Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 11:24:42 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Amelia Hears W4OK. Okay, how? > What folks are doing is creating a scenario based solely on insupportable > assumptions and then arguing about it. Talk about tilting at > windmills................ Alan, substitute "hard evidence" for "scenario" in the above statement, and you'll have the situation down exactly. Hue ********************************************************************** From Ric Let's see... that would be: > What folks are doing is creating "hard evidence" based solely on insupportable > assumptions and then arguing about it. Talk about tilting at > windmills................ Yeah, that's about right. ********************************************************************* From Bob Brandenburg > What folks are doing is creating a scenario based solely on insupportable > assumptions and then arguing about it. Talk about tilting at > windmills... Alan, Amen!!!! My interest was merely to dispose of the technical aspect of this matter. It is by no means necessary that AE learned Carroll's call sign via radio. There are many other ways she could have acquired it, but it doesn't really matter how. Nor can it be concluded that W4OK was the only call sign Amelia had, merely because it was the only one in Betty's notebook. Bob ************************************************************* From Cam Warren Alan says: >Actually you want us to believe she was NEVER aware of any ham radios. This >is nonsense. I don't think so. Judging from Earhart's cavalier attitude about radio in general, and consequent lack of knowledge, I 'd guess her awareness of ham radio was next to nothing. Cam Warren ***************************************************************** From Ric Earhart's association with the Los Angles area ham community goes back at least to 1935 when Walter McMenamy provided some assistance during her Honolulu/Oakland flight. There's a photo of McMenamy standing with Earhart at a microphone in front of the Vega after her arrival in Oakland. ******************************************************************* From Ron Bright Re: Shortwave help for AE In Brinks book,p.68 and on, he describes how the Radio Relay League, a worldwide organization of hams, were to be involved with AE';s first flight, going west. He mentions several LA operators, including McMenamy and Pierson, but on page70, lists a Jacques Berlant, at New York City, who was to play an instrumental part at AE's New York headquarters. It stands to reason the RRL would be a part of the second try, but I have no evidence of that. As Alan suggested, AE was undoubtedly given a list of the Hams en route and the call signs.(None were listed in Florida). But it is remarkable that New York was the location of a ham. Could it be possible AE tried to contact him since it was a "headquarters" link. There are four or five references to New York or NY, in Betty's notebook. Could someone look up his call sign? LTM, REB ********************************************************************* From Ric Brink's book is, for the most part, a tissue of lies but I know there was (and I believe still is) a Radio Relay League and it may be that Jaques Berlant in New York did play some role in the Earhart saga. We need to find out. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 11:26:17 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Daryll said . . . Daryll said: >Who was making the quote, who's mouth was moving, is my >question? Was AE speaking the words and Noonan was standing next to her shaking >his head in the affirmative? Unless you can produce a reliable non-hearsay >quote by Noonan about his lack of Morse capabilities then it is still pretty much >up in the air and just a PR comment of the moment. Noonan's background and >experience (head of navigation?) with PAA was pretty well separated from the PR >of the "world flight". What AE said can be believable from her standpoint but >becomes a little harder to believe from Noonan's standpoint when there is >conflicting evidence. Daryll, are you saying that Noonan was, at the least, competent in Morse, but let AE tell everyone that neither she nor he could copy or transmit Morse? Boy, if that was me I'd been real pissed. If I am capable of doing something and my friend is telling everyone she talks to that I'm not, and I learn of it, I think I'd straighten her out in a hurry. Wouldn't you? Noonan had several opportunities over the course of the world flight to set the record straight regarding his Morse capabilities if AE was misrepresenting his qualifications. He never, to my knowledge, disputed her statements. His silence speaks volumes. LTM, who is back from the edge Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 11:35:20 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF >Why do you believe an undocumented allegation by Anthony over an undocumented >allegation by Safford? Both "allegations" are documented, as you should know. And I think you'll agree both gentlemen were Earhart contemporaries, and highly credible sources. further - >Do you >develop some kind of "feel" for the truth? Yes. Cam Warren ********************************************************************** From Ric I can only conclude that you don't even know what documentation is. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 11:41:31 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: W40K Speculation What If? For W40K Speculators, For the sake of W40K speculation - What if more than one hand was responsible for the authorship of Betty's notebook? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ********************************************** From Ric I know of no reason to think that unless you're suggesting that Betty is lying. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 11:45:23 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Ric's question Ric says to Darryl - >Cam Warren seems to agree with your original statement that Safford thought >the Howland HFDF came from a PBY. I've tried to find some reference to that in >Cam's edited and expanded republication of Safford's book but it's so rambly >and poorly indexed that i can't find anything. In the hard bound edition of "Earhart's Flight Into Yesterday" (chapter 13, "The Radio Direction Finder", page 158) you'll find the following: "There was another HF/DF involved in the flight. This one, described as a 'back-up system,' and operating on Earhart's main frequency of 3105 kc, was set up on Howland Island. Capt. Safford thought this equipment was 'borrowed' from a PBY undergoing an overhaul at the Fleet Air Base, Pearl Harbor. (A good guess, but apparently incorrect.) Much later however, his friend, Chief Radio Electrician Henry M. Anthony, USCG (later Commander) revealed that it was an experimental portable model borrowed from the Navy Radio Intercept Station at He'eia, Hawaii. Although nominally in charge of all radio intercept activities at the time, Safford might not have been fully informed of what was essentially an "off the record" operation, involving - to some extent - Richard Black, Army Lt. Cooper, and Paul Mantz." Sorry to be so "rambly", but you asked for it, and we like to be helpful to our dedicated readers. Cam Warren ***************************************************************** From Ric So Safford was just guessing and Anthony's revelation was an anecdotal recollection many years later. And THIS is what you call documentation??? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 11:47:32 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Audio recording interviews? I would appreciate input from anyone on a good modern way to record a phone interview. I am thinking of something newer & better than a cassette tape deck, altho i do still have an older phone answering machine that claims it can do this. (Maybe private offlist mail is best for this?) Thanks- Hue Miller ( write kargo_cult and that's at msn dot com ) ( anti spambot measures) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:39:42 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF >As for the Morse key(s): >W. A. Titus, of Western Electric, says Amelia sent him back one key from >Miami; Joe Gurr claimed to have the other one. I saw that information in Lovell's book in Ch 19 but it was Lovell writing that and it wasn't footnoted so I don't know where that came from. Is there some documented source for W.A. Titus' statement? As for C.B. Allen's quote it is not in Lovell's book, Cam so you must have it in your Allen file some place. Is that correct? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:40:45 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF >And to answer Alan's question; Safford was apparently incorrect that it >was from a PBY. Thanks, Cam. I have photos of all the radio equipment in the old PBY's and will post them to you when I get time so you can tell me what all those boxes are. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:41:56 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fact and fiction Ron, my complaint was that the statement posted that Thompson said the 281 message was a hoax was not ALSO qualified that there was no support for the statement. Ric had to add that. By now most of us can recognize which statements have been supported but newer folks can't. Anyone who did not see Ric's response could now easily believe the 281 message WAS a hoax and discard that piece of possible evidence. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:43:11 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF >Alan, not sure i understand the question, Hue, that is only because I didn't make a very clear question. Let me try again. I'm confused about the dynamotor spinning up problem. Your comment was about turning the transmitter off and on and I was wondering if just keying the mike and releasing it caused anything to occur with the dynamotor. Keying the mike is not the same as turning the transmitter on and off is it? If this still isn't clear email me separately so we don't bore everyone else with my radio ignorance. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:22:41 EST From: Daryll Subject: Safford's quotes COPIED FROM SAFFORD'S MANUSCRIPT. Preface; Pref-7 2nd para "......From 1936 through 1941 all the Navy's high-frequency direction finders (used for intelligence purposes) were under my cognizance and also the coastal intermediate-frequency D/Fs (used for navigation) until July 1941......" **************************************************** pg. 1-4 Safford acknowledges 2 different radios. 1st para; "Even the Western Electric Co. , makers of Miss Earhart's 50-watt transmitter and her all-wave receiving set,......" last para; "She was then striving frantically to get a bearing on the ITASCA through her own Bendix radio compass,..... ****************************************************** pg. 1-22 2nd para "I followed Miss Earhart's Around-the-World Flight with great interest and took advantage of her Oakland-to-Honolulu hop in March 1937 to try to arrange comparative tests of two experimental high-frequency direction-finders owned by the Navy and the Adcock high-frequency direction finders used by the Pan American Airways for guiding their "CLIPPERS" across the Pacific....." SEE preface ; (Unfortunately the test could not be carried out because both sets of Navy D/Fs were disabled at the time : see exhibits ___and___in the appendix.) ****************************************************** pg. 41 last para "....It is worthy of note that the significant words "ON SEVENTYFIVE HUNDRED" were omitted by Comdr. Thompson from his radio-report to Washington.... pg 42....and also from his written report to Honolulu. These words were likewise omitted from all publish accounts [last sentence underlined my note]." MY NOTES IN UPPERCASE. MORGENTHAU INTERVIEWED THOMPSON IN HAWAII. IF THOMPSON'S OMISSIONS ABOUT 7500 WERE INTENTIONAL, THEN THIS COULD BE THE BASIS FOR MORGENTHAU'S STATEMENT ABOUT EARHART "DISOBEYING ORDERS" IN MAY '38'. ****************************************************** pg. 77 1st para "Mrs. Morrissey had very little to add to the above account, but in a personal letter she stated: "I do not know the names of the ships that went searching the South Pacific. I know George Putnam had published at the time (late in 1937), 'A List of Books to take on a Sea Voyage' ". CHECK TO SEE IF THERE IS A NOURMAHAL CONNECTION TO THIS PUBLICATION. Ie DID PUTNAM WANT SOME READING MATERIAL FOR THE CRUISE ON THE NOURMAHAL TRYING TO GET TO JALUIT **************************************************** pg 4-6 1st para ".....What she had not found out (and it cost her her life) was that she could take accurate bearings on frequencies above 1500 KC ONLY at distances of less than 100 miles and in some cases less than 50 miles. Amelia could not hear most of the ITASCA's homing signals because she was in the "skip-zone" and the signals were going high in the sky, over her head, and coming down to earth hundreds of miles beyond her......." last para "....To Miss Earhart's misconceptions about the Electra's loop D/F was added the hoax perpetrated by Richard B. Black of the Interior Department and Lt. Daniel A. Cooper of the Army Air Force. (incidentally this hoax interested the author in the Earhart flight and ultimately resulted in this book.) The so-called Navy high-frequency which these men brought aboard the Itasca and persuaded Comdr. Thompson to set-up and operate on Howland was a 24 volt, aircraft type of loop D/F, similar to the one in AE's plane - possibly its twin. To make a bad matter worst, these worthies forget to furnish a 24 volt battery to operate the blasted thing. The D/F in question had been "Moon-light Requisitioned" from a Navy patrol plane at the Fleet Air Base, Pearl Harbor, without the matter coming to the attention of anyone.....pg 4-7..... who knew anything about direction-finders and, consequently would have put a stop to it - and would have saved two lives by so doing. Richard Black later admitted (or rather boasted) to Fred Goerner - "I bought that D/F aboard the itasca. It was given to me by a Navy man at Pearl Harbor and it was a very hush-hush deal Actually it was an experimental model of some of the direction-finders we used during the war." Lient. Cooper, however, spilled the beans in his official report - "It is true an airplane direction finder capable of working 3105 KC had been borrowed from the Navy just prior to sailing. This was set up on Howland mainly as a standby in case the ship's direction finder on 500 KC should go out." The ITASCA's log merely states - "Received high frequency direction finder from Fleet Air Base, Pearl Harbor." ***************************************************** pg 4-8 "DIRECTION FINDER INSTALLED ON HOWLAND" "This fact was reported to Mr. G.P.Putnam, then in San Francisco, and he passed the news on to Miss Earhart who was then at Darwin, Australia.........Miss Earhart and Capt. Noonan had logical reason for believing that their recommendation made to the Coast Guard , four months earlier, ("PLANE SUGGESTS DIRECTION FINDER IS SET UP ON ISLAND, IF PRACTICAL") had been carried out and that a genuine high-frequency direction finder ( PAA Adcock or equivalent) was available to guide them safely in to Howland Island." ***************************************************** Daryll ************************************************************ From Ric You've done a great job of documenting how appallingly bad Safford was at historical research. He jumps to all kinds of conclusions and then states them as fact. Incidentally, Thompson did not omit the words "ON SEVENTYFIVE HUNDRED" from his report to Washington. They're right there on page 42 of "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight". In that same report, on page 5, Thompson explained the matter of the high-frequency direction finder this way: " Mr. Richard Black, Field Representative of Department of Interior, stated in conference on ITASCA that he had arranged with the Navy Department to supply the ITASCA with radiomen. This arrangement was not acceptable to the Commanding Officer of the ITASCA for the reason that the Coast Guard had sufficient radiomen to perform its work. Mr. Black and Lt. Cooper of the Army had the Navy send a high frequency direction finder on board. The Coast Guard did not request the equipment and did not receipt for it. In discussing the practicability of the high frequency direction finder equipment put on board the ITASCA by the Navy under the conditions mentioned above, it was the impression of the Coast Guard officers that limits of accuracy reasonable to be expected from this equipment in the circumstances which would obtain on Howland Island were decidedly not sufficiently close to warrant its use as a dependable navigational device to bring the plane safely to the island. It was considered desirable, however, to set the equipment up on Howland as an accessory precaution. It was the decision of the Coast Guard officers in conference that the procedure to be followed in connection with the radio navigational assistance to the Earhart plane in coming into Howland Island would be governed by the apparent desire of the plane to use its radio direction finder on signals sent by the ITASCA in the hope that in case of difficulty approximate bearings might be obtained which would be of some value. The TANEY transferred a radioman second class to the ITASCA." The radioman transferred from the TANEY was Frank Cipriani. There is no record of just what kind of HFDF Black and Cooper procured from the Navy but it's very clear that its presence was unwelcome and set off a turf war between Thompson and his guests. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:23:40 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: For Alan & Ric I'm sorry I asked the Morse code questions. Guys, I'm happy to believe and won't again question whether AE and/or FN were proficient to ANY degree in sending and/or receiving Morse Code. Actually I'm not sure what the significance is. All we have in this issue is two poorly sent Morse Code messages. There is NO issue about our heroes RECEIVING Morse Code, only sending. I accept they weren't good at it and the fact both messages were poor certainly doesn't contradict that. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:34:11 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: For Alan & Ric Ric wrote: > It's more than a comment by someone at Lae. Earhart herself repeatedly > specified that the Coast Guard should send only voice, and Chater is > very specific on this point. > "On enquiry Miss Earhart and Captain Noonan advised that they entirely > depended on radio telephone reception as neither of them were able to > read morse at any speed but could recognise an individual letter sent > several times. This point was again mentioned by both of them later when > two different sets at Lae were used for listening in for time signals." > What would convince you? There are a lot of open questions about the > Earhart disappearance but this ain't one of them. Ric, what makes Chater more credible than anyone else? Apart from the fact that his report is contemporary and in writing, there is no compelling reason to believe him. He states that before leaving Darwin for Lae, Earhart had advised via AWA (Australia) that she would be sending and receiving on 36 metres (approx. 8.3 MHz), and via Vacuum Oil Co. that she would be using 36.6 metres (approx. 8.2 MHz). On arrival, AE pointed out that she in fact had used 49 metres (approx. 6.1 MHz). Someone has clearly misrepresented the frequencies to be used. I'm not sure that Earhart was that person, since her life was at stake. So, how much credibility do we give to Chater? He did not explain the frequency discrepancy in his report, which makes me deeply suspicious that he was hiding something, possibly his own negligence or worse. He and his company (Guinea Airways Limited) were not impartial bystanders in this affair. It may turn out when this disappearance is finally explained, that Chater's report, in which you place so much faith, has survived only so that it might be an indictment of him and his conduct. Sometimes people lie, even in official reports, to minimise their own culpability. I note that Chater was killed October 13, 1941 when he was struck by a propeller. Neil Barnett Auckland, N.Z. ************************************************************************* From Ric Given Earhart's demonstrated incompetence in radio matters I have no trouble believing that the screw-up in frequencies on the Darwin/Lae flight was entirely her doing. Yes, sometimes people lie in official reports but we have to have some equally-well documented reason to accuse them of lying before we can make that charge. I see no reason to suspect Eric Chater of doing anything but representing the facts as he understood them to be. The fact that he was an aviation professional who was directly involved with Earhart and Noonan, and that he wrote his account shortly after the events he was recounting makes his letter the most credible source we have. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:50:39 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Morse sending I was thinking about morse the other day, after reading some of these posts, and i recalled some years back, i was using for ham radio, an old Navy radio built about 1943. That was roughly 8 years newer than AE's gear. It had 100 watts input power, simple receiver that tuned to 12,000; no selectivity adjustment just like AE's rig, pretty simple. I also was using a wire maybe 30 feet long along the lower edge of the roof. I was regularly able to make reliable contacts, chat-quality stability, from Washington state to So. California and Utah. That is about 1000 miles. I seemed to have trouble, with this particular setup, getting much further, like 2000 miles. I doubt, from experience, that i would have gotten 70 miles or so on voice. What got me thinking about this, is that IF AE had keyed the microphone for morse sending, I would think that would have put in a pretty good signal for anyone listening in the medium-distance Pacific area. ( These are night distances-daytime was zilch - maybe 40 miles. ) There might be a skip zone - i dunno yet about quite what that would be - maybe 60 ?? miles of no signal zone, but beyond at skip distances, the signal would definitely be usable. I guess i relate this to the Messier message - i would think instead of his partial copy, some ship or station in the Pacific area could have copied the text 100%. Purely anecdotal, yes; just me ruminating. Hue Miller ********************************************************************* From Ric Your experience is actually remarkably similar to the geographical distribution of the post-loss radio events. Fully 44% of all the events were reported by stations that were within 1,000 miles of the Howland Island (the search vessels, Howland itself, Nauru). Another 23% were reported by stations farther than 1,000 miles but less than 2,000 miles (Hawaii, Midway, Wake) but consisted almost entirely of weak carrier waves. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:51:37 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Audio recording interviews? First, I suggest Hue makes sure it is not illegal where he lives, to record a phone conversation. In some places notice is required (remember the old "beep"?) Here in Colorado, as long as one party to the conversation is aware it is being recorded, that is okay. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:16:05 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Documentation Much of the fuss here on the Forum seems to stem from what IS and what is NOT documentation. I would suggest, since we want this to be a reasonably scientific investigation, that Ric might expound a little on what that is. I know it has been done many times but the explanation doesn't seem to be sinking in. From my point of view, I will offer the following: 1. NOTHING merely written in a book, newspaper or magazine is documentation. It must be footnoted and the footnote, to be of value, cannot simply be the name of a person or another similar publication. 2. Official records work although it helps if there is more than one source. 3. NOTHING said by a second or third party is documentation. That's hearsay and not admissible in court. For example, in Cam's note he refers to Chief Radio Electrician Henry M. Anthony's revelation found in "Earhart's Flight into Yesterday." That is not footnoted or supported in any way. Anthony did NOT write that. Apparently Stafford did. I have no clue whether Anthony ever said what he supposedly said. Even Stafford's comments are not supported in any way. None of that is documentation. At best they are leads for further investigation. 4. No anecdote is documentation. 5. "Smoothed" radio logs are not documentation. The raw logs are. Having said that someone will complain that definition leaves us with virtually nothing. That's true if we're only talking about documented, supportable facts. But like in any investigation we use everything we can find, opinions, anecdotes, hearsay, periodicals, etc. TO LEAD TO SUPPORTABLE FACTS. Alan ************************************************************** From Ric I think your definition of documentation is too black and white to be of much use. In my view the key to assessing the value of documents starts with the recognition that "the dullest pencil is sharper than the sharpest memory". No document, no matter how contemporaneous with the event it purports to record, is necessarily perfect but time is the first measure we can apply. A raw log and a log that has been "smoothed" a few days later are both documentation, but given a contradiction between the two, raw trumps smoothed every time. Newspaper stories are documentation but, as anyone knows who has ever been the subject of one, more often than not at least some of the details are wrong. Some of the best forms of documentation are simple records of transactions - purchase orders, fuel receipts, etc. So there are lots of shades of gray within the various sources that we accept as "documentation". I do agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that anecdotes are never documentation, but we have to define anecdote. I would say that documentation is a written or photographic record generated in the context of the event in question or its immediate aftermath. Any later recollection about what happened, even if written down, is anecdotal. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:16:59 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Amelia Hears W4OK. Okay, how? Doesnt' someone have the 1937 Ham Operators book (if that is what it is called) to find out Berlant's call sign in 1937. Correction, the cite about that Ham network was in Brinks book but actually in an article in the LA Times on March 10, 1937 . I thought it noteworthy that the Berlant was a "New York City" ham, not just New York, a phrase that was found in Betty's notebook. REB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:19:11 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Amelia Hears W4OK. Okay, how? There are 2 NY ham calls named in the April '37 RADIO article. I do intend to copy and mail to Ric. One would wonder, if AE was working off the list, why she would bother to call a Florida ham. Her list had the high power ham stations in Hawaii and California listed; she had worked well with them in the past, on the flight to Hawaii. (But that was with Manning (?) aboard, who had more of the specialized skills. ) So why call W4OK ? Betty says she was all excited, like she was trying to get back to someone. Not, that AE was all excited about going down her list. Was she still excited about hearing W4OK 4 hours previous? If she really did hear W4OK, now that was something to get excited about, because as Bob Brandenburg has pointed out, the odds were miniscule that was possible. (I say Mr. Brandenburg is even generous with the odds - consider that all clues are that Carroll ran less than full legal power - which required a relay rack sized transmitter - that Carroll probably ran something like 100-200 watts; and that AE was receiving solely on the 1-foot diameter loop antenna. Which direction do those limits tilt the already slim odds? ( Yes, i know, it's still "nonzero" ! ) Betty does say AE was trying to get back to someone. The only callsigns in the notebook are W4OK and KGMB. The notebook account has AE fiddling with the headphones, indicating she did hear something. Altho the April '37 list may be incomplete - it says the California organizer was trying to recruit more stations - in addition, we may assume the magazine article was actually written 2 months before cover date- it seems from the available list, the US hams were west and east coast and Hawaii - plus numerous hams overseas. Also, the Howland station ( K6GNW ? i think ) is listed. Why call Florida? If she could hear hams, why not get all excited about the Hawaii and California stations she had heard calling her? But, the next 2 hours, no more calls to specific ham stations. Just cabin arguments, etc. Anyone going to tell me AE could NOT hear the California and Hawaii hams, and COULD instead hear moderate-power W4OK in Florida? Maybe Carroll did join the ham support network. Maybe he would have even mentioned that to his daughter - she was also a ham. Never mentioned it. As to whether hams were indiscriminately calling AE - maybe so. I will try to get some first hand witness. If a California ham could call her, why not Florida? Why not North Dakota, or Greenland? Why not try? Who cares about odds? I think we all agree that the evidence should be coherent, logical. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:20:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: To Hue Hue, you're right. The usual way we tape phone calls is inadequate. Radio Shack can help you and you might check with the engineer of your local radio talk show for the best way to achieve good audio. Using the answering machine capability is poor and so is putting a mike on the phone. It needs to be an intercept on the phone line and Radio Shack can help. If you strike out, let me know and I'll find something for you through one of my sources. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:22:11 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: NY hams > it may be that Jaques Berlant > in New York did play some role in the Earhart saga. We need to find out. The RADIO article: "When the plane hits Australia, George Putnam, husband of Amelia Earhart, will go to New York to be in closer contact with plane on the balance of the trip. [ HM: i don't get this. ] He will work with amateurs through stations W2APV and W2FPT [ No names given ]. " I suggest from experience using the radio, even AE had no illusion that she could reach NY from Niku. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:23:17 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: NY hams With the caveat that this article was from Apr '37. With lead time, i expect it was prepared around 2 months previous. That leaves half a year for additions to the group or network. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:30:16 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: "Ham Chain", Apr 1937 RADIO mag. article (long) Bob Brandenburg wrote: > It is by no means necessary that AE learned Carroll's call sign via > radio. There are many other ways she could have acquired it, but it > doesn't really matter how. Otherwise, how? By, as Alan suggested, by listening to hams back in the USA, then remembering or jotting down callsigns? Or was he somehow on her list? > Nor can it be concluded that W4OK was the > only call sign Amelia had, merely because it was the only one in > Betty's notebook. But, it was the one reported by Betty, who says AE was excited about getting back to someone. That's sustained excitement for several hours, but i guess it would be exciting to hear W4OK, considering the odds for it, that you outlined. Then, somehow for the next two hours, we have a live broadcast instead, with the engine running all time, apparently, to sustain the heavy current drain of the transmitter. Ric wrote: > Earhart's association with the Los Angles area ham community goes back at > least to 1935 when Walter McMenamy provided some assistance during her > Honolulu/Oakland flight. There's a photo of McMenamy standing with Earhart > at a microphone in front of the Vega after her arrival in Oakland. Ron Bright wrote: > In Brinks book,p.68 and on, he describes how the Radio Relay League, a > worldwide organization of hams, were to be involved with AE';s first flight, > going west. He mentions several LA operators, including McMenamy and Pierson, > but on page70, lists a Jacques Berlant, at New York City, who was to play an > instrumental part at AE's New York headquarters. It stands to reason the RRL > would be a part of the second try, but I have no evidence of that. > > As Alan suggested, AE was undoubtedly given a list of the Hams en route and > the call signs.(None were listed in Florida). > > But it is remarkable that New York was the location of a ham. Could it be > possible AE tried to contact him since it was a "headquaters" link. There > are four or five references to New York or NY, in Betty's notebook. Ric wrote: > Brink's book is, for the most part, a tissue of lies but I know there was > (and I believe still is) a Radio Relay League and it may be that Jaques > Berlant in New York did play some role in the Earhart saga. We need to find > out. The RADIO article: "When the plane hits Australia, George Putnam, husband of Amelia Earhart, will go to New York to be in closer contact with plane on the balance of the trip. [HM: i don't get this.] He will work with amateurs through stations W2APV and W2FPT [No names given]. " I suggest from experience using the radio, even AE had no illusion that she could reach NY from Niku. Here is something else: "Already amateur radio has had a chance to prove its worth, for on the first leg of the flight the plane was out of contact with the world for approximately four hours except for amateur station W6NNR on 75 meter phone and the plane, KHAQQ, on 3105 kc. phone and cw. [earlier flight with Manning ? aboard as navigator / radio op]. W6NNR was able to copy the plane's signals solid until the plane neared Honolulu, and they reported W6NNR's signals as being of good signal strength at all times during the hop. During the four hours that the signals of KHAQQ were inaudible except at W6NNR, all messages were relayed through this station until regular communications with the scheduled stations was resumed... "For several weeks Guy H. Dennis, owner-operator of the station [W6NNR, Los Angeles, California ], has been lining up a chain of amateur stations on the charted course of the plane around the globe. It was no easy task, and at the present time the chain is not entirely complete, though arrangements are being made to fill in the gaps before the plane will reach those positions on the globe. Miss Earhart will not rely upon amateurs for communication during flight except in emergencies. The amateur service will be supplementary, just as a precaution in case other communications should fail..." "For the reason that the contemplated places of call are not definite, it was necessary to line up amateurs all along the route, so that no matter where she should make a stopover, there would be an amateur station not too far away. The amateur stations will also assist in relaying messages back from the plane to the sponsors of the flight in the United States, and be available for sending orders for gasoline or other supplies, should the plane land in some out-of-the-way place..." "As an example of typical amateur cooperation K6AYD, K6CRW, and K6NTV at Maui labored three days straight to put on a 500 watt 75 meter [~ 3800 kHz] phone station at K6NTV...." "On Howland Island, next stop on the flight, is K6GNW, with whom W6NNR [Los Angeles] is keeping schedules [i.e. "regularly communicating with"]. "The amateur station W6NNR [Los Angeles] uses ....800 watts input to the transmitter [ maybe 70% of this is "output", so reckon ~500+ watts to the antenna]...lays down a good signal to all stations in the chain on 20 meter [~ 14,000 kHz] phone...." My comments: Why ham stations? As i posted to the Forum some long while back, the usual ground-to-air service stations for public use, at least in the USA, used surprisingly low power. This was because it was wanted to strictly (try) to limit the range of what were intended as landing-operations frequencies 3105 6210. The power, if i recall, was something like 10 or 30 watts. You did not want the signal carrying over, from, say Seattle airfield to Portland Oregon, or Salt Lake City, at night when the propagation really rolled in. ( Today this has been solved by use of VHF in the 118-136 Mhz 118,000-136,000 kHz range; clearly, there are 18,000 kHz available there, whereas the shortwave aircraft band maybe only offered 2000-9000 kHz; also the VHFs are not sky-reflected, so you don't have the propagation bleed-over problem. Apologies for this simple material, but i wanted everyone to be on board.) So these ham stations running what was high power compared to the ground service stations, would be very advantageous. I note that ground stations belonging to airlines, which totally owned and operated their own communications networks, ran powers of 1000-3000 watts, both voice and telegraphy. They also had their own specific, "owned" or dedicated frequency channels, not for other people's use. Also: This does not necessarily explain the W4OK mystery. Perhaps his daughter Nancy Carroll, also a ham licensee, can answer whether he ever indicated any membership or activity in this "chain". Also, indications from Nancy are that his equipment was modest, not the level of power the chain station regulars addressed in the above article quote. Which leaves the mystery of why AE called W4OK. If you are establishing "hard evidence", via some science-like method, i don't think this is a shruggable item. The results on the California-Hawaii flight are interesting, yes? The plane was heard for 1600 miles minus 4 hours by normal ground stations, as i make it out. Does this mean reachable by them for 600 miles ( 4 times ~~150 mph ?? ) or about 300 miles at each terminus, and the middle 1000 miles ( or 500 one way ) only reachable by the higher power ham station? By this crude logic ( just roughly juggling numbers here ) the normal (non ham) ground station could reach her 300 miles out, and the ham could reach her 1600 miles out (at least). Keeping in mind this circuit has 2 advantages over solely ground-to-ground communication: elevation of the aircraft antenna, and totally over saltwater path. I note also that the plane could be heard by W6NNR over its total flight, but note, apparently at some point, telegraphy had to be resorted to. I think that's about it for now. Oh, the other thing about this article: 3 hams Australia 1 "Kupang" ( i dunno ) 6 Dutch East Indies ( Indonesia) 4 Malaya 2 Thailand 3 Burma 7 India 1 Aden 1 "Africa" ST2WF ( "This is perhaps the most perilous part of the trip, and there are but few amateur stations on the proposed route across Northern Africa" ) 2 Brazil 3 Guiana 2 Trinidad 2 Venezuela 1 Panama 1 Nicaragua 1 Guatemala 6 Mexico Why Trinidad, Nicaragua? I dunno. I suggest there's also the "fun factor" at work, for some of these: an opportunity to feel important, needed, and to use one's hobby radio too. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:36:46 EST From: Daryll Subject: Noonan's ego? Dennis McGee wrote: >Daryll said: "Who was making the quote, >who's mouth was moving, is my question?" > >Daryll, are you saying that Noonan was, at the least, >competent in Morse, but let AE tell everyone that neither she nor he >could copy or transmit Morse? Boy, if that was me I'd been real >pissed. If I am capable of doing something and my friend is telling >everyone she talks to that I'm not, and I learn of it, I think I'd >straighten her out in a hurry. Wouldn't you? You're injecting your own personality into a situation without considering the hierarchy of the situation. I believe they were friends but it was advertised as an employee employer relationship. Would you publicly contradict your boss in front of the foreign press? It was basically a non-issue to Noonan. He had no way of knowing that not commenting on that would become one aspect of evidence in their disappearance. What if there was a documented statement by AE that they both could do 10 words per minute? That would mesh with Waliupe's opinion of "...POOR KEYING...". Have you ever wondered what that employee employer relationship was between FN & GPP? I'm not so sure Noonan was totally cut loose from Pan Am and out begging around for a job. It's too easy, for political purposes, to hid that fact. Noonan had only been married a couple of years. You don't get married without some kind of feel for your job stability. But let's say he was out and foot-loose. What do you think he negotiated for the "world flight" job? A years salary, 6 months salary, equivalent to Pan Am's rate? Did Noonan's price go up after the Luke field ground loop with Manning backing out? It probably would have been better business on Pan Am's part to keep him as an employee at what, $10,000 a year and TDY him to Earhart. You can't ignore that a successful completion of the flight would have produced a lot of knowledge and information, which had a dollar value in cost alone. It was information that could be used by Pan Am. A route survey done without public, political, foreign or business commitments. A "War Plan Orange" alternate to get to the Philippines. The Lae - Howland leg would come close to being what Pan Am's Clippers could do at one time. How much would Pan Am have paid for a survey of a central route through the Pacific with only having to deal with the Dutch? You could use the cost of the New Zealand survey (conducted in the same time frame) as a negotiating starting point. I can't see Noonan's ego being hurt enough to want to divert the lime light from AE by inferring publicly that he had more skills than her. The flight WAS (supposed to be) her show. Daryll *************************************************************** From Ric It's always fun to see your mind at work. ***************************************************** From Rollin Reineck It is my opinion that the reasoning should start at the back end of this argument. For instance: Why did AE say that neither she nor FN could take code when we know for a fact that Noonan could and did when he worked for Pan AM? Why did AE do away with the trailing wire antenna when we know for a fact it was needed in order for her to transmit of 500kcs? Why did AE want a bearing on 7500kcs? Who ever heard of such a thing? Why did AE have the Bendix receiver installed with the Bendix loop. If AE wasn't going to transmit on 500kcs what did she do with that channel on her transmitter? Originally she had a 500 kcs Xtal. Did she have a channel that we are not aware of? Why did AE turn down PA AM's offer to help on her flight? All of these questions are interrelated and should be looked at together. Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI *************************************************************** From Ric Once you start "knowing" things that are not known you can go anywhere you want to. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:38:51 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Amelia Hears W4OK. Okay, how? Regarding the supposed use of Carroll's call sign by AE. It is a possibility that AE was hearing a conversation between two hams and alternately tried calling each of them in hopes that they would respond or she had their call signs from previous communications earlier in the world flight and was now trying to raise them in hopes of establishing communications. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:27:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Audio recording interviews? Jon Watson wrote: >First, I suggest Hue makes sure it is not illegal where he lives, to record a >phone conversation. Good point Jon. I did not mention that to hue as I understood he was referring to phone interviews wherein the person being interviewed would obviously be made aware the interview was being taped. As long as that is the case I know of no law against it. Alan ************************************************************* From Ric When taking calls from creditors I find that it's often useful to make an announcement that " This call may be monitored for future use in litigation." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:33:54 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Documentation Ric, as you can see I take a very hard line on evidence but you understand why. Alan ******************************************************** From Ric It's interesting to me to contemplate how the "rules of evidence" in historical research differ from those of the courtroom. Cases in court are often decided on the basis of anecdotal "witness testimony" that we would consider to be no more than a starting place in the search for hard evidence. And, of course, convictions that were based upon anecdotes are often overturned when hard evidence (such as DNA) becomes available. I guess the difference is that a court has to reach a verdict based upon whatever evidence is presented when the case is tried. We have no such deadline and can afford to insist upon a higher standard. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:34:58 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Amelia Hears W4OK. Okay, how? Have I missed something? All this argument about W40K and we don't even know that's what Betty heard. Where is all the discussion about WOJ? What was actually said might not be either one. I can certainly see trying to track a rabbit trail down but folks are trying to build a case against Betty's notebook using a straw man. The bottom line in this issue may be that W40K is not what Betty heard or that it wasn't really Carroll's ham radio designation but you can't use that to invalidate Betty's notebook. If you're going to do that you'll have to do it some other way. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:36:33 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: "Ham Chain", Apr 1937 RADIO mag. article (long) Hue Miller wrote: > Bob Brandenburg wrote: > >> It is by no means necessary that AE learned Carroll's call sign via >> radio. There are many other ways she could have acquired it, but it >> doesn't really matter how. > > Otherwise, how? By, as Alan suggested, by listening to hams back in the USA, > then remembering or jotting down callsigns? Or was he somehow on her list? Try thinking outside the box. Here are two possibilities: Carroll might have met Amelia during her layover in Miami; Carroll's call sign might have been on a list of amateurs who had offered to support the flight. >> Nor can it be concluded that W4OK was the only call sign Amelia had, >> merely because it was the only one in Betty's notebook. > > But, it was the one reported by Betty, who says AE was excited about > getting back to someone. That's sustained excitement for several hours, > but i guess it would be exciting to hear W4OK, considering the odds > for it, that you outlined. Then, somehow for the next two hours, we have > a live broadcast instead, with the engine running all time, apparently, to > sustain the heavy current drain of the transmitter. And your point is .... ? What, specifically, is the significance of W4OK being the only call sign recorded by Betty? How do you know that Amelia didn't mention other ham call signs that Betty didn't hear and record in her notebook? > Which leaves the mystery of why AE called W4OK. How do you know that AE called W4OK? Why would a "call" be the only context in which AE could mention a call sign? Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:37:47 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: "Ham Chain", Apr 1937 RADIO mag. article (long) An Update if I may be allowed: Radio Relay League mentioned is now called American Radio Relay League and they might have some archives. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:46:01 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF Let me see if I can Help. When you turned your radio(s) on the dynamotor come on and stays on as long as the radio circuit is hot providing the proper voltage to the oscillator creating "carrier" for transmission. The dyno does not have to "spin-up" every time the mic is keyed. LTM Mike J. ******************************************************** From Ric What do you mean "as long as the radio circuit is hot"? Hot as in temperature? Hot as in electrified? The transmitter needs boosted voltage in order to transmit. The dynamotor provides that voltage. Unless you have some way to tell the dynamotor to stay on and keep boosting the voltage it's going to cut off every time you release the push-to-talk - isn't it? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:50:11 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: "Ham Chain" Wouldn't AE trying to contact "Ham" operators imply a greater savvy of radio operation than given her credit?!? Somtin'don't sound Kosher in Pago-pago.(where-ever that is) :) LTM Mike J. ********************************************************* From Ric Why does it require great radio savvy to say a callsign? Your assignment is to find Pago Pago on a map and tell us what country it's in and how to correctly pronounce it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:52:57 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Documentation Ric wrote: >Cases in court are often decided on the basis anecdotal "witness testimony" >that we would consider to be no more than a starting place in the search for >hard evidence. Worse than that, Ric. Folks are executed on such ridiculous "evidence." Hard to overturn when the better evidence becomes available. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:55:44 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF >Unless you have some way to tell the dynamotor to stay on and keep boosting >the voltage it's going to cut off every time you release the push-to-talk - >isn't it? I read Mike's reply and thought, "Now I understand" and then Ric replies as above and I'm back to square one. Alan ****************************************************** From Ric At least I know where Pago Pago is. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:59:59 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: W40K Speculation What If? Ric wrote: > I know of no reason to think that unless your suggesting that Betty is > lying Ric the term Lying I find harsh and demeaning - NO I'm not suggesting that Betty is intentionally misrepresnting her notebook - If I was suggesting anything it would be "False Memory Syndrome", which appears to effect all human beings young and old. Simply put studies in "False Memory Syndrome" suggest that human memory of an event degrades with the passage of time and is contaminated by external influences of daily life - True or false memory can only be determined by corroborative factual evidence- Ric,it explains and qualifies your aversion to anecdotal information being construed as factual information. I suspect I'm speaking to the choir on this subject. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ************************************************************************* From Ric So you're suggesting that Betty has simply forgotten that some of the entries in her notebook were written by someone else? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:03:43 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: "Ham Chain", Apr 1937 RADIO mag. article (long) Could it be that Carrol's (recruited) role was on the outbound leg from Miami since he lived on the East Coast (WPB) of Florida and they thought they needed someone though the normal air-to-ground link would be used? Or perhaps he somehow linked with her outbound. Just some thoughts. LTM Ed Of PSL #2415 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:02:58 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Ham and Radio-Facility books RE: Amelia's possible possession of ham call signs enroute to Howland from Lae. Balfour, Lae radio operator, claims that prior to takeoff, "she unloaded all her surplus equipment on me including her [Very] pistol, and ammunition, books, letters and facility books". [ Lovell, p268] Balfour: That night before takeoff she gave me a stack of surplus stuff from her plane. There were maps, navigation books, radio-facility charts...and her 32. automatic pistol". Cam Warren Archives, Balfour interview by Frank Underwood, People Magazine (Australia) Aug 23- Sep 8, 1967 (Photo copy of original on file) Long writes that "they packaged the three books that listed the world maritime navigational lights, broadcasts stations, and the coast and ship stations." [Long, p. 190] The question here for radio/ham experts is would the radio facility books have contained any ham call signs . Is that the type of book that would contain them. It seems that the above list is pretty inclusive. In my opinion it would be unlikely she would have written them down independently on some list. Ron Bright The pages refer to specific cites in the note sections. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:08:16 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Documentation >For example, in Cam's note he refers to Chief Radio Electrician >Henry M. Anthony's revelation found in "Earhart's Flight into Yesterday." >That is not footnoted or supported in any way. Anthony did NOT write that. >Apparently Stafford did. I have no clue whether Anthony ever said what he >supposedly >said. Even Stafford's comments are not supported in any way. None of that is >documentation. At best they are leads for further investigation. The above from "Alan". According to the unabridged Random House Dictionary of the English Language (to name but one source), a "document is: 1) any written or printed paper furnishing information or evidence . . . 2) any written item as a book, article or letter, esp. of a factual or informative nature." "Documentation: 1) the use of documentary evidence. 2) a furnishing with documents, as to substantiate a claim or the data in a book or article." You may not think so Ric, but I don't come up with theories out of thin air, but have worked long and hard and done considerable field work over 10 + years investigating the Earhart disappearance, with particular emphasis in the critical area of Radio and Direction Finding, a field in which I am reasonably well qualified. Professionally, I am recognized as a qualified and credible non-fiction writer for publications both in this country and abroad (Incidentally, such magazines as Newsweek check out every quotation for accuracy). If I pass along information to the Forum, it has been carefully researched. Since I don't have the time or inclination to produce an encyclopedic report every time someone raises a question, I tend to respond as briefly as possible, but with no little authority. In the case of Henry Anthony, he made the statements referred to more than once; in interviews, letters and in his own writings. The same goes for Capt. Safford, and I have several draft copies of his Earhart book, plus having carefully evaluated - and occasionally corrected - his rare factual errors, based on information that became available after his death. E-mail is a dangerous medium of communication, as corespondents tend to dash off remarks and/or replies all to frequently "from the hip". I may have occasionally been guilty myself, but try to always make hard copies of messages, and proof-read outgoing messages. I can sympathize with you for having to cope with the large burden of incoming mail, much of it simplistic and repetitious. However, feel you should refrain from the same flip responses in the case of someone's serious attempt to present relevant material. Cam Warren ****************************************************************** From Ric After careful and thoughtful consideration I think that the greatest obstacle you have faced in your research is your misconception about what documentation is in the context of historical research. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:14:56 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF I had a physics professor in college who made me feel I was wrong even when I was right. Unlike the aircraft radios of today the WE radios used in AE's era used "vacuum tube" technology. These tubes are similar to a TV picture tube. These electronic vacuum tubes had to warm up to their operating temperature(They actually glow and give off heat). The dynamotor is a 6-28volt DC motor coupled to an DC generator in one light weight unit ,generating 225vdc-1000vdc depending on its design and application. When the radios were turned on the dynamotor started generating the voltage to energize the tubes and kept running until the radios were turned off. Keying the mic didn't start and stop the dynamotor. That would be like trying to watch tv while switching it on and off. The "click" that's heard when a mic is keyed is the spark of electricity between the contacts in the mic switch before the contacts are fully closed -not to reliable to send morse with but it can be done. Something of interest is that dynamotors are voltage dependent. The out-put voltage is dependent on the input voltage. If the batteries are low the output voltage will be low not giving the full power to the transmitter. But that's another story. Did I do better this time Prof or do I still get an "F"? LTM Mike J. *************************************************************************** From Ric Excerpted from a Feb. 8, 2003 forum posting by Mike Everette: >If the key was left behind, there was no way to place the radio in the >"correct" CW mode. The only way to "key" it would be by using the mic >button. This would cause the dyno to start and then de-energize as the >starter relay tried to follow the keying. VERY hard on the dyno and on the >relay, not to mention the battery. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:18:40 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: For Alan & Ric Alan wrote: > I'm sorry I asked the Morse code questions. Guys, I'm happy to believe and > won't again question whether AE and/or FN were proficient to ANY degree in > sending and/or receiving Morse Code. Actually I'm not sure what the > significance is. Actually Alan, without too much speculation it shows a very interesting behavioral pattern from AE and FN. I may suggest that her comments about her (their) radio proficiency may have been more about her dislike of radio communications than actual ability. I am certainly not saying that she was an highly capable operator -- but Fred's silence on the matter does seem to indicate a degree of deference toward AE that borders on the unhealthy. Bob ********************************************************************** From Ric I'm not aware of any evidence that Noonan was excessively deferential toward AE. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:03:46 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Documentation If Cam Warren had supplied copies of Anthony's writings, letters, and transcripts of interviews ( or so cited them) along with a date they were made in his post, would not that be considered "documentation" of what Anthony said. The content may not be accurate but Anthony's position would be clearly stated. The date they were made would be valuable in determining the value in this historical research. Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric "Documenting" an anecdotal recollection by recording and/or transcribing it merely memorializes what was said. It's better than simply trying to remember the story someone told you but writing it down doesn't make it any more reliable as information. As you say, if Cam provided us with the particulars you mention we would be able to make an informed judgment about the reliability of the information Anthony provided. If, for example, Anthony had written a letter or memo or journal or report in the summer of 1937 mentioning where the HFDF that was put aboard the Itasca came from, that would be "documentation" in a historical sense. If all Cam has are Anthony's later writings or notes from interviews conducted long afterward then it's all anecdote - maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Cam believes he can get a "feel" for the truth. We'd all like to think we can do that and, indeed, we all make gut judgments every day. Sometimes we're right. Sometimes we're wrong. But for anyone to think that they have developed some sixth sense for the truth is pure hubris. Are Anthony's recollections more accurate than the memories the Itasca's chief radioman Leo Bellarts related to Elgen Long in 1973, or more reliable than the story Floyd Kilts told a San Diego newspaper in 1960, or more truthful than Emily Sikuli's 2001 memory of seeing airplane wreckage on the reef at Gardner in 1940? Without a disciplined approach to historical documentation you end up simply choosing between whose story you want to believe. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:17:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Ham and Radio-Facility books >Balfour, Lae radio operator, claims that prior to takeoff, "she unloaded all >her surplus equipment on me including her [Very] pistol, and ammunition, >books, letters and facility books". [ Lovell, p268] That was footnoted as being from Francis X Holbrook. So it was from wherever Holbrook got it to Lovell to the her readers to us. I have no confidence in things like this. I don't know whether Balfour ever said that and if he did when it was said. This is not support for what is being contended. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric The problem with all of this information that was later solicited from players in the Earhart drama is that there is no way of knowing to what extent the fact that is was a huge controversial drama may have influenced people's memories. Many of these guys tried to inflate their role. Balfour later claimed that Earhart wanted him to come along as her radio operator. Al Bresnick later claimed that she wanted him to come along as her photographer. Brad Washburn said that she wanted him to be her navigator. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:23:14 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Ham and Radio-Facility books >Balfour: That night before takeoff she gave me a stack of surplus stuff from >her plane. There were maps, navigation books, radio-facility charts...and her >32. automatic pistol". Cam Warren Archives, Balfour interview by Frank >Underwood, People Magazine (Australia) Aug 23- Sep 8, 1967 (Photo copy of >original on file) A magazine piece thirty years later??? >Long writes that "they packaged the three books that listed the world >maritime navigational lights, broadcasts stations, and the coast and ship >stations." [ Long, p. 190]" Long did not footnote or say what the source for this was. Alan ****************************************************************** From Ric This is classic. You'll often find that anecdotal recollections relating to the Earhart disappearance date from key periods in the controversy. Most of Nina Paxton's revelations about the post-loss message she heard date from 1943 (when Flight For Freedom was released) and the early 1960s (when Goerner was making headlines). Balfour's interview in 1967 comes on the heels of Goerner's 1966 best-seller "The Search for Amelia Earhart". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:38:04 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF Mike Juliano wrote: >When the radios were turned on the dynamotor >started generating the voltage to energize the tubes and kept running >until the radios were turned off. Keying the mic didn't start and stop the >dynamotor. You are not necessarily correct about dynamotors running continuously. I have been unable to find any information on the W.E. receiver and transmitter carried on AE's plane. In general (and I'm talking about military radios of WW2), dynamotors function like this. The receiver has its own (small) dynamotor, which produces typically 250 volts DC. When the radio is turned on, this dynamotor runs continuously, even during transmit periods. The transmitter has a (much larger) dynamotor which produces 500-1,000 volts DC, typical for the 50-100 watt class of transmitter. This dynamotor does not run continuously, because it would cause excessive noise (hash) to be heard in the receiver if it did. It runs according to the following schedule: Morse mode (CW): dynamotor runs continuously during sending, does not stop and start when the key is depressed or released. The carrier generated by the transmitter is keyed on and off by the key contacts. Voice mode (AM): dynamotor starts when mic. switch is pressed and runs until mic. switch is released. Carrier is transmitted continuously during this period, and any speech spoken into the mic. is impressed onto the carrier (AM modulation process). If no key is available, it is possible to send CW by keying the carrier on and off by pressing the mic. switch in Voice mode, but this is a highly unsatisfactory method of keying, because the transmit/receive and antenna changeover relays are being asked to perform the keying process. Their operate/release timing is such that they tend to mutilate the initial parts of a character. Entire dots and parts of dashes tend to get lost. As if that's not bad enough, the transmit dynamotor is being cycled on-off with each press-release of the mic. switch. It never reaches full operating speed, and may even stop completely if the operator pauses. A large dynamotor like this can be expected to take up to 4 seconds to come to a stop. Although the dynamotor does not stop instantaneously, its output voltage drops very quickly to zero when the input voltage is removed, because there is no longer any current flowing in its field windings. To make matters even worse (omg) I understand from Mike Everette's archived posts that Earhart's radio used screen-grid modulation of the final tubes, rather than the more efficient plate modulation. Screen-grid operation requires that transmitter power input be reduced to one-quarter of the normal CW input. This means that, for a transmitter capable of 60 watts in CW mode, the Voice mode power level is only 15 watts. Note also that screen-grid modulation is not tolerant of misadjustment, or badly matched antenna conditions. To quote the ARRL Handbook, "Grid modulation does not give quite as linear a modulation characteristic as plate modulation, even under optimum operating conditions. When misadjusted the nonlinearity may be severe, resulting in considerable distortion and splatter". In AE's case, this is most likely the cause of some of the adverse signal reports. > Something of interest is that dynamotors are voltage dependent. The out-put > voltage is dependent on the input voltage. If the batteries are low the output > voltage will be low not giving the full power to the transmitter. But that's > another story. Low battery voltage? Yes, in general terms you are correct. But in Earhart's case we have been specifically told by the plane's manufacturer that the radio would not run if the plane's engine was not running. There are no ifs, buts, or maybes about this. The manufacturer states explicitly that the engine MUST be running, implying that the radios were wired through a cutout switch to prevent battery-only operation. Neil Barnett ZL1ANM Auckland, N.Z. ************************************************************************ From Ric Detailed information about Earhart's radios, including wiring schematics, are available in the Earhart Project Book, Eighth Edition which can be ordered via the TIGHAR website. Mike Everette, who wrote that section of the Project Book and is as familiar with the radios in the Electra as it is possible to be given the available information has already discussed this subject on this forum and I've recently even excerpted his earlier postings. Also, Lockheed NEVER said that the engine must be running to operate the radio. They said only that the post-loss messages had gone on so long that the plane must be able to operate an engine to recharge the battery. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:47:41 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: "Ham Chain", Apr 1937 RADIO mag. article (long) Mistake in my last post titled "Re: ham chain....". SHOULD have read, "During the flight to California with Manning as navigator / radio operator, AE somehow did not notice that Manning had to rely on telegraphy to cover that distance, which was a substantially lesser distance than the Niku - Florida span." ***************************************** From Ric Correcting your correction, the flight was FROM California with Manning.... and, of course, we've already said repeatedly that these long-distance voice receptions were highly anomalous but not impossible events. If it were otherwise we'd have dozens, if not hundreds, of such reports. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:51:53 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: "Ham Chain", Apr 1937 RADIO mag. article (long) Bob Brandenburg wrote: > Try thinking outside the box. Here are two possibilities: Carroll > might have met Amelia during her layover in Miami; Thank you for the suggestion. Carroll and AE met at Florida. AE did not have enough experience using the radio for long overwater flights to not know, that her radio had no prayer of reaching Florida. During the flight to California with Manning as navigator / radio operator, AE somehow did not notice that Manning had to rely on telegraphy to cover that distance, which was a substantially lesser distance than the Niku - Florida span. > Carroll's call sign > might have been on a list of amateurs who had offered to support the > flight. Yes - so she calls him. Why not call to ANYONE ? Or the powerful Hawaii ham stations, 2 of them, supporting her flight, with whom she had worked in the past? > And your point is .... ? What, specifically, is the significance of > W4OK being the only call sign recorded by Betty? How do you know that > Amelia didn't mention other ham call signs that Betty didn't hear and > record in her notebook? Great. For 2 hours after the call to W4OK, we get to listen to general comments, recriminations, wrestling, fighting for the radio, talking about talking on the radio. No more calls to ANY station, Howland, Itasca, Hawaii hams. > > Which leaves the mystery of why AE called W4OK. > > How do you know that AE called W4OK? Why would a "call" be the only > context in which AE could mention a call sign? Well, what did Betty say? "...She was all excited, like she was trying to get back to someone". Or, thinking outside the box: was the world being treated to more live cabin conversation? FN and AE were discussing hams they knew? AE was NOT "trying to get back to someone"? What context, pray? A reminder of some ground we've travelled here: It was suggested that AE was listening to KGMB that morning at 10:00 AM. It was suggested that AE could receive and transmit at the same time. That both AE and FN had microphones and used them to talk to each other while grounded on the beach on Niku. That AE heard W4OK calling her. Would you say this account has grown stronger legs? Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:53:55 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Edge of the seat listening The other night i was listening to the old "Gunsmoke" cowboy series radio show over KSL, Salt Lake City, about 1000 miles from here. About 25 minutes into the story, the station took a deep fade. Damn, those radio gremlins always know the absolute worst time to get their licks in. Of course, i got up to fiddle with the radio, first turn up the volume a lot, then twiddle the tuning dial a bit. It occurred to me: how could i NOT get up to fiddle with the radio? I thought about why i would NOT get up to try to adjust for continued reception. If it was news or an infomercial i was listening to, a reception wipeout would either not faze me, or i would know that i would hear the material again if i just stayed put and listened long enough. If i knew the stability of the radio's operating pararmeters, i mean if i was certain the room temperature was absolutely stable, the AC mains voltage was stable, and the radio's tuner had never in my experience drifted, and was never likely to ever drift, never would drift, then i might resist, knowing i couldn't effectively improve things. But some of these parameters i did not feel i had nailed down fast; I lacked that comfortable confidence. So how could i, how could anyone, resist getting up to adjust those knobs? But, we have a notebook scripted in a neat, unhurried hand, and never touched that dial once. Yes, i know it was important to write down clearly the important words. And i know the probabililty is, by all means, "nonzero". Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:13:40 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Dynamotors and new forum policy Not quite. Vacuum tubes need a high voltage between the cathode and the anode (two plates inside the tube) in order to amplify the signal for transmission. In addition, the cathode must be heated to operating temperature. This heating is accomplished by a separate component inside the tube called, not surprisingly, the "heater" which is where the orange glow comes from inside radio tubes. These heaters operate at 6, 12 or 24 volts (depending on type of tube) and do not use the high voltage produced by the dynamotor. These heaters are on when the radio is turned on, working only off of battery voltage. Mike Juliano wrote: >Unlike the aircraft radios of today the WE radios used in AE's era used >"vacuum tube" Technology. These tubes are similar to a TV picture tube. These >electronic vacuum tubes had to warm up to their operating temperature(They >actually glow and give off heat). The dynamotor is a 6-28volt DC motor coupled >to an DC generator in one light weight unit ,generating 225vdc-1000vdc >depending on its design and application. When the radios were turned on the >dynamotor started generating the voltage to energize the tubes and kept running >until the radios were turned off. Well, if keying the mic did not start and stop the dynamotor then what did? Was there a switch on the radio that was set to "transmit" prior to talking on the mic and then turned to "off" or "receive" after the transmission was completed? Did throwing this "transmit" switch start the dynamotor? And if this was the case then exactly what did the "push to talk" button on the mic do anyway? >Keying the mic didn't start and stop the dynamotor. That >would be like trying to watch tv while switching it on and off. The "click" >that's heard when a mic is keyed is the spark of electricity between the >contacts in the mic switch before the contacts are fully closed -not too >reliable to send morse with but it can be done. Was there a switch that was set to "CW" that started the dyno running continuously or did follow the input from the key? There shouldn't be so much speculation on these points since somebody out there must have a manual for the radio equipment that has the answers to these questions. gl ***************************************************************** From Ric Male pattern baldness does not run in my family but the forum inspires me to tear my hair out by the roots. This matter has been thoroughly researched and written up, complete with schematics, by Mike Everette and it is published in the Earhart Project, Eighth Edition which can be ordered via the TIGHAR website. For those who are too cheap to avail themselves of that excellent source of documented data I have repeatedly excerpted Mike's earlier posting to the forum on this subject. Despite Alan's earlier posting in which he voiced concern about people posting bad information as fact, the trend continues. The danger, as Alan pointed out, is that this forum - via Google - is widely used as a source of information about the Earhart disappearance. If we post bad information and somebody Googles it and doesn't scroll down far enough to see my correction then we're doing more harm than good. There are lots of topics worthy of debate and, Lord knows, we debate them here - but I'm going to have to start bouncing submissions that state speculation or outright falsehood as fact. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:21:11 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Crash and sank Ric said: >Many of these guys tried to inflate their role. Balfour >later claimed that Earhart wanted him to come along as her radio operator. Al >Bresnick later claimed that she wanted him to come along as her photographer. >Brad Washburn said that she wanted him to be her navigator. Too bad AE didn't take these guys. Had she done so she'd been so overweight that she'd have definitely run out of fuel well before Howland, giving the "Crash and Sankers" some real meat for their theory. Let's see three guys at the FAA standard 170 pounds, is 510 pounds, or about 85 gallons of fuel. At 35 gph that's just under 2.5 hours of flight time, the approximate flight time from Howland to Niku. Hmmm, maybe . . . nah, never mind. LTM, whose CG is well forward these days Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************** From Ric Remember, she put as much gas aboard as she could without compromising the 100 octane. With another crew member aboard the crash and sink would have probably happened off the end of the runway. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:39:17 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: speculation and falsehood Ric said: >There are lots of topics worthy of debate and, Lord knows, we >debate them here - but I'm going to have to start bouncing submissions that state >speculation or outright falsehood as fact. Oh, Ric, don't be such a party pooper. :-) Speculation and falsehood are our meat and potatoes here. If it wasn't for speculation and falsehoods most of us would have to actually do some work during the day instead of spending time responding to speculation and falsehood by adding our own speculation and falsehood. Historical accuracy be damned! We're having fun! Right, guys and gals? SPEC-U-LATE! SPEC-U-LATE! SPEC-U-LATE! LTM, who awaits a pithy reply Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************** From Ric I don't know how pithy this is, but I athure you that it ith thinthere. Speculation is, indeed, our meat and potatoes and I welcome it. What I'm going to start bouncing is speculation stated as fact. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:44:06 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Ham and Radio-Facility books Of course the cites re Balfour's recollections of events at Lae some thirty years later are anecdotal and suspect, but as we all agree these may lead to avenues worth pursuing. [Balfour's claim that he heard AE every hour is suspect as well, and as I recall he lost AE's pistol sometime during the war.] The question is, if true, would AE's radio facility books have contained the ham signs. Would these be the appropriate depository for station, ship and ham signs? Ron B ***************************************************************** From Ric What Balfour was almost certainly referring to are publications known as "Berne lists" (we have a 1937 copy for "Coast Stations and Ship Stations"). Berne lists do not include amateur stations. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:01:16 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Pago Pago >It must be someplace where they have monkeys 'cause the monkeys have no >tails in Pago Pago. > >Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. >******************************************************** >From Ric > >There are no monkeys in Pago Pago>> Geographic confusion. It's Jamboanga in the Philippines where the monkeys have no tails. "The monkeys have no tails in Jamboanga; Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Jamboanga, Oh the monkeys have no tails; They were bitten off by whales; Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Jamboanga." From "We Won't Go Back to Subic Any More," a sea chantey. **************************************************** From Ric I shudder to think of the thread this could start. ***************************************************** From Dave in Houston, Texas: The song lyrics are Pango Pango - not Pago Pago however, both spellings are used for the same port on the island of Tutuila in American Samoa. And if there are no monkeys in Pango Pango, then it is an absolute that they have no tails. Also, they do not know what a LOP is and have no photos of AE or FN in Japanese captivity. For more on Pago Pago go to the following website: http://members.tripod.com/MataiPalagi/Samoa/ Please note that this is a smoke free website (good lord - what next!). There is also a map of the island and you can identify the location of Pago Pago which is in the larger of the two inlets on the southeastern part of the island (the island runs mainly east-west). Very interesting. Too bad it is so far and so expensive to visit! LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************** From Ric Awright guys...the name of the place is Pago Pago. It's pronounced as if it were Pahngo Pahngo with the "g" kind of swallowed. (Dan Quayle once called it Pogo Pogo.) The introduction of an "n" sound between a vowel and a "g" is quite common in Pacific languages. For example, Emily Sikuli's given name was Segalo which is pronounced Sengalo. TIGHAR has many friends in Pago. We've embarked the last two expeditions to Niku from there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:03:40 EST From: Rich Young Subject: dynamotor Mike Juliano - my understanding is that the receiver portion of the radio was engineered to operate on battery voltage, just as most home receivers of the time that were battery operated didn't have dynamotors. The voltage the DM generates is necessary to bias and energize the output tubes of the transmitter side of the radio: hence, the DM only spins up when the mike is keyed, or the transmitter is switched on to send Morse. All that was necessary for receive function is to supply the proper heater filament voltage so the pre-amp and audio output tubes would work - usually about 6 volts. Some low-powered transmitters, such as the GI. handy-talkie, were developed in WWII that could operate off of battery voltages, but they required special output tubes and their output power was in the 0,5 to 5 watt range. LTM, (who has a telefunken EC83 in her guitar pre-amp) Rich Young ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:07:08 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Balfour and the radio facility lists Closer examination of Long's cite, p. 190, in which Long wrote that Earhart turned over to Balfour at Lae her books of radio -facility list, broadcasts stations and coast and ship stations, it appears there may be documentation. The hypothesis here is that the radio list would have contained any ham call signals and am stations she might have intended to call, or receive. Certainly she had ITASCA'S call sign. The cite infers that the "shipping list" of items sent by AE and FN from Lae to the US is at the Purdue Univ Library, Special Collections. Long also added his own interview of Balfour in 1975 and Mary B. Noonan Ireland. The way I understand it, the Purdue Library may hold that list of items and perhaps Mary B. Noonan had a list or somehow learned of what was sent to the US. That shipping list would certainly have a date and be documentation. Are you or anyone else familiar with this Special Collection? Mrs. Ireland's interview and contents? Ron Bright ***************************************************************** From Ric The Purdue "Special Collection" is the one that is now on-line. I don't recall seeing such a shipping list but it may be there. Perhaps someone would care to look for it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:10:01 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Pago Pago Presume you know that it is, Zamboanga, that 'the monkeys have no tails' .. Cheers, RC *********************************************** From Ric Tom King says, "It's Jamboanga in the Philippines where the monkeys have no tails." Same place? These questions are crucial to the investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:24:26 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Pago Pago ... ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE. Formerly named "Jamboanga", Zamboanga del Norte was created on June 6, 1952, under Republic Act. No.711. ... Former Name: Jamboanga. ... www.livinginthephilippines.com/region9.html - 42k Skeet ************************************************ From Cam Warren Ric wrote: >There are no monkeys in Pago Pago. Wow! Talk about hard hitting scientific research! It's true you know. The tail less monkeys live in Zamboanga. (Pronounced "Zam - Bo - Ango" by most singers.) And - lest I be accused of arriving at a factoid by reckless speculation - I should point out that my Random House Unabridged dictionary says Z is "a seaport on SW Mindanao, in the S. Philippines". Dr. Warren (honorary title only) ******************************************* From GF According to that great actor Wallace Beery it was Zamboanga where the monkeys have no tails for they were bitten off by whales..... ******************************************* From Bill Leary According to: http://www.livinginthephilippines.com/region9.html "Formerly named "Jamboanga", Zamboanga del Norte was created on June 6, 1952,..." - Bill #2229 ************************************************ From Bob Brandenburg It is indeed Zamboanga. I have been there and the monkeys do have tails. Not only did I personally observe that the monkeys there have tails, but I also had the misfortune to be shipmates with two of the beasts. I was navigator of a Navy flagship that was revisiting areas in which our embarked admiral had operated during WW2 as captain of a submarine. We had just completed a visit to Davao, where the mayor presented a monkey to the admiral as a gift. Upon our arrival at Zamboanga, the mayor there learned of the first monkey and presented the admiral with a second monkey, of the opposite sex, for companionship. Those two monkeys quickly learned how to escape from their cage when it was opened by the hapless sailors in charge of their daily care and feeding. Their escapades, and the crew's frantic efforts to recapture them after each escape, are the stuff legends are made of. But the details are too voluminous to describe here. FWIW, a check with the San Diego zoo at the time turned up the fact that New World monkeys have tails and Old World monkeys don't. Since Zamboanga is in the Old World, the zoo folks concluded (tongue in cheek) that someone must have slipped New World monkeys into the Old World. A brief account of this affair appeared in the Pacific Fleet Amphibious Force newspaper, the Amphibian, in March 1960. LTM, Bob ******************************************************* From Ric Bob has told me the full story in person. It's pure "Mister Roberts". ********************************************** From Dave in Houston, Texas This could be crucial. That song is from the era in which AE/FN disappeared and is quite possibly an indication that when she landed her airplane, the tail fell off. Thus it must have some relevence to our investigation. I remember reading somewhere that the use of language such as used in this song is actually code for other things. Monkeys quite possibly stands for Japanese and the missing tails probably stands for the missing AE/FN and thus the song was written by either AE or FN as a way to alert the proper authorities that they had been captured by the Japanese. That is why it became such a well known and recorded song during the period. I have heard it in several movies of the era. This by the way makes it a documented song and thus is documented proof that AE/FN were captured by the Japanese. I know it is documented because I heard that it was and that is sufficient proof to anyone. Therefore we need to push for an official investigation by the authorities into the disappearance and subsequent capture of AE/FN. LTM, with tongue in cheek (and no monkeys in sight), Dave Bush ********************************************** From Kerry Tiller There are 75 or 80 different languages and dialects (5 major ones) in The Philippines. Pronunciation (and spelling) of place names is understandably inconsistent. "Zamboanga" is the most common current spelling for the two provinces (north and south) and the city in western Mindanao. I have also seen "Sambuwangga", among others. As for the anatomical condition of the lesser primates, I can't say for sure. I've never been south of the Visayas; (Or Bisayas). LTM Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:27:14 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Crash and sank Ric wrote: >Remember, she put as much gas aboard as she could without compromising the >100 octane. With another crew member aboard the crash and sink would have >probably happened off the end of the runway. How much more fuel was she able to take on by leaving the Morse Code key behind? Anyone know how much it weighed? I don't have a serious problem with the idea she left it behind but I DO have a problem with the reason being weight reduction. Alan ********************************************************** From Ric She left the key behind because neither she nor Noonan planned on sending any code. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:28:44 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Ham Chain", Apr 1937 RADIO mag. article (long) Hue wrote: >Would you say this account has grown stronger legs? Good point, Hue. We have a way of doing that don't we. This thread has a lot of material out of whole cloth. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:29:52 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: W40K Speculation What If? Ric wrote: >So you're suggesting that Betty has simply forgotten that some of the >entries in her notebook were written by someone else? Yes it is possible that Betty has "simply forgotten" - But if she has forgotten I do not believe it was simple. But again being that this is my opinion, I could also be wrong. But studying the notebook's structure, layout, writting style, and positioning of the notebook's contents suggest to me otherwise. Old western proverb "no two cowpokes see the landscape the same" comes into play here. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:31:19 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: speculation and falsehood Ric says: >What I'm >going to start bouncing is speculation stated as fact. Careful! You might shoot yourself in the foot! Cam Warren *********************************************** From Ric It wouldn't be the first time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:39:03 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: Mic buttons vs Keys and HFDF Ric wrote: > Also, Lockheed NEVER said that the engine must be running to operate the > radio. They said only that the post-loss messages had gone on so long > that the plane must be able to operate an engine to recharge the battery. I apologise if I've created a wrong impression about the "engine running" criteria. I had read the forum archives from 1998 thru to January 2003, and nowhere in those archives was a distinction made between Lockheed's statement that the engine must be running in order to transmit, and the fact that it must be running because the battery life would have (by then) been exceeded. There is an ambiguity in the archives on this point. Neil Barnett Auckland, N.Z. ****************************************************** From Ric You've made my point Neil. Nobody should consider these forum postings to be a primary source. All of the messages sent during the Earhart search, along with tons of other primary source research material, is available on the Earhart Project Reseach CD which can be ordered via the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:40:38 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: dynamotor My apologies to all. What started out to be a helping hand should have been prefaced by "my understanding of...." instead of a statement of "fact". Proving once again that if you stick your hand into the TIGHAR's cage you should offer it acceptable meat.(Although I've never tried monkey.) LTM Mike J.#2590 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:41:52 EST From: Eric Subject: Monkey Business Actually, in Jamboanga the monkeys TELL no tales ('cause the monkeys they're all males.) LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:17:01 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: dynamotor Is there any way we can resolve what actually happens when someone try to send Morse Code by keying the mike using the same equipment we think AE had? I recognize that somewhere in all the past message traffic the answer lies but I don't know what it is. I think it is important to pin this down. Alan **************************************************************** From Ric What would satisfy you? We've had a highly knowledgeable and competent radio historian review the circuitry of the specific type of transmitter that Earhart used and he has explained what the effect would be of using the mic to send code. No one who has similar expertise and familiarity with the circuitry has disagreed. If we had a working example of a Western Electric Type 13C and the right dynamotor we could do a demonstration and conduct some experiments that would be a lot of fun but wouldn't really move the investigation forward. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:19:29 EST From: John L. Subject: Re: speculation and falsehood Double careful: Truth and Proof, like Beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. LTM, John L ************************************************************ From Ric If that is really true we can all pack up and go home. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:43:22 EST From: Dan Brown Subject: Laxton's article Paul B. Laxton's article "Nikumaroro" in the Journal of the Polynesian Society ends with an indication that the narrative would be continued in a subsequent publication. Do you have a citation for the second article? Dan Brown #2408 ********************************************************** From Ric Apparently there was no second article. At least not that we've been able to find. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:45:56 EST From: John Lutrell Subject: Socrates Triple careful: One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who said excitedly, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?" "Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before telling me anything I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test." "Triple filter?" "That's right," Socrates continued, "Before you talk to me about my student, it might be a good idea to take a moment and filter what you're going to say. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?" "No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it and ..." "All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?" "No, on the contrary ..." "So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him, but you're not certain it's true. You may still pass the test though because there's one filter left: the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?" "No, not really. "Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?" This is why Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem. It also explains why he never found out that Plato was banging his wife. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:02:00 EST From: George Werth Subject: Re: Socrates Funny, Funny, Funny GRW1 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:13:00 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: NZ survey and Tinian grave You'll find four (count 'em, four) new documents on the TIGHAR website dealing with the 1938/39 New Zealand survey of Gardner Island. Just go to the Documents index at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Documents_index.html Also, in the Research Bulletins section you'll find an informational report by Dr. Tom King about the suspected Earhart grave on Tinian. Go to http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/11_07_03bulletin/tiniangrave.html Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:39:53 EST From: Paula Subject: Grace McGuire I came across an old show I videotaped that had Tighar in it, "The Search for Amelia". Did Grace McGuire ever finish her replica of Amelia's plane and did she also fly the same route as Amelia? Also, it was her opinion that Amelia's map had Howland Island 5 miles off course. Has that ever been checked out? I looked on the forum, but I couldn't find these questions answered. Sorry if I missed them but I am hoping someone can answer my questions. LTM, Paula *********************************************************************** From Ric The last I heard, Grace had the airplane to the point where she was running the engines but that was at least a year ago and I've heard nothing since. It is widely known that the map of Howland drawn for AE by Clarence Williams as part of the preparations for the first World Flight attempt had incorrect coordinates for the island that were about 5 miles off. No one knows for sure whether that error was corrected prior to the second attempt but we do know that Earhart's advisor with the Bureau of Air Commerce, Bill Miller, had the correct coordinates and it's hard to believe that he didn't share that information with Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:07:37 EST From: Daryll Subject: "Sextant box", "Benedictine bottle" & "corks with brass chains" From the TIGHAR website: The TIGHAR Hypothesis November 2001 ...Extensive official British government records confirm the discovery in 1940 of the partial skeleton of a castaway who perished while attempting to survive on Nikumaroro sometime prior to the island's settlement in 1939. The remains of a fire, dead birds and a turtle were present. With the bones were found a sextant box bearing a stenciled number that is similar to a number written on a sextant box known to have belonged to Fred Noonan, and the remains of a woman's shoe and a man's shoe. Also at the site were "corks with brass chains" thought to have been from a small cask which may have come from the Norwich City supply cache. Similarly, a Benedictine bottle found with the remains may have been part of the cache. The Sextant box could have belonged to Mr. J. A. Henderson who was also considered the "instrument man" and head of the expedition by Mr. Lee. He fell and broke his ribs, if we are to believe Mr. Hay, probably carrying stuff ashore. He could have even been carrying the Sextant Box and it got wet. Mr. Lee points out how difficult it was to get stuff ashore without anything getting wet. Mr. J. A. Henderson was the "instrument man" quoting Mr. Lee. The Sextant was an instrument which should have been Mr. Henderson's responsibility. His evacuation early in the mission would explain an empty Sextant box being found later on Gardner Island without the Sextant in it. We are all familiar with the enlisted man's out...."Hey I didn't sign for it". Of course the forgotten Sextant box could have been from the drunken navigator Mad Mac McGregor. Hmmm another navigator that drinks. Mr. Hay could have very well been responsible for the "corks with brass chains" and the "benedictine bottle" when he tossed the empty. On Xmas they celebrated with the medical brandy that he was in charge of. Another point. Since Mr. Hay was on a secret mission to Gardner, can Niku (Gardner) be considered in a conspiracy theory now? A Conspiracy to control the Pacific with airlines. Ah Jeez, Amelia flying a secret mission for Pan Am ending up an island British Airways wanted. Maybe someone could google search the forum archives a few years ago for a Mr. Lee. I seem to recall a Lee was transported from somewhere to somewhere maybe even by the ITASCA or SWAN. Below are TIGHAR Research documents that I noted with the referenced parts. Daryll Research Document # 25 Transcription of Text NEW ZEALAND PACIFIC AVIATION SURVEY EXPEDITION 9. Mr. J. A. Henderson owing to the recurrence of an ailment following on an accident in the surf at Raoul Island reported sick and was evacuated by the "Leander" to Suva and thence to New Zealand by the "Aorangi." Mr. Lee from this date took over as Second In Charge of the expedition and assumed command of the Gardner and Hull parties. Research Document # 26 28th March, 1939. PACIFIC ISLANDS SURVEY EXPEDITION GARDNER ISLAND. by E.W. Lee The reef is excessively slippery -- it is extremely difficult to walk on it unladen -- and as a result of the frequent falls of the carrying party practically all the gear was landed wet and in some cases spoilt through the carriers slipping and falling into the reef pools. Due to our inexperience in New Zealand of the conditions to be met, the gear was packed in packages far too bulky and heavy and, in some cases, perishable goods -- hops for instance -- were packed in cases not waterproof and were consequently ruined in landing... ...During the first day of landing Mr. Henderson had the misfortune to go down to suspected lung trouble, due probably to an accident that he had previously sustained on Sunday Island and, upon reporting to the M.O. H.M.S. "Leander" was evacuated by the warship to Suva that day and thence to New Zealand. This reduction in personnel was a serious one as it meant the loss of our instrument man and the consequent slowing up of the progress of the work... ...On the 21st December the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Administration's vessel "Niminoa" [sic] with Messrs. Maude and Gallagher and a party of colonists for Gardner Hull and Sydney Islands arrived and a pioneering party of 10 adult males was left on Gardner Island to inaugurate the settlement scheme... Research Document # 28 Transcription of Text THE JOURNAL OF M.H. HAY ...Captain called for me and told me what all the equipment and provisions were for. It was for a secret survey expedition to one of the several islands in the Gilbert and Ellis [sic] group... ...On arrival at Suva all the equipment was sent ashore. I was also transferred ashore and fitted out with civilian clothes and billeted in the Garrick Hotel and told to await further orders which would be given to me by the head of the expedition. For three weeks I loafed around ... ...visit to the local branch of the Bank of NZ who had instructions to supply me with enough money... ...Mad Mac McGregor, a Scotsman famous throughout the Pacific as a navigator and his colossal capacity for strong drink... ...two days at sea were informed that it was Gardner Island in the Gilbert and Ellice Group. We were to survey the island and lagoon for emergency landing of aircraft... ...too rough for Mad Mac to get the bottle to his lips... ...It was during this period that the man in charge of our party fell and broke two ribs and the second-in-charge had to take over. I managed to get in touch with HMNZS "Leander" by radio who eventually arrived and the injured man was transferred to her... ...I received a message one day stating that we were to have a visit from the High Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, a Mr. Maude who would arrive in the government schooner... ...Christmas was drawing nigh and we were wondering what we had to celebrate with. I had two bottle of brandy in the stores --- for medical purposes but we decided that we would break out one bottle for X'mas day. On that day the cook excelled himself and he produced a meal of turtle steak and lobster. We all got slightly tiddly on the brandy and considering our isolation we had a very good day... ***************************************************** From Ric Interesting speculation. I think the bit about the sextant box is pretty farfetched but Hay's account of knocking off the medicinal brandy could account for the Benedictine bottle (but not the corks and brass chains). Benedictine is a brandy-based liqueur. If that's where the Benedictine bottle came from it must have been recovered by the castaway after the New Zealanders left, clearly indicating that the castaway was still alive in the spring of 1939. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:13:16 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: dynamotor The WE receiver did indeed require a high voltage power supply. It did not, could not, operate using only "battery voltage." The receiver and transmitter did not operate from the same dynamotor. The receiver used its own separate dynamotor power supply. The receiver dynamotor was much smaller, physically, than the one for the transmitter. Its output was approximately 200 volts at 60 milliamperes. This dynamotor ran continuously when the radio was in use. The transmitter dynamotor supplied 1050 volts at approximately 500 milliamperes. It was only energized during transmission. On voice, the mic button activated the relay that started the dynamotor (a relay very similar in design too an automotive starter solenoid) and activated the antenna changeover relay. On CW (Morse code), the dynamotor was started by throwing a switch located on the housing for the Morse key, to the "CW" position. This activated the dynamotor relay and the antenna changeover relay. It was necessary for the transmitter dynamotor to run continuously during CW transmitting. The high voltage had to be continuously applied to the circuit, for proper operation and to ensure a stable signal for transmission. The transmitter was then keyed by a separate relay, activated by the Morse key. The keying method was "grid blocking," wherein a bias voltage was applied to cut off current flow in the tubes when the key was "up" (between the dits and dahs of the Morse characters). To switch back to receive, in CW mode, the switch on the key housing had to be thrown to its original position. NOTE: This transmitter did not use "break-in keying" like most other aircraft radios of the era. It was never designed to be used for CW. The one AE used was modified by Western Electric, for this purpose, and the modifications were not too well thought out, in comparison to other contemporary designs. Someone speculated a few days back that if AE had left her key behind, it would be a simple matter to pick up another one. NOT SO. This was no ordinary garden variety Morse key. It was specially made with the required switch to change over from voice to CW, and had a multiconductor cable with a special plug to connect to the transmitter. FYI, I have made a rather comprehensive study of the circuitry of the equipment. My report is contained in the 8th Edition of the Earhart Project Book. LTM (who is full of high-voltage energy) And 73 Mike E. ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Mike. Do I understand you correctly that, with the aircraft parked on the ground, you could receive using only battery power but if you wanted to transmit you would have to have an engine running? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:16:48 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Further thoughts on dynamotors Rich Young wrote: >Mike Juliano - my understanding is that the receiver portion of the radio >was engineered to operate on battery voltage, just as most home receivers >of the time that were battery operated didn't have dynamotors. "Battery radios" of that time had separate batteries for the tube filaments (A-battery) and the high-voltage supply to the tube plates (B-battery). B-battery requirements depended on the radio at hand, but were generally from 45 to 135 volts; somme were occasionally higher. AE's receiver used a separate, small dynamotor for the B voltage -- not B-batteries. >Some low-powered transmitters, such as the GI. handy-talkie, were >developed in WWII that could operate off of battery voltages, but they >required special output tubes and their output power was in the 0,5 to 5 >watt range. Your understanding is not correct. ALL these radios required both A and B voltages. There was no WW2 transmitter that operated just off a 6 or 12 volt battery. Even the "handie talkie" radio (SCR-536, aka BC-611) that could literally be carried in one hand, used an A-battery of 1.5 volts and a B-battery of 103.5 volts. These were dry cells, special batteries made for that equipment, so they could be installed inside its case. Their life was not too long, either. The tubes used in these radios were the same sort used in "portable radios" of the era -- stuff like 1R5, 1S5 and the like. Vacuum-tube technology is rather different from the world of solid state. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:17:39 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: "Ham Chain" Carl Peltzer wrote: >An Update if I may be allowed: Radio Relay League mentioned is now called >American Radio Relay League and they might have some archives. Been there, done that. They don't. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:28:50 EST From: Al Hill Subject: Re: NZ survey and Tinian grave Gosh Ric, I'm lost. The 1st reference leads to only the hand written report posted Nov 5th and the last reference goes to "page not found". What am I doing wrong? Al Hills ************************************************************************ From Ric If you go to the Documents index page at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Documents_index.html you'll see all four New Zealand Survey-related entries. They are Document numbers 26, 27, 28 and 29. You're having trouble bringing up the Tinian Grave article because of a url "rollover" problem. The url is to long to fit on one line in an email. The easy solution is to just go to the TIGHAR homepage at www.tighar.org and scroll down to the Breaking News box and click on the "to read more" link. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:51 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Welcome new subscribers MSN.com ran a lead story today about the Earhart mystery which included several links to the TIGHAR website. As a result we've had ten new forum subscribers today. Welcome. Enjoy the show. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:57:42 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: dynamotor Ric wrote: > Thanks Mike. Do I understand you correctly that, with the aircraft parked on > the ground, you could receive using only battery power but if you wanted to > transmit you would have to have an engine running? There is no reason why either dynamotor could not be run directly off the battery. The only problem with running the transmitter/dynamotor off the battery is the current drain. Mike, 500mA seems like a lot of current at 1050V ie 525W. Even for a 100% efficient dynamotor the battery would be producing 44 A at 12V. At say 50% efficiency it would be drawing 88A. The generator was only rated at 50A and had to power the receiver on standby and all the plane's lights, instruments etc. Are you sure that figure is right? Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:59:17 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: "Sextant box", "Benedictine bottle" & "corks with brass chains" > Due to our inexperience in New Zealand of the conditions to be met, the > gear was packed in packages far too bulky and heavy and, in some cases, > perishable goods -- hops for instance -- were packed in cases not > waterproof and were consequently ruined in landing....... Were they planning to set up a brewery on the island? What else could you do with hops? Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(love that Miller's) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:03:39 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: "Sextant box", "Benedictine bottle" & "corks with brass chains" Ric wrote: > Interesting speculation. I think the bit about the sextant box is pretty > farfetched The reports generally indicate that the injuries occurred other than at Gardner and it was the complications following them that caused the requirement for evacuation. There is also considerable inconsistency in the story by Hay and the formal report as to dates of occurrences and also as to how and when the boat and ship arrived and left and the circumstances of evacuation. > but Hay's account of knocking off the medicinal brandy could account > for the Benedictine bottle (but not the corks and brass chains). Benedictine > is a brandy-based liqueur. Nobody could ever mistake Benedictine for Brandy. It may be brandy based, but it would be about as likely to be carried for medicinal purposes as Creme De Menthe. > If that's where the Benedictine bottle came from it must have been recovered > by the castaway after the New Zealanders left, clearly indicating that the > castaway was still alive in the spring of 1939. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************** From Ric >Nobody could ever mistake Benedictine for Brandy. It may be brandy >based, but it would be about as likely to be carried for medicinal >purposes as Creme De Menthe. You're basing that judgment on what? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:04:39 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: dynamotor Mike Everette wrote: > The transmitter dynamotor supplied 1050 volts at approximately 500 > milliamperes. Mike, I do not have the reference, but in the forum archives you stated that the W.E. transmitter used a pair of W.E. 282A tubes in the final (output) stage. I assume that those tubes were connected in push-pull configuration, which was the usual configuration in the 1930's. My information (ARRL Handbook, 1936 edition) is that the maximum rated plate voltage for the 282A tube was 1,000 volts. You are no doubt aware that a designer exceeds this maximum rated plate voltage at his own risk. If he does, the result at best is shortened life of the tube(s), and at worst is catastrophic failure at an unpredictable time. To prevent such happenstance, it is usual practice to de-rate tubes and operate them at say, 80 percent of maximum rating, example 800 volts in this case. It seems incomprehensible to me that Western Electric Co. would apply 1,050 volts to the tubes, thereby exceeding the company's own published maximum ratings. Would you kindly confirm that the tubes used were W.E. 282A's, and could you explain whether the voltage was reduced by some means, such as a series resistor, or resistive voltage divider network? Neil Barnett ZL1ANM Auckland, N.Z. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:39:50 EST From: Daryll Subject: Sextant box and Benedictine bottle Ric wrote: >Interesting speculation. I think the bit about the sextant box is pretty >farfetched but Hay's account of knocking off the medicinal brandy could >account for the Benedictine bottle (but not the corks and brass chains). >Benedictine is a brandy-based liqueur. > >If that's where the Benedictine bottle came from it must have been >recovered by the castaway after the New Zealanders left, clearly >indicating that the castaway was still alive in the spring of 1939. Then you are making a definite connection between the castaway and the Benedictine bottle? I guess I'm not clear on how the nexus was made on those listed items except the statement "With the bones were found..." . IF the bones (skull) rested on the sextant box and the Benedictine bottle was in the grasp of the skeletal hand and those other items were found within a few yards from the castaway's remains. Then that would be a very good connection between the organic (bio-degradable) and non-organic items. IF the report by the Western Pacific High Commission was written after opening and examining the contents of a box sent by Gallagher from Gardner, then "With" takes on a different meaning. If Gallagher could have gotten the Norwich City in the box, the report could have included it as being found with the castaway. Daryll ***************************************************************** From Ric The bottle is first mentioned in Gallagher's Sept. 23rd telegram to the Acting Adiministrative Officer (David Wernham) in Tarawa: "Please obtain from Koata (Native Magistrate Gardner on way to Central Hospital) a certain bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered on Gardner Island. Grateful you retain bottle in safe place for present and ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt. [sic] Gallagher." The phrasing indicates that Gallagher does not have first hand knowledge of where the bottle was found. That same day he sends a telgram to the Resident Commissioner (Jack Barley) on Ocean Island saying, in part: "Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe, a bottle, and a sextant box." Gallagher states that the bottle was found during the same search that produced the bones, shoe and sextant box. We're left with the impression that Gallagher did not know that Koata had found the bottle and had taken it with him until after Koata had left for Tarawa. On September 30, Wernham sends a telegram to Gallagher: "Koata has handed to me one benedictine bottle." On October 1 the new Acting Resident Commissioner on Ocean Island (Henry Holland) notifies the brass in Suva about Gallagher's discovery of the bones, shoe, and sextant box but makes no mention of the bottle. That same day Holland sends a telegram to Gallagher asking for more details and asks: "Is there any indication as to contents of bottle." On October 6 Gallagher replies: "Benedictine" bottle but no indication of contents" That's the last mention of the bottle anywhere. It looks like the brass in Suva never did know about it. In 1960, Floyd Kilts related what he had been told by one of the islanders on Gardner in 1946. "Beside the body was a cognac bottle with fresh water in it for drinking." Benedictine is not cognac any more than it is brandy but these distinctions get pretty fuzzy when related in recollections. In any case, it was clearly Gallagher's impression, and it certainly became part of the story among the people on the island, that the bottle was as much a part of the scene at the castaway campsite as were the bones, the shoe part and sextant box. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:22:56 EST From: Tanya Dolske Subject: New subscribers Thank you for accepting my request to join this forum. If you don't mind me asking, what brought you to the search for answers in her disappearance? For me, I am related to her. Are you as well? What type of degree do you and the other researchers have that are affiliated with the search? I am just trying to get some background. Trying to find out if you are professionals or avid fans of Amelia Earhart and just have a strong interest in her case. I hope I can bring some help to this group. I will be researching your archives over the next couple of days. Good luck and GOD Bless! Tanya Dolske ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Tanya. I'm happy to answer your questions. We have quite a few new subscribers due to the MSN.com story and they may also be curious about who we are and where we're coming from. TIGHAR is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to responsible aviation archaeology and historic preservation. We came to the Earhart search very reluctantly 15 years ago. We had long recognized that the Japanese-capture allegations are unsupported by any real evidence and we had, like so many others, assumed that the most logical explanation for the disappearance is that the flight simply got lost, ran out of gas, and went down at sea. Aware that the technology does not exist to locate the airplane if it's somewhere on the bottom of the ocean (a fact that still escapes people who should know better) we saw the Earhart disappearance as an interesting mystery that was essentially unsolvable. Then, in 1988, two TIGHAR members who had extensive experience and expertise in the navigational methods employed by Fred Noonan, showed us that the flight "could have and should have" been able to reach either of two islands in the Phoenix Group and that neither island had been thoroughly searched in 1937. We had to concede that it was at least worth taking a look. Now, 15 years, eight expeditions, countless hours of research, and well over two million dollars later we have an abundance of evidence to indicate - but not yet prove - that the Earhart flight ended on Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro). As far as I know, I am in no way related to Amelia Earhart. The only person associated with our search who is a relative is Jim Morrissey, her great nephew (Jim's father was Earhart's sister's son). Jim was our medic on the 2001 expedition. I'm the executive director of the organization. I've been in aviation all my life and prior to co-founding TIGHAR in 1985 I was a risk manager and accident investigator with the aviation insurance industry for 12 years. My own academic credentials are minimal - I have a BA in History. We are fortunate to have an Earhart Project Advisory Council that is made up of some 30 individuals with impressive credentials in a wide range of disciplines including archaeology, forensic antrhopology, forensic imaging, chemical engineeering, aeronautical engineering, medicine, etc. Few of us could be described as fans of Amelia Earhart. Our interest is in conclusively solving a fascinating and very challenging historical mystery. This forum is a place for intelligent (we hope) discussion on an incredibly wide variety of topics related to TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance. We also try to have a good time. Over 800 people subscribe to this forum and we welcome any subscriber's submission of questions, information, opinions, suggestions or comments but I would urge you to avail yourself of the information provided on the TIGHAR website before wading into discussions. I hope you find the forum entertaining and informative. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:24:57 EST From: Tanya Dolske Subject: new member I would like to take a brief moment to introduce myself to you all. My name is Tanya and I live in Wisconsin. I found this forum thanks to MSN's story on Amelia Earhart. About my interest in her.... while in the third grade I had to do a report on any famous people we are related to. I found out I am related to Amelia Earhart. She was my great-grandmother's 2nd cousin. Being in the third grade I had NO clue who Amelia Earhart was! But, I learned fast. My teacher was amazed, and the other kids in school gave me a hard time. I guess they had heard of her. They called me a liar, and made such a big deal about it. That is what sparked my interest in her life. I figured she must be a big person if all these people are making a big deal out of it. You can only imagine what happened when I told them I am also related to the late Lawrence Welk! Anyway, from that day on I have read many books on her life and disappearance. I remember being in middle school when the news came out about the shoes and other items being found that could possible be from her. Oh my, did I get crap from people again. I couldn't believe they remembered. Kids kept coming up to me saying, "Did you hear they found your cousin's shoe?" Big deal! Point is I would love to be a part of the search for the answers in her whereabouts and disappearance. If I can assist you in any way please let me know. If there are any other relatives of hers here, please email me privately at Dolske8@charter.net Thank you to all who have put so much time and effort into finding the answers to her mystery disappearance. My family and I appreciate it very much. Tanya Dolske ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:40:13 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Benedictine and brandy >> Nobody could ever mistake Benedictine for Brandy. It may be brandy >> based, but it would be about as likely to be carried for medicinal >> purposes as Creme De Menthe. > > You're basing that judgment on what? Practical experience, historical evidence in writings etc. In reality, Benedictine and Creme De Menthe are supposed to have medicinal value, in which case my statement stands. Both are as likely as each other to be carried for medicinal purposes. On the other hand, there are few written accounts of Benedictine or other liqueurs being used (as a regular practice) to wash out wounds, revive fatigued patients, restore circulation and body warmth. Imagine being lost in the Alps and rescued by a huge dog with a cask of Creme De Menthe around its neck. I have drunk litres of Benedictine and Drambuie over the years. They were my favourite drink in my University days as discussed years ago on the forum when it was first discovered that the bottle was not a Cognac bottle. Cognac I could see being carried for medicinal purposes, whiskey even, but not liqueurs. Oddly, with the honey and herbs combined in Benedictine it probably is a good wash for wounds. The price alone however, compared to the plain garden variety brandy that was carried as "medicinal" in most real situations, would make Benedictine an unlikely choice. It would not have been a particularly common item even then, nor would it have been cheap enough to carry for slopping around on wounds. Th' WOMBAT ********************************************************************** From Ric I would suggest that instead of "Nobody could ever mistake Benedictine for Brandy." a more accurate statement might be "Ross Devitt would never mistake Benedictine for Brandy." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:47:06 EST From: Ed Croft Subject: Tighar gets a mention in Encarta Tighar is mentioned in an article about Amelia Earhart on MS Encarta. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/Columns/?Article=AmeliaEarhartMain They mentioned 'the final report' on the Tighar site. Keeping things from us ? :) ltm, Ed Croft ************************************************************************ From Ric You know better than that. If you had clicked on the link you'd have seen that the Final Report they refer to is Marty and Roger's final report from last summer's Fiji Bone Search II. Don't believe everything you read in the news media. Incidentally, that MSN.com/Encarta piece tripled our website hits yesterday from our average of one thousand visitors per day to over three thousand. So far about 20 new forum subscribers have signed up. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:01:18 EST From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: Re Sextant box & bottle Ric wrote: >The phrasing indicates that Gallagher does not have first hand >knowledge of where the bottle was found. > >Gallagher states that the bottle was found during the same search >that produced the bones, shoe and sextant box. We're left with >the impression that Gallagher did not know that Koata had found the >bottle and had taken it with him until after Koata had left for >Tarawa. I don't mean to belabor the point but to form the picture in my own mind of the scene it would seem that Gallagher wasn't present when the items were collected from the site. It's almost as if after learning of the skull being re-buried he asked Koata to go back and look for more bones with the instruction to bring back anything else he found. The whole point of my inquiry is that the condition of the castaway's remains and shoe parts might be from a different time period than the bottle and sextant box. Gallagher speculating that the bones could be AE's might be inspired from his knowledge of his own true purpose on Gardner (not coconuts). He was island sitting for the British for sovereignty purposes to reserve the island for British Airways considerations, just like the Americans were doing on Howland, Baker and Jarvis AND tried to do on Canton island during the eclipse expedition. Mr. Hay seems to be clear and not too bashful about admitting that he was on a "secret" mission to Gardner to see how it would be for emergency landing of aircraft. Not only did the Capt. say to him it was "secret" but the way Mr. Hay described his living conditions, civilian clothes and bank account before leaving for Gardner would tend to confirm the "secret" status. Mr. Hay and Gallagher were on the island at the same time so discussions about what they were actually doing there could have happened. If aviation was the true purpose for Gallagher's (he had a pilots license right?) presence on Niku, then AE's bones might have been a logical thought that was brought to the forefront of his thinking when there was no other evidence to connect AE to Niku except her "missing" status. If the British thought that British Airways plans for Pacific air travel was worthy of a "secret" status, then the American government could have likewise considered Pan Am's plan for surveying a central route (AE&FN) through the Pacific also worthy of the "secret" status. Daryll *********************************************************************** From Ric Daryll, I swear....you see secret missions everywhere. The New Zealand survey does seem to have been carried out quietly but to allege that Gallagher's "real" purpose on Gardner was aviation is ludicrous. We have reams of documentation on the proposal, approval, and execution of the Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme and we have Gallagher's three volume personnel file. There is little doubt that London approved the funding for the PISS in part because colonization of the Phoenix Group would bolster British claims of sovereignty, but aviation concerns are mentioned nowhere in any of the documents (which, I realize, proves to you that Gallagher was a secret agent). >The whole point of my inquiry is that the condition of the castaway's >remains and shoe parts might be from a different time period than the >bottle and sextant box. So how do the sextant box and bottle get to the castaway's campsite which is way too far from either the lagoon or the ocean shore for anything to simply wash up there? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:08:44 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news In view of ham operator Carroll's alleged "hearing" Earhart signals and his call sign appearing in Betty's notebook, I reviewed the West Palm Beach Post newspaper from 2 July to 19 July 37,. The paper also contained news from adjacent Ft Worth. Carroll was living and working there in 1937. The Newspaper was full of the AP releases and other accounts of Amelia's disappearance starting on 3 July 37, and the recurring reports by amateurs of "faint signals" from AE. I reviewed all of the local accounts, movies, radio programs, news items, and general reporting about Amelia, and found no references to anyone in the area hearing or attempting to contact AE. No references were made to any hams. [One of the Hollywood movies advertised on 9 July 37 had a byline for the latest "March of Time" newsreel, but the content was not identified. It is possible that this could have been an account of AE, although I only know of the radio broadcasts] In sum, there was nothing relevant that I could find connecting Carroll with ham radio or Earhart's signals, a newsworthy story if ever there was one. Ron Bright ******************************************************************** From Ric If Carroll heard Earhart it seems pretty apparent that he did not go to the authorities or the media with the news at the time. That may tell us more about his personality than about what he did or didn't hear. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:20:13 EST From: Gary F Subject: Re: Benedictine and brandy Someone once gave me a 100 year old bottle of Benedictine. It was the best liqueur I've ever tasted and was consumed only sparingly. In my selfishness I never found anyone "worthy" with whom to share it! Seems odd to me a bottle of the grand liqueur would be found in the south pacific of the 1930's, let alone on a deserted island. I've always associated the liqueur with a certain snob appeal. Gary ********************************************************************** From Ric Item No. 18 in the inventory of Gsalllagher's personal effects is - 1 case containing: 1 bottle medicine, 1 bottle whiskey, 1/2 bottle Cointreau, 1 bottle Cherry brandy, 2 1/2 bottles Bourgoyne, 2 1/2 bottles bitters, 1 bottle Dramblin, 1/2 bottle Creme de Menthe, 2 1/2 bottles gin. (see http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Gallagereffects.html) I expect that "Dramblin" should be Drambuie. No Benedictine. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:45:57 EST From: Steve Cartisano Subject: Re: New subscribers Thanks for the info in your response to Tanya Dolske's email. What is your organizations next move to get to the next level in the investigation (if there is a next level to go to) and what do you need to get there? Thanks Steve Cartisano ******************************************************************** From Ric What a great question. Thank you Steve. At this point, we have a rather amazing preponderance of circumstantial evidence from a wide variety of sources that supports our basic hypothesis that the Earhart flight ended at Nikumaroro. Just as significantly, we have been able to find no alternative explanation for the evidence that the flight ended there nor do we know of any evidence that supports an alternative answer to the riddle. The Japanese-Capture theory, despite decades of research by its proponents, remains based upon nothing but contradictory anecdotal recollections, fanciful interpretations of innocuous documents, and the classic conspiracy buff's axiom that absence of evidence is proof of a cover-up. The more widely held Crashed-and-Sank-at-Sea theory, erroneously thought to be the "official" verdict for the Earhart disappearance (there is no official verdict), is unsupported by any evidence except an intuitive observation that Earhart was trying to find a tiny island in a big ocean. In the absence of indications that something else happened it seems logical that she simply got lost, ran out of gas, and went down at sea. The trouble is that there is a large and growing body of evidence to suggest that something else happened. But, as has often been said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and we have not yet found that one "smoking gun" (a conclusively identifiable part of the plane or DNA-matched human remains) that would lock up the case for the general public. Such evidence, we believe, almost certainly exists somewhere on Nikumaroro or in the deep water off the edge of the reef. The main obstacle to finding it is money - or rather the need for money. Nikumaroro is a hideously expensive place to get to and a very challenging environment in which to conduct an archaeological search. Preparing and conducting an expedition that nets us three weeks on the island with a 12 person team takes the better part of a year and costs us roughly a half-million dollars. We're a small, financially-challenged, nonprofit with wonderful, bright, and dedicated members who have thoughtlessly neglected to amass huge fortunes. Raising that kind of money is a bitch. So...in the absence of an unlimited ability to conduct search operations we do everything we can to learn more about the flight, the disappearance, the 1937 search, and about the island and what we've already found there. Right now we have major research efforts underway on several fronts. - We're trying to learn all we can about the original cabin interior furnishings in Lockheed Electras to see if they match the "dados" we have recovered from Nikumaroro. (You'll find two recent Research Bulletins on this subject on the TIGHAR website.) It may be that we already have the smoking gun we've been looking for, but the documentation is proving to be very elusive. So far we've been unable to find Lockheed engineering drawings that cover this feature and all of the Electras preserved in museums remained in service long enough so that their interiors were refurbished at least once. We're now exploring the possibility of locating and examining very old Electra crash sites in the hope of finding examples of original dados. - We're completing the first-ever comprehensive study of the alleged post-loss radio distress calls that were reported for several days following the disappearance. This is a mammoth research project that we've been working on for years. If even one of the 184 post-loss signals was a genuine call from Earhart, the plane had to be on land. - Understanding the significance of the artifacts we recovered in 2001 at the "Seven Site" (which we think is the place where a castaway's bones were found in 1940) requires a better understanding of postwar activity on the island than we have had in the past. We have just recently connected, via email, with some former Nikumaroro residents now living in New Guinea and Australia who can help us answer many questions and connect us with other former Niku residents. In summary, we're proceeding with the investigation on many fronts and the more we learn, the more we're convinced that we're on the right track and that the true story of what really happened to Amelia Earhart is more amazing than anyone imagined. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:49:02 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Tighar gets a mention in Encarta Ric wrote: > You know better than that. If you had clicked on the link you'd have seen > that the Final Report they refer to is Marty and Roger's final report from last > summer's Fiji Bone Search II. ... Oh, dear! This is my mistake. The title derived from the fact that I had filed about 25 daily reports from Fiji and New Zealand for the Earhart Project Advisory Committee. It is only in that context that "Final Report" means anything. I was contrasting the finished essay with the interim reports. It's probably too late now, but perhaps we should retitle the essay and drop the word "Final" from it. Sorry for the confusion. :o( Marty #2359 *************************************************** From Ric Don't beat yourself up. Anyone should be able to see that it's a "final report" on Fiji Bone Search II. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:56:13 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Benedictine and brandy I love the ratio! One bottle of medicine to 11.5 bottles of booze. I'm not sure it was the sea which kept the Empire afloat for so long. blue skies, jerry *************************************************** From Ric A well-stocked liquor cabinet is essential on Niku. One never knows who might stop by. *********************************************************** From Ross Devitt All I can suggest Ric is, try the scientific approach. Taste the stuff. Benedictine is nothing like Brandy. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************** From Ric I keep a bottle of Benedictine around in memory of Koata. It's good stuff, but since I'm not a brandy drinker I'd have to buy a bottle of brandy to tell you how different the two drinks are. What the heck...anything for science. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:57:33 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: New subscribers For new subscribers interested in the background of the project, let me make a shameless pitch for our book, Amelia Earhart's Shoes, which recounts TIGHAR's adventures in pursuit of AE and FN from the project's inception through 2000. It's co-authored by forensic anthropologist Kar Burns, geophysicist Randy Jacobson, engineer Kenton Spading and me, and royalties go to support the project. Published by AltaMira Press (www.altamirapress.com), it's going into an updated second edition soon (but at least six months in the future), so now's the time to get the first edition from the dwindling supplies. It will answer lots of questions, I think, about how we got to where we are, and what we've been through to get there. Tom King Earhart Project Archaeologist ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:05:20 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Sextant box & bottle I hate this shoulda woulda coulda tripe the bottle and the box coulda been there for years before the castaway and was found by said castaway. It didn't have to be brought in AE's inventory of items. remember there was a ship wreck on the island eight years earlier. With no need for a sextant the box coulda been separated from the tool that it housed and the use for some other purpose. Ron Berry ************************************************************ From Ric Certain objects were found with the castaway's remains. We don't have any way of knowing which, if any, of the items arrived with the castaway and which may have been found on the island by the castaway. It is, however, useful and noteworthy when we have a documented account that offers a specific explanation for the presence of one of the objects. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:16:29 EST From: Eric Subject: Carroll's story Ric wrote: > If Carroll heard Earhart it seems pretty apparent that he did not go to the > authorities or the media with the news at the time. That may tell us more > about his personality than about what he did or didn't hear. But then again, maybe he did contact the authorities and was told (by the FBI, Secret Service or whoever) to keep mum about what he heard. (We had a rather lengthy discussion about this earlier this year. Betty and at least one other person who claimed to have heard post-lost AE transmissions said that somehow they got the impression that the Government didn't want this information to be released. Hmmmmm. LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ******************************************************** From Ric It is entirely possible that Carroll went to the authorities and was rebuffed, as happened to Betty's father, but I want to emphasize that we have found NOTHING (and we've looked real hard) to indicate that anyone in the government EVER asked the public to keep quiet or tried to suppress reports of post-loss messages from Earhart. It is apparent that Betty and at least one other shortwave listener later got that impression somehow but we have found no indication that the impression was correct. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:25:02 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: More for New Subscribers For New Subscribers: I'll second Tom King's plug for "Amelia Earhart's Shoes". When I was becoming familiar with TIGHAR, I read it, and enjoyed it immensely. When I finished, I wanted it to go on for another several hundred pages. It is entertaining and informative; altogether satisfying. *** Ric, how many dues-paying TIGHAR members do we currently have? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 *********************************************************** From Ric About 650. By the way, the final count of website visitors yesterday was a tad higher than the 3,000 I mentioned. It turns out that the statistical program that keeps track of such things couldn't keep up in real time. We had 85,475 visitors to the TIGHAR website yesterday. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:27:54 EST From: Judy Tomasino Subject: How to order the book Tom King writes: >For new subscribers interested in the background of the project, let me make >a shameless pitch for our book, Amelia Earhart's Shoes,... Where do you order it from???? ************************************************************** From Ric You can order directly from the publisher at www.altamirapress.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:43:19 EST From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: RE Sextant box & bottle Ric wrote: >Daryll, I swear....you see secret missions everywhere....(which, I >realize, proves to you that Gallagher was a secret agent).... You were the one to morph my comments into the "secret agent" SPY realm. In some circles it would be called multi-tasking. Was there a spike in copra prices during this time period that made the British think, HEY, we're missing the boat on this copra market price bonanza! Guano and Copra were just government excuses to be somewhere in the Pacific on an island. You will have to show me the books to convince me that copra was profitable. Wait, forget that, I just remembered, there is an accountant involved book keeping. Consider the chronology. In June '37' the American's landed the eclipse expedition (FDR's orders) on Canton hoping to claim the island for Pan Am. The British had already placed a plaque there claiming the island circa Jan. '37'. In June, the Americans were just a little bit quicker and parked their boat at the only spot where a ship could anchor at Canton. When the British showed up with their scientist they were PO'd because there was no parking spot and realized the Americans were planning on staying longer than just for the eclipse. There could have very well been quiet discussions in Parliament about how they could prevent the Americans from moving in on their other uninhabited islands. They could have come to the conclusion that a British citizen had to be living on the island to give any validity to sovereignty claims, just like the Americans and Hawaiians on Howland, Baker and Jarvis were doing. It takes money to put a British citizen on an island in the Pacific. Money had to be approved by Parliament which requires a reason to appropriate it. Voila the copra market, I guess there wasn't enough bird crap to go the Guano route. So how long did Gallagher and the coconut tree experiment go on, on Gardner? One or two years? >So how do the sextant box and bottle get to the castaway's >campsite which is way too far from either the lagoon or the ocean shore >for anything to simply wash up there? Mr. Lee was there to do a survey for the emergency landing for aircraft. That means tramping around the island carrying stuff (instruments). The Sextant and it's box gets separated maybe at night in the dark while shooting stars. Maybe Mad Mac McGregor the ships navigator was using it AND we know he drinks. Upon leaving they discover the Sextant box is missing. Nobody wants to go back and look for it. Someone says " Let Gallagher or one of the Gilbertese go look for it and send it back." >The New Zealand survey does seem to have been carried out quietly >but to allege that Gallagher's "real" purpose on Gardner was aviation is >ludicrous. Thanks, I thought I was on the right track. Daryll ************************************************************************* From Ric You're long on theory and short on fact. The Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme was proposed by Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony Lands Commissioner Henry ("Harry") Maude solely to relieve poverty due to overpopulation in the southern Gilberts. It had nothing to do with copra prices or aviation. We have the entire paper trail. The coconut plantings on Gardner were not an experiment. They began with the clearing operations of the first work party in December 1938 and continued until the abandonment of the colony in 1963. The only coconut planting experiments were in areas where there was some question as to whether the soil would support growth. Your uninformed speculations are wasting everyone's time. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:52:35 EST From: Rich Young Subject: Benedictine again As I recall from "Grossman's Guide to Wines, Beers, and Spirits", (5th edition) Benedictine was created by monks for medicinal purposes, specifically to aid digestion and treat stomach ailments. Among the 27 plant extracts in it is juniper, which, just like its presence in gin, promotes "regularity". In the days before Mylanta and Prevacid, a bottle of it would not be unusual as part of a traveling "first aid kit", especially in the event of a 'round the world trip, with the ever-lurking danger of "La Tourista". Were either Fred or Amelia known to have digestive problems or a "nervous stomach"? Another consideration is that during the Prohibition, an exception was made for "medicinal preparations", a loophole that a serious drinker or alcoholic could exploit to buy and consume Benedictine, along with a small handful of other tonics and liqueurs. LTM, (who can't believe I ate the whole thing...) Rich Young ************************************************************************ From Ric Very interesting. Thanks Rich. There's a whole body of Amelia Folklore that alleges that she was terribly debilitated and stricken with dysentery by the time she got to Lae. I have seen no evidence to support that contention. Fumes from gasoline spillage during the fueling of the airplane for the South Atlantic crossing back in early June had made AE queasy during that flight. The only other mention of stomach complaints came after Fred and Amelia overindulged at a banquet in Java in late June. If Benedictine was reputed to be good for such upsets it seems possible that they may have picked up a bottle. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:54:53 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: nit picking again Ric said: "It is apparent that Betty and at least one other shortwave listener later got that impression somehow but we have found no indication that the impression was correct." An impression, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Few of us are capable of ruling whether an impression is correct or incorrect. However, we can determine if the facts support that impression. In Betty's case, I think is would be more accurate to say, we have no facts that would lead us to a similar impression. Sorry for the nit-picking, but it is a slow day at work and I needed to accomplish SOMETHING. :-) LTM, who is without nits Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************* From Ric Sheesh....happy to be of help. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:56:24 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: New subscribers Ric wrote: > ... In summary, we're proceeding with the investigation on many fronts ... Roger and I are also following up on the questions we asked in Fiji and New Zealand about the bones, sextant box, corks on chains and shoe parts. We're hoping that someone in Fiji will someday open a long-forgotten closet or trunk and say, "Oh! This is what those American eccentrics were looking for!" LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:03:45 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: New subscribers Are any of the old Electra crash sites in the United States? If so, where are they? LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric We're looking at three sites in the U.S. A 1943 crash 30 miles east of Ketchikan, Alaska A 1936 loss near Kellog, Idaho A 1952 loss in Lake Michigan near Milwaukee, Wisconsin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:18:33 EST From: Ronald Metty Subject: Re: Sextant box & bottle The numbers written on the back of the box sound an awful lot like the numbers the navigator wrote on previous boxes he used though. What about that shipwreck eight years earlier though? What happened? Who was on the ship? Could the bones be one of the survivors of the wreck? Was the site where the imaging was showing wreckage on the beach that could be an airplane ever searched? ************************************************************* From Ric S.S. Norwich City went hard aground on the reef during a storm on the night of November 30, 1929. The grounding ruptured her fuel oil tanks and the ship caught fire. The 35 crewmen went over the side in the teeth of the storm. 24 made it to shore. 3 bodies washed up and were buried by the survivors. Eight men were unaccounted for and presumed dead. The survivors spent five days on the island before being rescued by two ships dispatched from Samoa (they were able to get an SOS out before abandoning the ship). It is, of course, theoretically possible that one or more of the unaccounted for crewmembers was washed ashore unconscious, never joined the other survivors, and was left behind when the others were rescued. But the castaway was found with part of a woman's shoe and there were no women (or, as far as we know, cross-dressers) aboard Norwich City. The area on the reef edge where satellite imagery indicated the presence of a rust-colored anomaly was investigated by our divers in 2001 and found to be an unusual patch of red algae. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:19:09 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news Ron, understanding your extensive research of 1937 Florida newspaper coverage of Amelia Earhart's World Flight attempt, a quick question - How was Amelia Earhart identified in the Florida newspaper articles that you have reviewed, by maiden or married name? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:23:46 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Sextant box & bottle object being the sextant box, that is the most interesting thing that has been found. That object had a few ways that is could have got there. It being wood I would think that its life expectancy would be rather short out in the weather on an island. I have read about the box but I can't remember if a description of the condition to the wood that made up the box was given. Is there any information in regards to this. i.e. the color of the wood, how much fading , or weathering did the box exhibit. ***************************************************************** From Ric Everything we know about the box is detailed in the 1940/'41 documentation on the website in the Documents section under "The Bones Chronology". There is no mention of the color or condition of the wood but if the numbers were still legible it couldn't have been all that bad. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:25:15 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Benedictine and brandy Ric wrote: > I keep a bottle of Benedictine around in memory of Koata. It's good stuff, > but since I'm not a brandy drinker I'd have to buy a bottle of brandy to tell > you how different the two drinks are. What the heck...anything for science. Looking forward to seeing the result of this piece of research! I suspect that when you sit down to a glass of "medicinal" brandy, bearing in mind that ordinary cheap "across the bar" stuff was usually bought for this purpose as it would as often be used to pour over wounds as for internal use, you might develop a true appreciation for Benedictine. In the interests of scientific methodology it would not be fair to use Remy, Vat 69 or a genuine Cognac for the experiment. These would have been unlikely to be carried for medicinal purposes, although that would have often been the excuse for having them on an expedition. I have seen the same excuse used as the reason for having a few bottles of "over proof" rum in a "dry" (supposedly alcohol free) camp. I suspect Gallagher would have enjoyed a Gin at the end of a hard day. Seems to have been the Colonial Officers' habit in those days. I suspect the NZ Survey team on the other hand would have been rather partial to a beer or a rum. Of course, keeping beer cold in the tropics can be a worry, but I have found keeping it buried under damp sand or coral rubble for a night or two makes all the difference. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:26:31 EST From: Steve Subject: Re: New subscribers Sounds like you would be heading back to Nikumaroro if you had the money, is that correct? Thanks Steve *********************************************************************** From Ric You betcha. Got any? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:15:51 EST From: Carl Subject: Re: lost electras I am looking independently [USAF Records], however wonder if any lost Electras ended up in the Florida area so I and a small team might investigate as a project. ******************************************************************* From Ric Not that I know of. I should add that TIGHAR wreck site inspections are carried out by graduates of TIGHAR's Introductory Course in Aviation Archaeology and Field School and are conducted in accordance with TIGHAR standards. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:16:44 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news A quick but not exhaustive review of the St Petersburg paper and the West Palm Beach paper indicate she was referred to as "Miss Earhart", "Miss Amelia Earhart", but often the article included the fact she was George Palmer Putnam's wife. I did not see any references to her as "Mrs Amelia Putnam" or "Mrs George Putnam" or "Mrs Amelia Earhart Putnam". If it is important I can re review those articles. (I wouldn't be surprised to see GP referred to as Mr George Earhart) REB ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:23:14 EST From: unknown Subject: Re: Sextant box & bottle this is just a thought...I think Red Algae may be caused by excessive amounts of iron. Might the red Algae be the result of say a burried airplane? Though mostly aluminium it must still contain iron. Was the algae investigated for signs of metal. Just a thought. I sure am impressed with your group by the way. Really thrilling work. You should all give yourself a hand for all of your good work. I'm enjoying reading your progress very, very much. Thank you! ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks for the thought but red algae is not caused by iron. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:37:27 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Benedictine and brandy > I keep a bottle of Benedictine around in memory of Koata. It's good stuff, > but since I'm not a brandy drinker I'd have to buy a bottle of brandy to tell > you how different the two drinks are. What the heck...anything for science. That's our Ric. Willing to risk life, limb, even sobriety to advance the project. - Bill #2229 ************************************************************ From Ric There's a great scene in "Fort Apache" when Col. Thursday (Henry Fonda) orders Sgt. Mulcahey (Victor MacLaughlin) and his men to "destroy" several barrels of rotgut whiskey. After the colonel leaves the sergeant breaks open a cask, passes tin cups all around and says, "Well men, it's a man's work we have ahead of us this day." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:15:48 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Hams in general I found a msg that relates to possible ham or amateur radio connections to AE. In view of our interest in identifying ham call signs in Betty's notebook this may be of interest. A msg from Commander, SF Div., Coast Div., (prob in March 37), to Shoshone CG., related info re AE's call sign, radio frequencies, and direction finder on the first attempt. The text includes: "Plane suggests DF be set up on Island if practicable. In making MO for bearing on 500 kcs transmit long dashes no repeat no amateur contacts will be made and all transmissions will be on frequencies listed. " [ Ex #27, page 35, Exhibits appendix, Communication from COMSFDIV, "Flight into Yesterday", by Capt Laurance F. Safford, Ed.by Cam Warren) I take that to mean they didn't want amateurs fouling up the airwaves, but your radio experts can clarify this notation'. Ron B ********************************************************* From Ric Anyone who has the Research CD (which can be ordered via the TIGHAR website) can verify that on March 17, 1937 the Coast Guard San Francisco Division (COMFRANDIV) notified the cutter Shoshone: AMELIA EARHART PLANE RADIO CALL KHAQQ WILL TRANSMIT ON 500 COMMA 3105 COMMA AND 6210 KCS USING CONTINUOUS WAVE TELEGRAPHY AND VOICE PERIOD PLANE HAS DIRECTION FINDER COVERING 200 TO 1430 KCS WITH ALL WAVE RECEIVER FOR TELEGRAPHY PERIOD SHOSHONE WORK PLANE ON 500 COMMA 3105 COMMA AND 6210 KCS IF POSSIBLE OTHERWISE NOTIFY PLANE OR SHIFT TO 2670 KCS PERIOD PLANE SUGGESTS DIRECTION FINDER BE SET UP ON ISLAND IF PRACTICABLE PERIOD IN MAKING MO FOR BEARING ON 500 KCS TRANSMIT LONG DASHES NO REPEAT NO AMATEUR CONTACTS WILL BE MADE AND ALL TRANSMISSIONS WILL BE ON FREQUENCIES LISTED PERIOD SHOSHONE CONTACT WITH COAST COMMERCIAL STATIONS WILL BE ON 8455 OR 12600 KCS ON SCHEDULE TO BE ARRANGED LATER PERIOD SPEED OF TRANSMISSIONS TO PLANE NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN WORDS PER MINUTE ARRANGEMENTS FOR RADIO AT NEW GUINEA WILL BE MADE AT HONOLULU PERIOD SHOSHONE REPORT WHEN TRANSMITTERS ARE READY ON PLANE FREQUENCIES PERIOD DISTRIBUTION COLON CAPTAIN MANNING AND MR MILLER ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:39:41 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news Ron, I appreciate your effort and quick response to my question - News articles of that time period (1937) pertaining to Amelia Earhart that I have reviewed all pretty much reflect what you're saying - Her marriage to George Putnam tends to be background information - But then again most Earhart news articles were generated from limited wire service feed. Is this important? - Good question - Reference page 49 "Amelia Earhart" entry of Betty's notebook suggests importance to me. With that said Ron, have you ever read or even heard of Amelia Earhart publicly identifying herself by marital status, such as Mrs Amelia Earhart Putnam, Mrs George Putnam, or by just Amelia Putnam? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:42:14 EST From: Denis Murphy Subject: Note to Darryl! Note to Darryl: You really have no idea about life as lived in the Pacific, do you? When you say "Guano and Copra were just government excuses to be somewhere in the Pacific on an island" and "You will have to show me the books to convince me that copra was profitable." I can only say HA! Who IS this idiot! The price of guano was so high it was enough to buy Sir Arthur Gordon, one of the earliest and main players in the field, a very impressive Lordship back in England and those things never come cheap. And copra, until the late 1970s, when the bottom fell out of the market, was enormously profitable too. You only have to look at the Copra Plantation Families in places like Taveuni and Savu Savu, where copra sustained an unimaginably impressive lifestyle for up to seven generations, to realise this was so. Do you know that they used to ship home their kids' entire classes from their Australian or New Zealand boarding schools for the Christmas holidays? Can you imagine how much an exercise like that would cost? And that the planters in Taveuni built themselves a world class race course in order to attract Australian and New Zealand horse people to race their horses there? It worked. During the 30s major events on the southern hemisphere racing calendar were held in Taveuni. That did not come cheaply. Believe me, money was abundant! Darryl Hart, from one of these self-same Copra Plantation Families, wrote a novel called "Taveuni" about it. You also say: "They could have come to the conclusion that a British citizen had to be living on the island to give any validity to sovereignty claims." In this you are right. His name was Frank Flemming. But when you say "It takes money to put a British citizen on an island in the Pacific." I'm back to saying HA! Who IS this idiot! It cost them practically nothing. In fact, it cost them very little more than the price of a two-way radio and a flag. Poor Frank even had to build himself a hut out of packing cases. Read Noel Coward's book or see the BBC film of the book "Mr and Mrs ..." Gosh! I've forgotten the name of it. But it's easy enough to track down. Anyway, it's the story of what happened to the "British citizen living on the island to give any validity to sovereignty claims." If you're genuinely interested, have a look at both these books. Expand your world a little. LTM (who always loved Taveuni) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:27:01 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news >Reference page 49 "Amelia Earhart" entry of Betty's notebook suggests >importance to me I have to apologize for my reference mistake in my last post to you - What I meant to reference on page 49 of Betty's notebook was the entry "Amelia Putman" (Betty's spelling ) - Haste makes waste. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:34:41 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news I posted some time ago a passage from Wide Margins by GP. In sum, he recollected that at AE's insistence, she was to be known as "Amelia Earhart". Period. Never once did he introduce her as "Mrs Amelia Putnam." (page no escapes me) But Ric had a point regarding the name and is verified if you look through some of the Australian papers about AE arriving and her disappearance. She is referred to as Mrs. Amelia Earhart Putnam and other variations, of Putnam. Ron B ************************************************************** From Ric The stodgy sexist Aussies of that day knew very well that a married woman took the name of her husband thank you very much, regardless of her own opinions on the subject. Amelia knew very well that in that part of the world she was Mrs. Putnam or, at best Amelia Earhart Putnam. In calling for help it makes sense to use the name known by the peole who are most likely to hear you. The appearance of that name in Betty's notebook is one of the strongest arguments for its authenticity. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:35:33 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Western Electric transmitter design For Neil Bartlett: The two WE-282A tubes in the transmitter were connected in parallel, not push pull. Another 282A was used as the frequency multiplier/driver stage. The oscillator stage, and the audio amplifier, were WE-205D triodes. The negative side of the dynamotor's output voltage was connected not directly to ground, but below ground potential through a resistor network so as to supply bias voltages to various stages; and to furnish the cutoff bias for grid block keying on CW. Therefore the full 1050 volts was not applied to the tube plates. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:49:20 EST From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: A note for Denise Murphy Denise Murphy wrote: >Note to Darryl: You really have no idea about live as lived in >the Pacific, do you?.....I can only say HA! Who IS this idiot!....I'm >back to saying HA!Who IS this idiot! I'm glad to meet you too. I must confess I don't recognize your name from any previous postings. You must have written something for the forum before because you added the little editorial after the LTM closing that so many other forum contributors do, "LTM (who always loved Taveuni) Denise" Of course "Denise Murphy" could be a "pen name" from another more vocal forum subscriber. Your measure of "profitability" is: >enough to buy Sir Arthur Gordon, one of the earliest and main >players in the field, a very impressive Lordship back in England and >those things never come cheap > >You only have to look at the >Copra Plantation Families in places like Taveuni and Savu Savu, where >copra sustained an unimaginably impressive lifestyle for up to seven >generations, to realise this was so. Do you know that they used to ship >home their kids' entire classes from their Australian or New Zealand >boarding schools for the Christmas holidays? Can you imagine how much an >exercise like that would cost? And that the planters in Taveuni built >themselves a world class race course in order to attract Australian and >New Zealand horse people to race their horses there? It worked. During >the 30s major events on the southern hemisphere racing calendar were >held in Taveuni. That did not come cheaply. Ahhh, the wonderful world of British Imperialism. It kinda makes me want to jump on the first Copra boat that comes along. You failed to point out how your measure of "profitability" was so great that it must have elevated the standard of living of the native population not seen in the Pacific before the British arrived. The Plantation owners in the American south claimed they could not survive without slaves. Yet they had just as lavish a life style as the copra plantation owners that you describe. I guess "Profitability" is in the eye of the beholder, or as they said down at ENRON, "Profitability" is in the eye of the Accounting Firm. Daryll ******************************************************************** From Ric Denise has posted to this forum many, many times. As you guessed, "Denise Murphy" is a pen name - as is "Ric Gillespie", "Tom King", "Bob Brandenburg", "Marty Moleski" and a host of other fictitious personae meant to disguise the fact that the entire TIGHAR organization is a CIA front designed to thwart your attempts to pierce the veil of secrecy that has protected the true fate of Amelia Earhart from discovery for lo these many years. Now that you have unmasked the project you leave us no choice but to deal with you in the approved manner. (Okay, who moved the remote for the Predator?) LTM, Ric (aka Ric) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:01:41 EST From: Eric Subject: Goerner 's most credible source Having been a Forum subscriber now for 18 months, I've heard most of the arguments both pro and con regarding the interpretations and reliability of the information which Fred Goerner collected and then included in his book THE SEARCH FOR AMELIA EARHART. In light of what I know now, I can dismiss about 99% of it as providing no definite proof one way or the other that AE and FN ever ended up in the Marshall Islands or that they were picked up by the Japanese. The 1% that still bothers me, however, is what Goerner claims he was told by Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz. Of all the people Goerner interviewed, Nimitz was by far the highest placed person connected with the U.S. Government who would have had direct access to sensitive and/or classified information about what went on in the Pacific prior to and during World War II. During their early meetings, Nimitz was vague and non-committal. Later, as he got to know Goerner better (and apparently came to respect his tenacity and judgment) he became more specific. Towards the end, he is even alleged to have told Goerner that AE and FN did go down in the Marshalls and that they had been picked up by the Japanese. He even put Goerner in touch with Marine General Harry Schmidt who had been involved in the invasion of Kwajalein in 1944 and who apparently had some specific information regarding AE's fate. (The Marine General initially agreed to tell Goerner what he knew, but then clammed up, with the implication that he had been ordered not to discuss this matter.) It would appear that (a) Goerner made this all up after Nimitz was dead, (b) Nimitz was stringing him along, or (c) there is some truth to Nimitz's claim. Were it not for Nimitz's involvement, I could easily dismiss Goerner's conclusions regarding what happened to AE. LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. **************************************************************** From Ric Let me make it easy for you. There are, as you have said, three choices but I would phrase them somewhat differently. a) Goerner made this all up after Nimitz was dead (In my opinion, highly unlikely. I knew Fred. Not well, but well enough to be convinced of his basic honesty.) b) Nimitz knew nothing more than some rumors he may have heard and believed. (I never knew Chester Nimitz but I'd like to believe he was just as honest as Fred Goerner.) c) A five-star admiral violated his oath and revealed what had to be one of the nation's best-kept secrets to a journalist and then made the assumption that another senior officer would do the same and corroborate the story. I think it's a no-brainer. I pick door number 2. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:45:43 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Tony Soprano Ric said: "Now that you have unmasked the project you leave us no choice but to deal with you in the approved manner. (Okay, who moved the remote for the Predator?)" Uh. Do I hafta do dis one too, boss? LTM, who also serves Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ***************************************************************** From Ric No, it's okay. You remember what happened the last time. Back in the cage. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:49:52 EST From: Denise Murphy Subject: Note from a covert CIA Operative! Darryl, honey, gotta say I think you're my new hero! I just love being seen as a sinister figure in some elaborate conspiracy. You go, boy! (Gosh, I called you "boy"! Guess I've just given away that I'm a secret slave owner! Ooops!) Don't currently have time to properly address your concerns, but I will answer one: "You failed to point out how your measure of "profitability" was so great that it must have elevated the standard of living of the native population not seen in the Pacific before the British arrived." You didn't actually ask that question before, but now that you have I have to say, dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! You REALLY don't have any idea about the Pacific, do you. First off: Whoever said these copra plantation owners were British! Who even said they were white! I think, if you actually looked into who these families were and asked yourself how they got this land - since Pacific Islanders don't sell their land (although they do lease it) - you'd discover the most usual way for a settler to get freehold was by marrying into the Islander family who already owned it. Yup, rather than these copra plantation families being "British Imperialists" only a little research and you'll discover that most of the original plantation families were part-some-type-of-Islander. Second: these families were certainly there before British Imperialism raised the British flag on Pacific soil. We're talking from about 1830s for the beginning of this Pacific plantation life. Compare that with the start of Britain's Pacific involvement: 1860s? Third: If you did your homework you'd realise that British Imperialism raised the British flag on Pacific soil precisely because of other non-British countries attempts at imperialism and their sinister machinations in our region! And what was what was happening in the Pacific in the mid 1800s? Here's your newsflash: "GREAT WHITE QUEEN VICTORIA" WAS INVITED IN BY THE ISLANDERS THEMSELVES AND WITH BLOODY GOOD REASON!!! Although I don't really have the time to go into this, what the heck: Quick overview: 1) American Pacific Imperialism: Here you are, making loud noises about the Pacific's copra plantation owners when you should really be asking questions about the Pacific's cotton plantation owners! Good Ol' Southern American folk looking for alternative land during the American Civil War. And, yup!, some nasty little bits of Government Involvement! Interesting stuff in there you'll find if you took the effort to go look; lots of hooded folk with burning crosses and burning natives; lots of dead Pacific Islanders - entire villages of them, in fact; lots of alive Pacific Islanders without the thought of their current "profitability", just thoughts of getting someone somewhere in to protect them. 2) German Pacific Imperialism? Now THAT really gets scary; just ask the Papuans, the New Guineans, the Solomon Islanders, etc about what happened there. 3) French Pacific Imperialism? That's scary too. Scary then; even scarier now! 4) Japanese Pacific Imperialism? Let's not talk about the body shields and the savage attempts to find different and interesting ways to kill natives! The Japanese are currently still denying all and I don't want to be sued! Mind you, let's ask ourselves why the Pacific Islands chose Britain's "Great White Queen" to protect them instead of the much closer Australia or New Zealand. The answer to that is Australia was running a secret slave trading operation of its own in the Pacific and New Zealand was in the grip of The Maori Wars, wherein lots of Pacific Islanders were getting slaughtered by Militia in order to clear the land for sheep farmers. Yup, the Pacific didn't trust them and who can blame 'em. So Darryl, I think if you did know what you were talking about, you wouldn't be addressing questions of "profitability" which elevated the standard of living of the native population. You wouldn't even be talking about "Native Populations"! We're talking about the Pacific, therefore we're talking about a collection of proud nations who aren't after handouts or "having their standard of living raised for them." Yes, the British were there for a bit over a century, but they came in originally to protect them from other, far more sinister nations, and while they were there they built them an infrastructure and then they got out again. And did they do a good job? Bloody oath, they did, mate!!! And if you knew what you were talking about, I think you'd be seeing the simple fact that the Pacific people are still around in numbers, are still proud and strong, still own their own land, still speak their own languages, and - yeah, yeah! with some stumbling along the way - are moving towards running their own rich and profitable nations without anyone else "elevating their native populations' standard of living!" is the greatest testament of all. So there you go! And please don't answer this. I'm packing up to move to China - you know, being all "British Imperialist" by teaching at a school for handicapped kids in the middle of nowhere! - so I don't have time to deal with it! Just accept the fact that you're speaking through your hat and go away and read for a while before you open your mouth again on this or any other subject! LTM (who never suffered fools either) Denise **************************************************** From Ric The above tirade has been somewhat edited (believe it or not) to delete ad hominem attacks on Daryll's mental capacity. Let's just move on. Good luck in China Denise. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:12:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source >The 1% that still bothers me, however, is what Goerner claims he was told by >Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz. That's strange. Chester never said anything to ME about Amelia. Alan ***************************************************** From Alfred Hendrickson: The plot thickens; Of choices a, b, & c, Ric picks #2. Nothing in this mystery is ever easy. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 **************************************************** From Ric It kind of spoils a joke if you have to explain it. **************************************************** From Ron Bright re: Nimitz An excellent question by Eric of North Island. And it is one that you can ponder over forever. The conversations between Goerner and Nimitz that started in 1962 in San Diego,when CDR John Pillsbury introduced Goerner to Nimitz, are often ambiguous on the meaning when viewed in context of the exchanges. When first asked about Amelia in 1962, Nimitz said "Not a great deal. I remember hearing during the war that some things that belonged to her had been found on one of the islands...I didn't see the material...most likely it was channeled through Joint Intelligence at Pearl Harbor". [ Most likely his primary source of all Earhart information] Goerner had several dinner parties over the next few months with Nimitz, but Nimitz made no other references to Earhart. In 1965, after corresponding to many officials in Wash DC., while at a dinner with Adm and Mrs Nimitz, Nimitz asked Goerner "You feel that Miss Earhart ...went down in the Marshalls...don't your Fred?" Goerner said he did, but the " Adm smiled", said Goerner, and that was the end of the conversation. Later in 1965, Nimitz called Goerner and told him to see Gen Schmidt, USMC, Adm Eller and Adm Austin. Goerner talked with these folks and got nothing of value. Adm Eller, he said, had heard of some "scuttlebutt" about Earhart's things being found during the war, but never say anything tangible. It was about this time Goerner said Nimitz called him and told him that "Earhart...did go down in the Marshalls and were picked up by the Japanese". (An incredible admission!) I have talked with Gordon Vaeth and read his correspondence with Goerner about these issues. It sheds some light on these events. In 1993, Goerner wrote Vaeth that he NO LONGER believed that AE went down at Mili. (Goerners emphasis) This statement was made with Nimitz' statement in mind. Vaeth himself wrote Nimitz in 1964 and Nimitz turned the letter over to Goerner, with no direct reply. Goerner wrote Vaeth about his conversations with Nimitz in 1964 . Goerner recalled the "something" in Marshalls had "something to do with drums of gasoline" found on an island, but not named. Goerner told Vaeth he tried to find out more from Nimitz but he felt that Nimitz "fended him off". Goerner explained that he believed there were '"limits" to questioning this "wonderful man" so did not press the issue. Nimitz didn't add anything more to his "belief". [ The declarative "she did go down" had subtly changed to a "belief". Goerner then added he contacted Nimitz' widow, Catherine Nimitz, who suggested that Capt Burce Livingston Canaga was the source of Nimitz' belief that Earhart went down in the Marshalls. [ I have seen no interviews of Canaga ] Vaeth told me recently that he believed that Nimitz was such a great, motivating leader that Nimitz may have unwittingly "encouraged" Goerner's dogged investigation with a "confirmation" of Goerners belief at first that she went down in the Marshalls. "Like your on to something...." Noone knows for sure. LTM, Ron Bright ******************************************************************** From Ric Great review Ron. Thanks. Goerner's own later rejection of Nimitz's statement (of which I am independently aware) speaks volumes. ******************************************************************** From Cam Warren Ric says: >Nimitz knew nothing more than some rumors he may have heard and believed. >( I never knew Chester Nimitz but I'd like to believe he was just as honest >as Fred Goerner.) I'd go along with that statement. About Goerner though; Ric forgets (or maybe doesn't want to remember), that Goerner did a great deal more research after his book was published, and largely abandoned his theory of Earhart's survival. Unfortunately his second book was never completed prior to Goerner's untimely death, but several articles he produced leaned substantially toward a "lost at sea" scenario. In particular, he favored Winslow Reef (actually "several reefs south of Howland") as a splash-down site. Winslow, although personally inspected by me (with no positive result), is still a possibility, with the caveat that the Electra would likely be at or near the base of the reef, 3 miles down. Cam Warren ******************************************************************* From Ric Ever the charmer. Why would I not want to remember Goerner's later research? I have a stack of letters from Fred in which he expressed all sorts of opinions, included his description of his investigation of the Floyd Kilts story about bones being found on Gardner Island. His conclusion? Absolutely never happened. **************************************************************** From Eric Eric responds: Nimitz certainly had access to any classified information that would have confirmed or denied the rumors regarding AE's ultimate fate. And by cautiously encouraging Goerner in his on-going search for the facts, Nimitz would technically have NOT violated any "code of silence" he was bound to. (I find it hard to believe that he would have even bothered to encourage Goerner unless he knew that Goerner had a good chance of finding the information that would reveal the true facts.) LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ****************************************************************** From Ric Nimitz did far more than cautiously encourage Goerner in his on-going search for the facts. According to Goerner he flat out said, ""Earhart...did go down in the Marshalls and were picked up by the Japanese". Now, if that was classified information he was just as guilty of a felony as the person who blew Valerie Plame's cover. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:13:00 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Western Electric transmitter design Regarding the post From Mike E. For Neil Bartlett: >Therefore the full 1050 volts was not applied to the tube plates. Somehow, when I see that voltage, I form a picture in my mind of FN on his knees in front of the co-pilot seat, eyebrows singed, hair standing straight up, smudged face, holding a tube in his hand and saying: Is this the problem Mary Bea? LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:24:09 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news I also missed the fact that a Mrs. Garcia, wife of the Nauru administrator, wrote contemporaneously in her dairy that she heard "Mrs Putnam" on the shortwave on 2 July, 3 July and 4 July. Couldn't make out the exact words. But there is a reference here to Mrs Putnam. It is not absolutely clear to me whether she is writing down what she heard the voice say, or simply knew it was Mrs. Putnam making the flight. Ron B. ****************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! That one got by me. The Nauru intercepts we know about are from Nauru Radio (VKT) and all happened on the evening of the 2nd. If there is contemporaneous documentation of amateur shortwave events on the three nights we need to plug those into the database. Does the diary still exist? What's the source on this? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:34:59 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news Ric wrote: > The stodgy sexist Aussies of that day knew very well that a married woman > took the name of her husband thank you very much, regardless of her own opinions > on the subject. Amelia knew very well that in that part of the world she was > Mrs. Putnam or, at best Amelia Earhart Putnam. In calling for help it makes > sense to use the name known by the people who are most likely to hear you. The > appearance of that name in Betty's notebook is one of the strongest arguments > for its authenticity. So, altho she was dealing with U.S. American counterpart stations and potential rescuers, she deemed it important that she used "Putnam", apparently, it seems, to avoid being mistaken for some other SOS sender, or maybe just to avoid offending the sensibilities of Commonwealth citizens. >....one of the strongest arguments for its authenticity. I find this logic, in a word, astonishing. "If you're handed a lemon, make lemonade"? -Hue Miller *************************************************************** From Ric Explain to me how it was that Earhart was "dealing with U.S. American counterpart stations and potential rescuers...". As far as I know she wasn't dealing with anybody except Noonan. By the morning of July 5th - the time that Betty's notebook seems to fit best with known events - the plane would have been on the reef for three days and, as you have often pointed out, the situation described by the notebook is desperate to say the least. I'm afraid I don't share your incredulity that, in trying to reach someone, anyone, she would use the name she was known by in that part of the world. The very fact that it was so unusual for her to refer to herself as Amelia Earhart Putnam has got to argue against a hoax. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:40:00 EST From: Gary F. Subject: Re: Note from a covert CIA Operative! Thanks Denise for the excellent and concise history of the south pacific, though a bit off topic, it was very informative. GaryF *********************************************** From Al Hills Ric wrote: >The above tirade has been somewhat edited (believe it or not) to delete ad >hominem attacks on Daryll's mental capacity. Horrors! You deliberately delegated to what you wanted us to read instead of the full dissertation? How can we objectively examine the contents and feelings when it has been altered. Maybe she is correct about Daryll's mental capacity. I don't know him but again, I did not know Amelia either. lol Al Hills *************************************************************** From Ric The nice thing about the forum is that it tends to provide abundant data from which the subscribers can assess the mental capacity of the posters. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:23:55 EST From: Ted Campbell Subject: New Visitors To The Forum With the recent impact that the MSN article has had on the Forum would you think it would be timely to give a brief overview of the loose ends that TIGHAR is trying to tie up in this investigation. For Example: The sextant box - maybe there is an old Pan Am navigator out there that can shed some light on the numbers reported on the box e.g. were they inventory numbers, references to cabin equipment manual sections, etc. Maybe someone remembers seeing the box on Vaskess' desk or his stuff being packed when he retired, etc. Dado stuff - maybe there is an old Lockheed mechanic out there that remembers using Micarta/Corrosion products under the backing strip or one that remembers what color or make of carpeting they used back in the "good ole days." Crashed L 10s - you've covered this in recent postings to the forum but it would be nice to see it in a list of "loose ends." Etc., etc., etc. I know that many if not all of the loose ends can be found on the Web page or by reading all the forum postings but not many people will take the time to cull through the mountain of dialog that is out there. However, many of these same people will take on a specific task if it is put before them. I am sure you've seen this in the business world, people who are good doers but poor planners/organizers. Finally, I am sure that you are not just sitting around waiting for fortuitous objects or documents to be discovered but rather you have a series of leads that are being pursued a little at a time. Try setting out a "top ten" or so listing of important things that we all could be looking into; who knows what may be discovered if 85,000 people are working on it! Just some thoughts while reading postings and getting frustrated with seeing very little movement of the ball. ***************************************************************** From Ric Time for a little perspective. This forum is an informal discussion group that often turns up interesting and useful facts and leads but it is far too unwieldy and undisciplined to serve as the primary research organ for TIGHAR's Earhart Project. Most of the project's research is carried out by the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) which is made up of about 30 hand-picked TIGHAR expedition veterans, board members, scientists, and scholars who function both as a group and in ad hoc committees. When we feel that some topic of research might benefit from a shot-gun approach I'll throw the question out to the forum for input and discussion but the topics under discussion on this forum at any given time should in no way be construed as representative of the scope or priorities of the topics under investigation. When we have solid results to report they usually appear first as articles in TIGHAR Tracks newsletters that are mailed to the members of TIGHAR and then as Research Bulletins on the TIGHAR website. I can't think anything we're working on right now that I would call a "loose end." There are undoubtedly many loose ends that we'll get around to addressing but we're so busy right now with important and promising avenues of investigation that we don't have time to worry about loose ends. Lest anyone get the impression that there is "very little movement of the ball" I'm happy to provide an arbitrary "top ten" list of topics that are currently the subject of active research. I won't try to list them in any particular order of importance because they're all vital to the investigation. 1. Dado Research Proceeding on many fronts - Lockheed records, aircraft in museums, old "forgotten" Electra crash sites. Several expeditions in the planning phase. 2. Corrugated Metal Research Analysis of Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) data collected for TIGHAR by the U.S. Naval Academy Engineering Lab in Annapolis, MD of samples of very rusted fragments of corrugated metal recovered from a variety of sites on Nikumaroro show that several large sheets of corrugation that were apparently laid out on the ground at the Seven Site are different from all other corrugation found on the island. Research is continuing to determine the possible significance. 3. Identification of Artifacts 2-6-S-03 A&B These small, amateur-fashioned devices that incorporated American-made woodscrews were found at the Seven Site and have, so far, defied identification. Numerous hypotheses have been tested and rejected. Research continues. 4. Button Research A button recovered from the Seven Site during the 1996 expedition that first located the site has proved to be interesting. Work by the FBI Lab and a laundry list of museums and button experts have established that it is of American manufacture and dates from the mid-1930s or later. So far we've been able to find no match to any U.S. Coast Guard or Navy button. Research continues. 5. Former Nikumaroro Resident Interviews We've recently made contact with former Nikumaroro residents in Australia and New Guinea who are able to answer many of the questions we have about island folklore and who can carry our research to other former residents who now live in the Solomon Islands. This could bring an avalanche of new anecdotal information. 6. Itasca Logs Research We're currently working with a group of hams and ham radio historians who have become interested in the Itasca radio logs and are providing some valuable new insights into those documents. 7. Post-Loss Radio Study This massive project continues to plod toward publication sometime after the first of the year. It will be a landmark document in Earhart research. 8. Tidal Research Using new data collected during last summer's Niku Vp expedition analysis is underway which will enable us to verify and refine our reconstruction of conditions on the reef during the crucial days in 1937. 9. Nikumaroro Geomorphology Research Expert assessment based on direct observation and historical data of how storm activity has influenced the island and the distribution of artifacts over the years is giving us a better picture of why we've found what we have, why we haven't found more, and where we should look next. 10. GIS Research The volumes of photographic and cartological data we have about Nikumaroro are being assembled into a comprehensive Geographical Information System (GIS) which will be an important, not to say revolutionary, new tool in assessing the significance of what we already know and planning what we should do next. ...and I could go on and on. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:44:37 EST From: Art Carty Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source This is a ridiculous long shot but any chance something was found by the US military on Tarawa? Like a pile of stuff labeled "Earhart" including a sextant box, bottle, chain, cork, shoe, maybe even a box of bones? Maybe our weird friend the acquisitive doctor actually wound up with the stuff. Art ********************************************************* From Ric We know that all the stuff was in Suva as of August 1941. Had it, or any portion of it. been shipped anywhere later that year the file should have reflected that. Any transfer would have had to happen prior to the Japanese invasion of Tarawa in December. If, by some inexplicable series of events, the stuff did end up in Tarawa prior to the invasion the subsequent Japanese fortification of the part of the atoll (Betio) where the British colonial facilities were located and the utter destruction of Betio by the Marines in 1943 would seem to leave little hope that any prewar material survived. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:37:29 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: Mrs. Putnam Ric wrote: "Amelia knew very well that in that part of the world she was Mrs. Putnam or, at best Amelia Earhart Putnam. In calling for help it makes sense to use the name known by the people who are most likely to hear you. The appearance of that name in Betty's notebook is one of the strongest arguments for its authenticity." In my view exactly the opposite is true. I have no doubt that the notebook itself is authentic, but the notation "Amelia Putnam" is among the strongest arguments that the female voice heard by Betty was >not< AE. It strains credulity, to say nothing of common sense, to think that a marooned aviator with world-class name recognition would refrain from using that famous name in a desperate plea for help. Ric's argument would have AE consciously or subconsciously going through the following mental gyrations: "Let's see -- Australia is the nearest big land mass and in Australia the press refers to me as 'Mrs. Putnam.' Therefore I shall use that formulation in my distress call rather than the Earhart name by which I am known the world over." Poppycock. Are you saying that the Aussies would not have recognized the name "Amelia Earhart," whatever their sense of propriety? Besides, to the extent that the transmission was "addressed" to anybody in particular -- which seems unlikely in context -- it was addressed to Itasca or Hawaii ("KGMB") or "Howland Port," all of which flew the American flag. Did the woman say "Amelia Earhart Putnam"? It seems clear from Page 49 of the notebook that Betty heard only "Amelia Putnam," and if her ditto marks mean what ditto marks usually mean, she heard it twice. Sixty-odd years later Betty commented, "Here she also may have put Earhart," but this was after she became aware of TIGHAR's interest. If Betty now maintains that she heard "Amelia Earhart Putnam," it would be interesting to know why she left out the most famous of those three names, and left it out twice. We also have it from no less an authority than her husband that Earhart hated to be called "Mrs. Putnam" and always used her maiden name, at least in public. (George, a savvy marketer if ever there was one, knew that "Amelia Putnam Luggage" wasn't going to sell a lot of suitcases). On the other hand, the male-dominated press and military -- not only in Australia, but everywhere else -- routinely referred to Earhart by her married name. So we are left with the following: 1. Betty's notebook contains two instances of a woman referring to herself as "Amelia Putnam," a name never used by AE but frequently used by the news media. 2. It contains zero instances of "KHAQQ," a call sign Earhart always used in radio transmissions but not generally known to the press or public. 3. Without heavy "interpretation" of a random string of numbers, it contains nothing relevant to Earhart's position, surroundings, physical condition or other information one might reasonably expect from a downed aviator interested in being rescued. It depicts a somewhat melodramatic struggle between two people, but given the low sensitivity of the Electra's microphone (necessary to cancel out inflight noise), this seems virtually impossible unless both were shouting directly into the mic. Or, per Ric, using separate microphones to communicate with each other when they were sitting one foot apart. That's one interpretation. Certainly there are others. In the end it's a matter of faith -- either you believe Betty heard AE or you don't. For the foregoing reasons, among others, I don't. I have some guesses as to what she did hear, but it's sheer speculation and this post has already gone on longer than intended. LTM Pat Gaston ********************************************************************** From Ric You have a great future with Fox News. Your repeated references to "Mrs. Putnam" are totally irrelevant. The phrase does not occur in Betty's notebook. You say that .."the male-dominated press and military -- not only in Australia, but everywhere else -- routinely referred to Earhart by her married name." That is simply not true. The American press routinely referred to her as "Amelia Earhart" and "Miss Earhart". You characterize "Amelia Putnam" as a name "frequently used by the news media." I am aware of no instance where the words "Amelia Putnam" were ever used by any media anywhere to refer to the woman. The Australian and British press referred to her as "Mrs. Amelia Earhart Putnam" or "Mrs. Putnam", never "Amelia Putnam". You say that the Electra's radio callsign KHAQQ was "not generally known to the press or public." but in fact there were numerous references to Earhart's callsign KHAQQ from the very first press accounts, carried in newspapers all across the country. Here's just one example from the front page of the New York Herald Tribune of July 3rd, 1937 under the headline "EARHART RADIO HEARD BY WARSHIP AFTER PLANE IS MISSING HALF A DAY; VESSELS SEARCH FOR HER ON PACIFIC" The article's very first sentence begins: "H.M.S. Achilles, cruiser of the New Zealand Navy, reported at 7:30 Greenwich mean time (3:30 a.m. New York daylight time) that she had heard a signal from KHAQQ, the call letter of Amelia Earhart's plane..." Betty, in fact, did not write the word "Putnam". What Betty wrote was, "This is Amelia Putman" followed on the next line by ditto marks indicating, we all agree, a repeat of whatever was said on the line above. That Betty was hurriedly transcribing fragmentary bits of what she was hearing is basic to her story. The presence of the word "Putman" is either evidence of such haste or evidence that a hoaxer not only used a name Earhart herself did not normally use but also did not even know the correct name. Later in the notebook the name "Amelia Earhart" appears. I'm happy to debate the possible significance of Betty's notation "This is Amelia Putman" but I'd prefer to do it with somehow who has facts instead of an agenda. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:06:13 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: New Nauru info re: Nauru intercepts 2-4 July 37 The cite is none other than Cam Warren's edited version of Saffords, Flight into Yesterday, p.64-65 in the Exhibit section. For those who don't have the book, here is what happened. On 32 Dec 69, a Miss Irene Sexton, a Nauru researcher and resident, wrote Francis Holbrook about an article in the Pacific Islands Monthly magazine. She then provided an extract from of Mrs Garcia's dairy, the wife of the Nauru administrator in 1937. (There is some warning about reproducing the dairy for publication with out permission from the library which loaned it to me, which of course would be the primary source to review) The dairy contains "jottings of day to day" social and personal events, but she came across the following: 1937, July 2 Mrs Putnam essayed her flight from New Guinea to Howland Island. We had notified her of the weather, light, etc., We picked up her wireless at 6pm but though increasingly loud we could not make out the speech. She was due over or near Nauru about 9:40pm, but though we watched , she did not come near. July 3 Mrs Putnam failed to reach Howland. We heard their wireless calls clearly but again could not make out any word. July 4 Heard Mrs Putnam calling again. Mrs Garcia died in Canberra, May 1968. It certainly seems as if we should take a look at the dairy before and after those entries to see what was happening then at Nauru. LTM, Ron Bright ********************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. I looked it up. So what we actually have is a transcription of a letter written to Holbrook in 1969 which contains a transcription from Mrs. Garsia's (not Garcia) diary which was in a library somewhere (unfortunately there is no mention of where Miss Sexton was living when she wrote to Holbrook). Assuming that all of the transcriptions were done accurately, I don't think it is quite what you thought it was when you reported it yesterday. Mrs. Garsia is said to have been the wife of the "Administrator of Nauru" so when she says "We had notified her of the weather, light, etc.," and "We picked up her wireless..." etc. she is clearly describing events at Nauru Radio (VKT) which did, indeed, send weather and information about a new light to Earhart in Lae. In other words, when Mrs. Garsia says "we" she means the official administration on Nauru via Radio Nauru, not her home shortwave set. Nauru, of course, is on the west side of the dateline so the events Mrs. Garsia describes as happening on July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th happened on July 1st, 2nd, and 3rd from the Itasca's perspective. This merits a close examination and comparison with what was officially reported to U.S. authorities about what VKT heard. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:51:35 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source I knew Fred Goerner rather well toward the end of his life, spent time with him, and corresponded with him via phone and letter, have read most of his published material, and a lot of his correspondence. I have heard the audio tape he recorded on the day of his death. He never agreed that Earhart and Noonan crashed and sank. He did say that he had changed his mind about the pair having come down in the Marshall Islands after correspondence and talking with Eric Sussman and Capt. Fred Hooven. On the tape Fred said he felt they had come down on "one of 5 small reefs about 180 miles SE of Howland Island." However, he said he still maintained they had been picked up by the Japanese and taken to Saipan. Later Capt. Fred Hooven changed his conclusions based on "better evaluation" of the post loss radio transmissions, and concluded that the pair had come down near or at Mili Atoll. Don't forget that Fred Goerner received a letter from USMC Vandergrift, Commandant of the Marine Corps in WWII saying he had received information from his associates that Earhart and Noonan had been on Saipan. Fred quoted other notables as confirming that there was reason to think that the pair had survived and were picked up by the Japanese, ie., General Maxwell Taylor, several Admirals and other Generals. Ron Reuther ********************************************************************* From Ric Poor Fred. He just couldn't let go. The facts led him resolutely to the obvious conclusion that the plane had come down intact enough to send radio messages somewhere southeast of Howland. Of course, there are no "reefs about 180 miles SE of Howland Island" where that is possible. But having gotten them down in one piece he had to get them to Saipan somehow so he had the Japanese come way down into British waters and grab them. You may have known Fred Goerner, but you apparently didn't know Fred Hooven. Fred was not a "Capt" of anything. He was an inventor and scientist of considerable ability. His attempts to analyze the post-loss radio messages were handicapped by incomplete and inaccurate information. As you say, he ended up putting AE and FN back on Mili where his friend Goerner had already concluded they couldn't have been. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:55:02 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news > The very fact that it was so unusual for her to refer to herself as Amelia > Earhart Putnam has got to argue against a hoax. Might it not also argue that, if a hoax, the perpetrator was of a background who would think this way? - Bill #2229 *************************************************************** From Ric Think what way? I want people to believe my hoax so I'll construct it in a way that is contrary to what most people would accept as credible. Very clever. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:05:15 EST From: Danny Brown Subject: Re: A note for Denise Murphy DANG IT, RIC! Don't give away all our secrets. Next, you'll be telling everyone how we're covering up the Kennedy assassination. No one really needs to know that the FOURTH bullet traveled back in time and brought down Amelia's plane. Danny Brown AKA #2426 ****************************************************** From Ric The Kennedy assassination controversy actually provides some interesting and discouraging parallels to the Earhart mystery. Both topics have been the subject of amateur and professional investigations that have produced countless books, none of which have satisfied the public. Both have a die-hard corps of conspiracy devotees who are not swayed by hard evidence. I was, for examine, dismayed to learn that when confronted with irrefutable forensic evidence that both of the recovered bullets came from the Oswald's rifle, the Grassy Knoll crowd didn't miss a beat and still insisted that a shot had been fired from there - but had missed. (Please note - there is no way in hell that we're going to start a JFK assassination thread on this forum.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:52:53 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: Note from a covert CIA Operative! Denise Murphy wrote: > Mind you, let's ask ourselves why the Pacific Islands chose Britain's "Great > White Queen" to protect them instead of the much closer Australia or New > Zealand. The answer to that is Australia was running a secret slave trading > operation of it's own in the Pacific and New Zealand was in the grip of The > Maori Wars, wherein lots of Pacific Islanders were getting slaughtered by > Militia in order to clear the land for sheep farmers. Yup, the Pacific didn't > trust them and who can blame 'em. Denise, that paragraph is self-contradictory. Firstly, New Zealand was not an independent nation in the 1860's. It was a British colony, and didn't receive independence until 1907. N.Z. could not have been chosen as a protector. For one thing, it had no standing army. Any decision about "protection" would have gone to London for approval, and the protection would have been extended from there. Secondly, the "Militia" were British troops, commanded by British officers. These troops were not conscripts from among the N.Z. citizenry. They were regular British troops, ostensibly sent here to protect the settlers, but in reality an occupying force committed to driving the Maori off land coveted by the settlers. So, on the one hand you're arguing that the Pacific Islanders chose Britain as a protector, on the other you're saying that the (British) Militia slaughtered the Maori. Doesn't make sense. You also blur the line between Pacific Islanders and Maori. A very strong distinction is made in this part of the world between the two. Come to Auckland, call a Maori a Pacific Islander, and he'll knock your head off. On the basis of your paragraph above, I think you have a na•ve view. Where do you live? Neil Barnett Auckland, N.Z. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:53:54 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: Western Electric transmitter design Mike Everette wrote: > The two WE-282A tubes in the transmitter were connected in parallel, not > push pull. Another 282A was used as the frequency multiplier/driver stage. > > The oscillator stage, and the audio amplifier, were WE-205D triodes. Thank you Mike. > The negative side of the dynamotor's output voltage was connected not > directly to ground, but below ground potential through a resistor network > so as to supply bias voltages to various stages; and to furnish the cutoff > bias for grid block keying on CW. Therefore the full 1050 volts was not > applied to the tube plates. Thank you. For readers who don't quite understand, the negative terminal of the dynamotor was connected to ground through a resistor(s) whose value was chosen so that while transmitting, the current flowing through it produced the desired bias voltage. The terminal is therefore at say, 150 volts negative (a typical figure) with respect to ground. The tubes are connected between +1050 volts and ground, so they are subjected to only 900 volts, well within their maximum rating of 1,000 volts. Neil Auckland, N.Z. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:04:25 EST From: Rich Young Subject: Nimitz - classified knowledge While I am not a "Marshallese" theory supporter, I would be remiss if I did not point out that sometimes it's not the information itself, but the method by which it was acquired that results in classification, and, once classified, often only inertia keeps it so. After all, we still have classified troop movement information from the first month of World War One! Reviewing and declassifying often only occurs as a result of a Freedom of Information request, if then, provided manpower is available, Now, what type of classified intelligence could possibly give Nimitz the type of information Goerner claimed he had, that is: "She (A.E.) went down in the Marshals and the Japanese captured her", assuming, for the sake of discussion that he actually said and believed that? I believe I can answer that question. 1. Beginning in 1924, the offices of the Director of Naval Communications began developing a capability to intercept, analyze, and decrypt the communication of potential enemies, (of which Japan was considered one, enemy 'Orange"), as well as to determine the location of the transmissions, and by technical means, to identify particular transmitters and even operators. This effort eventually became OP-20-G, and directed the majority of its efforts against Japan. In cooperation with the Army's Signals Intelligence Service (SIS), the intelligence efforts of other nations involved in the ABCD war planning, (America, Britain, China, Dutch), and possibly with cooperation with Pan-Am's Pacific efforts to establish a chain of seaplane anchorages, communications stations, and direction-finding capability, the Japanese "Blue", M-1 machine cipher, and "Purple" codes were compromised. Whether, when, and to what extent, Japanese naval codes subsequent to "Blue" were compromised and analyzed remains a point of contention to this day. 2. This intelligence effort was highly classified, not only to prevent Japan from finding out the extent to which her "secure" message traffic was compromised, but also because of a quirk in American law. The Radio Communications Act of 1912 outlawed eavesdropping on radio or cable traffic, with no exceptions for government agencies, the military, or employees thereof. While held in abeyance during World War One, the act went back into force as soon as it was over, and it was not until the 30th of March, 1938, (please note the date relative A.E.'s disappearance), that U.S.. War Secretary Harry H. Woodring signed an order authorizing the work of SIS, (and by implication, OP-20-G). Technically, the Radio Act, and other laws that prohibited or inhibited radio intercept work were still in force, but if anyone pressed the issue, the personnel involved AFTER MARCH 30, 1938 could no longer be held personally liable for civil damages or criminal charges. 3. What follows is my own supposition and guesswork - I suspect that enough of the OP-20-G network was in place in 1937 that with cooperation from SIS and possibly some other entities, particularly the Dutch, that sufficient direction finding/listening equipment was in place to track Amelia Earhart for most of her last flight: indeed, I would be surprised if they did not, if only as a training exercise. Depending on propagation conditions, this network may well have received transmissions from the Electra that Itasca did not copy, and if not deriving a fix on her, may well have taken bearings on what they considered an unusual amount of Japanese radio traffic in the Marshalls, whether such traffic was decoded and analyzed or not. If so, a partial decryption of a message alerting the local ships of A.E.'s disappearance and asking them to keep an eye out for her may have lead Office of Naval Intelligence to erroneously (or otherwise) conclude that Japan had her. Mix in a questionable bearing or two indicating the Marshals, and add in the fact that all of this activity is technically illegal, and who knows? Perhaps the partial intercept/DF network and its green operators/interpreters simply misinterpreted what they were hearing. This could explain the "psychic" information that the searchers received, as a way to get what they thought was A.E.'s position to the appropriate people without blowing their operation - in fact, intelligence from these sources came to be known as "Magic". LTM Rich Young ******************************************************************** From Ric As you have said, what you offer is supposition and guesswork. It is, in essence, an untestable hypothesis based upon nothing but your own imagination. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:17:37 EST From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: PISS motivation (Note from Ric: This is another edited posting.) To bring this back on topic, before Denise took it personally as an attack on the British in the Pacific. I inferred that the British motivations for putting Gallagher on Gardner was not the profitability of copra but an excuse for the occupation of one of their uninhabited islands. I think it was meant to hinder Pan Am's expansion of it's Pacific bases and preserve British Airways options. Ric is ready to produce documentation that Maude conceived of this plan to reduce the over population in the Gilberts. I'm not really clear on where all these NEW people were coming from to cause this over population problem in 1937 - 1938. Were they foreigners coming in or the native population's birth rate that caused this over population? A social system in balance tends to remain balanced until an external force causes an imbalance. Through the centuries the Pacific island populations existed where they could in the numbers that conditions permitted. Islands that were uninhabited were uninhabited for a reason. In the case of Gardner it seems to be the lack of fresh water. Before Maude and Gallagher got there, Mr. Hay records that they landed 44 gallon tins of water and a condenser to convert sea water to fresh water. That would indicate that someone knew that Gardner island lacked the fresh water for people even before Gallagher got there. I simply question Maude's documented motivations for the installation of Gallagher and the relocation of Gilbertese to an island that was uninhabited for centuries (because of the lack of fresh water) and has proven to be unhabitable still today. It's not a big deal for me if TIGHAR wants to accept, for convenience sake of their hypothesis, the politically correct British documentation for the occupation of Gardner. Ron Bright wrote: >I also missed the fact that a Mrs. Garcia, wife of the Nauru >administrator, wrote contemporaneously in her dairy that she heard "Mrs >Putnam" on the shortwave on 2 July, 3 July and 4 July. Ric wrote: >Whoa! That one got by me.....Does the diary still exist? What's the >source on this? Mrs. Garsa's diary contents has been part of AES research for awhile. One of our researchers recently confirmed the contents from the source. I'm sure Ron Bright will share AES research with you. Daryll ***************************************************************** From Ric When the British took control of the Gilbert Islands in 1892 they made a couple of cultural changes. They outlawed intertribal warfare and the routine practice of abortion. As a result, by the 1930s they had a serious overpopulation problem. It's nice that the AES has so much information. Why don't you share it? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:31:03 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: New Visitors To The Forum But what Ted may actually mean is that we should put together a little summary research bulletin to put up on the web site, so that folks casually accessing the site as a result of the MSN coverage will be able to get a quick overview of current research. That strikes me as a good idea. *************************************************************** From Ric I should clarify something. The MSN.com story with its links to the TIGHAR website was an unexpected anomaly that bumped our website hits from about a thousand visitors per day to over 85,000 on the day the story ran. Predictably, as soon as the MSN.com page changed the daily visitor tally on our website quickly returned to more normal levels. I agree that having a periodic update of research activity is a good idea. We'll include such a summary in the next TIGHAR Tracks and then put it up as a Research Bulletin on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:42:54 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source Art Carty wrote: > This is a ridiculous long shot but any chance something was found by the > US military on Tarawa? Like a pile of stuff labeled "Earhart" including > a sextant box, bottle, chain, cork, shoe, maybe even a box of bones? > Maybe our weird friend the acquisitive doctor actually wound up with the > stuff. This is one of the questions Roger and I asked everyone during our three weeks in Fiji this summer. The Tarawa angle is a long shot. If anyone wants to fund another summer vacation for me in the Pacific, I'd be happy to spend a few weeks in Tarawa doing what we did in Fiji. BUT this is a low priority issue compared to Ric's top-10 list. It is a shot in the dark. One of my fantasy scenarios is someone in Suva saying, "Let's send this stuff to Tarawa. It's closer to where the material came from and they're more likely to get questions about the Castaway of Gardner Island than we are." Problems with this fantasy: 1. No evidence it happened. 2. If someone had done this pre-Japanese invasion, then there oughta be SOME note in the file to that effect. The office was in full swing all war long and there is ample evidence that the filing system was never disrupted by wartime activities. 3. Tarawa is not a very pretty place to visit. It's just sand and coconut trees. Mrs. Hoodless hated it, and I think I would, too. For my next fantasy, I'm going to dream up a scenario for how the bones might have ended up in Hawaii. ;o) LTM. Marty #2359 **************************************************************** From Ric I've been to Tarawa. Van Hunn and I spent a week doing Earhart research in Tarawa in 2001, including many days in the Kiribati National Archives. Tarawa is not just sand and coconut trees. It is sand, coconut trees, and wall-to-wall houses, people, dogs and pigpens. The sand and coconut trees are picturesque. The houses vary from splendid to real basic but are invariably clean. The people we met were universally kind and friendly. The dogs pretty much mind their own business and the pigpens are unobtrusive. In short, there is nothing wrong with Tarawa that a whole lot more land and money wouldn't fix. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:02:52 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source I was in error referring to Fred Hooven as Capt. However, he was certainly a notable inventor, scientist, and Dartmouth professor. As you know there have reefs reported by various observers (which led to the USS Colorado's attempt to find them in 1937) in the general area of 150-180 miles southeast of Howland Island for years including Winslow Reef. However, no one in recent time has reported them. Aren't we all handicapped by incomplete and inaccurate information?!! Or misinterpretation . Ron Reuther ******************************************************************** From Ric We are indeed all handicapped by incomplete, inaccurate, and misinterpreted information but the notion that there is some kind of mysterious appearing and disappearing reef southeast of Howland where an airplane could be landed is pure fantasy. For a scholarly paper on the non-atoll associated reefs southeast of Howland see Volume 75, Number 24 (June 14, 1994) of "EOS, Transactions" a publication of the American Geophysical Union. The paper is titled "Where in the World Are Winslow Reef and Amelia Earhart". The author was a PhD oceanographer with the Office of Naval Research. He correlated reported sightings in historical records with Geosat satellite data to determine the true location and nature of these features. His name is Randy Jacobson. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:22:21 EST From: Tim Collins Subject: Enough already! As a longtime visitor to the TIGHAR web site, I was very excited to have finally gotten around to joining the Earhart forum. But what have I gotten myself into? My impression was that this organization, its principals and other members were professionals of above average intellect (if not downright scholars) and temperament. Unfortunately, recent postings - with their adolescent sarcasm, name calling and arrogant invectives (from a moderated forum no less!) - seem to belie this notion. While I may be a bit naive, and could certainly serve to lighten up a bit myself, I really think the tenor of recent exchanges, well beyond mere jest, is a disservice to TIGHAR's (supposed?) integrity. Tim Collins ******************************************************************* From Ric Welcome to the Earhart forum. I'd like to think that your original perception of TIGHAR from the material on our website is correct. Please don't judge us by the postings that appear on this forum. As moderator I could hold the reins tighter and there are, no doubt, times when I let the forum gallop when it should be snatched up short. But one of the most valuable functions of the forum is to expose our hypotheses and findings to criticism from every and any quarter. Like it or not, the wonderful world of Earhart disappearance fans, buffs, and "experts" is not steeped in scientific methodology, scholarly traditions, nor collegial congeniality. What passes for peer review among Earhart researchers often resembles a bar room brawl more than it does a learned discussion. On the other hand, there's nothing quite as entertaining as a good fight and I suspect that many of the lurkers are here as much for the show as for the information. We're the only ones who do this. Other associations of Earhart researchers take great pride in holding their cards close and fighting only amongst themselves, but defending our findings constantly and publicly to our most severe critics is the best way to keep ourselves from falling into the self delusion that comes from preaching only to the converted. Adolescent sarcasm? Arrogant invective? Yes, it happens. And I'll admit that sometimes I'm the perpetrator. I don't suffer fools gladly, but I do try to suffer them with the best humor I can muster. You happen to have signed on at a particularly contentious time. A lot of good discussion and exchange of information happens here. We also have a lot of fun. Occasionally the insurgents shoot the place up and we shoot back. It goes with the territory. I hope I've at least answered, if not satisfied, your concerns. In any case, I've run out of metaphors. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:31:55 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Nimitz - classified knowledge Re. Rich Young's hypothesis Sheesh, you're negative today, Ric. Rich's idea isn't untestable, if one were to pursue it through FOIA requests to the relevant classifying authority, and the notion that there might be a record somewhere of "transmissions from the Electra that Itasca did not copy" is certainly intriguing. Why isn't this a worthwhile project for someone on the Forum with the time and interest to pursue? ********************************************************* From Ric Me? Negative? For years conspiracy buffs have bombarded the government with FOIA requests and the answer is always the same, "We don't got nothin' about Earhart." If Rich or anyone else wants to have a go that's great. Let us know if you get something. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:35:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: New Nauru info Daryll writes: >Mrs. Garsa's diary contents has been part of AES research for awhile. >One of our researchers recently confirmed the contents from the source. >I'm sure Ron Bright will share AES research with you. Daryll, from what I'm reading here I can't tell if anyone has the actual diary of Mrs. Garsa (or a photocopy thereof) or merely what someone has supposedly transcribed. If it is the latter case the information is useless. It appeared from what I read it is a transcription of a transcription of a transcription. Is that incorrect? Alan ******************************************* From Ric And what is the correct name? The transcription in Cam's book of Safford's book has it as "Garsia" but Daryll says it's "Garsa". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:39:24 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: PISS motivation Daryll writes: > To bring this back on topic, before Denise took it personally as an > attack on the British in the Pacific. I inferred that the British > motivations for putting Gallagher on Gardner was not the profitability > of copra but an excuse for the occupation of one of their uninhabited > islands. I think it was meant to hinder Pan Am's expansion of it's > Pacific bases and preserve British Airways options. I wouldn't be surprised if claiming a potential airbase was part of the rational for PISS, but I don't think that there is contemporary documentation for this being a reason to settle Gardner. Does Daryll have any documentation? The "natural" ecosystems of the Pacific were disturbed at least since the sperm whaling era of the 1830's and 1840's. You could argue that the Pacific islanders themselves greatly disturbed the pre-human ecosystems, exterminating many species of birds, and introducing non-native plants, long before any contact with European populations. Of course there was no fresh water there. It is an atoll! The rest of the Gilberts also depended on rainwater. There were several islands that were once inhabited, then abandoned, Pitcairn and Henderson being the best known. There were also islands like the Kermadecs, that were quite habitable, but still uninhabited. Evidence of human habitation has been found in the Northwest Hawaiian islands, on little scraps of land that would make Gardner look like a paradise by comparison. Atolls were often abandoned after storms or other major disasters, and later re-colonizes from "high" (volcanic) islands. I agree with Ric on the major reasons for overpopulation. In addition, none of the colonizing nations was pleased to have its colonials be able to undertake long distance canoe voyages, and this technology was often vigorously suppressed. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 *************************************************************** From Ric The British banned inter-island canoe travel in the G&EIC in 1930. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:42:13 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: PISS motivation Well, I'd hoped that Denise's post would have relieved me of the need to say anything about the Daryl-Ric exchange, but alas.... Daryl, before you spout off about how things work in the Pacific, you really ought to check the literature. Ric's quite right about what caused overpopulation in the Southern Gilberts, but in fact overpopulation has been a fact of life in the Pacific since it was first populated. Why do you think people sailed off into the blue and wound up on islands? For the fun of it? It's pretty widely accepted among Pacific anthropologists that the Pacific got populated because population got too big for island X to support, causing people either to be run off through warfare or to leave to look for better pickings. Sometimes they survived and made it to other islands, sometimes they didn't. But anyhow, island populations have never been as stable as you seem to think, and they're not so today, either; that's why we have large colonies of Micronesians in places like Oregon. And as Denise said, the phosphate and coconut trades were major going concerns throughout the Pacific through the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. There's nothing surprising about the fact that either industry was practiced in the Phoenixes. The esoteric documentation that you want Ric to produce is best summarized in Harry Maude's "The Colonization of the Phoenix Islands," in his edited volume "Of Islands and Men," published in Melbourne by Oxford University Press in 1968 and still obtainable through used book dealers. For more general literature, just do a google search for "population pressure," "Pacific," and "prehistory." Or "Phosphate trade" and "Pacific," or "Copra trade" and "Pacific." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:46:18 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source Looking for stuff on Tarawa is almost surely a waste of time, but looking for documents that might have wound up with the U.S. military might not be. Awhile ago I had occasion to review the Navy's Federal Records Act procedures, and noted in passing that -- not surprisingly -- "captured enemy documents" are kept pretty much permanently. People have gone prospecting in the archives for stuff related to Earhart, but not for documents relating to the PISS that might contain data that's relevant to us. I'm not suggesting this as a high priority job for TIGHAR, and I'm certainly not volunteering, but if there were a halfway efficient way to search for records captured or otherwise recovered during the Tarawa invasion, it's not inconceivable that it could yield something. But there's no evidence whatever that the bones, box, or bottle got sent back to Tarawa. ***************************************************************** From Ric Actually, it seems that the bottle never left Tarawa after Koata took it there and Wernham took it away from him. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:48:14 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source "His name is Randy Jacobson." Who is this guy? Anyone we know? We might want to recruit him to the Forum! ************************************************* From Ric Nah. He's way too bright to get mixed up in this brawl. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:11:35 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Enough already! Tim Collins wrote: > As a longtime visitor to the TIGHAR web site, I was very excited to have > finally gotten around to joining the Earhart forum. But what have I gotten > myself into? An e-mail list populated by human beings. Welcome! > My impression was that this organization, its principals and > other members were professionals of above average intellect (if not > downright scholars) and temperament. The Forum is open to all comers, even to those who don't like TIGHAR and to those who don't pay dues. I suppose you'll find normal distributions of intellect and temperament in a mailing list like this. > Unfortunately, recent postings - with > their adolescent sarcasm, name calling and arrogant invectives (from a > moderated forum no less!) - seem to belie this notion. Well, it's just another hypothesis down the drain. One of the things that I like about TIGHAR is its creativity in inventing hypotheses and its humility in letting go of those that have been shown to be untenable. > While I may be a > bit naive, and could certainly serve to lighten up a bit myself, I really > think the tenor of recent exchanges, well beyond mere jest, is a disservice > to TIGHAR's (supposed?) integrity. Ric rides with a loose rein. I wouldn't enjoy the Forum half so much as I do if he started applying the bit, spurs and blinders in order to keep the Forum on the straight and narrow. I can't tell you how often I laugh out loud reading not only his posts but other exchanges as well. When there's technical stuff that makes my eyes glaze over, I look forward to Ric's comments at the end to give me a summary and orientation that I can use to decide whether I need to study the contents harder or not. I suppose the Forum isn't for everybody. Pat used to do cleaned up editions--the Forum Highlights--but it was a huge amount of work. I don't recommend that she take up that burden again. If reading the Highlights was your introduction to the Forum, then you've been misled by Pat's editing abilities, which are extraordinary. Anyway, if you're leaving, fare well. If you're staying, welcome to the roller coaster! LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:13:17 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Enough already! Tim, you are basically asking the ringleader to halt the circus. Ain't gonna happen, man. Trust me, I've been signed onto this forum for a while. Sometimes it drives me crazy. Sometimes I swear I'm through with the whole thing. Here I stay. There are other places to go to have discussions about Amelia Earhart, that's for sure. But, if you want the best possible answers, this is where you'll stay. Don't take my word for it, though. Try another venue. You'll be back, I promise. I jump into this rousing discussion every now and then, become the target for a time, then go away and lick my wounds. Bottom line is, I want to know what happened to her. And here is where I stand the best chance of finding that out. (On balance, I think its best for everyone if I just listen and then send money when I can.) It is tough here, but as Ric says, it's also entertaining. And there is method to the madness. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:14:44 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Enough already! Tim Collins wrote: > As a longtime visitor to the TIGHAR web site, I was very excited to have > finally gotten around to joining the Earhart forum. But what have I gotten > myself into? My impression was that this organization, its principals and > other members were professionals of above average intellect (if not > downright scholars) and temperament. No Tim, One of the great things about the Earhart forum is that "Earhart for Dummies" types like me can rub shoulders with the intellectual, scholarly types and professionals. Once in a while someone makes light hearted fun of spelling, grammar or typos but generally only if they know it won't offend. For the rest, it's a bit like the old west. Create too much of a ruckus in the saloon or main street and the sheriff of TIGHAR city will be out gunnin' for ya. On the other hand, the odd drunken brawl is normal on Saturday night. In other words, you'll find all types here with no discrimination in regards to race, colour, religion or supposed intellect. Heck, they even let Aussies have a say. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:15:49 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Enough already! Tim's letter, and your response, belong in the FAQ section. Tim, welcome to the Earhart Forum! If you haven't already, take the time to go back and read through the archives of the forum postings. You will see that it isn't always like this. Then too, it gets to be more fun as you start to learn who the players are! ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:16:19 EST From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: New Visitors To The Forum That's a great list and it gives us something to look forward to. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:17:14 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source Ric says: >Tarawa >is not just sand and coconut trees. It is sand, coconut trees, and >wall-to-wall houses, people, dogs and pigpens. And - you forgot to mention - lots of rusty, junked automobiles and a Toyota dealership. Plus a not-too-bad Australian-owned hotel that has a weekly $10 barbecue where you can get steak & lobster. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:18:11 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source Ric says - >For a scholarly paper on the non-atoll associated reefs southeast >of Howland see Volume 75, Number 24 (June 14, 1994) of "EOS, Transactions" a >publication of the American Geophysical Union. And let us not forget the semi-scholarly (no big words) but quite accurate report by yours truly, compiled after an on-site visit two years earlier (1992), and interviews with personnel at Scripps Oceanographic and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). The report, incidentally, was supplied to the British Admiralty in London. Cam Warren (with all due modesty) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:19:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source >Nah. He's way too bright to get mixed up in this brawl. Apparently the rest of us aren't. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:20:12 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: New Nauru info A review of the AES newsletters reflects the letter from Irene Sexton quoting Mrs. Garsia diary, the same letter as the one I quoted in Cam Warren's edited book by Laurence Safford. Maybe he is the one that sent it to AES in Nov 1997. Who is the researcher that confirmed those contents from AES? Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:23:20 EST From: Ron beright Subject: Mrs. Putnam The Sydney Morning Herald, July 7, 1937 in an editorial refers to the "Search for Mrs Putnam". "Mrs Putnam left Lae for Howland...". The rest we know. REB ******************************************************************** From Ric Yes, as we've said, the Aussie press routinely referred to her as Amelia Earhart Putnam or Mrs. Putnam. The American press called her Amelia Earhart or Miss Earhart. Nobody called her Amelia Putnam. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:58:12 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Enough already! Marty Moleski said: "When there's technical stuff that makes my eyes glaze over, I look forward to Ric's comments at the end to give me a summary and orientation that I can use to decide whether I need to study the contents harder or not." Thanks for 'fessing up, Marty. I thought I was the only one whose eyes glazed over at the "uber tek" material. I too scroll to the end of the especially long posts to see if Ric has bothered to comment on it. Man, oh, man, I'm glad there isn't a test of this stuff every Friday! LTM, whose glaze is a glare Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:03:37 EST From: George Werth Subject: Forum assessment (From Ric This is a very slightly edited posting) G'Day Y'All After reading the plethora of E-mails today, I'm prompted to say: I HAVEN'T HAD THIS MUCH FUN SINCE GRAMMAW GOT HER T--s CAUGHT IN THE WRINGER!#@$%^&*. Cheers ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:19:51 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Enough already! >...with no discrimination in regards to race, colour, religion or supposed >intellect. No one will tell us that. That's why. Wombat you're messing with my spell checker with "colour." You Aussies!!! I suppose you want to spell "gray" with an "e" don't you? Alan **************************************************************** From Ric Alan, we're The INTERNATIONAL Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery. Get with the programme. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:22:24 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Goerner 's most credible source Winslow still appears in current travel info about Kiribati... Winslow Reef, Kiribati Alternative Name: Winslow Reef Name Type: Native Area / State: N/A Coordinates & Location type: Area Type: Hydrographic Location Type: Reef(s) Longitude: -174,95 Latitude: -1,6 Modified: 1993-12-22 Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************** From Ric It's there all right, but it's only visible as breakers at times when the tide is especially low. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:24:30 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Winslow Reef Cam Warren wrote: >And let us not forget the semi-scholarly (no big words) but quite >accurate report by yours truly, compiled after an on-site visit >two years earlier (1992), and interviews with personnel at Scripps >Oceanographic and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency >(NOAA). The report, incidentally, was supplied to the British Admiralty >in London. What is the reference for your 1992 paper? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:24:36 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: Forum assessment > I HAVEN'T HAD THIS MUCH FUN SINCE GRAMMAW > GOT HER T--s CAUGHT IN THE WRINGER!#@$%^&*. Hands up everyone who clicked on this, hoping to see a pic. Yeah, I was one, lol. Neil Auckland, N.Z. ********************************************************** From Ric I worry about you guys. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:20:46 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Fading reception Ric, my understanding from Betty's comments about the reception, was once the reception started, she never retouched the radio. If this is correct, what do you think about asking her why not? In other words, if some gripping material was being heard, under conditions less ideal than a broadcast by a regular AM band broadcast station, and the reception conditions started to fade in and out, why would a person NOT try to correct that by adjusting the set? ( reminds me of the old "Do Not Adjust Your Set" admonition by broadcasters, during station trouble during the bad old analog electronics days. ) Especially a person with some experience tuning shortwaves with one of those vintage radios? Hue Miller ******************************************************************** From Ric Betty can comment on that if she chooses (she is now subscribed to the forum) but ultimately it doesn't matter. We have to remember that we have two sources of information - a contemporaneous document (the notebook), and Betty's anecdotal recollections of the event. There is nothing in the document one way or the other about retuning the dial. It is Betty's recollection that she did not retune the dial. If you were able to somehow prove that she must have retuned the dial you would only be proving that her memory about that detail is faulty. If you're intent on proving that the notebook cannot be a transcription of a genuine transmission from the Earhart plane you're not going to do it by challenging Betty's memory. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:06:03 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: New Nauru info I am guessing that Mrs. Garsia was a guest with the Police Chief, T.H. Cude, while he listened for Amelia the night of 2 July with his new shortwave radio. He said he had friends over for dinner that night and in view of Mrs. G being the Administrator's wife, she was most likely there. She overheard what Cude said, but that seems to be different from the VKT operator. Cude says "he overheard" her about 10-11pm calling Harold Barnes the radio operator, and one of the remarks was that she could see the lights on Nauru. It sounds similar because they recognized the voice but couldn't make out the words, etc. This was also written in 1969. [see Warrens "Flight into Yesterday", p. 63 in Exhibits] **************************************************************************** From Ric Cude's letter to Holbrook is a 32-year old anecdotal recollection that contradicts the contemporaneous record about what message Earhart transmitted to Nauru Radio. If Mrs. Garsia's diary entries are based upon her presence as one of Cude's guests on the night of July 2nd (July 1st Itasca time): - why does the time of the reception differ so greatly (6 p.m. according to Mrs. Garsia and between 10 and 11 p.m according to Cude)? - how does she know that "we had notified her of weather, light, etc."? - why does she say that "we could not make out the speech" when Cude says nothing about any such difficulty. - where was she when she heard Earhart again on the night of the 3rd and again on the 4th? If she returned to Cude's house to listen for Earhart why doesn't he say anything about hearing more transmissions after the flight had disappeared? I don't buy it. Mrs. Garsia HAD to be at VKT to hear she says "we" heard. What bothers me is the reported reception on the 4th (July 3rd Itasca time). VKT made it's report of hearing post-loss signals on the night of the 3rd (July 2nd Itasca time) that same night. If they heard signals again the following night, as Mrs. Garsia claims, they apparently didn't report it. That might not be hard to believe. By the night of the July 3rd (Itasca time) there had been many, many reported receptions from stations all over the place and it was widely accepted that Earhart was sending distress calls. It might be very useful to get more of the context of Mrs. Garsia's diary. EPAC member Dr. Dan Postellon has found that the diary is in the collection of the National Library of Australia in Canberra http://www.nla.gov.au/ms/findaids/nauru.html I see that they also have "unpublished biographies" of John T. Arundel. We'd like to know more about his coconut planting activities on Gardner in the 1890s. Anybody live close to Canberra? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:09:07 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Putnam as hoaxer clue Ric wrote: > Think what way? I want people to believe my hoax so I'll construct it in a > way that is contrary to what most people would accept as credible. Very clever. Perhaps I cut too much from the quoted text, or was not verbose enough in my response. You commented that folks from Australia had a mind set which saw her as "Amelia Earhart Putnam," and posited that the voice, having included "Putnam" in messages, supported that the messages where authentic. My comment was, couldn't it also be argued that if these where a hoax, the inclusion of "Putnam" would argue that the hoaxer was from a background where they would include "Putnam" REFLEXIVELY. That is, without considering that it would be out of character for her to so name herself. The exact opposite of "very clever." - Bill #2229 ************************************************************************ From Ric Okay. Sorry. I see what you mean. Interesting point. One of the really odd things about the geographical distribution of reported post-loss events is that, while we have numerous alleged receptions from the continental U.S. (4,000 miles and more from Howland), we have no alleged receptions - zero, zip, nada - from New Guinea, Australia, or New Zealand (nominally 3,000 miles from Howland). Nearly half (44%) of all the reported receptions were by stations with 1,000 miles of Howland (Itasca, Achilles, Howland, Baker, Nauru). About a quarter (22%) were heard by stations in the Pacific that were more than 1,000 but less than 2,000 miles from Howland (Hawaii, Midway, Wake). In other words, two-thirds of the post-loss events (66%) were reported by stations within 2,000 miles of where Earhart disappeared. transmissions in both a man's voice and a woman's voice were reported. If there was a hoax it seems most likely that it was perpetrated by a man and a woman who were located somewhere within that radius. If the hoaxers were also inclined to include Putnam in Earhart's name we're left with someone on Nauru, someone aboard Achilles, or someone in the Gilbert or Ellice Islands. As far as I know, there were no women aboard HMS Achilles and at that time it was the policy of the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony that Colonial Service officers could not be accompanied by their wives so there were very few, if any, European women in the Gilbert or Ellice Group. So our theoretical hoaxers pretty much have to be on Nauru and have a radio that is capable of transmitting on 3105 and 6210. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:53:42 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: New Nauru info Do your records show that VKT or anyone else heard Amelia(voiced) at 6.pm local Nauru time on the 2 July as reported by Mrs Garsia? ************************************************************* From Ric According to the telegram sent on July 3, 1937 (Sydney time) to the U.S. State Department in Washington by the U.S. Consul in Sydney, Australia the report from Nauru was that: "at 6:31, 6:43 and 6:54 p.m. Sydney time today (July 2nd Washington time) on 48.31 meters (6210 Kcs), fairly strong signals, speech not intelligible, no hum of plane in background but voice similar to 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 at 8:30 p.m. , Sydney time, July second saying "a ship in sight ahead". Since identified as steamer MYRTLEBANK which arrived Nauru daybreak today. Continuous watch being maintained by Nauru radio and Suva radio." Randy Jacobson was able to determine that in 1940 (the earliest record he could find) Nauru local time was Greenwich plus 11.5. Sydney, Australia was, and still is, Greenwich plus 10. So, if Nauru local time was the same in 1937 as it was in 1940 it was an hour and a half later than Sydney. In other words, it looks like Nauru started hearing Earhart in flight at 6 p.m. just as Mrs. Garsia said. The "ship in sight ahead" message was heard at 11 p.m. local time in Nauru, which is one of the times later mentioned by Police Chief Cude. It's also interesting to note that Suva (Fiji) Radio was listening but there is no indication that they heard anything from Earhart at any time. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:57:17 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: New Nauru info Following the links, it gets better. I may be able to borrow or buy a copy of the microfilm from University Microfilms in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I'll let you know. Does anyone know what the Nauru transmitter looked like? I've been looking at some historical radio sites for the Pacific, and it seems that the old spark gap transmitters may have been in use as long as the start of WW II in the area! For that matter, have we ever determined if the PISS settlement had a transmitter, maybe in the radio shack? The one advantage of this old technology is that it was very simple, and didn't have any parts like vacuum tubes that might need replacement. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (love that microfilm) ******************************************************************** From Ric There was no PISS settlement in July 1937. The only transmitter in the Phoenix Group was on Hull but it was busted. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:29:04 EST From: Chris Johnson Subject: Winslow Reef From Chris Johnson As this has popped up on the forum again I wondered if anything had been discovered about the "metal construction" seen on the reef after the war. I believe that it was thought to be some sort of US Navy observation post? A recent TV programme in the UK on the construction of a stone lighthouse during the Victorian era explained how a temporary structure (wooden) was built to house workers on thebell rocks that were only exposed for a couple of hours a day. See link to programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/industrialisation/bell_rock_04.shtml This may be off topic regards a practical landing but I just wondered. ********************************************************** From Ric "Metal construction" seen on Winslow Reef after the war??? Where did that idea come from? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:37:38 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Reception in Australia and NZ >One of the really >odd things about the geographical distribution of reported post-loss events is >that, while we have numerous alleged receptions from the continental U.S. >(4,000 miles and more from Howland), we have no alleged receptions - zero, zip, >nada - from New Guinea, Australia, or New Zealand (nominally 3,000 miles from >Howland). If the populations of those places in the 1930s were tiny compared to the continental US, then by extension the number of radios available to receive any signals was tiny roughly in proportion. But only a tiny proportion of US radio owners listening out for Earhart reported hearing signals post-loss. Wouldn't the population/radio ownership maths indicate that a similarly small proportion of listeners in Australia, New Zealand etc might equate to a success rate of zero signals heard? LTM, Phil Tanner 2276 ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting thought. That's a calculation that is, in theory, possible to make. If we took the population of the United States in 1937 and divided by the number of reported post-loss radio events we'd come up with an "events per million" number. We could then apply that number to the population of Australia and New Zealand in 1937 and see what it looked like. We would, however, be making the assumption that the proportion of radio owners/listeners and proportion of individuals inclined to report such events were the same in Australia and NZ as in the U.S. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:38:18 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Winslow Reef Randy Jacobson inquires: >What is the reference for your 1992 [Winslow Reef] paper? I didn't mean to imply my '92 "semi-serious report" was a formal scientific paper, published in some academic journal, and my apologies to Randy (and others, if any, who may have read the posting). That doesn't alter the legitimacy of the facts obtained and described. Copies of the report are available from me on request. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:11:58 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: New Nauru info > - why does the time of the reception differ so greatly (6 p.m. according to > Mrs. Garsia and between 10 and 11 p.m according to Cude)? I quote: Amalgamated Wireless state information received that report from Peru (corrected to "Nauru") was sent to Bolinas radio "at 6.31, 6.43 and 6.54 p.m. Sydney time today on 48.31 meters, 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". 4.30 - 9.30 pm Sydney time (GMT +10) is 5.30 -10.30 pm Nauru time (GMT+11) or 6.00 - 11:00 pm Nauru (GMT +11:30) since there were two Nauru time zones. Garsia was using the GMT +11.30 time zone (Nauru-Garsia time) and first heard Amelia at 06:30 GMT or 06:00 pm Nauru-Garsia. "Land in sight ahead" was at 10.30 GMT or 10:00 pm Nauru-Garsia time. The last (unintelligible) message was heard at 09:30 pm Sydney time or 11:30 GMT. This was 11:00pm Nauru-Garsia time. It is clear that Cude was also using Nauru-Garsia time but he was referring only to the last two receptions at 10:30 GMT and 11:30 GMT (probably really 11:15 GMT for the latter) which were 10:00pm and 11:00 pm his time. Garsia writes: "We picked up her wireless at 6 pm but though increasingly loud we could not make out the speech. She was due over or near Nauru about 9:40pm". This means she first heard AE at 06:30 GMT and supposed that AE was due in the Nauru area at about 10:10 pm GMT. AE had a projected flight time of 18 hrs to Howland and it is clear that someone had estimated the time of arrival at Nauru by calculating her projected ground speed to Howland (123.79 kts) and had used this together with the distance of Nauru from Lae (1254 nm) to estimate her arrival time. This works out at 10:08 hours or just 2 mins difference from the 10:10 hrs that Garsia had expected. Furthermore, allowing for the 1.5 hr time zone difference with Sydney, her first hearing of AE was at the same time that VKT first heard Amelia. We can therefore be sure that Garsia was indeed using GMT+11:30 time zone. > - how does she know that "we had notified her of weather, light, etc."? Cude perhaps listened in to the VKT transmission on his own set and told her later. > - why does she say that "we could not make out the speech" when Cude says > nothing about any such difficulty. There seems a good chance that she left before the intelligible 10:00 pm transmission to "watch" for Amelia at 09:40 - perhaps at some local vantage point. She writes: "She was due over or near Nauru about 9:40pm, but though we watched , she did not come near". If she was there to hear the 6.30 pm transmission, we can suppose that dinner might have been at 7.00 pm, perhaps deliberately early to allow the chance to watch for Amelia at 09:40. If we allow 2 1/2 hrs for dinner, she could have left by 9:30. If she waited until say 10:30 pm to see if Amelia would appear, it was then too late to return to Cude's house to hear, or even hear of, the later intelligible transmission that night. >If she returned to Cude's house to listen for Earhart why > doesn't he say anything about hearing more transmissions after the flight had > disappeared? It's possible he did. We have to remember that Garsia was not writing an account of AE's trip. She was writing a diary and thus recording events that she herself experienced. She did not record Cude telling her (if indeed he did) that he had heard another intelligible transmission the night before - that is true - but no doubt there was much other discussion about Amelia's flight which she also did not record. One gets the impression that the diary was fairly laconic in character. Did Mrs. Garsia HAVE to be at VKT to say "We" had notified her of the weather, light, etc? This is very arguable but it is possible that "we" just meant "we on Nauru" in the same way that one says "We won the Test Match" by association, not meaning to imply that the speaker was actually a player or present at the match. In the final analysis, it is not very important where Garsia was. It is enough that her recorded time of reception fits with that recorded elsewhere to establish some credibility. Since she recorded a reception in a diary (which was probably written up on the day in question) on 4th July, we can be fairly sure that reception really did take place. > Cude's letter to Holbrook is a 32-year old anecdotal recollection that > contradicts the contemporaneous record about what message Earhart >transmitted to Nauru Radio. But does it? Just because Cude mentions that Earhart remarked she could see the lights on Nauru doesn't automatically mean that there is any contradiction. If reception was marginal it is quite possible that Cude and VKT heard different parts of the same message, the path lengths being slightly different or the operators being better or worse able to interpret what was being said at different times. As frequency drifted, one or other may also have been more successful at a particular time in chasing the signal around the dial. Since Nauru was lit up like a Christmas tree with a 5,000 candlepower light, "visible with the naked eye to ships at 34 miles", is it possible that from altitude AE could see some faint glow in a dark sky (the moon being in the waning quarter) at double that distance? (Note that 34 miles is very close to the theoretical limit for line of sight at the surface (36 miles) and this may have been the constraining factor for visibility from ships rather than distance alone). The Navesink Light's estimated candlepower was 25,000,000 making it the most powerful coast light in the United States at that time. On account of the curvature of the earth, the light itself could not be seen from ships from more than a mere 22 miles in spite of its power, and its beam was reported to have been observed in the sky at a distance of only 70 nautical miles whilst both the Manistee light and Holland Harbour lights of 5,000 candlepower each were only visible at a distance of 15 miles in clear conditions. This might seem to suggest that the figure of 34 miles was perhaps optimistic or the light underrated since 15 miles is well within the limit imposed by the curvature of the earth. However, this was not the only light on Nauru and it may be that the very large number of lights associated with the mining industry were what meant that Nauru's light was visible to ships at 34 miles. If this was the case, as seems probable, it is quite conceivable that at altitude the light could be seen from a far greater distance, perhaps as much as 70 miles. Illuminance, or the quantity of light arriving at a point on a surface, varies with distance from the source according to an inverse square law. This is because the incident light is "diluted" by being spread over the surface of a progressively larger sphere as the distance increases. If you double the radius of a sphere, you multiply its area by four (as its area depends on the square of the radius) and the illuminance therefore falls to a quarter. This means that the light becomes dimmer exponentially. However, if you double the distance and multiply the quantity of light (lumens) at source by four, the result will be the same amount of illuminance. It would theoretically be possible to calculate the number of lights of a particular wattage that would be necessary on Nauru to equate to 25,000,000 candlepower (lumens per steradian) at 70 miles and so discover if that is a feasible number on Nauru in 1937 - but I'll leave that little exercise for Ric to do. Regards Angus. ***************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. As you say, it's really not important where Mrs. Garsia was. Personally, I think that the gyrations and assumptions necessary to put her at Cude's house make it a lot more likely that she was simply interested enough to go down to the radio station. As the administrator's wife she could probably do pretty much as she pleased. The most important revelation from Mrs. Garsia's diary is that there were post-loss transmissions heard again on Nauru on the second night after the disappearance. This is new information (to TIGHAR, not AES). The Nauru receptions are among the most credible of the post-loss events. We have people who know exactly what Amelia Earhart sounded like when she sent voice transmissions on that radio, on that frequency, from that airplane. The very next night, at a time when she MUST be down somewhere, they hear that same voice "without hum of plane in background". Now we have contemporaneous written documentation that they heard it again the following night. It gets better. This was all heard on 6210. Nauru Radio coudn't understand what she said because "SPEECH NOT INTERPRETED OWING BAD MODULATION OR SPEAKER SHOUTING INTO MICROPHONE". Back in New Guinea, the radio technician that checked Earhart's transmitter found everything to be okay except "TRANSMITTER CARRIER WAVE ON 6210 KC WAS VERY ROUGH AND I ADVISED MISS EARHART TO PITCH HER VOICE HIGHER TO OVERCOME DISTORTION CAUSED BY ROUGH CARRIER WAVE." Somebody care to come up with an explanation for all this that doesn't involve Earhart being the source of these transmissions? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:14:58 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Francis Carroll/ West Palm Beach news Pure speculation on my part, but could it be that AE, realizing that her calls might be taken as hoaxes, would use her married name as "proof" that it was her and not some hoaxer. LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************ From Ric Or she could make some reference to something that only her closest associates (like her husband and mother) would know about - like maybe the suitcase in the closet. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:16:55 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Fading reception Ric wrote: > Betty can comment on that if she chooses (she is now subscribed to the forum) > but ultimately it doesn't matter. We have to remember that we have two > sources of information - a contemporaneous document (the notebook), and Betty's > anecdotal recollections of the event. There is nothing in the document one way > or the other about retuning the dial. It is Betty's recollection that she did > not retune the dial. If you were able to somehow prove that she must have > retuned the dial you would only be proving that her memory about that detail is > faulty. If you're intent on proving that the notebook cannot be a > transcription of a genuine transmission from the Earhart plane you're not > going to do it by challenging Betty's memory. Very well. I will await Betty's comment on this, if she cares to address this. I would think if she remembered the tuning range the radio was set to, and the reception conditions, this detail would be recalled as well. As i recall, the notebook transcription is considerably fleshed out by the anecdotal, later material. Such points as AE's remorse or regret, AE and FN struggling for control of the radio microphone, the exit from the plane, for example. Hue Miller *************************************************************** From Betty The reason I have a memory of not touching the dial is, way before I heard Amelia I would be on the shortwave for several hours. I had learned if I waited, just drew more pictures, it would come back in when it faded out ...It was just a memory, when I answered a question about that ...Betty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:18:38 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Hoaxes? Or Not? Ric says: >If there was a hoax it seems most likely that it was perpetrated by a man and >a woman who were located somewhere within that radius. <...snip...> So our >theoretical hoaxers pretty much have to be on Nauru and have a radio that is >capable of transmitting on 3105 and 6210. I posted a stronger argument against hoaxes to this forum on Dec. 9, 2002. Here is the relevant part of my argument, based upon post-loss messages received up until 0710Z on July 3, 1937. 1. The hoaxer must know that Earhart has not arrived at Howland. (Probability: high) 2. The hoaxer must know that Earhart transmits on 3105 (Probability: I dunno) 3. The hoaxer must have equipment available that very day that allows him or her to listen and broadcast voice on 3105 (Probability: from what I have read, ability to broadcast on 3105 was not a common among radios of that day...thus I assign low probability to this) 4. The hoaxer must be able to broadcast in such a manner such that Howland hears the signal the strongest, Achilles next strongest, PAA Mokapu weakest, and no one else hears it (Probability: very low) 5. The hoaxer must be able to simulate a voice similar to Earhart's (Probability: medium) 6. The hoaxer must have a motivation to do this (Probability: low -- there aren't a lot of people who would do such a thing) A lot of low and very low probabilities multiply together to (in my mind) rule out that these were hoaxes; it seems to me that there is another explanation that fits the facts much much better than the hoax explanation. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:32:37 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Winslow Reef Ric wrote: > "Metal construction" seen on Winslow Reef after the war??? Where did that > idea come from? Chris has evidently been taken in by Wolfgang Schippke's little joke. His description of Winslow reef involving the tower and Gigant rock is a hoax based on Beveridge reef and was almost certainly designed to deceive Amelia Earhart researchers. It has caught quite a few too. Regards Angus. ******************************************************** From Ric I'm just waiting for the fallout from my admission that we're all CIA operatives. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:38:43 EST From: Eric Subject: Navy notification Can anyone tell me when the Navy first received a transcript of the ITASCA's radio log, specifically the "157 337" message? Thanks LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ******************************************************************* From Ric At 02:05 local time on July 3rd (13:35Z) Itasca gave that information to Fleet Airbase, Pearl harbor. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:42:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Reception in Australia and NZ Wouldn't the proportion of short wave listeners in the Australian population be larger than that in the US because of the need for radio communication among remote sheep stations and such? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:43:26 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Radio distribution Ric said: "We would, however, be making the assumption that the proportion of radio owners/listeners and proportion of individuals inclined to report such events were the same in Australia and NZ as in the U.S." Phil Tanner raises a good point regarding a population/radio distribution density comparison between the U.S. and Australia/New Zealand.. My first reaction was that I'd expect a great proportion of radios in Australia/New Zealand because of their remoteness. Being stuck out in the boonies for weeks on end would make many of these people very dependant on radio to get their news. LTM, who is only a dit-dah-dit away Dennis McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:48:40 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Winslow Reef Cam, I would be interested in receiving your Winslow paper. I did NOT take your comment to mean some published report but simply one more piece of your extensive research. Still, I have an interest in anything on Winslow as it seems to be a bit of a vague historical item. I would not claim it has relevancy to Earhart but I AM troubled over its dismissal out of hand based in part on Lambrecht's inability to locate it using DR and RDF and diagramming it 10 to 15 miles in error. I am more comfortable with all rabbit trails run to ground. Alan **************************************************** From Dan Postellon I'm interested, but I don't have your e-mail address. Daniel Postellon *********************************************************** From Ric I've sent the appropriate addresses to the interested parties. ****************************** From Cam Warren Ric says - >"Metal construction" seen on Winslow Reef after the war??? Where did that >idea come from? It came from a completely bogus report on some website a year or so ago, complete with a treasure map, etc. The most generous interpretation is that the author was mistaking some other reef for Winslow. Cam Warren ******************************************* From: Chris Johnson Sorry must have picked it up when looking through the highlights and not spotted anything about a hoax. Thanks anyway for a great forum. *************************************************** From Ric It's an example of what I was talking about the other day. People post baloney and it gets memorialized in the archives and searched by Google and voila!, we have metal construction on Winslow Reef. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:52:04 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: New Nauru info Ric says: >Somebody care to come up with an explanation for all this that doesn't >involve Earhart being the source of these transmissions? Daryll??? ************************************************* From Ric Shouldn't be a big problem for Daryll. He can have Earhart sending messages from Mili before the Japanese arrive to pick her up. It's the Crashed And Sankers who will have to put on their tap-dancing shoes. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:54:57 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Radio distribution I think that it might be a good idea when talking about short wave radio distribution to remember that the original flight -- starting westward would mean that the final leg of the journey would be over the US and there would be a tremendous amount of interest from radio listeners to attempt contact with the Electra. If I recall correctly, the 2nd attempt left Oakland for Miami and wasn't really made public that this was an official attempt until they reached Miami -- robbing many shortwave and other radio buffs of their chance to contact the Electra as it passed their locations. On two other points: Would the original flight path tied together Mabel and Betty? And would heightened interest in congratulatory messages been what our "government official" was warning about that both Mabel and Betty remember? Perhaps this comment was made before the first flight, not at the end of the second flight. Just some thoughts.... Bob ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:57:36 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: New Nauru info As a collateral issue, one of the most important issues, specifically to help determine AE's flight path en route to Howland, is exactly what was heard. Was it "ship in sight ahead" or simply "lights ahead" as indicated by Cude. Or was it the same msg but interpreted or heard differently. [ Would it be possible to see a ship's light at 8000 feet, cloudy, etc] Reportedly AE didn't know Nauru's call sign or frequency. I know you looked into the post loss msg that Goerner reported of "land in sight ahead" supposedly heard by VKT about 10am, about two hours after her last msg at 0843. This was based on his copying notes from an official ONI file (the one that contained Pattons report). It was a "terse Navy" msg with no heading.[ p.318 Goerner] As I recall you interviewed Goerner's partner, Ross Game, who couldn't recall that notaton, and the notation is no longer in that file. The evidence is somewhat weak on the wording of VKT's reception. To my knowledge noone has ever identified the "native operator" that night, nor seen a VKT radio log. Randy Jacobsen found that it was apparently an Amalgamated Wireless msg from Nauru that the Navy depended on that the Nauru signal was reportedly received at 1030GMT, 2 July. The ship in sight put the Electra near most likely the Mrytlebank. It seems that the US Navy did not follow up on those critical receptions that would have given, if true, a better calculation of her track into Howland. "Ship" or "Lights", who knows for sure. LTM, Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:03:07 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: New Nauru info > The most important revelation from Mrs. Garsia's diary is that there were > post-loss transmissions heard again on Nauru on the second night after the > disappearance > > Somebody care to come up with an explanation for all this that doesn't > involve Earhart being the source of these transmissions? First we have to remember that the "second night" was 4th July. Mrs Garsia may usually have been religious in writing up her diary every day. But in a place as isolated as Nauru, any excuse for a party (British or no) must have been seized upon, and there is every chance that Mrs Garsia was carousing long into the night, waaay past her bedtime. Tanked up on a skinful of ale she would have had little inclination to write up her diary that night, (if indeed she could remember anything of the evenings events). The next day she may have been nursing a raging hangover and not until 6th of July does she feel, with trembling hand, able to write up her diary. By that time, passage of time, exacerbated by the recent battering the few remaining operational brain-cells have taken, not suprisingly results in her confusing the number and days of transmissions received. Of course even if Mrs Garsia was a teetotaller of unimpeachable character, (admittedly a somewhat more likely scenario) the receptions she and VKT heard may have been misinterpretations of other bona fide transmissions. Commercial aircraft used 3105 (and so possibly either advertently or inadvertently the first harmonic -6210) and if one argues AE could have been heard in the US, then by the same token, commercial aircraft transmissions from planes in the US or Honolulu could have been heard in the central Pacific. We know those transmissions were unintelligible and badly modulated and yet it is modulation that gives a voice its timbre and quality. Yet the recipients claim to recognise Earhart's voice. One can well imagine that any unintelligible transmission that could be established to be possibly human and on or even near 6210 Kcs must have been seized on with alacrity as evidence AE was still alive and imbued with a significance it did not necessarily merit. Arthur Monsees reception, for instance, was on 6250 and yet he is not immediately disqualified as a possible receiver of AE because of this frequency discrepancy. Similarly, the VKT operator and Mrs Garsia may have glossed over the fact that the receptions were not on exactly 6210 Kcs. Regards Angus. **************************************************** From Ric A valiant effort and an excellent demonstration of just how far afield you have to take the speculation in order to discount the Nauru intercepts. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:18:06 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: QZ5 KACA and KCWR One point that has not been considered is that 06:30 GMT, 10:30 GMT and 11:30 GMT are all times which are not consistent with AE's transmitting schedule to either Lae or Itasca. The 10:30 transmission can be partially explained as resulting from AE's wish to alert the world to her chance encounter with a ship and hence her transmission off schedule. However, she should have been listening for incoming messages on the half hour and it is clear from her later instructions to Itasca that she would listen at this time. Why risk losing an incoming message to tell the world about a ship she did not and could not really be expected to identify when she could in any case pass on that information of limited usefulness at her next scheduled transmission? However, the 06:30 and 11:30 GMT transmissions are not what one would expect either. Once again, transmitting at these times might cause her to miss incoming messages. Could this be an indication that these transmissions were indeed not from AE? We have to remember that QZ5 was calling KACA and KCWR on 3105 on the second and could also have put out a harmonic on 6210 the previous night. KACA and KCWR were also potential imposters who could have been misidentified as AE at the times of the unintelligible transmissions. It is certainly too early to conclude that only AE could have sent the messages picked up by VKT. Regards Angus. ********************************************************** From Ric I don't know how you could ever conclude that only AE could have sent the messages picked up by VKT. No one message can be a smoking gun. The farthest you can go with any message is an absence of known reasonable alternative sources for the message. We don't know anything about QZ5 or KACA or KCWR (heard by the Itasca). To call KACA and KCWR "potential imposters" and then further speculate that they were transmitting at times that match the Nauru receptions but were somehow not heard by Itasca seems like a real reach. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:53:42 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Reception in Australia and NZ Tom King wrote: > Wouldn't the proportion of short wave listeners in the Australian population > be larger than that in the US because of the need for radio communication > among remote sheep stations and such? Not noticeably. The population of the US in 1937 was a little under 129 million. The entire population of Australia in 1938 was listed as 7 million, probably on 1937 census figures. A ratio of around 18:1. In 1937, the only records of radio communication between sheep (and cattle) stations was by an Australian invention called the "Pedal Radio". An Aussie, Alfred Traeger invented the thing because almost none of the outback stations had electricity and relied on occasional visits by the mail contractor for all news of the outside world. Until fairly late in the 1930's, the bulk of these were morse only. In the mid 30's Traeger invented a keyboard which, on pressing a key, sent the requisite combination of dots and dashes automatically (wouldn't Earhart have loved one of those?) so that anyone could operate the thing without learning morse code. In the early 1970's, as I had lived on a sheep/horse/cattle property, I travelled and worked in the remote regions as a learner shearer and stockman. As late as 1974, when I returned to join the RAAF, many of the stations I worked on had no electricity other than that provided by diesel generators. Due to the enormous cost of getting diesel fuel to the stations, electricity was on for only a few hours each night. Our lighting in many cases was still by kerosene lamps and carbide lamps. A version of the pedal radio was used by coast watchers in the Pacific during WII, and it is not all that long ago that the voice version was replaced in Australia by battery or electric powered sets. In fact, fairly recently they were still being exported to countries with remote areas. The pedal radio was originally created for the Royal Australian Flying Doctor Service to provide communications in medical emergencies. As a later development, once voice transceivers were developed, the School Of The Air was set up to provide education for outback children. The school was generally serviced from the RFDS headquarters. In 1937 there would have been very, very few remote stations with electricity of any sort. So it was very unlikely that any of the remote stations had short wave radio (no electricity to either run the radios or recharge batteries). This might put the distribution of short wave sets back on a par with America at the time. On the other hand, until around 1970, I cannot remember seeing a single broadcast receiver that did not have short wave capabilities. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************* From Ric Accepting Wombat's population figures - 129 million for the U.S. and 7 million for Australia in 1937 - and making the wild assumption that all other factors were equal, we find that there were post-loss radio events reported by 27 amateurs (18 ham, 9 shortwave) in the continental U.S. - so 1 American in every 4,777,778 reported hearing Earhart. If the same ratio held true in Australia then 1.68 people in Australia should have reported hearing Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:02:13 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: New Nauru info > they hear that same voice "without hum of plane in background". Originally, I'd gathered it had been assumed that they couldn't transmit without running the engine with the generator. Recently, the subject was hashed about, but I guess I missed the conclusion. Was it established that they could, or could not, transmit without an engine running? If the later, shouldn't there have been a "hum of plane" in the background due to that engine running? - Bill #2229 ****************************************************************** From Ric I think we concluded that although it was technically possible to transmit without the engine running it wouldn't be very smart to do it because you need that battery to start the engine to recharge the battery. Either way, one engine ticking over enough to charge the battery (about 1000 rpm) makes a lot less "hum" than two engines at cruise power (1600 rpm) in flight. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:02:58 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Radio distribution I would like to point out that Americans used their radios mostly for pleasure and the Aussies used theirs for a means of communication. Their sets were likely to be tuned to the station that everyone used locally to do their daily business. Not listen to someone thousands of miles away. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:05:53 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Tap dancing From Fred Astaire, Well when we prove that one , at least one, of the transmission was authentic, I shall retire from dancing, until them I am tap dancing on top of the Electra's right wing. LTM, aka Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:56:59 EST From: Eric Subject: LT. LAMBRECHT'S REPORT In 1937 when AE disappeared, U.S. Naval Aviation did not have the same level of respect, power, and budget that it has today. Back then, aircraft carriers and their planes were considered to be defensive rather than offensive assets, and their primary mission was to defend the Navy's battleships. Given this back-of-the-bus status, it is not improbable to believe that those senior Naval officers who championed the cause of Naval Aviation would have taken steps to "contain" anything that could have jeopardized its future. This could have included culpability for AE being left to die on Gardner Island. Lt. John Lambrecht's 7/16/37 report to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, telling about the aircraft search of Gardner Island, might well have sent up some red flags within Naval Aviation's higher echelons. After all, the Navy had good reason to believe that AE and FN had turned southeast and headed towards the Phoenix Group. The COLORADO had, in fact, had been directed to use its aircraft to search the Phoenix Group. Gardner Island is one of the islands closest to AE's known LOP south of Howland and Baker. Lambrecht had stated in his 7/16/37 report that he had noted "signs of recent habitation" while flying over Gardner. (He also reported that a forced landing there could have been made "with no more damage than a good barrier crash or a good wetting.") HOWEVER, this information did not appear in the official report submitted three days earlier by the Commanding Officer of the COLORADO. Either Lambrecht didn't report what he saw or didn't do it in a way so that his superiors grasped its significance. In either case, no one gave Gardner Island/the Phoenix Group a second thought. When the Lexington Group took over the search, it was to the North and West of Howland. Now, it is quite possible that, at some point, someone within the Bureau of Aeronautics DID pick up on Lambrecht's statement about "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner, a supposedly uninhabited island and a likely location where AE could have come down. What to do? If it appeared that it was already too late to save AE and FN, would it be in the best interests of Naval Aviation to go back to Gardner to look for evidence to confirm that Lambrecht (and by proxy the Naval Air Force) had fumbled the biggest assignment of his career? After all, the official verdict was that AE had gone down at sea, and any remains left out on an equatorial island would deteriorate very quickly. Therefore, it is not outside the realm of possibility to suggest that, prior to World War II, someone within the Navy did conclude that AE and FN most likely ended up on Gardner Island and yet decided not to document these findings or make them public. LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. *************************************************************************** From Ric Correcting a couple of misimpressions: - Lambrecht did not write a report to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics. He wrote an article for the Bureau's weekly newsletter that was criticized for its flippant tone. It is true that Lambrecht's account of what was seen on Gardner contradicts the official report by the captain of the Colorado, but its clear that Lambrecht did not consider Gardner worthy of any follow-up investigation. In any event, the decision to not put a search party ashore on Gardner was made by the captain of the battleship, not the aviator. Had it later been recognized as a bad decision it's hard to see how that would impugn the reputation of naval aviation. - There was no official verdict that Earhart went down at sea. That opinion was expressed in Coast Guard and Navy reports about their search activities but no comprehensive review of the loss and subsequent search was made by the Bureau of Air Commerce, the only government agency with the authority to make an official ruling on a civilian aircraft accident. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:22:35 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: New Nauru info Would not the Nauru alleged reception about 10 am the morning of 2 July of "land in sight" as purportedly seen by Goerner in the Navy file be the clincher that she made it to an atoll? Is there any possible leads left to examine. You delved into that reception in some detail. Did any other station report hearing anything around 10 am? LTM, Ron Bright ******************************************************************** From Ric Well....as we've seen repeatedly, clinchers are in the eye of the beholder. The problem with 10 a.m. local time is that, at that time, nobody but Itasca knew that Earhart was overdue (the first notification ws made at 10:15) so nobody else was listening. It's also broad daylight so radio propagation is limited. Unfortunately Goerner never said exactly who it was that was supposed to have heard "land in sight ahead". It was a notation he made while examining the U.S. Navy file that was still classified in 1965. He was not permitted to make copies of the file and the notes he made did not specify who it was that heard the phrase. When the file was eventually declassified there was no such message mentioned. It's fair to ask, who could have heard it? The stations that reported hearing transmissions from the plane while it was in flight are Lae, Nauru, and Itasca. We have excellent contemporaneous records of what was heard by all three that do not come from the previously classified Navy file that Goerner saw. No mention of anybody hearing anything at that time or ever hearing "land in sight ahead". Naturally, we'd love to find some reason to think that it was something other than a mistake in Goerner's notes but that seems to be the most reasonable explanation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:23:47 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Reception in Australia and NZ For Th' Wombat Interesting remark, Wombat. I remember visiting Australia sometime in the Eighties and went to see the Flying Doctor Service. It was explained to me that people in the outback had radios and would switch them on to consult a doctor in a faraway place if they were ill. I was told the government had provided all outback settlements with medicine cabinets full of numbered medication and that the doctor would suggest the patient to take pills of such or such a number. If the case was serious an airplane (they were called Nomads) would fly out, land on the nearest useable dirt road, pick up the sick person and fly him or her to the nearest hospital. Also, doctors visited their patients by airplane, having fixed days for landing at fixed places where people could come to them for treatment. My question is: how can Australians use radio in the outback if they don't have electricity? Do you mean they still operate on diesel generators? Or do they have batteries nowadays? LTM (who hopes she'll never have to pay a bill for a flying doctor) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:48 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: dynamotor question I never got a reply to this question for Mike E. Mike, 500mA seems like a lot of current at 1050V ie 525W. Even for a 100% efficient dynamotor the battery would be producing 44 A at 12V. At say 50% efficiency it would be drawing 88A. The generator was only rated at 50A and had to power the receiver on standby and all the plane's lights, instruments etc. Are you sure that figure is right? Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:59:42 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: QZ5 KACA and KCWR Ric wrote: > I don't know how you could ever conclude that only AE could have sent the > messages picked up by VKT. No one message can be a smoking gun. The > farthest you can go with any message is an absence of known reasonable > alternative sources for the message. I agree - but you're preaching to the converted. You said: > Somebody care to come up with an explanation for all this that doesn't > involve Earhart being the source of these transmissions? implying just that - ie that it must have been AE. And we have alternative sources.. > We don't know anything about QZ5 or KACA or KCWR > (heard by the Itasca) . To call KACA and KCWR "potential imposters" and > then further speculate that they were transmitting at times that match the > Nauru receptions but were somehow not heard by Itasca seems like a real reach. Not in the least. The whole radio message saga has been a story of messages heard by one party but not by another listening at the same time who was closer to the purported source. As you point out, we don't know where these transmitters were. Itasca was about 1000 miles from Nauru and KACA etc could have even been in the opposite direction. Regards Angus ******************************************************************* From Ric I disagree with your statement that, "The whole radio message saga has been a story of messages heard by one party but not by another listening at the same time who was closer to the purported source." There were such incidents but they are by no means the whole radio message saga. Much the contrary. The vast majority of the messages were heard by the party (usually Itasca) that was closest to the purported source and on several occasions other stations farther away heard transmissions at the same time as Itasca but weaker. As for KACA and KCWR, we should be able to narrow down the possibilities of who they are. I'm no expert at this but it looks to me like the "K" indicates that these were Amercan stations. Ships had three-letter callsigns and they don't look like ham callsigns. They do look like KGMB (four letters starting with K) - a commercial station in Hawaii - but they shouldn't be transmitting on 3105. I wonder if they could be American aircraft? Earhart had a five letter callsign starting with K (KHAQQ). Did aircraft sometimes have four letter callsigns? In any event, whether an American commercial station or an American aircraft the only way they can be closer to Itasca than Itasca is to Nauru is if they are in American Samoa. Can anybody help us out here? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:13:31 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: New Nauru info >It's the Crashed And >Sankers who will have to put on their tap-dancing shoes. Thanks for the cue, Ric. It's always a pleasure to perform for such a distinguished audience! Attached is some further insight, not "proving" C&S, but explaining why the Nauru messages can't really be considered proof of Earhart survival. From Earhart's Flight Into Yesterday, Chapter 3, Page 36: "But this is not the end of the narrative. Although Radio Nauru (VKT) had not been requested to assist the Earhart flight, and had been unable to contact either the Electra or the Itasca the night before, it did maintain a watch on the Earhart frequencies (3105 and 6210 kc) whenever the station was officially open. However, one of the native operators was voluntarily manning the station on the night of July 3 (Nauru time). He picked up three messages on 6210 at 9:31, 9:43 and 9:54 p.m. (July 2, Howland time) and thought he recognized Earhart's voice. He then alerted Radio Bolinas, an RCA commercial short-wave station near San Francisco, and telegraphed the following comment: SPEECH NOT INTERPRETED OWING BAD MODULATION OR SPEAKER SHOUTING INTO MICROPHONE BUT VOICE SIMILAR TO THAT EMITTED IN FLIGHT LAST NIGHT WITH EXCEPTION NO HUM OF PLANE IN BACKGROUND [Emphasis added-c.a.w.] Bolinas passed this message on to Coast Guard Headquarters in San Francisco, and it was radioed from there to the Itasca without delay. Although mentioned by Cmdr. Thompson in his final report, he did not apparently attach much importance to it, possibly thinking it was the work of some prankster, even though few civilians were yet aware that Earhart was missing. The messages, if legitimate, would have meant she was alive some 13 hours after the last message received by the Itasca. It has never been verified, however." To which I would explain the lack of verification as such: The "native operator" was never identified, and there was no one else present to verify his story. Note too; "Speech not interpreted" and "voice similar", are less than positive identification of Earhart. Safford points out that "The details were recorded in [Cude's] diary that was lost during the Japanese occupation of the island." His recollections (anecdotal) were only reported (to Dr. Frank Holbrook of Fordham University) in 1970. Mrs. Garsia's diary is promising due to its contemporary nature, but is not conclusive. In view of other events at the time, including investigation by the Coast Guard (with the admission that their report has never turned up). Cam Warren ********************************************************************* From Ric First of all, nobody has suggested that the Nauru receptions are proof of Earhart's survival. Secondly, that a voice believed to be Earhart's was heard by people on Nauru who had heard Earhart the night before is documented by two contemporaneous written sources (the official government message traffic and Mrs. Garsia's diary). To say that the receptions have never been "verified" is to say that nobody has ever asked Amelia if she really sent them. How else could you ever "verify" any message? Thirdly, nothing in the above offers any kind of alternative explanation for the receptions. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:14:36 EST From: Craig Knowles Subject: Re: Reception in Australia and NZ Ric wrote: > If the same ratio held true in Australia > then 1.68 people in Australia should have reported > hearing Earhart. This first whole person who reported hearing Earhart might be harder to track down, but it certainly shouldn't be difficult to find what must be a very interesting report regarding this 2/3rds of a person who reported a post-loss message. I'd imagine there were some strange looks that day (it's no wonder whoever he/she reported it to may have been a somewhat skeptical) and something of this must have been recorded somewhere... Craig ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:16:44 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: New Nauru info Angus Murray wrote (edited): > Commercial aircraft used 3105 (and so possibly either advertently or > inadvertently the first harmonic -6210) ........... The convention in radio circles is to use the term "second harmonic" when referring to a doubling of the frequency. The primary frequency is referred to as the "fundamental". Therefore: 3105 -- fundamental 6210 -- second harmonic 9315 -- third harmonic etcetera. I know it seems illogical, but that's the way its been for at least eight decades. Neil ZL1ANM Auckland, N.Z. ************************************************* From Ric It is my uderstanding that 3105 and 6210 were standard AMERICAN aviation frequencies. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:21:02 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: New Nauru info > I think we concluded that although it was technically possible to transmit > without the engine running it wouldn't be very smart to do it because you need > that battery to start the engine to recharge the battery. Makes sense (which I guess isn't necessary, but it's nice when something does.) > Either way, one engine ticking over enough to charge the battery (about 1000 > rpm) makes a lot less "hum" than two engines at cruise power (1600 rpm) in > flight. I wasn't sure if "idle" (or something less than propulsion speed) would give enough current to charge the battery and operate the transmitter. Thanks. - Bill #2229 ********************************************************* From Ric 1000 rpm is more than "idle" which is, as I recall, more like 800 rpm. We used to say that the sound an R1830 on the DC-3 made at idle was, "a-gallon-a-gas, a-gallon-a-gas, a-gallon-a-gas..." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:22:33 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Radio distribution Ron Berry wrote: >I would like to point out that Americans used their radios mostly for >pleasure and the Aussies used theirs for a means of communication. Their >sets were likely to be tuned to the station that everyone used locally to do >their daily business. Not listen to someone thousands of miles away. I may be wrong (I offen are), but it is my belief based on personal experience and on what limited historical information I can find, that very few "remote" stations had radio of ay sort. See my earlier post for the main reasons. Something to consider is that in 1937, even if there had been 2 way radio available, there would have been nobody to operate it in most cases as everyone worked, including the women, from before sunrise until after sunset. It is only since the advent of the Royal Flying Doctor Service in the 1930's that primitive sets were available - and then not everyone could have one. In the 1970's we still had no communication between the main station and out stations, often 50-100 miles away. In case of injury it was a matter of live with the pain while someone tried to get help. It is only a few years ago that a couple of young "Jackeroos" perished on one of our bigger (and fairly well known) stations due to lack of communications. Basically, no electricity = no radios, and no electricity meant that there was no way of charging batteries. You have to live there to realise just how primitive it was, and in some cases, still is. In the city however, people did listen to radio. RossD. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:23:24 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: QZ5 KACA and KCWR This is a question for the radio experts out there. Could QZ5, KACA, and KCWR have been using a beam antenna? What I mean is an antenna that concentrates its waves in one direction. This way Itasca could not hear them unless they were pointing at them, or be in the neighborhood. One other comment I have many times recognized peoples voices that I know but not be able to understand what they were saying. Sometimes noise is not steady and it blanks out parts of the message. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:27:50 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LT. LAMBRECHT'S REPORT Ric writes: >There was no official verdict that Earhart went down at sea. That opinion >was expressed in Coast Guard and Navy reports about their search activities >but no comprehensive review of the loss and subsequent search was made by the >Bureau of Air Commerce, the only government agency with the authority to make an >official ruling on a civilian aircraft accident. This seems like a good time to reconfirm a point often misconstrued here on the forum and elsewhere. Amelia Earhart was NOT found to have crashed into the ocean and lost by a California court. That court's order was the usual and routine finding that Earhart, having not turned up in the statutory time, was therefore declared dead. A coroner's inquest performs this frequently and as a matter of law in all the states. It is similar to the various statutory limitations on the occupation of land. If, one has occupied a tract of land openly and adversely to its owner for the required time, ownership can change. The philosophy of both is to not leave loose ends. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:28:45 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: QZ5 KACA and KCWR KACA and KCWR were not listed in the International Berne List of land-based and ship radio stations. I've never found out their identity, which makes me suspicious that they might have been "pirate" radio stations or hoaxers. Both call signs were observed at least twice, so it appears they were transcribed by the Itasca radio operators correctly. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:30:09 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: New Nauru info Neil, Yes of course you are quite right. What I had in mind was the first overtone. > I know it seems illogical, but that's the way its been for at least eight > decades. Actually its not illogical and its been that way for a lot longer than eight decades as the series was discovered by the Pythagoreans. They found that by dividing the length of the string of a lyre by a whole number produced pleasing harmonies with the original note (said to be in harmonic ratio to the original note). The fundamental is the first mode of vibration of this harmonic series (1/1, 1/2, 1/3 etc) and therefore the first of the harmonic series and generally known as the "first harmonic". Reg. A. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:45:19 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: New Nauru info Ric says: >To say that the Nauru receptions have never been "verified" is to say that >nobody has ever asked Amelia if she really sent them. How else could you ever >"verify" any message? Who's tap-dancing now? My dictionary says "verify" is to "confirm or substantiate". So only Amelia can verify? (I don't think so.) If ITASCA - or anybody else - formally noted hearing what the Nauru folks claim, that would certainly confirm their existence, although certainly not substantiate they originated from the Electra. Or, putting it another way, which side of the split hair do you want to examine in the microscope? Cam Warren ********************************************************************* From Ric Let's accept your dictionary definition of "verify" and say that any reported reception is "verified" if someone else - as you say, "anybody else" - hears it. How then is the VKT report not "verified" by Mrs. Garsia's diary? Does she somehow not qualify as "anybody else" just because she lives on the same island? If "verified" (confirmed or substantiated) does not mean "proven to be a genuine transmission from Earhart" what DOES it mean? Does it mean only that we can be sure that it happened? How about all the post-loss radio receptions reported by Itasca but no one else? Are they "unverified"? If so, does that mean we should discount them? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:53:54 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: New Nauru Info Ric wrote: > It is my uderstanding that 3105 and 6210 were standard AMERICAN aviation > frequencies. Ric, your comment at the foot of the original post indicates that you may have misinterpreted this thread. Angus referred to a transmission on a fundamental frequency of 3105 KHz. He then referred to an undesired emission on a multiple (6210), which just happened to be a valid aircraft frequency. He used the term "first harmonic" to refer to that undesired emission. There is no such terminology as "first harmonic". Convention dictates otherwise, as I pointed out. *********************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know it is entirely possible that a transmission on 3105 could be heard on 6210. My point is that BOTH frequencies were standard American (but not international) aviation frequencies. Unless someone can show that KACA and KCWR could not be American commercial aircraft in or near Hawaii or Samoa (and I don't know of any commercial aircraft in Samoa at that time) it seems like that's the most likely identity for those stations. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:05:45 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: New Nauru Info Ric wrote: >Unless someone can show that KACA >and KCWR could not be American commercial aircraft in or near Hawaii or Samoa >(and I don't know of any commercial aircraft in Samoa at that time) it seems >like that's the most likely identity for those stations. The call signs indicate that these are almost certainly shipboard stations. American shore stations in the 1930s used 3-letter call signs, like WCC, WOE, KFS and KPC. Ship stations used 4-letter call signs. Aircraft at that time had 5-letter call signs, like KHAQQ. LTM (who fixes alphabet soup because she thinks the kids like it) and 73 Mike E. ********************************************************************* From Ric Okey dokey. If they're ships they should be in the Berne List for 1937, of which we fortunately have a copy. Unfortunately, the ships are listed alphabetically by name, not by call letters, and there is no cross-reference. So....I need to go through every ship in the world that had a radio and see if KACA and/or KCWR are there. Anything for the cause. This will be the only forum posting today. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:50:14 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: New Nauru Info From Randy Jacobson Ric: please go ahead and search the Berne List. I did it once, so maybe I overlooked these listings. It doesn't hurt to have a second pair of eyes. BTW, when you're done, you'll need a good shot of alcohol! ********************************************************************** From Ric Last night I got as far as the "D"s. You ain't kiddin'. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:51:21 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: New Nauru Info I differ on there being no such term as "First harmonic" as I spent 3 years getting a degree in electronics. The harmonics also go "down" with the kinds of signals produced at the time in question, and today without supression. Mike E, tell me I had to calculate UP and DOWN harmnonics on leaky signals for no reason? I have at least one, if not two, textbooks by PhD's regarding communications and if Ric pleases I'll pull from the shelf and give author, publisher, etc. APA format okay? Love to Mother Pete ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:54:07 EST From: Dave Chase Subject: Reception in Australia, etc Ric, Have the major Australian/New Zealand newspapers been thoroughly searched for stories of folks hearing AE transmissions? Thanks. ************************************************************* From Ric No. At least, not by us. All we know is that nothing turned up in the American press. Would someone down under care to search for that 1.68 people who reported hearing Earhart? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:37 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Radio distribution The generator in my Beech 23 has to run at no less than 1000 rpm engine speed in order to put a charge back into the battery and theirs was probably the same situation. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:07:55 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: New Nauru info Ric asked: >How about all the post-loss radio receptions >reported by Itasca but no one else? Are they "unverified"? If so, does that >mean we should discount them? Quite possibly. Cam Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric You just threw out all of the inflight transmissions. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:18:12 EST From: Lawrence Subject: compliance I just watched Pearl Harbor for the 50th time and I'm amazed how the people in charged failed in their duty. Now, I missed this encounter because I wasn't conceived yet, but I managed to catch the Vietnam fiasco, that's another story. My point, is that persons in command positions ignored vital information. Hell, Billy Mitchell foretold of a possible attack on this tiny harbor years in advance. The same is true with the Earhart disappearance. People in command status failed in their duty to conduct a proper search. In fact, I could almost say dialect in their duties. To use a more recent term, these the lay-back years? A point in time where no one really cared about responsibility. I'm not trying to be harsh, but the entire Earhart incident seems like a comedy of errors. Thanks ************************************************************************ From Ric I think you're being very harsh. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:31:47 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: dynamotor question Sorry to take so long to get to this. >500mA seems like a lot of current at 1050V ie 525W. Stop and think... this transmitter uses 2 ea. WE-282A tubes in the final amplifier; one ea. WE-282A in the intermediate amp-doubler, and one ea. WE-205D in the oscillator with another WE-205D in the audio stage. The transmitter is conservatively rated in terms of 50% efficiency, which means for an output power of 50 watts we are talking 100 watts input to the final. This yields a plate current of roughly 100-125 milliamperes depending upon the exact plate voltage, which is in the vicinity of 1000 volts, perhaps a little less. The intermediate amp probably draws another 55-65 milliamperes. The oscillator stage draws somewhere between 30 and 50 milliamperes; I don't have the tube characteristics handy. The audio stage draws at least that much. Then we have to add the screen grid currents in the IA and PA, plus the grid currents of all the stages. There is also some current drain associated with voltage-divider circuitry in addition to the total current consumed by the tubes. Do the math, and you'll see very quickly that we are talking something like at least 300 milliamperes under ideal conditions. The dynamotor was overrated, that is, capable of more output than needed. That way, if the "duty cycle" in actual practice exceeded the design projection -- i.e., the transmitter ended up being on the air for longer-than-normal periods -- it would not overheat, or exhibit problems in the commutator (excessive wear of the carbon brushes, or meltdown of solder joints). >Even for a 100% >efficient dynamotor the battery would be producing 44 A at 12V. At say 50% >efficiency it would be drawing 88A. The generator was only rated at 50A and >had to power the receiver on standby and all the plane's lights, instruments >etc. Not quite correct... the dynamotor's motor section doesn't draw too much current unless the generator section is loaded. It's just like riding a bicycle. Takes a lot less energy (sweat) to ride on flat roads as it does to climb a hill. Figure a dynamotor as about 30% efficient, that is, input power vs. output. So, if we are using 300 watts of power from the machine, it's eating up roughly 900 watts from the battery. Also remember, the transmitter dynamotor is not running, and not drawing any current at all, during receive periods. The transmitter tube filaments and any pilot-lamp indicators are on all the time, though. That takes about another 12 amps from the battery. The aircraft battery is simply "floated" across the circuit of the electrical system. The battery is primarily there to provide power to start the engines. Once the generator kicks in, the output from the generator is what really runs things for the most part. When the current drain from the system is less than the generator's capacity, the battery is just a big capacitor (indeed, the English call the battery an "Accumulator" ) and the generator actually supplies the power. If the current drain equals the generator's output, the battery is recharged at the same rate as the current goes out of the circuit. If the current drain exceeds the output capacity of the generator, the battery has to make up the difference. Then, when the load decreases to less than what the generator has to supply, the excess from the generator goes back into replenishing the "extra" that has been taken out of the battery. So it helps to have a high capacity generator. And, you don't want to eat more power than you can replace, or the battery will get flattened. One of my radio friends, who had more enthusiasm than money to buy state-of-the-art equipment, or to buy a decent car for that matter, once installed an ancient dynamotor-powered VHF-FM radio in a Volkswagen Beetle... the original bug, which had a generator rather than an alternator; and a small generator at that. When driving at night, with lights, windshield wipers and defroster on, if he keyed the transmitter (and of course, the dyno kicked in), the car would stop cold. The system voltage got too low to sustain the ignition. He also fried at least 3 generators and a couple of voltage regulators. LTM (who's always charged up and rarin' to go) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:32:13 EST From: Tom Strange Subject: Re: LT. LAMBRECHT'S REPORT For Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND What was the reason behind this speculative post " LT. LAMBRECHT'S REPORT" ? Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:43:23 EST From: Eric Subject: LT Lambrecht's Report Ric wrote: >Lambrecht . . . wrote an article for the Bureau's weekly newsletter. The Lambrecht document posted on the Tighar website appears to be in the format of a formal Navy letter (or report), which is why it was sent to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics via the CO of the COLORADO and the Commander Battle Force, U.S. Fleet. The term "weekly newsletter" is itself rather misleading and might be construed as some sort of informal publication that was distributed for recreational reading. In fact, the "weekly newsletter" might well have been a weekly situation report of Naval Air activities and meant to be reviewed carefully by those who received it. Ric wrote: >. . . it is clear that Lambrecht did not consider Gardner worthy of any >follow-up. In any case Lambrecht was obligated to report the "signs of recent habitation" he saw on Gardner Island. Maybe he did, and his superiors didn't grasp the significance. (Although this seems unlikely, since very few senior officers are going to routinely accept the conclusions of a junior officer without question or further clarification.) Ric wrote: >. . . the decision to not put a search party ashore on Gardner was made by >he captain of the battleship . . . This decision would have been based on the information Lambrecht supplied. If no mention was made of having seen signs of recent habitation or markers, the COLORADO's CO would not have had all of the facts on which to make this decision. (However, he supposedly saw Lambrecht's submission to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, which was forwarded up the chain of command via him. This would have been AFTER he had already submitted his own report. Perhaps the presence of Reservists and VIP's on his ship was a distraction that skewed his better judgement!) Ric wrote: >Had it later been recognized as a bad decision it's hard to see how that >would impugn the reputation of naval aviation. Had it come to light that AE might possibly have perished because a Naval aviator hadn't done his job properly, public outcry would have been such that it would have had SOME consequences for the Naval Air Force, most likely in budget cuts. Keep in mind that, in 1937, Naval Aviation was considered a stepchild to battleship operations. Even after being used successfully as offensive assets during World War II (after most of the battleship had been knocked out of action at Pearl Harbor), aircraft carriers were still not being taken seriously. (The general thinking was that long-range SHORE-BASED bombers had won the war.) It was only after the Korean conflict proved the limitations of shore-based bombers that funding was approved to start building the super carriers able to handle modern war planes. LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA ************************************************************************* From Ric In other words, you don't have any more information about what the Bureau of Aeronautics "weekly newsletter" was than I do. We don't know what Lambrecht told the captain immediately after the flight but we do know that the captain eventually saw Lambrecht's newsletter submission and we have no indication that he was surprised to learn that "signs of recent habitation" had been seen. You apparently see this absence of evidence as proof of a cover up. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:51:43 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Reception in Australia, etc Ric asks: >Would someone down under care to search for that 1.68 people who >reported hearing Earhart? Ric, My daughter, Becky, in Sydney checked the microfiche for the Sydney papers and there was nothing we don't have. She checked through the 9th. She sent me copies of everything she found. Alan ******************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Alan. I'm sure you told me that at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:39:50 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Reception in Australia, etc >Have the major Australian/New Zealand newspapers been thoroughly >searched for stories of folks hearing AE transmissions? I've an Earhart file from the 1937 Sydney Herald, and find no such reports. Cam Warren **************************************************************** From Ric That agrees with the research done by Alan Caldwell's daughter. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:03:09 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: New Nauru Info Pete wrote: > I differ on there being no such term as "First harmonic" as I spent 3 years > getting a degree in electronics. The harmonics also go "down" with the kinds > of signals produced at the time in question, and today without supression. Harmonics "going down"? Lower than the fundamental frequency?????? The "kinds of signals produced at the time in question"? Do you mean the laws of nature have changed since the thirties?????? Sorry, its not the first of April yet. Neil Auckland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:05:40 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: compliance >...dialect in their duties. Huh? David Katz ************************************************** From Ric I don't correct 'em. I just post 'em. He probably meant derelict. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:07:36 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Re: dynamotor question Mike Everette wrote: > Then we have to add the screen grid currents in the IA and PA, plus the grid > currents of all the stages. Yes, we add the screen-grid currents. But if, in the second part of your sentence you mean control-grid currents, you are not correct. Control-grids do not draw current from the positive supply source. In fact, they are biased so that they are negative with respect to the cathode (ground). > Do the math, and you'll see very quickly that we are talking something like > at least 300 milliamperes under ideal conditions. Yes, it appears so. > Figure a dynamotor as about 30% efficient, that is, input power vs. output. > So, if we are using 300 watts of power from the machine, it's eating up > roughly 900 watts from the battery. Yes, and at say, 13 Volts average battery voltage, this equates to about 70 Amps total draw. Anyone know when 24 Volts became the standard for airplanes? Neil Auckland *********************************************************** From Ric does it matter? We know that the Electra had a 12 volt system. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:24:10 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: compliance How can you say that Lawrence is being harsh? There are so many errors and short comings in the project not to mention the search. Radios that didn't work properly, the crash on the first try, and many other things that should have been done different. Then the search "signs of recent habitation", and no search of the island. The lost bones, calls for help that were not taken seriously. To call what Lawrence said, harsh is a little like wearing those I love Amelia blinders. Some people that were involved were great but some including the crew failed in their responsibility. Because had they been successful we would be talking on some other forum. ***************************************************************** From Ric There were numerous errors made, to be sure, but I think we have to be very careful in judging attitudes and events of the 1930s from the perspective of the 21st century. I do think that Warren Thompson, the captain of the Itasca, was culpable on several counts but to make the general statement that "People in command status failed in their duty to conduct a proper search" is, I think, too harsh. ******************************************************************** From Tom Strang For Lawrence, Your post suggests your making comments from a position of ignorance fed by hollywood bravado - Until you conduct a life or death blue water search with limited assets will you get a true picture of what took place in mid-pacific that July of 1937 - Negative speculation without foundation adds nothing to the resolution of the disappearance of NR16020 and it's crew. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:58:42 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Dialectic or dyslexic? >...dialect in their duties. > > He probably meant derelict. > > these the lay-back years He probably meant the "laid-back eras" Regards A. ***************************************************** From Ric I think the lesson here is that if you're going to stick your chin out you should at least make sure you shave first. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:59:57 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: New Nauru Info For Neil No Sir, the Laws of Nature are the same, but circuitry is very different since the 30's. The great FCC in this country gets rather upset if a transmitter radiates out of assigned frequency, so suppression circuitry is added to kill off harmonic output. Power amplifiers come in the forms of Field Effect Transistors and OpAmp chips nowadays. I've heard commercial broadcast stations still use large vacuum tubes, but since I've never been inside a transmitter site, I'll leave that as anecdotal data. Love to Mother Pete #2419 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:04:08 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: New Nauru Info Randy Jacobson wrote: >Ric: please go ahead and search the Berne List. Question... what is the date of this edition of the Berne list? What was the update schedule? This thing may have been updated every 3 to 6 months and the information may have been 3 to 6 months old at the time of submission, at the very least. If your list is dated "1937" you may well be looking at 1936 or even 1935 information. LTM (always quick on the draw) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************** From Ric Good point. The copy I have is the September 1937 edition. I also have the May 1941 edition. If I'm going to burn my eyeballs out maybe it would be smarter to do it on the later edition. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:16:47 EST From: Eric Subject: Response to Tom Strang Tom Strang asks > What was the reason behind this speculative post " LT. LAMBRECHT'S > REPORT" ? As per the COLORADO's CO's report, there was sufficient reason to believe that AE headed for and came down somewhere in the Phoenix Islands. By following the LOP, Gardner Island would have been a highly likely place for her to have come down. Lambrecht's observations of "signs of habitation" on Gardner SHOULD have generated enough justification for a second look there and possibly a shore search. Given the wide-spread interest in AE's disappearance, it is highly likely that somebody within the Naval Air Force who had access to various reports and "newsletter submissions" figured out that the "signs of recent habitation" might well have been made by AE and FN. (Senior Naval aviators may be many things, but they are not stupid.) This realization might have come weeks or months after the search had ended. If you were the officer who had come to this conclusion, let's say in late 1937 or 1938, and didn't want to run the risk of tarnishing the image of Naval Aviation, what would you have done? LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ************************************************************** From Ric (I hope Tom Strang will forgive me for jumping in here but I just can't resist.) So basically you have formulated a hypothesis that, at some time after the search, some naval aviator read Lambrecht's account and was of the opinion that more should have been done to check out Gardner Island. You further hypothesize that this naval aviator, fearful of impugning the reputation of naval aviation, decided not to express his opinion. I would be interested to know how you plan to test the hypothesis that somebody thought something but decided not to say anything about it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:50:37 EST From: Eric Subject: Homework Ric wrote: > In other words, you don't have any more information about what the Bureau > of Aeronautics "weekly newsletter" was than I do. I take this as an assignment to find out exactly what the Bureau of Aeronautics "weekly newsletter" was and report back to the forum. Will do! More to follow. LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA ************************************************** From Ric Bravo! We look forward to the results of your research.