelians

Fr. Marty:

We are all Amelians.  Nikumanites are a recent offshoot, considered heretical by the old-line "Sanker" movement. (In general the Niku sect espouses private interpretation, whereas we Sankers believe that tradition, in the form of testimony from the Guys Who Were There, also has a role to play in Amelianist exegesis.  Not that they're infallible ...)

FYI, Msgr. James Kelly was president of New Jersey's Seton Hall University in 1937 and allegedly a close associate of Francis Cardinal Spellman.  According to the Saipanic and Milian belief systems, it was Spellman who arranged to smuggle Earhart out of Japan in a planeload of nuns.  Once back in the US, Earhart was handed over to Msgr. Kelly, who arranged her transmogrification into Irene Bolam.  In the movie I imagine this scene will feature hooded monks, Gregorian chant and lots of incense -- you know, the usual Sinister Papist stuff.

By the way, Carol Dow is an avowed Charismatic -- the ones who speak in tongues.

LTM
Patrick "Torquemada" Gaston
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Now THAT's a funny posting.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:14:52 EDT
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Fuel consumption

Last night I watched an old Travel channel show on the search for Amelia Earhart. The narrator called the Phoenix island landing a myth. He even mentioned that six trips have been made to the Phoenix group with negative results. Elgin Long was then spotlighted and his claim that Earhart ran out of fuel after 20 hours and 13 minutes of flight time. His proof was the Chatter (sp) report. From this report his was able to calculate her fuel consumption for the entire trip to Howland. I remember sometime back many knowledgeable members on this forum debated his findings. What I can't remember was what was the final decision on his calculations.
**************************************************************
From Ric

Not to dig up that dead horse but basically Elgen screwed up the math.  There is a ton of stuff on fuel consumption in the forum archives.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:41:17 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Niku Altitude

If the estimates of the storm surge + wave height at 4 meters stand up, I was wondering just what the highest point on Niku is. I checked a Kiribati website, but they listed the height at 0 meters. I know you've mentioned a ridge near the seven site, so perhaps that's the highest point of land.

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

I think that technically the highest elevation on the atoll is something like 12 feet and the highest point is probably up toward the northwest tip of Nutiran.   The ridge at the Seven Site is more like 8 feet if I recall correctly. Niku Altitude is something of an oxymoron.
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:51:44 EDT
From:         Ben the Skeptic
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

Dr. Know, you said :

**Paige, this is for you:  The plane had
**at least seven thousand pounds of
**positive buoyancy and I don't care
**what anyone says, until that buoyancy
**is dissipated by seawater the plane is
**going to continue to float.  It is a law of
**Physics.  She had twelve hundred gallon
**capacity fuel tanks.

Here is a message I posted previously this year regarding floating capabilities:

The Sound of Wings, by Mary Lovell describes a water landing of a Lockheed Electra. I have paraphrased for copyright purposes.

After experiencing failure in both engines, the pilot was able to land on a smooth sea just off the coast of Massachusetts, with a 10 mph headwind. The plane landed tail down, to lessen impact. The pilot and passengers survived the landing, and were rescued immediately. It took the Lockheed eight minutes to sink.
--------Sound of Wings pgs 288-89

It was largely assumed that the Electra could float "indefinitely" based on the empty fuel tanks. Everyone stuck to that theory and continued to ignore Joe Gurr. Amelia's former radio mechanic stated simply, that the fuel tanks "had vent openings, through which the water could fill them in a certain length of time."
--------Sound of Wings Pg.296

Figure those vents into the laws of physics Dr. Know.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

The airplane that floated for eight minutes had the standard airline seating and fuel configuration.  I don't know whether the vents would allow the tanks to fill with water or not but neither did Joe Gurr.  At the time, the guys at Lockheed seemed the think the airplane would float just fine and they knew the airplane a whole lot better than anyone else - but even they had never done a flotation test on a Lockheed 10E Special.

The bottom line is that nobody can really say if or for how long that airplane would float.

***************************************************
From Angus

> GO BACK AND READ MY PREVIOUS EMAILS CONCERNING THE 67 DEGREE COURSE AE
> TOOK FROM NAURU, YOU WILL NOTE SHE PASSES RIGHT OVER TABITEUEA. DUH!

A course from Nauru to the centre of Tabiteuea is 95.8 deg true. A course to the northernmost tip of Tabiteuea is still more than 94 deg true. That it must be more than 90 deg is obvious from the fact that Tabiteuea is further south than Nauru.  A course from Tabiteuea to 05 54N 178 16W is 43.7 deg true. Just where does the 67 degrees fit in? A direction for cloud-cuckoo land perhaps?


Regards Angus.
*************************************************
From Alan

> THE 67 DEGREE COURSE AE TOOK FROM NAURU, YOU WILL NOTE SHE PASSES RIGHT
> OVER TABITEUEA.

1. You don't have any idea where AE's Electra was while abeam Nauru. There are only two people who know that and they are both dead.

2. You could not possibly know what course she was on once her wheels left the runway at Lae. NO ONE does.

3. You don't know whether she passed over Tabiteuea at all. No one does.

You are pure nonsense.

Ric, why don't you end his suffering. First time I've ever made such a request.

Alan
***********************************************
From Angus


> What I think is that the best information available is the original source
> document which says that Nauru heard Earhart say "Ship in sight ahead." At 8:30
> p.m. Sydney Time on July 2nd which would be 10:30 p.m. on July 2nd local time
> in Nauru.

Don't you mean: "...which would be 10:30 GMT on July 2nd in Nauru"? I think Nauru was +11.5 so this would be 22.00 hrs Nauru time.

Regards Angus.

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

Today Nauru is two hours later than Sydney.  Was it different in 1937?  It may have been.  Hawaii was.
***********************************************************
From Chris in Petaluma, Ca

Ric said:

>I won't post anything more from you unless and until you tell us who you
>are.

Atta boy Ric!!  Let's weed these phonies out!
Chris
*************************************************************
From Ric

I'm afraid that Dr. Know is rather upset with me for cutting him off unless he comes clean about who he is.  He says I'm "A DAMN NICE GUY ONE ON ONE BUT YOUR HITLER COMPLEX  COMES OUT ON YOUR FORUM." (I guess I'm going to have let this mustache grow out some more.)

I could blow his cover (It really wasn't hard to track him down. He lives in Baton Rouge, LA and he's not a proctologist.) but there would be no point. None of you have ever heard of him.  In the world of internet email groups he is what is known as a "troll".  These guys sign on to email groups anonymously and get their jollies by saying things just to get everybody riled up.  It's just an attention-getting ploy.  Pretty sad really.

We're going to do him a big favor and not be enablers.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:54:48 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Dr. Know

Dr. Know writes, in rebuttal to my theory that AE drifted with her airplane to the Pacific coast of Paraguay:

>Paige, this is for you:  The plane had
>at least seven thousand pounds of
>positive buoyancy and I don't care
>what anyone says, until that buoyancy
>is dissipated by seawater the plane is
>going to continue to float.  It is a law of
>Physics.  She had twelve hundred gallon
>capacity fuel tanks.  Most likely they
>were dead empty when she crashed..

Aha, excellent, Dr. Know! You do know how the game is played! I state a theory, you offer up comments, I offer counter-remarks, and we debate things.

I also point out that TIGHAR has provided the details of the Niku theory and exploration in excruciating detail on its website, and Ric has answered thousands of questions about this theory from many many different people, in this forum and elsewhere.

And that's what we'd like you to do. Specifically, we want you to clearly and completely state your theory, and make sure you mention the supporting evidence. It doesn't have to be an elaborate website like TIGHAR has, a few well-written paragraphs will suffice. And then, we can have an intelligent debate about your theory, and the Niku theory, and others. We DO NOT WANT to see you present your theory as a set of hints or clues and we have to guess what they mean.

Furthermore, I am formally asking the moderator of this forum to ban further posts from you (or anyone else) that take on the form "here's another hint, guess what it means". I personally would welcome a clear and complete statement of your theory and the evidence supporting it.

Now, my rebuttal to your comments above about AE floating: I believe that if you were to check the map of Paraguay, you will find that my theory is, shall we say, groundless.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (Who always needed dozens of hints...)
************************************************************
From Ric

I think you'll agree that we have much better things to do than play games with Dr. Know.
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:55:58 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Fuel consumption

I too stumbled across the History Channel presentation - having missed it the
last time around.  It was so riveting that I dropped off to sleep before the
end of the program - drat, now I'll never know if they found her or not...

By the way, for those new folks out there who don't know, the Chater Report is on the website as Research Document #1. The accompanying information gives a quick overview of what it is and how it was "re-discovered".

ltm
jon
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:56:53 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Amelians

Gaston for Grand Sorcerer!

Ron Reuther
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:58:00 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Those numbers are consistent with previously posted latitude/longitude numbers I provided a couple of days ago.  Precise?  Hell no!  Reasonable?  I think so, or I wouldn't have written them. At any rate, neither location of the Ontario nor Myrtlebank agreed with any of the Monte Carlo simulations, except those on the tail of the bell curves.  I don't think any of it is significant, other than AE broke radio protocol to make a report not at a regularly scheduled time.
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:09:38 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

I'm reading a rather interesting book: Ancient Mysteries by Peter James and Nick Thorpe.  They concentrate on pre-historic and early historic mysteries, offering synopses of the most credible (and incredible) hypotheses developed over the years on a variety of mysteries, such as the Sphynx, Stonehenge, and various Biblical stories.  They provide a good balance of pro's and con's for each hypothesis, and then use common sense to suggest what is the most likely hypothesis.

So what does this have to do with Niku and Earhart?  Well, for nearly 12 years, my goal was to find something that would fundamentally rule out Earhart landing on Gardner/Niku, essentially taking the TIGHAR hypothesis and turning it into a negative.  I have been unsuccessful so far.  That doesn't mean that I don't believe in the TIGHAR hypothesis nor does it mean it is right (or wrong).

What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the major tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers, the Japanese Abductionists, or anyone else.  Yes, certain parts of the hypothesis have been proven wrong (e.g. the shoes), but the general gist of the hypothesis is still there, unshaken.  Now usually, someone or some group comes along with a strong rebuttal, demonstrating a fallacy in logic in the hypothesis, and sometimes suggesting an alternative hypothesis.  We have plenty of alternatives, but not a single credible, strong rebuttal of the Niku Hypothesis from any source.  Why is that?

Possibly, no one has taken the time to examine the immense amount of information accrued to date and understood it well enough to determine a fallacious chain of logic. Maybe the story hasn't gotten out into the public purview long enough or wide enough for someone to really tear it apart.  Or, maybe, there isn't a faulty chain of logic: maybe the Niku Hypothesis is generally correct, so far as we know.  That doesn't mean it is exactly right, or is the answer; nevertheless, it is surprising that no one has posited a strong argument against the Niku Hypothesis.  Sure, people have sniped at the edges: that's expected and even welcomed.

Does the lack of a strong rebuttal mean Niku is right?  Certainly not; but the lack of it suggests TIGHAR is on the right track.

Anyway, I was struck reading the book about the various theories accorded to any particular mystery, and how each theory could be struck down by simple, logical arguments.  I've yet to see that done against Niku. ****************************************************************
From Ric

Perhaps the most encouraging thing to me about our investigation is that, over the years, every rigorously-trained scientist, archaeologist and historian who has become familiar with our work (Randy is a prime example but there are many others) has agreed with us - with a single remarkable exception who has his own axe to grind.
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:11:19 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: "Myrtlebank"

> From Ric
>
> You're asking ME where you get this stuff?

sorry again.

The actual radio call from AE was "Myrtlebank in sight ahead, blue lights off my port wing about 137.5 miles on a course of 67 degrees looking for the Golden Bear."

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:13:07 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fuel consumption

> Not to dig up that dead horse but basically Elgen screwed up the math.

No, Ric, I'll not dig that up either but I would suggest Elgen COOKED the math rather than screwed it up. I labored through his TV piece again last night
also and those were not mistakes. They were intentional alterations, deletions and additions in order for the preconceived result to occur.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:20:11 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Lae Position

The position given for Lae airport in 1937 was 6- 48 S, 147-02 E. about 5 nautical miles from the positions you give. ( Notice to Airmen No .20/1935, Civil Aviation Branch, Department of Defense, Australia.)
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:35:11 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Quibble . .

Ric said:  "The aluminum skin of all of the WWII aircraft that served in the
Central Pacific region was either anodized or coated with zinc chromate wash"

Hmmm. My recollection (faulty, I'm' sure) is just the opposite. Protection was applied to the pre-war aircraft because it was a peace-time situation and the airplanes were expected to last for years.  The later production airplanes (post-1942?) were considered expendable with life expectancies of 90-180 days, therefore there was no need to provide long-term protection.  Plus the protection added weight and time (i.e. costs) to the aircraft and Uncle Sam was interested in cranking out as many aircraft as possible as fast as possible at the least cost.

Of course I have no firm documentation for this, just recollections from lots of reading.

LTM, who was zinc chromated years ago

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

You are correct.  Your recollection is faulty. Zinc chromate was first came into common use in 1939.  Anodizing, a more expensive process, was used on some naval aircraft in the mid-1930s.  For example, the Grumman F-3-F series (the stubby biplane fighters) featured anodized skins but the early versions of the Consolidated Model 28 (PBY- 1, 2, & 3) had interiors that were painted with silver-colored aluminum paint.

I think that what you may be thinking of was the tendency later in the war to leave the exterior of aircraft unpainted because with the reduction in the threat of aircraft being bombed while parked on the ground, camouflage became less important and paint is really heavy.  However, even those unpainted aircraft had corrosion inhibiting treatments on the interior surface of the skins.
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:05:27 EDT
From:         Danny Brown
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

RE Ric's comment about Dr. Know:

>I could blow his cover (It really wasn't hard to track him down. He lives in
>Baton Rouge, LA and he's not a proctologist.) but there would be no point.
>None of you have ever heard of him.  In the world of internet email groups
>he is what is known as a "troll".  These guys sign on to email groups anonymously
>and get their jollies by saying things just to get everybody riled up.  It's
>just an attention-getting ploy.  Pretty sad really.

Ric: As you know I have been a member and supporter of Tighar for several years. I'm really sorry to find out that Dr. Know is from Baton Rouge, LA. On behalf of all the good people of my hometown, I want to apologize for this idiot and let everyone "know" that although "Dr. Know" may not be a proctologist, he probably lives down a "crawfish hole" in one of our bayou mudbanks. If caught, I assure you he will be cooked during our next crawfish boil. Boiled alive -- that's the tastiest and only way to cook crawfish right. By the way, you're invited!

LTM (who loves her boiled crawfish spicy)
Danny Brown
#2426
Baton Rouge, LA
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Danny but we really don't hold you, beautiful Baton Rouge, or the great state of Louisiana responsible for Dr. Know. =========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:15:33 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> ... Possibly, no one has taken the time to examine the immense amount of
> information accrued to date and understood it well enough to determine a
> falacious chain of logic. ...  Or,
> maybe, there isn't a faulty chain of logic: maybe the Niku Hypothesis is
> generally correct, so far as we know. ...

It seems to me that there isn't just one "chain of logic" involved, but multiple strands of thought, some of which are more complete than others, but which cohere and add strength to the judgment "The Niku hypothesis is reasonable."

I think I posted this paragraph before.  Forgive me for repeating myself.  The quotations are from John Henry Newman, collated by Ian Ker:

"The best illustration . . . is that of a cable which is made up of a number of separate threads, each feeble, yet together as sufficient as an iron rod," which represents "mathematical or strict demonstration" [LD xxi, 146]  The cable will certainly break if enough threads give way, but if the threads hold, then the cable is as strong as any metal bar.  For, to use yet another image, a cumulation of probabilities is like a "bundle of sticks, each of which . . . you could snap in two, if taken separately from the rest" [LD xxiv, 146]

In the philosophy of science, there is new interest in William Whewell's theory of a "consilience of inductions."  I haven't read the new book on this topic, but I'm pretty sure it makes the same point.

No isolated part of the Brooklyn Bridge will carry the weight of the whole.  It's only when all of the parts work together that the bridge can carry not only itself but all the traffic that goes across it, too.

A partial list of the strands woven into the Niku hypothesis:

    navigational considerations
    fuel calculations
    AE & FN's track record and probable responses to the crisis
    pre-loss message
    post-loss messages
    anecdotes from the islanders
    material collected from Niku
        bones, sextant box, shoe parts, corks, Benedictine bottle
        aluminum detritus, Plexiglas fragment, wires
    judgments about why nothing was found until 1940
        Navy overflight
        landing parties
        colonists
    guesses about where the plane may have disappeared to

I'm sure there are other strands I can't think of right now. No one is sufficient to carry the weight of the Niku hypothesis. Taken together, in my judgment, they seem pretty persuasive.

LTM.

        Marty #2359
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:18:28 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Fuel consumption

Alan wrote:

>No, Ric, I'll not dig that up either but I would suggest Elgen COOKED the
>math rather than screwed it up. I labored through his TV piece again last
>night also and those were not mistakes. They were intentional alterations,
>deletions and additions in order for the preconceived result to occur.

Alan, I'm not at all quibbling with your interpretation, but do you mean that it was done with an intent to deceive?  Or just poor reasoning on Elgen's part?

Meanwhile, on a completely different thread, regarding Amelianism & such.  Instead of "Japanese Abductionists," I'd like to suggest "Saipanistas."  Just a thought.

LTM,
--
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:19:19 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Lae Position

Gary,

Thanks very much for that piece of information. I note that the date of the notice is just two years before and I wonder how quickly such information was updated in the US from foreign sources . Do you have any information of the previous estimate of position by the Australian DOD? Do we have any indication of how Fred sourced the positions of points along the route - whether direct from the chart or from published data. Can anyone give me any idea of whether there was any publication listing world geographical positions of towns and cities available in the US that Fred might have made use of? How did flyers usually source such information in the thirties?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:22:31 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: sinking

I was the pilot of a Piper Cherokee that I put down on water many years ago: Even with 100 gallons of floatation plus the gas still inside, it sank within about 10 minutes and any metal airplane will sink in short order no matter what happens even with that much closed space on the Lockheed.
                                        Old but not bold from the South
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:27:03 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

> I could blow his cover (It really wasn't hard to track him
> down.

That's fine, Adolph. I don't care or want to know who he is. I can't believe we wasted so much time on such nonsense. We have much better nonsense to waste our time on.

You certainly gave him adequate rope.

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

I really need to work on my image.
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:29:19 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

> At any rate, neither location of
> the Ontario nor Myrtlebank agreed with
> any of the Monte Carlo simulations

Randy, I came up with the same result. I had them slightly long for the Ontario and slightly short for the Myrtlebank.

A previous post questioning the time has placed a smidgeon of doubt in my mind. My understanding was AE's alleged call was at 8:30 Australian time which was 1030 GMT. Can we clear that up? I like the 1030GMT but I would guess that could be off plus or minus maybe 10 or 15 minutes. Would that be reasonable? Is there a radio log for confirmation?

Alan

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

I'm not aware of any Nauru radio log that has surfaced.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:21:12 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

Randy wrote:

> What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the major
> tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers, the
> Japanese Abductionists,

That shouldn't surprise you Randy. Those folks have yet to provide anything credible for their OWN theories. Providing anything credible pro or con for anything is not their forte. They exist only to offer baseless disagreements.

Off forum I wrote to a couple people who seem to have difficulty with the Niku idea that we sort of use a possible/impossible approach. At least I do. If something can be shown conclusively to be impossible it goes. I don't like to deal with probabilities as something most unlikely could be the correct answer. I try to look at everything to see if it could be possible. Consequently I eliminate very little.

I've worked and reworked the fuel usage issue and the results tell me it is very possible they could have gone to Niku, that it is even possible they could have turned back and reached an easterly most Gilbert, that it was not possible to fly to Mili Atoll. One gentleman believes they flew all the way back to New Britain. He has evidence of a plane crash there so I don't tell him it's impossible but I DO tell him I cannot figure out how to get the plane all that way. I don't take that approach with the Marshall folks as they have not shown any evidence of a plane crash there.


As we refine the fuel usage better we may be able to eliminate the Gilberts but I doubt it as the Daily Express averaged 48gph which indicates to me AE could have had about 125 gallons at 8:43 L in the vicinity of Howland. That would have given her sufficient fuel to get to Niku and possibly to a Gilbert island given a small tail wind.


I then pointed out to my friends that regardless what quality the "evidence" from Niku has there is no evidence at all of ANY quality for any other place or for any other theory. Seems like a no brainer to me.


I was then asked how long were we going to beat the Niku horse? First of all it's not my call but I suggested that one answer that comes to MY mind is until the money dries up or we find something definitely linking the Electra or our heroes to Niku or we run out of rabbit trails.

Personally I think Niku will pay off.

Alan

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

You're right Alan.  Like everything else, ultimately it's all about money. Most of the money to test the Niku hypothesis has come, and still comes, in relatively small chunks from many hundreds of people who expect nothing in return but identification with what they see to be an intelligent and laudable endeavor that is making progress toward a conclusive solution to the Earhart mystery.  I can't think of a more reliable system for making sure that we don't flog a dead horse.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:22:15 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Lae Position

The position of the Lae airport I obtained was from a Lae city map at extraordinary detail (I could get the end of the runway down to the meter!) when the airport was at its 1937 location.  The map was circa mid-70's, if I remember correctly.

Navigational accuracy has much improved over the years, and I would trust a more recent location than a NOTAM dated in 1935.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:33:44 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots


>  Joe Gurr. Amelia's former radio mechanic stated simply, that the fuel
>  tanks "had vent openings, through which the water could fill them in a
>  certain length of time."
> -------------- Sound of Wings Pg.296
>
> Figure those vents into the laws of physics Dr. Know.

Here's a thought.  Obviously just my opinion, but something I've thought about for a couple of years when this vent thing has come up - but never posted.

The vent openings in fuel tanks are there to allow pressure to equalize and overflow if fuel expands.  They are not very big, and usually involve the filler caps.

Other than fuel drains (which by their very nature should not allow water in), all the vent openings had to be at the tops of the tanks - else fuel would leak out.

An empty bucket, provided there is something to stabilize it (like a brick) will float indefinitely or until it is filled (in the sea, by rain or waves).  Actually, even if the aircraft was inverted, water shouldn't flow in, because if we turn our bucket over (and stabilize it), the air inside stops water coming in through the big round hole anyway.

Think back to the Mary Watson castaway story that I posted.  A woman, a baby and a Chinese servant floated for days in a small riveted, rusty, open steel tank, not unlike (in construction) the one TIGHAR found on Niku.

Think of all the bottles (without caps) you've seen floating in waterways or the sea.  Think of the story about the real reason for the shape of Coke (Coca-Cola) bottles.

I'd imagine the Electra used something much lighter than steel for its fuel tanks.

The Electra didn't have the tops cut out of the tanks, so if all the tanks were ruptured and/or perforated in a crash, perhaps water could get in.  In any other case, as long as the buoyancy exceeded the weight of the aircraft, the thing should have floated.

Even if the Electra's tanks were submerged so deeply that the vents were under water, surely it would take a long, long time to fill the things through the type of venting common to fuel tanks.

Th' WOMBAT
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I see a different problem.  The tanks in the fuselage were made of extremely thin aluminum so as to be as light as possible.  They were anchored to the wooden floor with aluminum straps.  They were designed as fuel containers, not flotation devices.  They were designed for pressure outward, not inward.  They anchoring straps were designed to keep the full tanks in place. They were not designed for the airplane's weight to be suspended from the tanks.

The airplane itself is not at all watertight.  In a flooded nose-down cabin the tanks would be trying to move toward the tail.  If they ripped loose the filler necks would separate allowing the tanks to fill with water as easily as they filled with gas.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:35:26 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fuel consumption

> Alan, I'm not at all quibbling with your interpretation, but do you
> mean that it was done with an intent to deceive?  Or just poor
> reasoning on Elgen's part?

No, Amanda, I would never malign Elgen's character. I believe him to be an honorable man. He and his wife Marie worked too long and too hard on the Earhart mystery to purposefully phony up their book in the end.

They, like many of us believe very strongly in our various theories and put different weights on different aspects of the evidence. All of the investigators interpret differently and sometimes make assumptions based on those interpretations that perhaps others would not have made. In Elgen's case he believed strongly the Electra ran out of gas immediately after the 8:43 radio call and then saw evidence to support his theory along with a few assumptions he apparently felt the evidence warranted.

Many of us see all that in a different light.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:37:00 EDT
From:         Denise
Subject:      Fiji Masons - off topic

Dave Bush says "Glad I'm not a mason in Suva, then. Guess its a local tradition."

Dave, I've asked around and apparently it's not just something that happens in Fiji. It's actually world-wide. When asked why a Mason in Texas wouldn't know about it, I was told it's an older tradition that isn't used by a lot of the newer lodges.

So, there you go! Old lodge: bones; New lodge: no bones!

Hey, here's a newer tradition you also may not know about: some of the newer lodges in this country are allowing in Muslims and Jews.  The reason given is that it's becoming difficult to find people who believe in any sort of Book, so they've expanded the definition.

LTM (who wasn't a Mason)
Denise
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:39:09 EDT
From:         David Jeane
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

>Thanks Danny but we really don't hold you, beautiful Baton Rouge, or the
>great state of Louisiana responsible for Dr. Know.

That's a relief!  But we do have our "fair share"

David Jeane
#2498
Springhill, Louisiana
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:59:33 EDT
From:         Doug
Subject:      What was not Said

Ric,

There is something that troubles me about the post lost radio messages and in particular Betty's Notebook.

Why is there no reference as to Amelia saying the word "ISLAND".

If I was sending distress messages the one word that I would say the most, and would say over and over again is ISLAND.

If it were me, I would have sent the following message, and only this message, as many times as I could till the Radio went dead:

   THIS IS AMELIA EARHART, WE WERE FLYING ON LINE 157/357. WE HAVE
   LANDED ON AN ISLAND.


   Doug

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

First of all, Betty's notebook does not purport to be a complete transcription of everything that was said - far otherwise. Second, most of the notebook records "open mic" exchanges between the two occupants, not information intended for transmission.  Nowhere in the transcript does either speaker make any attempt to describe their situation other than comments to each other about water height.  Earhart, at one point, appears to be rattling off numbers that may be an attempt to describe miles, or headings, or lat/long but there is no recorded sentence that begins "We are .....". Other alleged post-loss receptions do include such descriptions but they also do not convey the level of distress and anxiety recorded by Betty.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:02:43 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      CowParade Atlanta Cows - Gallery

At this internet gallery, you can view a cow named "Amoo'lia Earhart" (among others...)

http://atlanta.cowparade.net/cow/gallery

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
***************************************************
From Ric

How can we ever thank you?
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:04:36 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

Actually, when I gave a talk on the Niku Hypothesis and our research several months ago in Honolulu, Rollin Reineck got up at the end and rebutted me by simply ignoring all the evidence I'd just presented, and the content of our book, and assuring the crowd that:

(a) There were too many people on Nikumaroro not to have found Earhart if she'd been there; and

(b) "Gillespie has no evidence."

So you see, there HAS been a rebuttal.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:09:24 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Weather Link

I found this link doing some research on the ITZ. Way outta my league and perhaps well known to our weather experts, but I'd thought I'd post the site anyway.
http://airsea-www.jpl.nasa.gov/seaflux/html/getdata.html

Bob

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

Looks like there may be some good information there but it's outside of my pay grade.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:28:14 EDT
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Questions about 10E's tanks

From Bill Shea

> They were designed for pressure outward, not inward

Ric, has there been any discussion of an explosion caused by possible fumes from the fuel tanks of the 10E? Was anything mentioned of fumes on any of their route previously?

Is it possible that these emptying tanks vented into the fuselage which might have exploded the plane? (That certainly might explain why there was no SOS saying they were going to ditch, why some think they still had some fuel available when they were last heard, and why they never showed up at Howland.)

How much effort would have been needed by Noonan working all them fuel valves to use the last drops and if fumes might have been become too strong in the fuselage.

One question about the H-Test tank. Wouldn't they have saved any of the hi-test fuel to the last thinking they would prefer to use it to take off from Howland? they needed the hi-test to take off from Lae, wouldn't they want to use the remaining hi-test to take off from Howland?

Someone suggested a while ago that they would not have done this since the plane would be a lot lighter because there was less miles to fly on the next leg. I still don't agree with  this since they were to be refueled with "regular" at Howland and I would assume that a pilot would want more fuel rather than less (clue me in pilots)

Cheers from Bill Shea
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You don't vent fuel tanks into the cabin (geeesh).  The only time there was a mention of fuel vapors in the airplane was on the South Atlantic flight and that was because of sloppy fueling before takeoff.

It's possible that Earhart may have intended to save some 100 octane for the Howland takeoff but she's certainly not going to let the airplane run out of gas rather than use it.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:31:34 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Weather Link

The links to the TRIMM data look like they might contain some good stuff. There's a nice animation of super cyclone Zoe. They listed the winds at sustained 178 MPH with higher gusts. Thunderclouds reaching 9 miles in altitude!

Follow other research and look for the TRIMM data page(s) which have a link to 'other extreme events' and they look to have 2002 and 2003 online.

Bob

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

From Ric

Thanks Bob.

>They listed the winds at sustained 178 MPH with higher gusts. Thunderclouds
>reaching 9 miles in altitude!

Makes me shudder to think of it.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:32:17 EDT
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Fiji Masons - off topic

The Masons have had Jewish members for more than a couple of hundred years.

David Katz
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:36:19 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Myrtlebank

Ric,

In your reply to Randy Jacobson's post of Mon 4 Aug 2003 11:29:03 EDT, you stated that there is no indication that Earhart contacted USS Ontario (AT13) for a RDF signal source - How could Earhart while airborne have contacted USS Ontario (AT13) if she could only transmit by phone/voice?  -  I have never seen any information that stated USS Ontario (AT13) could communicate voice message traffic, only code.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang  # 2559
**************************************************************
From Ric

Excellent point.  Earhart herself set up an unworkable system and nobody on the Coast Guard/Navy side caught it or said anything about if they did.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:25:48 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What was not Said

> Other alleged post-loss receptions do include such descriptions but they
> also do not convey the level of distress and anxiety recorded by Betty.

Not a direct comment on the above statement but it DID bring something to mind. There have been some comments on Earhart's voice sounding a bit high pitched or excited or words to that effect in her 8:43 transmission. Maybe so. At Lae she was told she ought to modulate her voice to a higher pitch because of a rough carrier wave. Possibly she did.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:26:47 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

> So you see, there HAS been a rebuttal.

Tom, There have been a lot of rebuttals but none credible and none with the slightest support.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:27:58 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Questions about 10E's tanks

> It's possible that Earhart may have intended to save some 100 octane for the
> Howland takeoff but she's certainly not going to let the airplane run out of
> gas rather than use it.

She only had about 40 gallons of 100 octane to begin with and if she thought she needed it for takeoff at Howland she had plenty of time to ask that it be put in place.

Take off at Lae would not have used up much of the 40 gallons even at full bore  and longer than the one minute restriction. I'm sure she used it at least until she had  close to five hundred feet, a positive rate of climb and climb airspeed.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:30:53 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

> The airplane itself is not at all watertight.  In a flooded nose-down cabin
> the tanks would be trying to move toward the tail.  If they ripped loose the
> filler necks would separate allowing the tanks to fill with water as easily as
> they filled with gas.

I agree with most of this with a couple of exceptions. A tank built to hold fuel "in" withstanding the pressure of the weight of the fuel against the void outside should (this isn't a statement of fact - just a suggestion) stand up fairly well to the "sea level" pressure of water on it.

Looking at the internal diagram of the Electra and the layout of the tanks, I don't see a whole lot of room for them to move enough to break free, or head towards the tail if they did.

If the vents were in the fillers, there's a good chance that they would be under water first, and once covered, the water ingress could be slowed considerably by the pressure of air inside. 

I've never been a fan of the crashed and sank thing, but as you know, I've always wondered about the possibility of crashed and floated ashore at Niku's reef.

This might explain why they didn't bring a heap of traceable stuff ashore as survival tools, and why aircraft parts were supposedly seen on the reef a few years later.

Unfortunately, it leaves one of my favourite bits out in the cold..  The post loss messages.

Th' WOMBAT
***********************************************************************
From Ric

There was plenty of room both above and aft of the tanks for them to break free.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:34:27 EDT
From:         Bob Heine
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

I see another problem.  The tanks don't need to fill with water at all for the airplane to sink.  If the tanks were made of thin aluminum, all the water has to do is squeeze the tanks until they collapse from the water pressure.  Since the tanks were vented, there was no air pressure inside the tanks to stop it (like a balloon).  The only way they could not have collapsed is if they had lots of reinforcing inside to resist the water pressure, which is very unlikely.  The water pressure is greater the deeper you go, so if the plane floated nose first, the forward most tanks would be the first to go.

-Bob Heine

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

The tanks did have internal baffling to keep the fuel from sloshing.  I don't know how much reinforcement they would provide to crushing. =========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:36:40 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Fiji Masons - off topic

Muslims and Jews! My gosh, next thing you know they'll be allowing Native Americans (Indians to many) in the lodges - oops, they let me in - too late!

But truthfully, when I joined the Masons over 20 years ago there were already Jews  and Muslims in the organization and persons from India, Mexico, and many, many other ethnic backgrounds. Only blacks were not allowed in due to some obscure phrasing dealing with freemen. However, I was "blackballed" from holding future officers because I espoused a strong dislike for the KKK and its credos. The person who blackballed me happened to also be the mentor who trained me in all my work! But he was quite prejudiced and I took exception to that.

LTM,
Dave Bush

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

Could we maybe get back on topic?
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:17:17 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

Well a hypothesis is a hypothesis. And the Niku hypothesis remains the same as it was from 1937, with no credible proof in my opinion to date that AE landed there. It seems to me that there has been enough time, energy and expeditions to prove it one way or the other. But I would encourage continued research as is being done.

I don't think those that do not agree need to rebut the Niku hypothesis as there are many hypotheses of what happened.

We have examined in detail the fact that absent some extraordinary failure in the radio equipment, she could have been heard transmitting on either frequency if she was heading southeast on the LOP for several hours prior to arriving at NIKU. Nothing for the two to three hours was heard by Itasca.

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

>Well a hypothesis is a hypothesis.

Unless it is your own.  Remember your Love to Mother project?  You started with the hypothesis that the communication came from Earhart.  You did research and gathered information and found that hypothesis to be unsupported.  You then formulated a new hypothesis that the communication came from one Ahmad Kamal and presented your case to show why you believe that the Kamal Hypothesis is better supported than alternative explanations for the Love to Mother communication.  You did not claim to have conclusive proof but you clearly believe that your hypothesis is much more likely to be true.

I would submit that the evidence supporting (but not yet proving) the hypothesis that the Earhart flight ended at Gardner Island is far stronger and more varied than the evidence you found to support you hypothesis that Ahmad Kamal was the author of Love to Mother.

>there are many hypotheses of what happened.

They only need to rebut the theory if they expect to be taken seriously. Anybody can say, as you have:

>[T]he Niku hypothesis remains the same
>as it was from 1937, with no credible proof in my opinion to date that AE
>landed there. It seems to me that there has been enough time, energy and
>expeditions to prove it one way or the other.

That doesn't refute or offer an alternative explanation to anything.  It's just a statement of opinion.

>We have examined in detail the fact that absent some extraordinary failure in
>the radio equipment, she could have been heard transmitting on either
>frequency if she was heading southeast on the LOP for several hours prior to
>arriving at NIKU. Nothing for the two to three hours was heard by Itasca.

Is that the best you can come up with?  There is no "fact" that absent some extraordinary failure in the radio equipment, she could have been heard transmitting on either frequency.  Quite the contrary.  There has been some well-informed speculation that indicates that such communication would not have been possible.  But even if that were not the case, Earhart's apparent silence after 08:43 proves nothing except that nobody heard her.

If you really want to offer a credible rebuttal to the Niku hypothesis:

- Show that it is unreasonable to think that the airplane could have reached Gardner.
- Show that it is unreasonable to think that the Navy's search could have missed her if she was there.
- Tell us whose bones Gallagher found. (That's how you debunked Love to Mother. You found a more credible source for something that had been attributed to Earhart.)
- Tell us what airplane these artifacts came from that seem to match the Electra better than any other aircraft.

Or you can just say a hypothesis is a hypothesis.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:29:20 EDT
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

>if they ripped loose, the filler necks would separate.

I'm sorry I may not be as familiar with the layout as I should, so maybe this should be obvious.  Were the additional fuel tanks plumbed to the filler was on the outside of the skin?  More often than not, back in those days, they were not.  For long range flight attempts and such the tanks were considered temporary and filled directly with a hose via a filler on the top of the tank.  It likely would not even have toggle type caps, just twist ons.  They no doubt had an overflow/expansion vent that vented to the outside.  More than likely just a nipple on the forward high point of each tank with a hose or line to the exterior bottom of the fuselage.  Wouldn't need to be anything fancy.  The only aircraft fuel caps with a vent that I've ever seen were on Cubs and other vintage light planes with a cork on a wire that ran through the cap and served as the fuel gauge.  I've never seen a toggle type cap, which I presume something like a 10E would have, at least on the wing tanks, that has a built in vent.  Just some thoughts, and if I'm obviously wrong please consider that I'm a novice in this adventure.

Thanks, K.

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

>Were the additional fuel tanks plumbed to the filler was on the outside of
>the skin?

Yes, they were.  Remember, this airplane was built from scratch as a long-distance version of the Model 10E.  As delivered in 1936 the fuselage tanks were served by a manifold that went to two filler necks mounted behind little doors in the port side of the cabin.  The manifold proved unworkable and each tank was given its own filler neck and door.  To fuel a fuselage tank you climbed up on the wing, opened one of the little doors, and inserted a special right-angle funnel with a big filtering can on top into the filler neck and then pumped gas into the can.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:34:05 EDT
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

The tanks were not made of aluminum foil!  Likely they were at least .060" sheet duralumin, welded, with some internal baffling.  They wouldn't crush THAT easily.  No doubt they could at least stand pressures at the depth of the full length of the Electra.

Also, remember that just because they are vented doesn't mean they will fill with water.  The water has to have a means of entry and the air a path of exit.  If both paths are through the vent line, it's going to be a trickle at most.  If the end of the vent line is under water, supposing the aircraft is floating upright and the vent line is on the bottom of the fuselage, the pressure inside the tank would likely prevent the water from entering.  If the aircraft were upside down the vents would possibly be out of the water and unless the caps on the tanks were leaking and allowing water in through the filler, the tanks would remain dry.  All of this of course is presuming the tanks aren't otherwise breached due to crash damage, etc.

K.

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

I don't think you mean .060.  The heaviest skins on the airplane were .040 belly skins in the center section.  The nose was .025.  In the photos, the fuselage tanks appear to be extremely thin aluminum.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:34:41 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

For Ron Bright

Ron, I don't think anybody said there was "credible PROOF" for the Niku hypothesis, only that there's "credible EVIDENCE."  There's obviously a big difference.

LTM (who thought very few things truly "proved")
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:41:45 EDT
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

Thanks for the clarification.  I learn something new everyday around here!

Kent
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:44:25 EDT
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

Yep, that's what I mean.  I've been told by old, experienced aircraft welders that .060 was about as thin as they could consistently weld at that time.  MIG/TIG welding has come along way since then.  The aircraft skins are riveted and not intended to be under the same fluid dynamics as a fuel tank.  Skins are also supported by considerably more structure.

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

I'll email you a photo of the tanks and you can tell us what you think.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:52:16 EDT
From:         Daryll
Subject:      Rebuttals

Randy and Alan wrote:

>>What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the
>>major tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers,
>>the Japanese Abductionists,....................
>
>That shouldn't surprise you Randy. Those folks have yet to provide
>anything credible for their OWN theories. Providing anything credible
>pro or con for anything is not their forte. They exist only to offer
>baseless disagreements.

You're poking the stick into the cage again!

Any evidence that has been found on Niku relies on interpretation to make it fit into the Earhart story. The AES does the same thing of course with the Marshall island scenario. The biggest problem for the Niku theory is how "Natural" (uncontrolled) forces acted to remove the smoking gun evidence from searchers and researchers. In the Niku theory, within days of July 2nd the weather and waves removed the wreckage from sight of the Navy over-flights. Years later Lambrecht (sp?) said what he meant by his statement.

"Natural" forces is TIGHAR's excuse for not having or finding a smoking gun. I and most AES members recognize that "Human" forces could have been involved in removing the smoking gun evidence by the eye-witnesses reported seeing an airplane in a sling off the back of a ship at Jaluit.

>Those folks have yet to provide anything credible for their OWN
>theories. Providing anything credible pro or con for anything is not
>their forte. They exist only to offer baseless disagreements.

I have put my "281 Scenario" on my MSN photos page. That page is for MSN members to store and share their photos with family and friends. What I did was use an Air Force C45 (Beech 18) to fly the scenario using Microsoft's Flight Simulator. I then took screen shots of the flight and present them in a 15 min. slide show of 83 different screen shots which is based on available archived evidence.

You will no doubt argue with my wind selection which is based on an average wind calculated from the time enroute and Itasca's logs. I made no attempt to compare fuel consumption in the simulation because of the different engines and airplanes. I would have used a 10E if a quality airplane was available for the simulation.

The way the MSN photo page works is that I have to put in an email address, by typing it, I tried pasting, to share the photos on my page. MSN then sends out the photo page to that address. Because some people have iMacs and spam filters I'm not sure a general invitation would work for a group (listserve). What I will do (within reason) is put anyone's email address in and have MSN send out the invitation to them. All you have to do is put "281 scenario" in the subject line an your email address in the body of the email. I don't really want to engage in any off forum email conversations with TIGHAR's 6000 + members. If any requests get bounced back it would be because the mailbox got filled up.

Daryll
********************************************************
From Ric

That's 600 + members.  I wish it were 6000.  In any event, I don't think you need to worry about TIGHAR members flooding your mailbox.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:13:30 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

> If you really want to offer a credible rebuttal to the Niku hypothesis:
>
> - Show that it is unreasonable to think that the airplane could have reached
> Gardner.
> - Show that it is unreasonable to think that the Navy's search could have
> missed her if she was there.
> - Tell us whose bones Gallagher found. (That's how you debunked Love to
> Mother. You found a more credible source for something that had been
> attributed to Earhart.)
> - Tell us what airplane these artifacts came from that seem to match the
> Electra better than any other aircraft.

Ah, Rick, you are too soft. I don't accept reasonable or unreasonable as a test. Someone will have to show me it was IMPOSSIBLE to reach Niku not just unreasonable.

I think it was unreasonable to try for the Gilbert's but it might have been reasonable to our heroes. As long as it remains possible I can't rule it out. I won't search there as there is nothing leading us there.

My fuel estimates lead me to believe it was possible for the Electra to go to any of the Phoenix Islands but nothing leads us to any of them but Niku at this time.

I also think that was the reasonable thing to do. Someone may say they think heading to Canton was the reasonable thing to do. Well, maybe that's what they were doing but stumbled across Niku instead. Then it became "any port in a storm."

Stay tough. <G>

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

What it comes down to is this - documented information and artifacts have been found which prove - that's right, prove - that some very unusual things happened on Nikumaroro.  So far, the only event we have been able to find which appears to explain the evidence found in the documented information and artifacts is the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.  As Daryll says, that is how we have interpreted the hard evidence that we have found.  It appears to be very consistent and it happens to also match the "soft" (anecdotal) evidence we have found.  So far, nobody has offered a credible alternative explanation for the proven unusual events.

By contrast, the Saipanistas (love it) have only soft evidence that must be selectively harvested to construct any kind of coherent hypothesis.  The Crashed and Sankers have no evidence at all, hard or soft.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:15:09 EDT
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Connecting The Dots

Just how soft of a landing are you guys expecting?  First of all those tanks were put in with straps to hold them in place, I believe that a landing at sea would be rough  enough to break just one of those straps and that would be enough to start the whole inside being torn apart from just the jarring around.  Then lets say they made a successful ditching and water entered the cabin.  The tanks would have to be thick, and built with a frame work so that they could stand the outside pressure. From the pictures that I have seen the tanks were made like aircraft construction where each part is its own support and also contributes to the support of other components in a way not to need a frame to save weight. The tanks were freestanding and could only contribute to the tank next to it for support on one side , they were not very strong for pressure from the outside.  What difference does all of this make ? If they would have floated around for years they were lost and we are trying to find them.  The last clue was the sun line, you have to follow that to its end and we have not done that yet. If they continued with their plan they had to fly over Niku and I think they had enough brains to take advantage of the situation and attempt a landing somewhere on the island.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:20:44 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Document up

The article about all the psychics that pestered Putnam is now up on the TIGHAR website as a downloadable PDF file in the Documents section at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Jennings_Article/Psychicsarticle.html
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:08:25 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      AE's radio protocol

Ric wrote: 

>Earhart herself set up an unworkable system and nobody on the
>Coast Guard/Navy side caught it or said anything about if they did.

My read is that the system was "workable" if its designer, Harry Manning, had been there to work it.  But in the final analysis you're right -- in the rush to get the second attempt off the ground, AE and GP apparently figured they could "adapt" Manning's protocols without the equipment, personnel or skills needed to implement them.  A fatal blunder.

PDG
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:26:09 EDT
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

To Ric and Alan,

> What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the
> major tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers,
> the Japanese Abductionists,....................

When I joined this forum I thought I gave Tighar a credible hypothesis - and all i got from Ric was an "arggghhh". All I can say to the above is that if we Crashed and Sankites don't respond to the Niku Hypothesis its because we don't think its worth responding to. For all the theories the Niku-ites have given the forum about trying to prove that the 10E went there, there are credible reasons why I think they didn't get that far. When I posted them to the forum I got shot down. Of course we don't have tangible evidence of anywhere they went as they approached Howland; and to us C&Sers, nor have you given any evidence either.

Don't get me wrong, I follow the forum on everything that is happening on Niku and wish the latest expedition every success.  But what I have heard up to know is not enough to convince me that Niku is where they went.

Cheers from Bill Shea (Who still wonders how many C&S'ers there are and how
many Niku-ites there are?)
***********************************************************
From Ric

Bill, we listened to your theory and we tried to explain to you that it is pure speculation entirely based upon unwarranted assumptions.  Elgen Long's theory is more elaborate and better informed but it is still pure speculation based upon unwarranted assumption.   Daryll goes on and on about his 281 Theory but it is just more of the same  - pure speculation based upon unwarranted assumptions.  All of you guys substitute imagination for evidence.

Let me give you a challenge.  I'll give you a documented example of physical evidence (not proof mind you, but a genuine clue) that Earhart died on Gardner Island and you give me a documented example of a physical clue that she drowned at sea.  Okay?  Here goes.

The bones of a castaway were found on Gardner Island three years after Earhart disappeared.

Your turn.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 08:49:30 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Theories of Disappearance

For Alan, Randy, and other Niku theorists,

When we ask for refutation or rebuttals or other viable theories on this Tighar forum we are not likely to get any. Alan should ask such researchers such as Klaas, Reineck, Reuther, Prymak, Bollinger, Gervais, Wilson, and many others in the AES who claim there evidence is just as good as the Niku evidence.

I can't articulate those theories as well as the above gents.  I am not sure if they have read over in detail, for example, the 700 pages of the Amelia Earhart Society newsletters that describe witness testimony, documents, and other material.

I contend each camp regards their evidence as superior and of course the interpretation of the evidence, be it witnesses, bones, airplane scraps, navigation logic, and so forth, lies with the beholder.

When does a hypothesis become a "fact", that is what amount of credible evidence accumulates so that the scientific, or historical community considers it a pretty solid fact? Ric and Tom King can probably shed light here.

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

First you have to ask just what scientific or historical community passes judgment on the Earhart disappearance?  It is not a subject that has been regarded as worthy of serious attention.  Can you cite any articles about "Earhart research" that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals?  Despite the dozens of books written on the subject, Tom King's is, as far as I know, the first one written by a PhD.

Amelia Earhart is pop culture and "Earhart researchers" have historically been hobbyists with no formal training in scholarly research.  Goerner was a broadcast journalist.  Long is a retired airline pilot.  Even a bachelor's degree in history is a rarity in the Earhart world.  Is it any wonder then, that the problem we consistently run into on this forum is that people don't understand how to evaluate and use information to draw reasonable conclusions?

Trained historians and scientists who have taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with our work have consistently agreed with our findings and some of them have become active and enthusiastic participants in our research. Convincing the general public, however, is a much tougher proposition because it requires "smoking gun" evidence that is easy to understand.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:18:10 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals?

Randy Jacobson writes:

>What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the major
>tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers, the
>Japanese Abductionists, or anyone else.  Yes, certain parts of the
>hypothesis have been proven wrong (e.g. the shoes), but the general gist of
>the hypothesis is still there, unshaken.

Randy, your entire set of comments on this issue is very well-said, and I must say that this is one of the reasons that I have decided to become a member of TIGHAR. I find the methodology and logic behind the search, and the use of scientific principles as much as possible, that convinced me that TIGHAR is doing research the right way, and the people promoting competing theories are using somewhat less than optimal methodology. In fact, TIGHAR's openness on admitting that maybe the shoes aren't the powerful evidence that they initially thought (and similarly with other pieces of evidence) I find to be more openly scientific and honest than what I see from other groups.

Thanks for articulating this so well.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who always had rebuttals for everything)
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:20:11 EDT
From:         Tom Strange
Subject:      Re: Questions about 10E's tanks

Ric or Alan,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a while back on the forum there was a post that stated that hi-octane fuel was pre- positioned at Howland - I think 4 barrels (Standard Oil Invoice) ? - I'll go through my files, just don't have the time now, sorry!

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559
******************************************************************
From Ric

I don't recall and don't have time either.  I also don't know why it matters.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:24:06 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

I find myself among the "Crashed and Sinkers". (Or is it "Sankers") But the problem is that there is no way to prove, or test the theory without spending lots of money.

When, and if, you find the evidence, it's going to be big and shiny. There will be no mistaken it for something else!

Don Jordan
California City, CA
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I think that what you mean is that it will take big, shiny evidence to convince you.  How would you feel about something small and corroded that could only have come from NR16020?  Just checking.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:31:58 EDT
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Ric wrote:

> Bill, we listened to your theory and we tried to explain to you that it is
> pure speculation entirely based upon .

Good God Ric, define 'speculating' anyway you want - without proof we are all speculating.

> Let me give you a challenge.  I'll give you a documented example of physical
> evidence (not proof mind you, but a genuine clue) that Earhart died on
> Gardner Island and you give me a documented example of a physical clue that she
> drowned at sea.  Okay?  Here goes.
>
> The bones of a castaway were found on Gardner Island three years after
> Earhart disappeared.

Yup, you have some bones somewhere that were found on Gardner. When you find the bones, and I sure hope you will, then obviously you will send them off for a DNA test. And we "non-respondites" will be sitting back, still reading the forum, still sending in money to Tighar when asked, and still being skeptical - - - - until the results are in (why would Tighar expect less?).

As for a physical clue for my theory I can only tell you how I have come up with my theory (a Theory is still a Theory, Ric). I understand when you say I have no proof - but noone has - yet) I have taken what info we have (from the Tighar notes) and drawn a chart of their first half of the flight (mainly from
the Chater Report). From there they could have gone in any direction but I offered pieces of 'unwarrented assumptions' (actually I tried using common sense - is that the same thing?)

'Unwarrented assumptions' don't mean that they are wrong, Ric, to show how they could have met their demise. Alan has said to me that  this is not getting us anywhere as I have no proof on where they came down and I have learned from my past missives to agree with him. There are probably lots of different theories from Tighar members all using 'unwarrented assumptions'. But it doesn't prove me wrong, it doesn';t prove the other theories wrong -(  well, i don't believe a word of those extreme theories) But it doesn't prove the Nikists right -yet.

I based my theory on the following:

they started out flying SSE  and flew down by Solomons - which is SOUTH of the direct Track. They then called back their positions to Lae showing that they turned towards a NNE direction - which shows they were now NORTH of the  direct track. Adding to that the possible sighting by someone on the Myrtlebank shows that they might have continued that NNE direction. We know that the weather report for Nauru and Ocean Island was requested but , again we have no proof that they received this info. To me, this shows they might have planned to go that route. And to end up on the "157" line south of Baker Island? Wouldn't this could only be done by a big error in navigation?

We are asked to believe that they could fly over Howland and Baker at 1000ft on a reasonable day and not see it. I don't buy it. If they didnt see Howland or Baker its because they were not on the proper 'line".

We are asked to believe that although their communications with Itasca was getting strong , were at 1000ft, that they continued for a few hours or so without calling again. I would think that if they couldn't find Howland, Baker, or the Itasca then the minimum she would do is to radio that they were heading towards Gardner for a crash landing on the reef.

And we are asked to believe that if they weren't on the correct line that they would come across Gardner?  how? I don't buy it.  If you say that they stumbled around and found Gardner - I could buy that.


Ric, I got lots of questions about the reef at Gardner. more about the fuel tanks, and certainly want a debate on what catastrophic events could have happened to the 10E at 1000ft. which would make them dive into the sea before being able to call their position to the Itasca.

All I am saying is for you guys to sit on the Niku theory don't complain about us not responding to some bones that were found there. Tell us that AFTER you have DNA'd them and proved they belong to Earhart or Noonan. I want to spend my time asking questions, not defending why I am a "crashed and sankist"

Cheers from Bill
************************************************************************
From Ric

Nobody is asking you to believe any of things you have listed as being asked to believe.  You clearly do not understand TIGHAR's hypothesis. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the evidence that appears to indicate that the flight ended at Gardner.  If you don't want to do that then you are on the wrong forum.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:33:02 EDT
From:         Christian Duretete
Subject:      Re: Norwich City

> What Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation" has been a matter of
> great debate.  Manmade features that we know, or may have been, there at the 
> time were:
> - the wreck of the Norwich City.
> - the cache of provisions left by the NC rescuers 8 years earlier.
> - the collapsed remains of some corrugated iron buildings from the Arundel
> coconut planting operation 45 years earlier.
> - a flagpole with a placard on it left there by HMS Leith the previous February.
>
> None of these seem to me to be adequate indication of "recent habitation" to
> prompt "circling and zooming" to try to get someone to respond with an
> "answering wave".

All the same, it is interesting: all of this is at the NW end of the island. This could be another micro thread supporting the TIGHAR hypothesis: Lambrecht might well have circled the remote SE end with the Seven-site only once, to then concentrate his "zooming"  on the more obvious targets at the "wrong" end of the island.

Christian D
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 12:11:59 EDT
From:         Christian Duretete
Subject:      Re: Engine Location

> We don't know if the B-24 is still there.  It would be interesting
>(but expensive) to find out.

Why would this be interesting to know?  To see if one engine is missing? Is it known where exactly on the island it ended up?  Was it awash on the ocean reef?  Or in deep water?

Christian D

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

The official accident report is a bit ambiguous about the exact location.

The date was July 19, 1944.  The airplane was a B-24J (44-41029) being ferried to the Fifth Air Force in the Southwest Pacific Theater of operations. The take-off was made from the East-West runway but the report doesn't mention in which direction - east to west or west to east.  The weather is listed only as "ceiling and visibility unlimited".  No wind speed or direction. However, in good weather the prevailing wind is from the east so it seems reasonable to assume that the takeoff was made from west to east.

The airplane departed at 04:34 local time (in the dark) and was seen to clear the field normally although attempts to contact the plane by radio after takeoff were unsuccessful.  At 10:40 that morning it was discovered that there was washed-up debris (oxygen bottles, personal baggage and mail bags) along the northern beach of the island.  Further investigation revealed the tail section out on the reef.  The fuselage was found "between the barrier reef and coral ledge about 300 yards from northern shore, directly opposite where tail assembly was found."  A Navy salvage crew and diver examined the wreckage which was in 30 feet of water and determined that it was too hazardous to try to raise it.

The report says, "It is presumed that ship crashed into the ocean within the barrier reef when it was preparing to make its first left turn."  No cause for the crash was determined.  There was no evidence of in flight fire or explosion or mechanical failure.  Sounds to me like a fuel problem.

This wreck creates a situation at Canton very much like what we think may have been the case at Gardner - i.e. an unrecovered aircraft in relatively shallow water off the edge of the reef.  Some of the aircraft parts we have found in the abandoned village on Niku are known to be from a B-24 and exhibit coralline algae growth that indicates that they were once submerged in relatively shallow water for at least a year.  Knowing that residents of Niku worked for commercial air carriers on Canton after the war, it seems reasonable to speculate that the artifacts are pieces from 44-41029 that washed ashore at Canton when the airplane began to break up due to storms years later.

What is really interesting is that the artifacts we have found on Niku that are not B-24 parts but are suspected of being Lockheed Electra parts also exhibit coralline algae growth.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 12:13:03 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Bill Shea writes:

>Randy writes:
>
>> What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the major
>> tenets of the Niku Hypothesis.
>
> When I joined this forum I thought I gave Tighar a credible
> hypothesis................

Bill, my friend, is this not bait and switch? <G> Randy said "credible rebuttal" but in your response you argue about you having given a "credible hypothesis." They are not the same thing.

That means you have not rebutted the Niku theory. No one has. I haven't argued that you or any one else haven't offered alternative theories. I argue the alternative theories are only speculation without any support of any kind. No anecdotes, no artifacts, no anything but opinion.

In order to rebut you have to show the Niku theory is false and you can do that by showing the witness did not see an airplane on the reef, the bones are not of AE and/or Fred, and so on. OR you can show that something else happened. You cannot do any of that by opinion or speculation or probabilities. You can only do that with hard evidence. You have to PROVE your case.

You also can show there is sufficient evidence, artifacts, etc. to show your alternate theory COULD be possible. Neither you nor anyone else have done that. As to crashed and sank you will get nowhere simply suggesting they could have done that, or they may have run out of gas or a prop caused them to spin in, or they might have blown up. Everyone already knows that but that's not evidence. It is pure speculation.

The problem all the opponents seem to have, Bill, is not understanding what constitutes a supportable argument. Some look at the Niku evidence and recognize it is not absolute proof and think they can counter that with an alternative opinion. It doesn't work that way. The Niku theory IS an opinion but backed up with possible evidence. To counter that you have to offer an alternate opinion ALSO BACKED UP WITH POSSIBLE EVIDENCE. Opinion is not evidence. Speculation is not evidence.

Now I can see that puts the crashed and sankers at a disadvantage since there are no supporting anecdotes and no artifacts or other evidence. But you can't substitute your opinion for any of that.

You can point out all day that the Niku evidence doesn't prove anything. We know that already. That fact doesn't disprove the Niku theory. Nor does it elevate alternative opinions to anything of significance.

All of us already know something else may have happened. No one needs to point that out. Many of your ideas are good and those that may not be still may
suggest a good idea to someone. Just don't expect anyone to get excited about something without support. And remember what support is. It is not opinion or speculation or probability. It is anecdotes, artifacts and the like. Once you have that then we deal with the quality of the evidence just as we all are with the Niku evidence.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 12:26:21 EDT
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      Re: Electra fuel tanks

Thanks.  Very interesting picture.  I must admit I've always been very interested in what happened to AE.  But, until I found your website it was just a curiousity.  Now, I very much enjoy hearing about the Niku hypothesis and research.  I wish the team the best of luck.

Having said that, I must admit I do not have the knowledge of the subject that it seems most of you do.  For instance, this picture of the fuel tanks and interior of the 10E is very interesting and I must retract some of my previous statements and presumptions.  Speaking from many years of experience in aircraft maintenance, based only on the visual evidence from the photo, here are some conclusions I would draw.

1.  The tanks are not of welded design, but more conventional (for the time) riveted sheet metal with some internal framing and/or baffling.  Because they have no external framing the weight and pressure when filled with fuel would be born on the rivets and surrounding sheet metal.  Notice that the rivet heads are unusually large.  This is likely by design to spread the load over a larger surface.  I would guess that the sheet metal would be at least .035" thick.  Any thinner and you might start having fatigue problems rather quickly, any thicker and you wouldn't notice as much distortion from the framing/baffling and fuel weight and mounting apparatus.  The tanks are secured to the floor by what would appear to be rods.  Probably steel with threaded ends, one end being secured to floor structure and the other being run through a board and then a tube running perpendicular to the board, then being secured by a nut.  The board runs across the top of the tank and is secured in a similar manner on the other side of the tank.  This arrangement is repeated at three equidistant points in order to secure the tank evenly.  All contact points appear to have anti-chafe material.  It would appear there are 3 similar tanks mounted in similar fashion spanning the width of the cabin.  As well as at least one tank of similar type, but different shape, on the left and right of the forward cabin aisle.

2.  The tanks are not as light and flimsy as opinions have suggested and they are quite well secured.  Since there are no flex loops visible in any of the plumbing, I would presume that the tanks were very solidly mounted and vibration/movement was minimal.  The visible distortion of the sheet metal is not due to it being very thin and flexible, but rather to the building process, the fill/empty cycling and the stresses imposed by the mounting apparatus and flight stresses.  I would surmise that as long as the fuselage were in one piece the empty tanks would likely remain as seen in the picture.

3.  The three tanks that span the full cabin are each equipped with a large fill pipe, with flexible joints.  The most aft fill pipe appears to have a small tube or cable attached between the upper and lower ends.  This could be a tube intended to drain any spillage from the refueling cavity into the tank.  However, I feel it is more likely a bonding wire/strap connecting the upper and lower fill pipe components in order to dissipate static electricity. The flexible connections would not provide that static path.

4.  The 3 tanks are plumbed into a common manifold mounted high on the right wall.  This is presumably fuel going out to the engines or further fuel management equipment.  There also appears to be some tubing going from the top of the tanks to the right and down.  Presumably, this would be vent/overflow and probably exit the bottom of the aircraft into ambient air.

5.  A couple of things make me go, "Hmmmmmmm???"  a.  What are the round things on the aft side of the tank?  Look like mounting flanges for interconnect pipes or something.  Is it possible that the tanks were identical and had transfer pumps or something into to manage CG, etc.?  Then the forward side of the front tank and the aft side of the aft tank would have had mounting flanges that were not used.  b.  Why does it appear that there are 4 fill pipes, but I only see 3 outflow tubes, unless what appears to be a fill pipe (most forward) is a reflection, or the most forward outflow tube is forward of the black box (radio?) on the right side forward.

Well, that's my thoughts, for what it's worth.  Thanks for the pic, Ric and good luck!!

Stretch

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

This photo I sent you was taken after the installation of the Hooven Radio Compass (Oct. 1936) and before the modifications for the first World Flight attempt (Feb./Mar 1937). There are four tanks on the floor and two taller tanks at the front of the cabin on either side of the companionway.  The taller tanks are filled through ports in the cabin roof.

>a.  What are the round things on the aft side of the tank?

I think they're associated with internal baffling.

>Is it possible that the tanks were identical and had transfer pumps or
>something into to manage CG, etc.?

The three most forward tanks were identical (149 gals.) and the aftmost tank was not as deep fore and aft (70 gals.).  They were not interconnected and it was not possible to transfer fuel from one to the other.

>b.  Why does it appear that
>there are 4 fill pipes, but I only see 3 outflow tubes, unless what appears
>to be a fill pipe (most forward) is a reflection, or the most forward
>outflow tube is forward of the black box (radio?) on the right side forward.

I suspect that the fourth outflow tube is forward of the radio.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 13:54:13 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Questions about 10E's tanks

Tom Strang wrote:

> Ric or Alan,
>
>    Correct me if I'm wrong, but a while back on the forum there was a post
> that stated that hi-octane fuel was pre- positioned at Howland

As I recall there was no 100 octane fuel at Howland. there were a few posts suggesting 100 octane might have been needed there but none that I recall saying there was any. Just 87 octane.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 13:56:40 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ron wrote

> Alan should ask such researchers such as Klaas, Reineck, Reuther, Prymak,
> Bollinger, Gervais, Wilson, and many others in the AES who claim there
> evidence is just as good as the Niku evidence.

No, Ron, I shouldn't have to ask those folks to provide their "evidence." If they have any credible evidence they should make it known.  Now I can understand if they think they have a hot lead and are going to make a killing out of solving the mystery that they would not want to reveal their information.

At the same time anyone who makes a claim must stand ready to defend it. Not with logic or opinions or rationale but with tangible evidence. Evidence not proof. Otherwise they will not be taken seriously. That doesn't mean they are wrong or that we think they are wrong. Since they refuse to support their ideas we will never know.

Now I'm not talking about QUALITY of evidence. I'm talking about ANY evidence of ANY quality. I think you already understand the rough ranking of evidence and that anecdotes are far down the list. A story told at the time of the event has more credibility than one recounted decades later. And when there are a lot of stories at the same time but ALL different credibility suffers immensely. From the legal profession I can tell you that once a story is told and known countless similar stories appear. Everyone wants in the act.

All those guys are quality people and dedicated researchers I'm sure. They have solid beliefs but they are wildly short on evidence. Again, not proof but evidence. Any one of them could be right but it appears we will never know as they don't defend their positions. All they are willing to do is argue about the quality or validity of the Niku evidence. That is not supporting their position. It is a mistake to believe they can prove themselves right by attacking the validity of the Niku evidence. We can't even prove or disprove it.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 9 Aug 2003 13:57:33 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

> From Ric
>
> I think that what you mean is that it will take big, shiny evidence to
> convince you.  How would you feel about something small and corroded that could
> only have come from NR16020?  Just checking.

It would seem that some feel it is wiser to look on the bottom of a half million square miles of ocean than on a tiny reef. Odd.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:58:28 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Rebuttals

Bill Shea says:

>> What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the major
>> tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers,
>> the Japanese Abductionists
>
> When I joined this forum I thought I gave Tighar a credible hypothesis

I think you misunderstand, Bill. The issue is NOT that there are no other hypotheses out there ... there are many. The issue is that there are no credible rebuttals to the Niku hypothesis. We all realize that the "Crashed and Sank" and Niku hypotheses cannot both be true. Simply stating a hypothesis does not offer a credible rebuttal to the Niku hypothesis.

If you believe that AE crashed and sank, and thus far you have no tangible evidence, you are awaiting the discovery of the airplane at the bottom of the Pacific somewhere, what better way to convince us Niku believers of the correctness of your hypothesis than to explain why the Niku hypothesis is impossible, or not credible? But please remember, that there are credible (to me, anyway, and apparently credible to others as well) discussions here in this forum and on the TIGHAR web site of how AEs fuel consumption could have taken her to Gardner. If you want to convince us, you can't just say "but Elgen Long shows..." you have to go on further and rebut those explanations given here in the forum and on the TIGHAR web site.

As an example, my own personal theory is that AE floated with her airplane to the Pacific coast of Paraguay, where she was taken into custody by the Paraguayan Navy. I have zero evidence; furthermore, it's very easy to offer a credible rebuttal to my theory, showing it is impossible (but no one has done so yet). And then I have no leg to stand on, I must adopt another theory.

If you can do that for the Niku Hypothesis, then all of the people who currently support the Niku Hypothesis will be forced to re-examine their beliefs and start looking for other theories that they can support.

>All I can say to the above is that if we
>Crashed and Sankites don't respond to the Niku Hypothesis its because we
>don't think its worth responding to.

Then the only way you will convince us Niku believers of the correctness of "Crashed and Sank" is to find the airplane at the bottom of the Pacific ocean. You can't do it by debating here in this forum, other than as I explained above, to show us why the evidence (not proof, evidence) does not point to Gardner. So again, Bill, I have to offer you a challenge ... give us a credible rebuttal, show us why the Niku hypothesis is not possible. If its truly not worth responding to (as my Paraguay theory is), it should be quite easy to find a credible rebuttal.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:07:49 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

For Ron Bright

Ron, you asked..."When does a hypothesis become a "fact", that is what amount of credible evidence accumulates so that the scientific, or historical community considers it a pretty solid fact?"

Actually, science is (usually) pretty conservative about accepting anything as "fact."  Evolution is still a theory, though there's overwhelming evidence supporting it.  And "facts" are often a matter of perception; Newtonian physics is all very factual until you get to quantum scales, where it isn't any more. In archeology the fact/hypothesis distinction is often based on what can and can't be objectively observed.  It's a fact that stratum 1 is higher in the cutbank of the stream than stratum 2; it's my hypothesis that stratum 1 was laid down by a flood and stratum 2 is the remains of 19th century garbage dump. But since stratum 2 is full of old bottles and tin cans that I can date precisely, I'm pretty sure my hypothesis is correct.

But of course, we weren't talking about hypotheses and facts; we were talking about evidence, so the real question is, what makes evidence "credible."  It  doesn't have to be absolutely nailed down fact -- if I can show that the size of soil particles in stratum 1, and the way it's bedded, is consistent with the way floods lay down sediments, I have credible evidence that it was laid down by a flood, though it's not a certainty -- there may be other geological events that create similar results.  If I say it was laid down by a flood because I had a vision of a flood here, most scientists would not take that as credible evidence.

So in the Earhart case, is the skeleton found on the island in 1940 with a woman's shoe and a sextant box evidence?  Of course.  Is it credible evidence? Well, it's certainly plausible that AE and FN were responsible, and there aren't a whole lot of other known candidates.  Is it fact?  No.  Certainly if and when we get DNA we can establish -- even then not as absolute fact, but with a high degree of probability -- whether the skeleton was in fact AE's (FN's would be harder) -- but we don't need that certainty in order for the evidence to be credible.

Are the many eyewitness accounts of AE and FN being imprisoned or executed in various places evidence?  Sure.  Are they credible?  That's another matter entirely, considering the very well documented unreliability of such accounts, the alternative possible sources of the reported observations, the unreliable ways that many of them were collected, and the very number of such accounts that contradict one another.

And finally, is there credible evidence for crashed and sank?  Well, Ric's challenge stands, but it IS kind of unfair.  How could one have evidence, credible or otherwise, for something that would have left evidence only in a virtually inaccessible location?  But the fact remains that without some sort of tangible evidence, crashed and sank is simply an hypothesis.
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Not unfair at all.  Aircraft that go down at sea usually leave floating wreckage - seat cushions, luggage, containers, tires, clothing, flotation devices, oil slicks, etc. - all kinds of stuff.  The stuff doesn't last forever.  Some of it eventually sinks and the rest gets scattered.  A timely search often locates at least something, and if there is no timely search, stuff often eventually washes up somewhere.

The fact that the massive and timely Coast Guard and Navy search failed to find anything does not prove that the plane did not go down at sea but it must be considered to be evidence that the plane did not go down at sea.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:11:44 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Ric asked;

> I think that what you mean is that it will take big, shiny evidence to
> convince you.  How would you feel about something small and corroded that
> could only have come from NR16020?>>

Yes of course it would!

That shiny thing I'm talking about . . .is the Electra itself.  At this late stage in the game, you won't find much floating around on the surface of the sea. If one really does think the Electra is on the bottom, there really isn't anything you can go about it.  Rest assured that there are no witnesses, and nothing on the top to indicate that this is the spot where it hit the water.  Just nothing!

But it really doesn't matter to me what happened to her.  If the Japanese got her, or if she landed on Niku, or is at the bottom of the sea.  I just want to know what the hell happened!

Don Jordan
***********************************************************************
From Ric

You raise an important point.  The process of discovering what happened must be free of any notion that it "matters" which answer is correct.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:22:55 EDT
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Electra fuel tanks

Ric writes:

> This photo I sent you was taken after the installation of the Hooven Radio
> Compass (Oct. 1936) and before the modifications for the first World Flight
> attempt ( Feb./Mar 1937). There are four tanks on the floor and two taller
> tanks at the front of the cabin on either side of the companionway.  The taller 
> tanks are filled through ports in the cabin roof.
>
> The three most forward tanks were identical (149 gals.) and the aftmost tank
> was not as deep fore and aft (70 gals.).  They were not interconnected and it
> was not possible to transfer fuel from one to the other.

I am confused by the two descriptions above which appear to be different. As part of my cg,weight and balance calculations for the 10E math model,it would be helpful to know the number of tanks of each capacity and their fore aft locations ,say by fuselage station,if this is not too much trouble.

tanks

harvey,#2387
*******************************************************************
From Ric

If you're going to do weight and balance you need not only the fuselage tanks but also the six wing tanks and the oil tanks.  I don't have all of that information put together by station number.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:23:44 EDT
From:         Doug
Subject:      Watches

Does Anyone know anything about the SEAGRAVES watch Amelia I guess was wearing.

Also, Was Fred known to wear a certain watch or ring? I couldn't find anything doing a Google on Seagraves Watch. Thanks in advance,

Doug
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:27:48 EDT
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

there is one bit of evidence that ive heard no mention which IMO is hard evidence that the niku theory is correct.

Just the fact that the Colorado was dispatched to the islands as first choice in the search for Amelia and great effort was expended by Lambrechts crew what they did was hard work i bet) is a fact.  This is a fact derived from the consensus of the best thinking minds they navy had to offer, and that is a fact.

The fact that some of the best strategic thinking they navy had to offer was concentrated in the pheonix islands at the very first of the search has to be considered as evidence IMO.

I think this should be added to all the other evidence gathered so far in support of the Niku theory.

The navy also put forth great effort in the crash and sank idea with the lexingtons search.  Myabe this should be considered the only evidence that exists for the crash and sank theory.  There dosent seem to be any other factual evidence for crash and sank and IMO AE would be pretty stupid to crash anywhere near howland is. while she still had over 100 gallons of fuel. I know for sure I would have kept it in the air and looked for some land.

There appears to me only 2 theories that have any solid merit other than wild speculation, the Niku theory and the crash and sank.  Everything else seems to be just hot air and hype.  IMO

Correct me if im wrong,
Claude Stokes,, ltm she taught me to look hard at the facts
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:29:20 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Rebuttals

To Bill Shea

We (Ric, myself, Alan and others) keep talking about evidence that supports an hypothesis, and your reply immediately goes to "proof". These are two different things, and you have confused them in several replies so I guess you don't understand the difference. I think it would serve you well to understand why TIGHAR feels it has evidence that supports their hypothesis, but why TIGHAR never has claimed that it has proof. I'm not suggesting that you agree with the TIGHAR hypothesis (although that's an option), I'm suggesting you understand why TIGHAR claims it has "evidence to support its hypothesis", why those words are used rather than "proof". Please don't talk to us about "proof" anymore, I don't have any, TIGHAR doesn't have any, you don't have any, no one has any (yet). Please talk to us about evidence that supports (or negates) an hypothesis. Evidence being artifacts, radio logs or other first-hand source documents, movies, photos, etc.

>I would think that if they couldn't find Howland, Baker, or
>the Itasca then the minimum she would do is to radio that they were heading
>towards Gardner for a crash landing on the reef.

Because AE was lost, she didn't know where she was, so if she couldn't find Howland, she didn't know where she was so she couldn't tell anyone she was headed for Gardner (if in fact, she was). Please understand Bill, AE was looking for Howland, and lost somewhere in this big ocean. If she was flying south toward Gardner, she didn't know she was flying away from Howland, in her mind she was lost, and in her mind she was still trying to reach Howland. Let me know if this is clear.

Bill, have you ever gone out driving in your car and gotten lost? You were looking for Franklin Street, but you made a wrong turn somewhere and got lost and you kept looking for Franklin Street and you never find it, but you wind up at Ross Boulevard? Why didn't you pick up your cell phone and tell people you were headed for Ross Boulevard?

>And we are asked to believe that if they weren't on the correct line that
>they would come across Gardner?  how? I don't buy it.  If you say that they
>stumbled around and found Gardner - I could buy that.

To the best of my knowledge, none of this has ever been a claim of TIGHAR. Obviously, you have severely misunderstood the TIGHAR hypothesis.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who always got lost in the tiniest of towns)
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:39:52 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Alan,

Nicely put re the opposing theories. Many AES members monitor and also contribute at times to the Tighar forum.

I suppose this would be an opportunity for them to rebut, but I don't think Ric is in the business on this forum to encourage lengthy treatises on the Marshall Island survival theory,eh? The Tighar forum is primary dedicated to analysing all of the evidence regarding the possibility AE landed at Niku that morning of 2 July 37. Period.

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

Let me say this again.  The business of this forum is to investigate the Niku Hypothesis.  An essential part of that investigation is the rational evaluation of any evidence that argues AGAINST the Niku Hypothesis.  That is why I have repeatedly invited those who support competing hypotheses to present any evidence they have which either explains away the evidence we have found or constitutes equally compelling evidence that something else happened.  So far, attempts to do either of those things have only demonstrated that the proponents of other theories not only do not have any credible evidence but do not even understand what credible evidence is.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:51:54 EDT
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

The whole hypothesis of Amelia and Fred following a line of NW334 SE157 started as speculation.  A very good one at that.  I've been speculating too about a few things as well.  Has anyone given thought to what went on inside the cockpit for the 20 hours or so prior to arriving at a point where they knew they were lost? These are some I questions I have and wanted to see if I could get some colorful speculation.

(1) At what point do you think they knew they were lost?  The time, what they were seeing, possibly thinking.

(2) Did Amelia and Fred spend the entire 20 hours together in the cockpit that night? Were they known to talk, perhaps what sort of conversation might have taken place? 20 hours is along time.  Anyone have any thoughts as to what the flight to the point of being lost was like?

(3) Which antenna was it a small puff of smoke was seen emanating from just prior to departure and how would that affect their navigation?  Perhaps they knew there was a problem then but decided to keep going anyways?

Don I.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

1.  They knew there was a problem when they reached the advanced LOP and there was no island in sight.  That was probably a few minutes before 19:12 GMT / 07:42 local.

2.  Fred probably spent most of the 20 hours in the cockpit except for whatever time he needed to spread out maps which could only be done in the rear cabin.  Each of them probably made a few trips back to use the toilet in the tail. There was no conversation.  Communication was primarily by written notes even when they were sitting next to each other.  Any verbal communication had to be shouted and, if their experience was anything like that of Merrill and Lambie in an identical aircraft for a similar period of time,  by the time they got close to Howland Island they were both effectively deaf.

3.  The antenna that was lost was the belly wire antenna.  We're not entirely sure what its purpose was (there has been much debate) so we can't say for sure what effect, if any, its loss had on the flight.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:14:23 EDT
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Where is the Wheel?

"The object identified in the lagoon inlet by the marine biologist last year, that possibly could have been an aircraft wheel, was unfortunately not located during the recent expedition.  Based on thorough examination of the lagoon inlet area, the TIGHAR team has reported they could not locate the object where it was expected it to be."

This leads to some questions:

1.  Could the object still be located where the marine biologist reported, but the TIGHAR team just was not able to find it, in spite of their best efforts?  This seems doubtful given that the general location was already identified, and the level of expertise of the team members involved.

2.  Based on the marine biologist's report, he was unable to physically dislodge the object because it was securely attached to the lagoon bottom by coral encrustation, and appeared to have been there "a long time".   A theory has been proposed that a fierce storm known to have clobbered Niku in the past year possibly dislodged the object and moved it to an unknown location.  Past and current satellite photos show changes in the lagoon passage topography resulting from recent storm damage and support this theory.  Assuming the object broke loose and was moved during the storm, how can it be determined the most probable direction in which to look during the 2004 expedition?

3.  Even though the recent storm may have been very violent, I can imagine there have been hundreds of equal or greater strength storms occurring over the past 65 years.  It seems odd that after all those years, and all those storms, the recent storm is believed to be the one that dislodged the object. Doesn't it seem odd that within a short time after being located by the marine biologist, the object suddenly disappeared?  In the past year there has been a lot of publicity about "something" that the marine biologist discovered.  Even though, the identification or location was never revealed via the website,  there has been a lot of publicity about an object of interest on Niku.  Does TIGHAR have any suspicion that someone may have made a preemptive visit to Niku and removed the object before the TIGHAR team arrived?

Sincerely,
Tom Riggs #2427

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

1.  If had been where Greg saw it the TIGHAR team would have found it.  I feel very confident of that.

2.  By comparing photos of the shoreline taken during this expedition with photos taken by a National Geographic photographer during the 2002 New England Aquarium visit we will pin down more closely just where the WoF was when Greg saw it.  We'll then compute the probable wave height and direction from meteorological records of the storms and come up with a vector that, we hope, will point the 2004 search in the right direction to find where the WoF went.

3.  Denial is not just a river in Egypt.  Global Warming is real.  The water level of the Pacific is rising and we have been first hand witnesses to its effect on Nikumaroro for the past 15 years.  We have repeatedly seen structures destroyed by weather events that we know had survived in place since the late 1940s/early 1950s.  I have no suspicion that anyone made a pre-emptive visit to Niku.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:15:53 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Credibility

Ron Bright said:

>When we ask for refutation or rebuttals or other
>viable theories on this  TIGHAR forum we are not likely to get any.  Alan should
>ask such researchers such as Klaas, Reineck, Reuther, Prymak, Bollinger,
>Gervais, Wilson, and many others in the AES who claim there [sic] evidence is >just as good as the Niku evidence.

TIGHAR vs. "the others" often seems to me, at its core, is an issue of credibility as much as a issue of facts.  The C&S, Abductionists etc. come across -- to me -- as proselytizers that seem to be crying out for someone to validate their theories. They do this by posting their not-Niku "evidence" on the AE forum in order to draw attention to their own theories.  Instead of support or debate they find they need to submit their evidence and methodologies to a rigorous scientific process.  When the scientific process reveals weaknesses in their theories, they frequently attach the Niku theory and defend their "evidence" as being "as good as" (see Ron's comments, above) clues uncovered by TIGHAR.  "The others'" arguments seem to have an undercurrent . . . or a whiff? . . .  a thread?,  . . .  a nuance? . . . . of inferiority.

And if the Niku theory is so wrong, why do "the others" spend so much time specifically bashing it?   They appear to find it more beneficial to attempt to destroy the Niku theory rather than research thoroughly their own.  I don't know how may of "the others" lurk on the Earhart Forum but I'll bet there are more "others" here than TIGHAR members lurking at the "others'" sites. Having never visited any sites of "the others" I don't know if any Nikuites are proselytizing over there.  Being a betting man, however, I'd bet there are none.

Subscribers come to the AE forum because -- in my humble opinion -- they're looking for something more than hunches, speculation, guess work, axes to grind, sloppy research, half-baked ideas, and airplanes that manufacture avgas in mid-flight.

For "the others" to convince me they have valid arguments, I'll need better evidence than that provided by TIGHAR, not evidence that is "as good as."

LTM, who is not often humble
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:31:54 EDT
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

>Any verbal communication had to be shouted and, if their experience was
>anything like that of Merrill and Lambie in an identical aircraft for a
>similar period of time,  by the time they got close to Howland Island
>they were both effectively deaf.

That might explain why they didn't hear anything Itasca was transmitting to them!

David Katz

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

That possibility cannot be discounted.  It is entirely possible to be effectively deaf due to prolonged exposure to very high noise levels and not realize that you are not hearing anything.  Quick story:  I once flew a Stearman (open-cockpit biplane) for about an hour of solo aerobatics wearing one of those WWII- vintage cloth flying helmets designed to have earphones, but this one had no earphones - just open holes.  Consequently, the wind noise was almost painful.  After a while it stopped bothering me and I wasn't aware of any problem until I landed and shut down.  I pulled off the helmet and noticed a dog over by the line shack who was obviously barking like mad - except there was no sound coming out.  Uh oh.  It was a good hour and a half before my hearing returned.  (Needless to say, I plugged those earholes before I used that helmet again.)
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:41:54 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

The problem with both the Colorado and Lexington searches is that aerial search is not 100% certain of detection of debris.  In fact, it is more like 60-75% under the best of circumstances.  We now know today that it takes several looks in cluttered environments (which Niku is!) to get the probability of detection up to above 90%.  Just because the area was searched doesn't mean it was searched completely.

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

Very true.  My point is that an unsuccessful search is not a meaningless search.  Just because you don't find anything doesn't mean that nothing is there - but it does increase the chance that nothing is there.  Let's also recall that Colorado's aerial search of Gardner Island did reveal the presence of something which, if correctly interpreted by Lambrecht as "signs of recent habitation", strongly supports the Niku hypothesis.

Debatable as that evidence may be, there is no similar evidence of a crash at sea that can be debated.  For example, the Lexington's planes did not spot an empty life raft that someone decided was the wrong color to be Earhart's.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:44:09 EDT
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

To my knowledge, most wire antennas stretched from top or bottom to the tail were HF.
Jim

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

I agree.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:19:29 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric wrote:

> Very true.  My point is that an unsuccessful search is not a meaningless
> search.  Just because you don't find anything doesn't mean that nothing is
> there -but it does increase the chance that nothing is there.

Yes.

This is a double-edged sword.

The difficulty of doing searches leaves room both for the Niku hypothesis and the C&S hypothesis.  The plane should have left an oil slick and a debris field, but it's possible that the searchers missed it by a mile.  They couldn't cover the whole ocean and the full range of where the Electra could have flown under the assumptions made by TIGHAR's theory.

I much prefer the Niku hypothesis to any other I've heard. I'm betting that it will turn out to be right.  That's why I've paid my dues since (I think) 2000.

LTM.

    Marty #2359
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:20:44 EDT
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

From Reed Riddle

> That possibility cannot be discounted.  It is entirely possible to be
> effectively deaf due to prolonged exposure to very high noise levels and
> not realize that you are not hearing anything.

The only problem is that they did hear the one Morse code transmission from Itasca on 7500 (IIRC).  From Ric's story, we can presume that they didn't suddenly recover their hearing for a few seconds.  :)

Did Earhart mention any problems with noise causing hearing degradation during the flight?

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

No, she did not. It is true that she heard the "A"s sent by Itasca but could not get a minimum, i.e. could not discern where the signal was weakest when she rotated the loop antenna.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:24:55 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Your example makes a good point - Common sense logic would suggest early on in the Second World Flight, if not on the first attempt, AE and FN would have covered or plugged their ears to shield them from the noise - I have never found any reference to AE having difficulty with her hearing after disembarking at any of her stops along her final World Flight route.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang
*********************************************************************
From Ric

The Model 10E was a bear for noise.  Imagine sitting between two T-6s.  The 10E Special was worse because they saved weight by leaving out the soundproofing.

Earhart stuffed cotton in her ears.  There's a newsreel clip in which she can be seen taking the cotton out after deplaning from a flight with Kelly Johnson.  How much good the cotton did is debatable.  For her World Flight recreation Linda Finch used a state-of-the-art active noise canceling headset.  The 10E defeated it.

I suspect that there is no mention of hearing difficulties at the conclusion of long flights because it was taken for granted - but that's speculation.
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:46:56 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Paige,  Perhaps you have not seen some of the earlier TIGHAR claims.

In mid March 1992 you could have seen and heard with your own eyes and ears reading, watching, and listening to television, radio, and print media, Ric saying:

"We did it"

"There is no conflicting evidence- the case is closed."

"There is only one possible conclusion:  We found a piece of Amelia Earhart's airplane!"

"We have recovered the artifacts that conclusively prove this case!"

In the San Francisco Chronicle, March 19, 1992 an article by Chronicle Staff Writer Jack Viets says: "In Washington on Monday, Richard Gillespie, executive director of the historic aircraft group, declared that the battered piece of aircraft aluminum found on Nikumaroro Island last October was from Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra and that it finally ended the enduring mystery of her disappearance 55 years ago.

News headlines in papers across the country in December 1998 quoted Ric saying:  "We have probably the most dramatic archival and scientific evidence in 61 years to indicate that we may soon know what happened to Amelia Earhart."  These comments were associated with a report by Drs. Karen Burns, Richard Jantz, Thomas King, and Mr. Richard Gillespie made in late 1998 in which the following conclusions are stated:

1. It is impossible to know whether the bones inspected by Dr. Hoodless in 1941 were, in fact, those of a white female. [recall that these bones have yet to be recovered!].

2. It is even less possible to be sure that they were those of Amelia Earhart.

3.  What we can be certain of is that the bones were found on the Island (Nikumororo) in 1939-1940, [recall that Earhart disappeared in July1937, 2-3 years prior] associated with what were observed to be women's shoes [not a shoe but a partial sole and a separate heel of a woman's shoe) and a navigator's sextant box [which has not yet been found] and that the morphology of the recovered bones, insofar as we can tell by applying contemporary forensic methods to measurements taken at the time, appear consistent with a female of Earhart's height and ethnic origin [but Dr. Jantz reported in a letter dated 14 December 1998 to Dr. Pietrusewsky, University of Hawaii, that as a result of testing which included "Pacific populations" it was impossible to exclude any of the populations as a most likely ethnic group! Previously Dr. Lindsay Isaac, a physician at Tarawa concluded the bones were those of an elderly Polynesian and the bones were upwards of 20 years old and possibly much older. Subsequently the bones were forwarded to Fiji where they were examined by Dr. Hoodless.  He concluded that they were definitely from a male who was short and stocky and probably European or half cast.  Dr. Hoodless took the measurements upon which the Burns Jantz, King, and Gillespie report was based]. 
4.  More research will be required to achieve more definitive conclusions.

The last "conclusion is certainly true!

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

Ron is right and I take full responsibility for those statements.  I believed in 1992 that we had more than adequate evidence to prove our case to the satisfaction of the public.  I was wrong and I learned a hard lesson.  I am still convinced that our hypothesis is correct and most of the evidence I presented then is still valid today, but I greatly underestimated the level of proof it will take to put to rest a mystery as popular and thoroughly mythologized as the Earhart disappearance.

Today we're way beyond where we were 11 years ago.  Since then we have found the Chater Report, the Bones File, the Seven Site, etc., etc.  The case is far stronger than it was then, but you don't see me claiming we have proof.  When we do it will not be up to me to say so.

I absolutely stand by my 1998 statement about the Burns/Jantz/King paper. "We have probably the most dramatic archival and scientific evidence in 61 years to indicate that we may soon know what happened to Amelia Earhart."  The caveats you quote seem damning only to those who are not accustomed to reading scientific papers.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:04:31 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric,  I question the suggestion that  "aircraft that go down at sea usually leave floating wreckage."  Very often they don't as per the 3 aircraft lost at sea during the Dole Race in 1927 from Oakland to Hawaii,  Charles Ulm attempting to fly from Oakland to Hawaii in 1935,  Earhart and Noonan in 1937, the Hawaii Clipper in 1938 from Guam to Manila, and many others.  All of the cited examples above included fairly major searches by ship and some by air for the lost aircraft. No wreckage has ever been found from any of those losses.

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

I would challenge your assertion that "fairly major searches" were conducted for any of those aircraft in any localized area where the aircraft was known to have gone down.  In fact, I would challenge your assertion that any of those aircraft are known to have gone down at sea rather than on some island.  I can cite cases where floating wreckage was found (the Samoan Clipper) or later washed up (the Lady Southern Cross).  To cite a case where a plane is known to have gone down at sea and left no floating debris you'll have to find a case where the crash was witnessed either in person or on radar followed by an immediate search.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:21:23 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Paige, good points but I truthfully feel that trying to rebut the Niku theory or ANY theory is not a productive use of anyone's time. I think a person's time is much better spent trying to support their own theory if they have one. Shooting at someone else is like tilting at windmills. They are forced at times to try and prove negatives which is mighty hard to do if possible at all.

Let me give you an example. The bones. Some folks don't believe they are our heroes and maybe they are not but no one has resolved that in the last sixty some years. The detractors are wasting their time trying to disprove the bone artifacts. Of course they don't try. They just disagree and offer nothing. Better they try to prove their own theory.

You can see why they take the tact they do of course. They have no evidence of their own for their own theories so it takes less effort to sit back and simply disagree with the Niku theory. That's a piece of cake. It requires no money and no research and virtually no effort.

To be fair I am at a total loss how any one would ever prove the plane crashed into the sea. But they can't do it by disproving Niku. Even if they could it would NOT prove THEIR theory.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:35:58 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Bones Report

Reference is made in a recent posting to a "letter dated 14 December 1998 to Dr. Pietrusewesky, University of Hawaii" by Dr. Jantz concerning, among other things, the Pacific Islander FORDISC data base upon which the authors of the Bones Report based their analysis. Is there such a letter, and, if so, what are its contents?

--Chris Kennedy
Houston, Texas
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I have no knowledge of the letter but even if there is such a letter and it says what Ron Reuther says it says (which I have no reason to doubt), I don't see that it's any big deal.  According to Ron, in the letter Dr. Jantz says:

>that as a result of testing which included "Pacific populations" it was
>impossible to exclude any of the populations as a most likely ethnic group!

I seriously doubt that Dr. Jantz used an exclamation point.  Ron and others who are not familiar with this kind of work see exclamation points in very common caveats.  They act as if we are claiming that modern analysis of Hoodless' bone measurements proves that the remains were Earhart's and of course it doesn't and we're not.  The work by Drs. Jantz and Burns shows only that the conclusions drawn by Drs. Isaac and Hoodless may very well have been in error and the bones could have been Earhart's.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:39:26 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

> Just because the area was
> searched doesn't mean it was searched completely.

My brother was a photo interpreter in Vietnam. While visiting him he showed me low altitude (chopper) photos of particular terrain. There were all kinds of enemy fortifications and enemy troops in the photo but it took special equipment so ferret them out. The pilot report said they saw nothing.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:43:35 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Ron Reuther's dredging up of Ric's long-ago enthusiasms reminds me of the recent case of the Martian meteorite.  You'll recall that a meteorite thought to have come from Mars was found on the Antarctic ice sheet and discovered to contain what looked like evidence of organic compounds and even life forms. There were some pretty enthusiastic comments out of NASA on the subject, which then got blown up by the press.  After more analysis, the last I heard the meteorite is being seen as very much a "maybe," not a smoking gun for Martian life. However, this in no way discredits the hypothesis that life evolved on Mars, or the hypothesis that a meteorite blasted off its surface could have brought evidence of such to Earth.  NASA and others are continuing to invest goodly chunks of money in investigating these hypotheses.

Similarly, the fact that the recently reported discovery of AE's barf bag on Niku is, to the best of our knowledge, pure hooey doesn't discredit the hypothesis that she wound up there.  It's simply irrelevant, and so is the fact that Ric got a bit carried away back in 1991 -- UNLESS one is convinced, as lots of crashed-and-sankers and abduction aficionados seem to be -- that Ric is some kind of amazing charlatan who's managed to lead us all down the garden path
while planting or making up all the evidence.

LTM (who taught her kids the difference between evidence and opinion, and that even people who are wrong can be right)
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:44:17 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

I have just read Ron Reuther's rebuttal of the Niku theory and of Ric. That certainly convinces me that the plane actually crashed into the sea and sank. Leaves no doubt. Proof positive as I see it.

On to the White bird.

Alan, having trouble typing with tongue in cheek
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:46:58 EDT
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric

How about those 5 Avengers that flew out of Florida in 1945 and never were heard from including the Martin flying boat that went to look for them?
Joe

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

Flight 19 is off topic and it is not even a mystery.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:06:01 EDT
From:         Gary
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric wrote:

> To cite a case
> where a plane is known to
> have gone down at sea and left no floating debris
> you'll have to find a case
> where the crash was witnessed either in person or on
> radar followed by an
> immediate search.

I can back up your statement. During the 60's in the So. China Sea I witnessed an aircraft take off from a carrier and moments later plunge nose first into the sea. We searched the area for hours afterwards for debris of which there was very little, but nonetheless the more buoyant pieces of wreckage came to the surface. It's hard to imagine that a plane could go down without a trace if someone was in the area looking for it.
************************************************************************
From Ric

As Alan pointed out in a posting that was a bit too inflammatory to post, to be able to say (as I did) that aircraft usually leave floating debris would require a comprehensive (and impossible) statistical survey of all aircraft that have gone down at sea.  In the absence of such a survey we can only look for individual cases which support or contradict the statement.  Ron's attempt was flawed because none of the cases he cited involved timely searches of known impact sites.  Your example is valid.

When you stop and think about it for a second, it's very difficult to construct a scenario that would not leave floating debris.  Virtually all aircraft have lots of stuff in them that would float.  If an airplane makes a survivable ditching the occupants are going to exit the aircraft through hatches, doors, or canopies which are going to allow buoyant objects to float free when the airplane sinks.  If the airplane crashes into the sea hard enough to kill or incapacitate the occupants, the event probably also involves a breaching of the fuselage, again allowing buoyant objects to escape.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:23:44 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

The Hawaiian Islands may have those aircraft from the Dole Race and Charles Ulm hidden from view, but Captain Irwin and Charles Ulm reported their presumed end of flight times and their splash down points were pretty well calculated by US Navy and civilian ships, many of whom made searches for wreckage or survivors.  By the way the searchs for the survivors (there were none of those lost of the Dole Race) were two of the biggest ever, and in number of ships involved and probably of area covered exceeded the search for Earhart.

In the search for the 2 Dole racers lost initially and the 3rd a day or two later, Admiral Richard H. Jackson  C-in-C of the Pacific Fleet directed on the evening of their loss, that the aircraft carrier Langley with eo observation planes, its tender Aroostook with 4 seaplanes, and five destroyers begin a sea search for the two missing airplanes.  By dawn the admiral's search fleet had been expanded to 39 vessels.  In addition there were 120  Japanese - Hawaiian fishing vessels in the area which were alerted to be on the look-out for wreckage or survivors. In addition many of the ships were in the presumed area of losses beginning that day, and more rapidly arrived in the search areas over the next day or two.

Coastal areas near Hawaii and California were scouted by land-based army and navy planes, which conducted criss-cross search patterns 150 miles out at sea. These aircraft and those from the Langley and the Aroostook began flying their search missions on August 18, the day after there reported loss, and continued for some days thereafter. The favorable weather that had held for 4 days and nights began deteriorating.  Rain squalls and high winds then covered most of the race area. One by one, those involved admitted defeat and gave up the search.

The third airplane with Captain Bill Erwin, pilot, and Alvin Eichwaldt, radio operator and navigator, took off on August 19 looking for the survivors of the Dole Race enroute to Hawaii themselves.  They had excellent radio communications with a variety of ship and shore stations until they radioed an S.O.S. and data indicated they had splashed down rather precisely in an area 612 miles west of San Francisco.  Admiral Jackson immediately recalled two of his destroyers already looking for survivors and dispatched them to look for Erwin and Eichwaldt and their airplane the Dallas Spirit.  The two destroyers steamed all night to reach the area by sunrise.  They found no trace of the airplane.

Charles Ulm, pilot, and 2 crew members including a radio operator and navigator took off from Oakland on December 3, 1934 (sorry I cited 1935 earlier) in a Briish Airspeed Envoy, the Stella Australis, destined for Hawaii.  Within an estimated 200-300 miles east-northeast of Oahu, they described a crash landing at sea. Another massive sea and air search was mounted within hours of their last message. Rear Admiral Yarnell, commanding Pearl Harbor, ordered 23 ships in to the search area.  Submarines, minelayers, and coast guard patrol boats scoured an area 300 miles in all directions from Honolulu. 18 Army aircraft and Navy seaplanes  criss- crossed the sea.  The search widened and was joined by large numbers of Japanese fishing boats around the islands.  8 hours after the aircraft went down, the SS President Coolidge steamed into the area to help.  After 2 days, 325,000 square miles of sea had been searched without a trace of the missing aircraft or its crew.  On the 3rd day of the search, efforts were intensified in a southwesterly direction.  No wreckage was ever found.

Similar efforts were mounted in search of the Hawaii Clipper and other lost aircraft, but in most cases little if any wreckage was found.

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

Thanks for all that but you're missing the basic point.  A failed search is an indication - but not proof - that there was nothing in the area searched. In the cases you cite the failed searches leave at least four possibilities:

- they were looking in the right place but the plane sank without leaving any floating debris.
- they were looking in the right place but by the time they got there the floating debris had either sunk or drifted away.
- they were looking in the right place but they simply didn't see the floating debris that was there.
- they were looking in the wrong place.

Once again, our disagreement hinges not upon the facts but upon what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the facts.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:24:29 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      30 aircraft aboard the USS Langley

Ric,  Please correct my typo in my preceding message to 30 aircraft aboard the Langley instead of eo.  Ron Reuther
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:26:40 EDT
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Where's the wheel

Remember when you first introduced the mystery biologist to the forum? I was very skeptical about a professional not retrieving the object or at least documenting the object on film, video or 35mm. I believe I warned you that storms or other unforeseen events could destroy the evidence. I won't say I told you so.........Dammit pilgrim, I told you so.

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

Yes.  I now regret turning down your offer to fully fund an immediate expedition.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:30:52 EDT
From:         Ed Croft
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Two observations from a tired person:

>Evolution is still a theory, though there's overwhelming evidence
>supporting it.

Actually, evolution - that species change - is considered to be a fact.  There are many recorded observations of species changing.  Darwin's theory of natural selection that explains the mechanism driving evolution is a theory, though a strong one.

Ric wrote:

>The fact that the massive and timely Coast Guard and Navy search failed to
>find anything does not prove that the plane did not go down at sea but it
>must be considered to be evidence that the plane did not go down at sea.

Since the Navy also searched Gardner, does that mean it also can be considered evidence that the plane did not land at Gardner ?  Can the C&S crew use that one. :)

ltd, who actually met Howard Hughes while he(Howard) was looking at the hanger where the Spruce Goose was stored,

Ed Croft
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I think the fact that the Navy searched Gardner from the air a week after the disappearance must be considered evidence that no airplane was visible to an aerial search at that time.  We have incorporated that evidence into our hypothesis.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:59:10 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Is there any record of any post Gardner flyover discussion among the Colorado crew regarding why a return trip to Gardner wasn't made in light of finding evidence of "signs of recent habitation"?  It seems odd that after all the searching in the Howland area (north, south, east & west) and finding absolutely nothing this little piece of "something - signs of recent habitation" wouldn't have warranted another look.

Also, is there any reliable record of anyone's interview of Lambrecht, or members of his crew, that can shed anymore light on what he/they saw to lead them to report "signs of recent habitation"?

I guess I am just having some problems with the idea of this search not having a very coordinated approach to it (our advantage of 60+ years of hindsight). It seems like everyone was trying to be the heroes and no one trying to put the bigger picture together to evaluate what little evidence they did find into a more meaningful deployment of resources.  It seems as if they, the USN and Coast Guard, started with the belief that AN and FN were in the water and sank and any other possibility was so remote that it didn't justify a followup. Was this the prevailing belief?
*********************************************************************
From Ric

No.  Commander Thompson aboard the Itasca believed that the plane went in the water northwest of Howland shortly after the 08:43 transmission and stubbornly held to that position even after the Navy had decided that the plane had probably traveled southeast on the LOP.  As possible post-loss radio messages began to be heard, Thompson believed they were coming from the floating plane. On the night of July 4/5 the 281 message seemed to vindicate his belief but when he reached that point there was nothing there and Lockheed finally told everybody that the plane could not transmit if it was in the water.  At that point the Navy decided to focus the Colorado's search on the islands of the Phoenix Group where Pan Am DF bearings suggested that some of the radio calls originated.  Thompson's response was to decide that all of the post-loss messages had been bogus.

After the Colorado's search of the Phoenix Group failed to find an airplane (the "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner were never considered important), direction of the search was handed over to the captain of the Lexington. Colorado, with 196 ROTC cadets and 4 college VIPs aboard, was long overdue to head for home and did.  The Lexington group considered the Phoenix Group to have been searched and that hypothesis to have been tested and found false.  They bought into Thompson's theory and conducted their search north and west of Howland.

Lambrecht was interviewed by Goerner in the early 1970s.  When asked about the "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner he said that he thought they were "markers of some kind".
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:01:09 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

> An essential part of that investigation is the rational evaluation of any
> evidence that argues AGAINST the Niku Hypothesis.

This is one aspect of the investigation the rebutters have the most difficulty understanding. They think that's what they are doing. They are not. Instead they give their "rational" evaluation of their OPINION opposing the Niku theory.

In their dealing with the Niku evidence they constantly point out we haven't PROVED any of it, that it is not necessarily connected to AE and there could be other explanations for the evidence. HELLO! Folks we all know that. It gets no one anywhere pointing out the obvious.

Ric, to the contrary, I'm less interested in the opposers trying to "rationally analyze the Niku evidence in order to argue against the Niku theory." One, they don't understand or know how to do it. Two, TIGHAR does that anyway. Three, their time would be better and more productively spent trying to support their own theory.

It's clear to me why they take the approach they do. They avoid any significant effort and tons of expense and instead, from the comfort of their living room, hammer away at their tired old themes. Costs twenty bucks a month.  Let me repeat one thing. Disproving Niku does not prove any other theory. That is a fact and it tells me the opposers are not interested in proving their theory. They are ONLY interested in proving Ric Gillespie wrong. Now that's just my opinion based on reading this forum for years. Folks, all of us are occasionally wrong but no one gets a trophy for proving it.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:02:28 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Don I. writes

> (1) At what point do you think they knew they were lost?  The time, what
> they were seeing, possibly thinking.

Amelia, being a woman knew immediately she was lost. Fred, like all guys was never lost. He just hadn't found the island yet.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:05:34 EDT
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Crashed at sea - no debris.

In the mid to late '60s, an SR-71 on an engine test flight out of Okinawa went down in the Pacific with the loss of the pilot, with no debris found. Likewise, an F-106 was lost over the Great Lakes - no wreckage or debris found.

LTM, (who once was lost, but then was found...)
Rich Young
*********************************************************************
From Ric

In each case, was the impact point documented on radar?  How long did it take SAR to reach the known impact point?
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:09:00 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Alan writes:

> ... They are forced at times
> to try and prove negatives which is mighty hard to do if possible at all.

Since TIGHAR intends its work to stand as an example of good research methods, I speak up from time to time on this topic.

It is not self-evident that "no one can prove a negative."  This is a slogan often thrown around in debates on the Forum, not an axiom of logic.  It is also not a conclusion based on scientific observation or experiment; in fact, the history of science proves that it is false (see below).

If the maxim could be proven to be true, it would refute itself, since it is itself a negative: "There are no proofs of negatives."

The maxim is proven wrong by all of the negatives proven in mathematics on a regular basis.  Two recent examples come to mind: the proof of the Four-Color Theorem (there are no maps that require more than four colors to give each region its own color and distinguish it from all other regions on the map) and Fermat's Last Theorem (The formula x^n + y^n = z^n has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2). In physics, scientists have proven that there is no such thing as phlogiston involved in combustion and there is no medium (aether) required for the propagation of light waves.  In astronomy, it is pretty well established that the sun and stars do not orbit the earth, though occasionally people will adopt the alternative hypothesis in a mistaken application of "relativity" ("There's no reason that we can't think of the earth as being still and the whole universe wheeling around us.  It's all relative.").

If AE's Electra is found on the bottom of the Pacific, it will negate the Niku hypothesis.  If the remains of the plane are found near the island, it will (in my view) negate many competing hypotheses.  Of course, the wreckage can't explain how it got there.  No matter how strong the evidence is, paranoid people will always be able to say "That's where the [fill in the blank] dumped the airplane to keep the conspiracy secret."

> Let me give you an example. The bones. Some folks don't believe they are our
> heroes and maybe they are not but no one has resolved that in the last sixty
> some years.

From the measurements, I think we can be pretty sure that the bones weren't from Fred.  The choice, I believe, is AE or some other lost soul.

> The detractors are wasting their time trying to disprove the bone
> artifacts.

Here is a true negative statement: If the bones are never found, the debate can never be settled.  The kind of tests necessary to settle the question decisively can only be done on the bones, not on the story of the bones.

> To be fair I am at a total loss how any one would ever prove the plane
> crashed into the sea.

Agreed.  Even if the wreckage is found in mid-ocean, the paranoids can always say "But that's where the [Japs, Americans, Germans, Paraguayans ...] dumped the airplane to cover up the conspiracy."

LTM.

    Marty #2359
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:10:06 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Missing fliers

Let me use AES logic here . . . .

The reason no one ever found the missing fliers from the Dole Races was because no one searched Mili Atoll.  According to my flight sim program the guys could've made it if they had 376 mph tailwinds, an additional 650 gallons of fuel, oxygen (secretly installed at Honolulu at Wheeler Field), variable geometry wings (secretly constructed by the Navy at Pearl), and 6.5 million cubic yards of helium in the horizontal stabilizer.

Piece of cake.  It's simple when you got the facts.

LTM, who tires of the scamologists
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:17:36 EDT
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric said:

>I think the fact that the Navy searched Gardner from the air a week after
>the disappearance must be considered evidence that no airplane was visible to an
>aerial search at that time.  We have incorporated that evidence into our
>hypothesis.

Ric also said:

>The fact that the massive and timely Coast Guard and Navy search failed to
>find anything does not prove that the plane did not go down at sea BUT IT MUST
>BE CONSIDERED TO BE EVIDENCE THAT THE PLANE DID NOT GO DOWN AT SEA.

[Emphasis mine]

Ric also said (in reference to the air-sea search):

>A failed search is an indication - but not proof - that there was nothing in
>the area searched.  In the cases you [Ron] cite, the failed searches leave at
>least four possibilities:
>
>- they were looking in the right place but the plane sank without leaving any
>floating debris.
>
>- they were looking in the right place but by the time they got there the
>floating debris had either sunk or drifted away.
>
>- they were looking in the right place but they simply didn't see the
>floating debris that was there.
>
>- they were looking in the wrong place."

Well, what applies to the air-sea search also applies to the searches at Gardner/Nikumaroro.  The failed air-sea search IS NOT EVIDENCE that the plane did not go down at sea.  It is only evidence of a failed search with one of the possibilities that Ric cites.

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

You're doing it again.  You're confusing evidence with proof.  The failed air-sea search is evidence that the plane did not go down at sea.  It is not proof that the plane did not go down at sea.  The searches of Nikumaroro by the Navy and by TIGHAR that did not find the airplane are evidence that the plane was not in the places where nothing was found.  The searches of Nikumaroro by TIGHAR that have found what may be pieces of the airplane are evidence that pieces of the airplane were in the places where we found them.

Is this really that hard to understand?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:18:40 EDT
From:         Stretch Johnson
Subject:      Re: Crashed at sea - no debris.

My point exactly.  A 106 and a blackbird have very little "floating" material in them.  Seat cushion, charts, crew, and a very little cockpit insulation.  As long as the cockpit remained intact the most you'd ever see would be an oil slick.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:46:20 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Alan's right!

Alan said:

>They [the anti-Nikus] are ONLY interested in proving Ric
>Gillespie wrong. Now that's just my opinion based on reading this forum for >years.

Dead-solid-perfect right!  Not only that, but they're whiners.  They have the Rodney Dangerfield syndrome -- "I don't get no respect."  But with the methodologies they use and the conclusions they jump to, why should anyone respect their theories.?

And as long as I'm ranting, why do those people hang out over here?  Is it because there is nothing going on at their own forums?  And trying to explain things to them is like teaching a pig to sing -- all you do is waste your time and p***-off the pig.

I believe these people sincerely believe their theories, but we don't. Put a sock in it and take a hike, for cripes sake.  What part of "Get lost" do they not understand?

Read my lips -- I don't care about crashed and sunk, I don't care about abductions, I don't care about Mili Atoll, I don't care about hieroglyphics on a cell wall in Saipan, I don't care about do-rags (blindfolds, no less!!) dug up from some parking lot in wherever.  It's all a bunch of hoo-haw.  These people remind me of the upcoming California gubernatorial race -- there are too many candidates to count, half of them are foreigners, and none of them have an inkling of the real world.

Where's my Prozac . . . . .

LTM, who got a C- in her anger management class :-)
Dennis O. McGee #0149E

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

The anti-Nikuites are harmless but are you sure it's a good idea to get Arnold mad at you?
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:50:48 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Crashed at sea - no debris.

You have probably covered these topics but maybe a different slant from here. As a search and rescue pilot in Florida for over 20 years we have a great many aircraft and their pilots/passengers still not found.  Many went down over the waters near the coast; this place is quite well traveled and nothing found to give us a clue even with good radar coverage compared with the area the crashed and sankers are looking at.

I can think as a pilot owner who does most of his own [legal] maintenance and  knows a little about structures that usually tires with a strut attached will eventually rust loose but that can and will take years as the attach points are very robust even when a retractable.

Also in the case for the crash and sankers if  the 10E got to the bottom in one piece after a good landing anywhere  the gear will probably never get loose as the weight of the wing and fuselage would tend to keep it there. 

Good luck/wish I could help more
********************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmmm....tires eventually wash shore.  A tire and wheel from the Lady Southern Cross eventually washed ashore.  Hmmmm....
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:56:06 EDT
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

The only scenario I can imagine of an aircraft not leaving any floating debris would be if it were a modern military fighter type and the impact was not severe enough to cause a break up of the airframe.  Much of the 50s - 60s era stuff had very little composites and most of the floating stuff would either exit with the crew or go down with them, if they didn't get out. Once into the 70s we start seeing more composites, which if broken from the airframe may or may not float.  A lot of them now have ballistic foam that fills voids and is intended to stop projectile fragments.  If the airframe breaks up the foam will be bobbing around everywhere.

However, fighters are much more robust in construction than a 10E or any other heavy or commercial aircraft.  It's just my opinion, but if she went in the drink the aircraft would have either broken up and left debris or remained somewhat intact and floated for quite some time.

K.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:15:38 EDT
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

>You're doing it again.  You're confusing evidence with proof.  The failed
>air-sea search is evidence that the plane did not go down at sea.  It is not
>proof that the plane did not go down at sea.

Didn't Ronald Reagan say something like that ("There you go again...") during the presidential debates to avoid answering a question put to him?

Ric, with all due respect, I NEVER used the word "proof" nor did I intend to. I merely quoted you verbatim:

>The fact that the massive and timely Coast Guard and Navy search failed to
>find anything does not prove that the plane did not go down at sea BUT IT MUST
>BE CONSIDERED TO BE EVIDENCE THAT THE PLANE DID NOT GO DOWN AT SEA." [Emphasis
>mine]

The part of your statement that I emphasized is flat-out wrong.  It is not a logical conclusion one may draw from the premises.  Again, I am not talking about the fine line between proof and evidence (or any other semantic nuance). I am talking about the logical conclusions one can draw from the failure of the search!  (Marty, I'm sure, can explain this).  I only wrote to point out the logical inconsistency of your position.

My point is your own (or one of them at least); that is, the failed Coast Guard/Navy search is ONLY evidence of a failed search, nothing more.  One can draw no other logical conclusions from the search nor from the failure to observe debris.  The result of the search IS NOT EVIDENCE that the plane did not go down at sea; nor is it EVIDENCE that the plane did go down at sea. It is also not EVIDENCE that the plane ended up anywhere else.

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

>Didn't Ronald Reagan say something like that?

No need to get abusive.

I'm not sure there is any answer to this debate but let me try to explain what I mean when I say "The fact that the massive and timely Coast Guard and Navy search failed to find anything does not prove that the plane did not go down at sea BUT IT MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE EVIDENCE THAT THE PLANE DID NOT GO DOWN AT SEA." (emphasis yours)

You can't find you car keys.  They're not on the peg where you usually hang them. (You looked.) They're not in your jacket pocket.  (You looked.) You have conducted unsuccessful searches of two possible locations.  In deciding what to do next you take into account the EVIDENCE you have gathered, - i.e. that the chances that the keys are hanging on the peg or are in your jacket pocket have been reduced by your searches EVEN THOUGH it is still possible that they were right there and you just missed them.  You decide to go look on the kitchen counter.  You do not decide to go back and check the peg and pocket again and again and again.

Hence I can't accept your statement that "the failed ... search is ONLY evidence of a failed search, nothing more."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:17:11 EDT
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Crashed at sea - no debris.

Ric, for your info. Early this year a F-18 off the Eisenhower went down at night in the Adriatic Sea. It was on radar the whole time and an immediate SAR was launched. No debris -- nothing. Unfortunately I knew the pilot, he was in my son's wedding and a terrible loss all around. He was flying a night bombing with live weapons and NVG's. He was talking to the carrier all the time and just disappeared off the radar with no debris at all.

Jim
**********************************************************
From Ric

A tragic loss.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:30:10 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Crashed at sea - no debris.

Ric,  During WW many aircraft went down at sea, i.e., in rather confined areas such as the English Channel, in portions of the Mediterranean, as well as in larger expanses such as the Pacific Ocean (B-29s for example between the Mariannas and Japan). Many of those aircraft were rather precisely located by radio and/or radar, and other navigation fixes, but many provided no wreckage of any kind found by the searchers.

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

Nobody is saying that an airplane cannot sink and no floating wreckage turn up.  Nobody is even saying that it's impossible for an airplane to sink without leaving some floating wreckage.  What I am saying is that it is not uncommon (I'll back off from saying "usual" because I don't have the statistics and neither do you) for aircraft that ditch and sink to leave floating debris.  As aircraft go, I would expect that NR16020 might be very likely to leave floating debris because we know of many buoyant things that were probably aboard the aircraft that one might expect would find their way out through the hatch or door or any breach in the fuselage.  Go through the Luke Field inventory and ask yourself how much of that junk would float.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:25:53 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Caldwell on those with opposing viewpoints -

>It's clear to me why they take the approach they do. They avoid any
>significant effort and tons of expense and instead, from the comfort of their
>living room, hammer away at their tired old themes. Costs twenty bucks a
>month.

This gratuitous observation by a presumably well educated attorney cuts both ways.  Although I haven't been privy to any extensive surveys to the contrary, I can only suspect that more legitimate researchers have invested "significant effort and tons of [personal] expense" in-the-field (i.e., out of the "living room" and, in my case, at Winslow Reef) than ANY of the Gillespie flock. (Funded expeditions - utilizing OPM - don't count.)

And I can't help being amused at Ric's rather frantic scramble to support his claim of the inevitable debris from planes crashed at sea. As one other gentleman observed, he was an eye-witness to a splashdown that left no visible trace. You can add me to that list. While our ship was operating with a carrier in the Pacific during WW2, I remember watching a TBY splash down and sink within a minute, leaving nothing to mark the spot, except the pilot. (Who we happily recovered alive and uninjured.)

Cam (the Unwelcome) Warren
**************************************************************
From Ric

The hundreds of TIGHAR members around the world who, over the years, have contributed their hard-earned dollars, pounds, francs and marks to make our work possible will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that you don't feel that any of that counts.

Yeah, those TBYs sank like a tool box.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:31:34 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

There have been many artifacts found on Nikumaroro that eventually were said to have had nothing to do with the Amelia Earhart mystery. What is left of the bones theory? Of the shoes theory? Of the aluminum sheet theory? Now there is the Wheel Of Fortune. It's gone.

What keeps "believers" in the Gardner Island theory going are the post loss radio messages really. And I'm thinking of the radio signals heard by the Pan American Airways station in Honolulu, not of the many hoaxes. Ric did a great job explaining the LOP and how? by advancing it to the East, Fred Noonan would bring the 337/152 line over Howland and the aircraft to within radio distance for Amelia Earhart to get a DF to the airfield. Based on the drawing Ric made, the LOP was intercepted at some 200 nautical miles from Howland while the Lockheed Electra was flying a course of 78?. Is there any proof of the 78?? No one know for Amelia Earhart's log was never found. It doesn't matter really. From the moment Noonan had established the time of sunrise he must have given Earhart a course to steer: 67?.

Why 67? Because the LOP on which their target (airfield) was, should ideally be intercepted at a 90? angle. At least, that is what they still teach these days. And since there were no inertial platforms or GPS in 1937, the only instrument that would tell Noonan they were on their advanced LOP was his watch. It is true that it was not necessary to fly 67? to intercept an LOP but it would have simplified things for Noonan's calculations. When using a ruler over the map Ric drew, 67? brings the aircraft to a point Northwest of Howland. All they had to do there was turn 90? to the right and steer 157?. DF would do the rest.  Even if DF didn't work, the course would bring the Lockheed to within sight of the island. Am I wrong in believing this is the reason why Itasca captain Thompson set off to the Northwest to begin looking for the airplane?

But all this is speculation. No one knows what course the Electra actually flew. No floating debris was found by Itasca on the ocean. No raft either. But not all debris comes up immediately. and when it does Itasca may no longer have been there.

It stands to reason that Amelia Earhart was told by Fred Noonan authority to eventually fly along the 157? radial because that was their only chance of hitting land. That same navigational logic also the Navy had come to, certainly after the reports by the Pan American radio station they seemed to capture signals originating from the Phoenix group of islands. That is why Colorado was sent to the area to launch its float planes in search for the Lockheed. Yet again all this was and is speculation. For the Electra has not been found and no proof it ever landed on Gardner Island either. There are serious indications however, that the aircraft could have landed on Gardner Island. There have been the bones of the castaway and the remains of a campfire found by Gallagher upon his arrival in 1940 on what was until then an uninhabited island. There were the American made shoe parts found by the TIGHAR expedition in 1992. There was above all a piece of aluminum "of a quality used by Lockheed in the Thirties" to build Lockheed Electra's. There were anecdotal stories by later colonists of the island who said they have known an aircraft to be hidden somewhere, at a place which was taboo to kids. And there was that story by a helicopter pilot who hauled a single row radial engine from an island that could have been Gardner Island. And since this was a single row radial engine it could not have been from a B-24 known to have crashed on a neighboring  island. Since it was a single row radial it could very well have been from the Lockheed Electra. But since no one knows where the engine came from, nor where it was eventually buried, all these reports remain anecdotal and are no proof. They remain mere indications to believers. They don't convince crashed and sankers. And now there is that report about a Wheel of Fortune, possibly an aircraft wheel. Although TIGHAR set off to Niku ASAP, it was not found. What the Niku Vp party did find was more aluminum. Could this too be of 1937 vintage? If so, would this be further "indication" or could this considered to be proof a 1937 vintage aircraft was on the island at one time, as anecdotal reports have it?

Why is it TIGHAR cannot decide that some of indications it found are actually proof? I do hope the aluminum now found will be sent to Lockheed. If the guys at Burbank again confirm it is "of the quality they used in 1937 to build Electra's", I wonder what new excuse will be found to say it is not proof of the Niku theory. Sometimes I have the impression TIGHAR will travel to Gardner Island/Nikumaroro until someone finds the sign reading : "I was here. Amelia, 1937".

LTM (who wasn't there)

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

That is possibly the most depressing posting I have ever read.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:32:49 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Crashed at sea - no debris.

Ric,  That's better!  The circumstances of almost each crash are different and certainly the type of aircraft, its contents, the sea conditions, etc., make a difference.  However, I still think debris from an aircraft crash at sea is extremely hard to find and most often missed.  Ron Reuther
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:34:38 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Marty wrote

> It is not self-evident that "no one can prove a negative."

That was a nice posting, Marty but as you quoted me yourself I didn't say that. I said, "They are forced at times to try and prove negatives which is mighty hard to do if possible at all."

In each of your examples, however, you are not proving a negative. You are proving a positive and thereby reflecting the alternative is not true. Not the same thing. For example you cannot prove 5 plus 5 does not equal 11. What you CAN do is prove 5 plus 5 equals 10 and therefore deduce it could not have equaled 11. You are NOT proving a negative but rather proving a positive and DEDUCING the alternative is not so by the positive proof.

But we beat this theme to death once before, Marty, and Ric will have no patience with it. <G>

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

Correct.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:37:34 EDT
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

>How about those 5 Avengers that flew out of Florida in 1945 and never were
>heard from including the Martin flying boat that went to look for them?

The oil slick of the PBM was found by a merchant ship.

"A PBM patrol plane which was launched at approximately 7:30 p.m., 5 December 1945, to search for the missing TBM's. This aircraft was never seen nor heard from after take-off. Based upon a report from a merchant ship off Fort Lauderdale which sighted a "burst of flame, apparently an explosion, and passed through on oil slick at a time and place which matched the presumed location of the PBM, it is believed this aircraft exploded at sea and sank at approximately 28.59 N; 80.25 W." ------ From the USN Naval Historical Center home page.

While no trace of the Avengers have been found, one theory, is that they crashed in the Okefenokee Swamp since no trace was found on the sea.

Craig Fuller

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

PBMs at that time had a bad habit of blowing up in mid-air due to fuel leakage problems.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:38:29 EDT
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: Crashed at sea - no debris.

>In the mid to late '60s, an SR-71 on an engine test flight out of Okinawa
>went down in the Pacific with the loss of the pilot, with no debris found.

Actually parts of the SR-71 were recovered. I am not familiar with the F-106.

Craig Fuller
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:40:26 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric wrote:

> You're doing it again.  You're confusing evidence with proof.

Bill Shea wrote me regarding the same subject off forum and I can see a lot of people have a large problem with the distinction between the two. I thought of responding with what would require a lengthy post but instead I'll give everyone a source to read so you can slowly digest all the nuances involved. No, not Webster's dictionary. I'll refer you all to Black's Law Dictionary which is available in any library and probably on the Internet. Look for "Proof." Do not bother looking up "evidence." It will only confuse you more. In my book it begins on page 1093 and continues on page 1094. It will be necessary for you to read that section very carefully and not try to take one sentence out of context in order to make it come out the way you want it. I'll hammer anyone who tries that you can be assured. <G>

I suspect to some it will still not be clear. If that is the case I would suggest getting on with life and dealing with something easier. You are not being had. Ric is using the terms in the correct manner in spite of the attempts to take HIM out of context too.

You guys are playing with words when you most likely ALL know better. If you truthfully can't grasp this area, switch areas and only deal with non technical, non scientific, non precise subjects like philosophy, meditation, spiritualism and auras. Carol Dow can help there.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:50:51 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Tires

I doubt that this would be a new thought, but with the recent WoF discussion, maybe it's time to hash over the possibility of finding rubber artifacts that could have come from the Electra's wheels. I believe you (or Dr. King) mentioned a desire to do some further searching in the village next year (I hope the recent storm hasn't wiped it clean). Rubber is pretty durable stuff (might be hard, semi-crystallized and/or vulcanized after half a century, but still intact). Are there post-use rubber artifacts on Niku? Little squares of rubber make great hinges. The next obvious question is; is it possible to distinguish 1930s Goodyear aircraft tire rubber from any other rubber, like 1940s three quarter ton Dodge Weapons Carrier tire rubber? Obviously if the piece is large enough to determine size, shape, diameter etc. we're good to go, but I wouldn't expect big enough pieces (short of the whole tire like the one already found) for this kind of analysis. I'm thinking chemical analysis of the rubber compound itself. I realize we can't go to an historic aircraft museum and surreptitiously whip out our trusty Swiss army knife and shave off a few inches of tire rubber to submit it for analysis. I'm hoping Goodyear has historical records that could tell us the exact chemical compound of their tires. If not I live close to the Pima Air Museum......(oh never mind).

Anyway, I just thought rubber stuff could expand the list of potential artifacts.

LTM (who used to have a rubber bathing suit)
Kerry Tiller
**********************************************************************
From Ric

I suspect you'd find that back then rubber was rubber.  We've discovered that aircraft aluminum was not distinguishable from some of the stuff that's still used today and plexigas/perspex/lucite is basically just polymethylmethacrylate (I hope I spelled that right).

I don't recall that we've found any rubber in the village but little squares really aren't going to help us anyway.  We need stuff that is distinctive enough to be conclusively identifiable as part of that particular airplane. That's a tall order.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:56:47 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      No forum for a week

Sorry to be a spoil-sport but I'm going to have to put the forum on a one week vacation.  We have a board of directors meeting on Thursday and an expedition debriefing and research conference starting on Friday and running through the weekend.  Then we're going to try to take Monday off.  The forum will resume on Tuesday, August 26.

See you then.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:49:10 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Betty & Mabel

Do I assume correctly that "Hyde Park" is the Roosevelt Library? The library is on line, but the material available on line so far is very limited.  Their index (which is on line) does show that there is some Earhart material available. Art, keep up the good work.

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

That's right.  Art is there in person and will do a thorough search of not only the Earhart material but also the Morgenthau transcripts.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:50:28 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

> Consequently we spend most of our time haggling about
> principles that should have been learned in high school.

Actually all the opposers are doing is pointing out something EVERYONE already knows -- that there are in many cases other possible explanations in some cases, however dubious. No one has ever done more than that that I am aware of.

Folks, we all know that and have since the beginning. Do you want to argue probabilities? So you don't waste your valuable time I'll tell you what they are. One hundred percent or zero. It either IS or ISN'T. No woman is a little bit
pregnant. She either IS pregnant or she ISN'T.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:11:06 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Betty & Mabel

>(3) Ray Havens of Great Falls, Montana reported hearing a
> radio message at 1:40 am EST 7/8/37 purportedly from Amelia Earhart in
> which she said "All's well, position 5 degrees South, 173 degrees West"
> (Niku is centered at 4.3 South, 173.13 West) (NYT 7/9/37).

Niku is actually 4:40S 174 32W.

According to USN, W McBryde to Lexington, reported xmission was Friday July 9th not 8th. According to Tighar the NYHT report was in the edition of July 9th. However, USN has name Haver rather than Havens which casts doubt on its accuracy and it is possible both reports are a day late concerning the time of xmission.

Regards angus.

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

Art and I talked about the lat/long for Gardner.  I was supposed to correct it before posting it but I forgot.

Haver and Havens are two different events.  Haver, as you say, was reported to USS Lexington by W. McBryde on July 13th as:

FROM WINNIPEG MANITOBA QUOTE COMMANDER USS LEXINGTON REPORT OF AMATEUR RADIO MR HAVER US FRIDAY JULY NINTH GAVE POSITION 173 W DASH 5 SOUTH ISLAND JESUS IN VICINITY ALSO ISLAND NAMELESS ON COURSE FARTHER NORTH 171 W DASH 3 S CONSIDER THESE ISLANDS BE INCLUDED IN SEARCH SIGNED W MCBRYDE

The only mention we've found of Havens was in the July 9 New York Herald Tribune:

"Another radio amateur, Ray Havens, Great Falls, Mont. creamery worker, said last night he heard messages apparently from the Earhart plane saying "All's well." at position of 5 degrees south latitude and 173 degrees west.  That would be just west of Hull Island, one of those described by Bryan as being dangerous for a landing."

The reference to "Bryan" is to a published description of the islands of the Phoenix Group.  When Bryan wrote of "dangerous landing" he was not talking about airplanes but about whaleboats landing over the reef.

Both the Haver and the Havens events come long after most of the post-loss receptions have stopped and at a time when speculation that the plane came down somewhere in the Phoenix Group was rife.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:19:14 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Rebuttals

Well I think we agree about the importance of finding the skull for if the evidence does show a Caldwell Luc procedure, we can be darn certain it was AE.

The research of the operation has taken up about 67 pages in a three ring notebook, but I think it was well worth the effort. Goldstein did the operation, with Dr. Finneman finding the records in the file. Only senior Dr. Finneman (deceased now) could relate the observation of the file; efforts to locate that file which is mentioned by Goerner, has so far been negative. ( I believe we have forwarded a report of that research to Tighar)

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

It would be great to find the skull.  Evidence of a Caldwell-Luc procedure would be an important piece of supporting evidence.  Absence of any indication of a Caldwell-Luc procedure would be strong negative evidence.  DNA (probably from a surviving tooth) would be a slam-dunk either way.  I think we are much more likely to find a tooth on Gardner than we are to find the skull anywhere.

If the number of pages of research were a measure of the quality of the research or the likelihood of a correct conclusion the Earhart mystery would have been solved decades ago.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:21:08 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Betty & Mabel

> So, the Roosevelt request is not in his speeches and not in the New York
> Times (at least for July and August).
> Ric: how much effort is this worth and how do you want me to proceed?

Art,

This is very useful research. Great work! I think it is important to try to pin down the mythical Roosevelt request if at all possible. Of course if it really happened, it could well have been made by radio or reported by radio as being FDR's wishes (whether that was true or not) although it is true that Betty at least certainly remembers it as being in the paper.

My guess is that later publications rather than other publications of a similar date range are a better bet since it may have been a roundabout way of saying "The search is over. AE & FN cannot possibly still be alive. Let it go and don't raise false hopes for friends and relations from reporting messages that must be hoaxes". I quote Ric:

"but she (Betty) clearly recalls that some time after the search for Earhart had ended - may be a month, maybe as much as three months - there was a piece in the newspaper in which President Roosevelt asked everyone to just drop the whole matter of Earhart's disappearance".

The chances are that the issue of closure of the matter would be likely to have been raised later when there seemed no conceivable chance they were still alive.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:19:45 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Havens or Haver?

> Haver and Havens are two different events.

I really wonder if they were.

The NYHT reports a Ray Havens of Great Falls MT. My guess is that this was not Montana but Manitoba. MT sounds very like MB if the report was telephoned or radioed. Mr Haver was reported from Winnipeg Manitoba and there is a Great Falls outside Winnipeg on the Winnipeg river. The date was the same (9th July) and the position given was the same. Seems rather a coincidence to say the least!

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

MT sounds a lot like MB but the use of MT as the abbreviation for the state of Montana dates only from 1963 when the states were given two-letter designations as part of the standardization that went along with the new "zip code" system.  Prior to that time Montana was typically abbreviated as "Mont." (as it is in the NYHT story).

The only coincidence I see in the two stories is the mention of 5 degrees south latitude and 173 degrees west which might be explainable as a generic location for the Phoenix Islands that anyone might pull off a map.  Otherwise the reported content of the two messages is completely different.  They're not even on the same day.  Havens' reception reportedly occurred on the night of the 8th.
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:48:30 EDT
From:         John Luttrell
Subject:      Where's the forum?

What's happened to my forum e-mails??? I haven't received any in the last few days. By the way....when will your message matrix be released??

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

If you receive this the problem is fixed, but AOL's new anti-spam filter has been zapping forum traffic before it gets to me.

The Post-Loss Radio Study is coming along - slow but sure.  A draft copy of the first section is presently being reviewed by the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC).
=========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:58:46 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Back in business

Sorry 'bout that.  AOL's attempts to filter spam got a little too enthusiastic and treated forum posting submissions as spam starting sometime last Friday. Consequently, nothing got through to me here.  We and a bunch of other list owners started screaming bloody murder as soon as we figured out what was happening and they just managed to get it fixed about an hour ago.

Unfortunately it means that any posting that was submitted since Friday (with the exception of a couple that were sent directly to me) got eaten by AOL so I'll have to ask you to resubmit them.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:50:27 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      The Sextant Box

In the Bulletin #18 dated 11/28/99 there appears to be a box between the two suitcases in the photo area that was cropped for analysis.  Has this box been subjected to analysis and could it be FN's sextant box?

If so, can the box be compared in any way to the one shown in Bulletin # 12 dated 1/13/99 (the box from Pensacola)?

The reasons for asking:  1) It seems logical that FN would carry this box with him, as would he have carried a suitcase, to the airplane just before departure.  2) The picture shown in Bulletin # 18 seems to show last minute items e.g. thermos bottles, suitcases, etc. to be loaded aboard the airplane.  3) The Pensacola box is reported as having dovetailed joints. as does Gallagher's report and possibly the one in Bulletin # 18.  4) What little can be seen in the "the  #18 web photo" the carrying handle appears to be the same as the one in Pensacola, (could a closer in enhancement show the latches, if any) and 5) maybe, just maybe we could pin down the possibility that at least the one looking like it's about to be boarded (# 18) is similar to the one known to have been owned by FN i.e. (# 12) the Pensacola box.

Wouldn't it be neat if we had an x-ray view through the suitcase in front of the box (if that's what it is) so we could see any numbers.
**************************************************************
From Ric

In the original photo, the case or box you're referring to quite clearly opens along the top edge like a case for storing files, not like a suitcase or like the Pensacola sextant box.
=========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:58:26 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Where's the wheel

> We'd very much like to have a current satellite photo for comparison to the
> one we had taken in April 2001 but we had to special-order (and pay for) that
> photo from Space Imaging.  That's the only way to get satellite imagery of Niku.

How much if I may ask?

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

Special half-price deal - $3,000.  I should also mention that normally if you pay Space Imaging to take a satellite photo for you they retain ownership of the photo.  You pay for rights to specific use.  In the case of the Niku satphoto they made an exception and released the photo into the public domain.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:25:51 EDT
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Lae Airfield Photo.

There is a slightly earlier photo (4th Jan 1943) at

www.users.senet.com.au/~mhyde/new_guinea_airfields.htm

This gives a better view of the airfield layout and the Guinea Airways buildings (well their remains anyway).   The link  New Guinea Operations   shows an attack on Lae airfield by USAF aircraft but this only shows the area between the strip and the nearby road.     Another shot shows an RAAF attack on "an airfield near Lae" but I don't think this is Lae Airfield but possibly Nadzab where the Japanese also had a strip.    None of this advances our cause at all but I thought it might be of interest.   The airfield photo does show that your positioning of the Guinea Airways hangar in the Lae Gallery photo was pretty accurate, or perhaps Pat did it!
Jack Clark
#2564.
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:43:28 EDT
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Theories of Disappearance

In a previous post I wrote: "We know that AE and FN were on the 157/337 LOP at 8:43 am, and planned to continue running 'north and south' on that line."

To which Alan Caldwell replied:  "Specifically just how do 'we' know any of that? I don't know it nor do I know anyone else who knows that.  Enlighten me."

Well, goodness knows, Alan, I'll try.  Earhart's last confirmed xmission, recorded at 8:43 am Itasca time 7/2/37, was: "KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337 WE WL REPT MSG WE WL REPT N ES S THIS ON 6210KCS WAIT, 3105/A3 S5 (?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON43 LINE 43"  [Source:  TIGHAR Tracks, October 1996]   My statement was a fair representation of Earhart's words as they have traditionally been interpreted.

Now it is true that, in a metaphysical sense, I don't "know" whether Earhart said or did anything of the sort.  Maybe she said "I shoulda toined left at Albuquerque," or "Merry Christmas," or nothing at all, and Bill Galten just decided to have a little fun with us.  I don't "know" that AE was on the line 157/337 when she said she was.  In the same sense I don't "know" that you wrote the above message bearing your name, or indeed whether there is a real person named Alan Caldwell.

But at some point in historical investigation we have to rely upon inferences derived from trustworthy sources; otherwise historical investigation comes to a grinding halt under the cry of "We Can't Know Anything."  How do we know Jeanne d'Arc existed?  No trace of her is left.  The transcript of her trial could be a work of fiction. Yet her statue is in every French village, and Mark Twain thought her the most remarkable person the human race has ever produced.

It's an old lawyer trick -- impeaching the witness's credibility by attacking the basis of his knowledge.  Every time the witness says he "knows" something, you demand to know how he knows that.  Go far enough back and the witness will be forced to admit that some aspect of his testimony relies upon an assumption.   Then you attack the assumption.  If successful you will cut the legs out from under his testimony.

In my case, I'm assuming that Galten recorded Earhart's words more or less faithfully.  Go to it.

Pat Gaston
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll weigh in here.  I think there is more reason to doubt the accuracy of Galten's transcription of the 08:43 transmission than there is to doubt the accuracy of other transmissions but, even so, I think that it is reasonable to say that Earhart believed she was on the 157/337 line at that time.  The assumption that she was intending to continue to run north and south on the line is not, in my opinion, supported by the log.   The entry as written in the original log can be interpreted in one of two ways depending on when you think Galten rolled the platen up and typed "N ES S". If he waited until he got to the end of the line (which seems the most logical) , the message is: "We are running on line north and south."

If he rolled the platen up and typed N ES S before rolling it back down to type "line", the message is: "We are running on north and south line."

In either case, it describes their present action.  Not their future intention.

LTM
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:46:14 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Still a problem?

I received only two forum posting submissions today, one from Jack Clark and one from Pat Gaston, neither of which came through the Listserve system but rather as emails directly to TIGHAR1@aol.com.

This makes me suspect that AOL does not yet have the spam-filter problem licked.

Ric

========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:22:46 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Still a problem?

Thanks to all of those (Bob, Jim, Herman) who sent test messages.  Looks like everything is back to normal.
=========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:32:26 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Pat Gaston says:

>In my case, I'm assuming that Galten recorded Earhart's words more or less
>faithfully.  Go to it.

Apparently you didn't read the posting that followed as you completely missed my point. Ric, has a problem with the message itself but I didn't even reach that issue. The point I made, if you will read both postings, is that I have no doubt they were on some course heading 157/337 but there is nothing to suggest it was the line that went through Howland and so could be any parallel to the infamous LOP. It is difficult to believe they would run up and down the exact same line for an hour and not check east and west somewhat.

I am not arguing they didn't say what the radio operator wrote down. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't but nothing in the message indicates they were on the original LOP if in fact it existed or what they intended to do from then on. Depending on Noonan's confidence in their position they could have been 20 or 40 miles to the East or west and those figures are only guesses.

So, the bottom line is we don't know where they were at 8:43 or what they intended to do thereafter.

My GUESS of what would be logical is that, if they arrived believing they were north of track, they would turn right on what Noonan believed was a line that would take him through Howland. Not finding Howland after flying a piece he would turn back to the NW and fly a parallel course at such distance to the East or west as to provide the maximum search in his estimation. I would GUESS he would do that on both sides of his original LOP but not on it again.

To me that would be a logical approach but of course it is mere speculation but I cannot imagine he would still be on the same old LOP an hour later.

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

I think that from "We must be on you ..." at 07:42 and "We are on the line 157/337..." at 08:43 it is entirely logical to conclude that they at least believed that they were on the advanced LOP that passed through Howland.  I, for one, do not find it difficult to believe that they would explore one way along that line for some period of time, then backtrack and proceed the other way along the line during a period of one hour and not deviate east or west.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:11:39 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum is fine

The forum software seems to be operating just fine now.  There were no postings yesterday (Saturday) because some other stuff came up and I just didn't get to it. Mea culpa.

I'll get it caught up today.  There will also be no forum on Monday (the Labor Day holiday in the U.S.) and Tuesday (when I have to be out of the office all day).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================


Date:         Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:19:52 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Alan wrote:

> ... I have
> no doubt they were on some course heading 157/337 but there is nothing to
> suggest it was the line that went through Howland and so could be any
> parallel to the infamous LOP.

I'm with you 99% on this one.

A "LOP" is just a line of position drawn on a chart.

The more LOPs a navigator uses, and the closer together the observations are from which they are derived, the greater the likelihood that the intersections will reflect the navigator's real position on the earth.

I'm morally certain that AE & FN thought that they had reached ***a*** line of position that would bring them to Howland by heading either NNW (337) or SSE (157).

> It is difficult to believe they would run up and down the
> exact same line for an hour and not check east and west somewhat.

Since we're all out of messages after the 157/337 message, your guess is as good as anyone else's, maybe better if you know more about celestial navigation.

As the sun got higher and higher in the sky, Fred might have been able to get more "cuts" from it that would be different from the dawn observation (which, people have argued and I believe) was probably the origin of the 157/337 line.  IF he did get more cuts from the sun, and IF the LOPs derived were at a different angle from the dawn LOP, and IF he correctly advanced the dawn LOP by dead-reckoning, THEN he might have gotten a progressively better idea of where they were as the morning wore on and they might have changed direction on the basis of the new information.

But that's all speculation.

> ... nothing in the message indicates they were on the original LOP
> if in fact it existed or what they intended to do from then on.

A LOP is a line of position drawn on a chart.

By the time Fred could make an observation and draw a line, the airplane would have moved pass the original line of position on the face of the earth.  By drawing a parallel line through his objective and by knowing the track they were making good across the "ground" from compass heading & drift, Fred could make a rough estimate of when they would cross a different, but parallel, LOP from the one derived from the dawn sighting.  The clock starts counting down after he's got that calculation made. If they don't get a bearing from Howland or sight it by the time his calculations show they are crossing the advanced LOP, it's time for them to turn on it NNW or SSE.

Seems to me that it is a reasonable inference that between the "must be on on you" message and the "157/337" message, they made the turn onto the advanced LOP.

> So, the bottom line is we don't know where they were at 8:43 or what they
> intended to do thereafter.

Agreed.  They were probably heading 337 or 157 at the time of the message, but without knowing the actual location from which they made that turn to heading, we don't know where they were and (it seems) neither did they.

Ric wrote

> I think that from "We must be on you ..." at 07:42 and "We are on the line
> 157/337..." at 08:43 it is entirely logical to conclude that they at least
> believed that they were on the advanced LOP that passed through Howland.

Agreed.

> I, for one, do not find it difficult to believe that they would explore
> one way along that line for some period of time, then backtrack and proceed the
> other way along the line during a period of one hour and not deviate east
> or west.

I don't know enough about navigating from a cockpit to have a settled view on this.  Would Fred just sit on his hands for the NNW and SSE leg?  Would he try other techniques? Would he be busy just keeping AE on a proper heading across the "ground"?  Would he be busy watching for the island to appear?  Would their altitude or the clouds preclude getting another cut?

LTM.

                Marty #2359
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Running on the advanced LOP is the best technique available to them for finding land.  If they are running SE at 08:43 and far enough south to not see Baker, by the time the sun has moved enough to get a meaningful cut, if they do, they're already too far SE to make it all the way back to Howland.
=========================================================================


Date:         Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:22:35 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric wrote:

>I, for one, do not find it difficult to believe that they would explore one
>way along that line for some period of time, then backtrack and proceed the
>other way along the line during a period of one hour and not deviate east or
>west.

Speculating rationally ...<G>

As I said, what they did might well depend on Noonan's confidence and/or belief in his position. If he was quite confident in his east/west position then deviating would not be likely. One hour is not very much time to search and if you game that out on paper there is not adequate time to do much of a search pattern. Within 20 miles they ought to have seen some sign of Howland be it only water color. Thirty miles off course might well lead them to fly some sixty miles or so SE then if they flew the same distance back to the NW they would easily use up their hour. Whatever distance they flew they did not see Howland off to either side which should have told them either their 157/337 course was off to the East or west more than 20 miles or their inbound course was really blown or both, of course. All the above is predicated on them arriving north of course. If they were south the result would be similar.

In either case there doesn't seem to me to be sufficient time to do much more than back track over the same stretch of ocean which doesn't compute to me. If they were a minimum of 30 miles off course and flew 60 SE they had only time to fly another 60 back to the NW. If they flew the same track it would be ocean they already searched. If they only flew 30 SE then 60 back to the NW that would leave only 30 more miles to fly and it wouldn't make much difference where they flew them. They would have overflown 30 miles they had already searched, 30 new miles and 30 to go somewhere else.

Any greater distance would not have given them any significant search at all.

The 8:43 radio call for whatever it meant doesn't indicate to me they had abandoned the search and were heading off somewhere. If we want them on the ground fairly soon thereafter and that ground is Niku then they had to be considerably south of Howland, searching first to the NW then to the SE and continuing on to Niku. In every case they also had to be off east/west more than 20 miles otherwise they would have to be grossly north or south of Howland. If north they also had to be off east/west. If south, not so.  This requires Noonan to be incredibly lost in my estimation unless they were also more than 20 miles off east/west. For example they could have arrived 30 miles to the South and 30 miles short or long and no matter how far on the 157/337 course they flew or in which direction they first turned they would never see Howland.

Alan
=========================================================================


Date:         Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:25:32 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Theories of Disappearance

Alan wrote:

>Apparently you didn't read the posting that followed as you completely
>missed my point.

I didn't miss the point, and the fact is that what you said in reply to my post (mistakenly addressed to another Forum member) is not what you are saying now.  I'm not going to waste any more breath on this topic because when you are confronted, you simply deny making the previous comment or claim you were misinterpreted.

Ric, I agree with you (!!!) that it's completely logical to conclude AE and FN thought they were on the "true" LOP that passed through Howland.  We differ in that I don't think it would have been logical to keep heading SSE on the LOP if she was truly running on fumes, or thought she was.  Under this scenario, and confident that they "must be on" Howland, my guess is that they would have run up and down the LOP for a time, then perhaps switched to a box pattern. It all comes down to what AE meant when she reported she was "low on fuel" at 7:42 am.  We Sankers take her literally.  You don't.  It's a matter of private interpretation and there's no "right" or "wrong" -- at least until the Electra is found.

Regards

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================


Date:         Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:31:45 EDT
From:         Daryll
Subject:      The LOP argument

Ric wrote:

>I think that from "We must be on you ..." at 07:42 and "We are on the
>line 157/337..." at 08:43 it is entirely logical to conclude that they
>at least believed that they were on the advanced LOP that passed through
>Howland. I, for one, do not find it difficult to believe that they would
>explore one way along that line for some period of time, then backtrack
>and proceed the other way along the line during a period of one hour and
>not deviate east or west.

I'm just trying to be logical too, even I agree with what Ric said.

Using a conservative true air speed of 130 knots that means that 130 nautical miles could have been covered on the LOP in one direction during an hour.

Ric says ; "I, for one, do not find it difficult to believe that they would explore one way along that line for some period of time, then backtrack and proceed the other way...". I agree with that too.

Let's say we divide that 130 nautical miles by 2 = 65 nautical miles which would suggest looking in one direction and then the other direction on the LOP in that allotted time period. Why back track over the same miles ?? Recall that the Itasca logged the signal strength at 5 at 07:58. To most of us that represents the Electra's closest approach to the Itasca and Howland. At 08:00-03 AE says she couldn't get a minimum on 7500. This is the first time she confirms hearing anything from the Itasca. It is entirely logical to assume if you have been looking in one direction and THEN get a clue (hearing signals) that you are looking in the wrong direction, you turn around and would look in the other direction, covering the same miles you have just flown over to look for a few more miles that you had missed earlier.

Now if we position that 65 mile range allowance on the LOP and add 20 miles visibility that the Itasca reported, we have a hypothetical 85 nautical miles as the farthest possible point from Howland on the LOP when a decision had to be made as to what they should do.

08:43 was a half hour beyond their "half hour of fuel". The Itasca believed they could have stayed in the air until 12:00 noon.

During that hour of flying, Noonan could have confirmed that they were on the actual  LOP that ran through Howland using additional sun-shots. AE was down to 1000 feet so Noonan could estimate the wind drift from the sea state.

The Niku hypothesis has to have the above taking place south of Howland and Baker. The "281 scenario" places the above taking place north of Howland.

The Niku hypothesis asks us to believe that they proceeded for 3+ hours looking for a similar sized spot in the ocean that didn't have a Baker sized island even close to it.

The "281 scenario" is supported by archived post loss messages. "Point AE" is within a few miles of the above 85 mile range north of Howland on the LOP. By July 5th when the "281 message" was received, Noonan had had a chance to get a star fix during the several nights after splash down. This accounts for him knowing that they were "...NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH..." on the 5th when he didn't know that as the events were unfolding on the 2nd.

We don't hear anything from them after 08:43 because a decision had been made to abandon the search for Howland and go back to the Gilberts. By 10:00 Itasca time they were near the 180th meridian. Noonan's Howgozit chart was controlling the flight because fuel WAS the controlling factor in any trans-oceanic flight. He alone knew what amount of fuel they had and what they could do with it. It was his Pan Am training that he bought with him on the world flight.

Daryll
*******************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not going to take the time to correct the many errors and unwarranted assumptions in the above but I will ask you to explain how the 281 message could have been sent from an aircraft that "splashed down".