Date:         Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:47:05 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: compliance

Ric wrote;

>I do think that Warren Thompson, the captain of the Itasca,

Ric, don't you mean Warner Thompson?

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

Yup.  Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:48:30 EST
From:         Neil Barnett
Subject:      Do harmonics go down?

Pete wrote:

> No Sir, the Laws of Nature are the same, but circuitry is very different
> since the 30's.

Yes, I know. I've built a few transmitters since 1965. But you have not described how a transmitter (of any era) produces harmonics that "go down".

Pete, please explain how a transmitter on 3105 KHz produces "harmonics" on 1552.5 and 1035 KHz.

Are you suggesting that listeners such as Betty could have heard AE on those frequencies?

You imply that transmitter designs of the 30's allowed that kind of anomaly. Are you familiar with circuit designs of the 30's, or do you subscribe to the notion, "Well, its ancient technology, so anything could have happened in those designs"?

Neil ZL1ANM
Auckland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:00:13 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: compliance

Just a thought way outside the box but for the record and keeping this brief:

The Discovery Channel did a program this fall regarding a lost fishing boat near Newfoundland and  the US Navy showed a chart of all lost and new articles on the sea floor in the North Atlantic- kind of makes me wonder if the job has already been done for us.   The Navy keeps good records of anything on the ocean bottom. Is it  a stretch to think even though the SW Pacific is WAY OUT THERE,  they might have done the same down there considering that I was surprised that the Navy was so thorough about their anti submarine warfare capabilities.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:02:05 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      Eric's hypothesis

Ric wrote:

> 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.

First we need to find out more about the "newsletter" that posted Lambrecht's account of his fly-over of Gardner.  Who received it? Would it have been read by the same people who read the report of the COLORADO's CO and AE's radio intercepts?  Was this information shared with other agencies within the Government (such as the State Department?)  Was it shared with the British officials who administered the Phoenix Islands? Was there any follow-up discussion within the newsletter's readership and/or the Naval aviation community? Were any opinions formed and discussed "off the record?" These are just a few questions that come to mind.  Who knows, a little research might turn up some long-forgotten material, official or otherwise, that has not been examined and which is readily at hand.

LTM
Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:03:41 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Response to Tom Strang

For  Eric

I appreciate your response to my question.

> What was the reason behind this speculative post" LT. LAMBRECHT'S REPORT"?

I asked the question looking for clarification as to whether your post was relevant to resolving the disappearance of NR16020 and its crew - Repeating your first post with less word count answered my question - Thank you!

Always like to know which way a person is facing when riding a horse.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:14:59 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Burning eyeballs

Ric said:  "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."

Would it be practical to Xerox the book and send portions of it to different TIGHAR members for review, so you don't have to go blind?  Nothing more dangerous than a blind TIGHAR!

LTM, we sees much, but understands little
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for the offer but the books are quite fragile (they used very thin paper and it's now yellowed and brittle) so I'd rather not subject them to photocopying.  So far I'm up to the "T"s in the May 1941 book.  No joy on either KACA or KCWR but there are plenty more ships to go.  American commercial ships start with "W" and "K".  Philippine ships start with "KZ".  American government vessels start with "N".  It's actually kind of neat.  Everyone is there.  USS Arizona's call letters were NACV.  The German battle cruiser Gneisenau was DOQY.  The Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi was JLCA.  ...and so forth.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:16:44 EST
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      KACA - some thoughts on identity

A quick google search revealed a "Radio Sangkakala", broadcasting on "1062 AM", among others.  It isn't clear whether these are actual call letters or part of a phrase associated with the station - it appears to be located in Indonesia, (formerly the Dutch East Indies), and I think "Kaca" in Dutch means pretty much the same as "ca-ca" in English - it could be some sort of "inside joke" based on a language gap.  The really interesting thing is the frequency, "1062" of course being shorthand for 1,062 killocycles.  ASSUMING that the station was on the air in 1937, and further assuming the inadvertent transmission of a harmonic on double that frequency,  3124 killocycles, and you have the ingredients for someone sweeping the band in the vicinity of 3105 on listening watch for AE picking up a weak and garbled transmission,   At least, Indonesia is in the same part of the world as the flight took place, and if bradcasting in Dutch, could explain the "unitelligble" nature of the receptions, especially on a harmonic.

LTM, (who almost never sprakens ze dutch)
Rich Young
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:17:52 EST
From:         Bill Zorn
Subject:      Re: Dialectic or dyslexic?

and sum tomes that pesky spell cheque has know idea what hue wanted.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:20:08 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: KACA - some thoughts on identity


> The really interesting thing is the
> frequency, "1062" of course being shorthand for 1,062 kilocycles.
> ASSUMING that the station was on the air in 1937, and further assuming the
> inadvertent transmission of a harmonic on double that frequency,  3124
> kilocycles,

Funny - I always thought 2 x 1062 was 2124 - but maybe I'm a bit rusty. 3 x 1062 is reputed to be 3186 but I very much doubt Radio Sangkakala has much to do with AE.

> At least, Indonesia is in the same part of the world as the
> flight took place, and if bradcasting in Dutch, could explain the
> "unitelligble" nature of the receptions, especially on a harmonic.

Yes - and "Unitelligible bradcasting" (sic) in Dutch on the second harmonic would be doubled Dutch - even more difficult to understand.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:45:46 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      Bureau of Aeronautics Weekly Newsletter

Eric's report to the Forum

(For those of you who just tuned in, Ric asked for more background information on the Bureau of Aeronautics' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER to which LT Lambrecht submitted his famous account of the USS COLORADO's aircraft search of the Phoenix Islands.  Apparently, there is some confusion as to what this publication's relationship was/is to Naval Aviation.  Here's what I've found out.)

Subject newsletter was first published in letter format by the Chief of Naval Operations (Aviation) on 15 December 1917.  It was initially called the WEEKLY BULLETIN.  Later, under the Bureau of Aeronautics (BUAER) it was known by several different names: U.S. NAVAL AVIATION OPERATIONS REPORT, WEEKLY NEWS LETTER, NEWS LETTER, and the BUAER NEWS LETTER.  On 15 February, 1943, it debuted in a magazine format.  On September 15, 1943, it was renamed NAVAL AVIATION NEWS, and is still published under that name.  It is the third oldest military periodical and the oldest Navy periodical.

From the beginning, it has been an unclassified publication that covers all aspects of naval air operations.  Its mission has been to disseminate information of an OFFICIAL NATURE to meet the ongoing professional needs of Naval Aviation in a way more meaningful than through routine channels.

I am using my contacts here at NAS North Island to see if back issues are available from 1937 that would have any follow up discussion to Lambrecht's submission (which I feel can and should be considered as an official report to the Naval Aviation community.)  More to follow.

LTM,
Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:53:14 EST
From:         John Luttrell
Subject:      Re: Burning eyeballs

WHAT IS THIS BOOK YOU ARE LOOKING THRU? IS IT A LIST OF SHIP'S CALL SIGNS?

YOU STATED AMERICAN COMMERCIAL SHIP'S CALL SIGNS STARTED WITH 'W' OR 'K'. THIS MADE ME THINK OF 'BETTY'.....COULD HER 'W4OK' BE A SHIP'S CALL SIGN....MAYBE 'GOLDEN BEAR'???
*********************************************************************
From Ric

The publication is officially titled "List of Coast Stations and Ship Stations".  It was published by The Bureau of the International Telecommunications Union in Berne, Switzerland and is usually referred to as the "Berne List".

Ship call signs are always four letters.  W40K is an amateur operator callsign, not a ship.

There is a Matson Line ship in the September 1937 list called "Golden Bear". Its call letters were KEXX.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:00:57 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: KACA - some thoughts on identity

Small points:

Commercial Broadcast stations use the number 770 or 1520 as an assigned frequency not any in between up to and including today and a K preceding the callsign would mean it is usually based west of the Mississippi  river except for KDKA in Pennsylvania which kept that one because of being first.  K and W being assigned to U S radio stations. 

from Carl Peltzer Who really enjoyed the old time radio programs in the 50's.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:50:06 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      Eric responds to Tom Strang

Tom wrote:

> I asked the question looking for clarification as to whether your post
> was relevant to resolving the disappearance of NR16020 and it's crew -
> Repeating your first post with less word count answered my question - Thank
> you!
>
>    Always like to know which way a person is facing when riding a horse.

For those of you who just tuned in, Tom is referring to a "speculative post" I submitted and which postulated that Naval aviators who had access to the 157 337 message, LT Lambrecht's account of the aircraft search of the Phoenix Islands and the COLORADO's CO's official report of this same search, might very well have, prior to World War II, reached a conclusion similar to TIGHAR's regarding AE landing on Gardner Island.   (Such a pre-war conclusion would be free of any theories regarding spy missions, Japanese involvement, etc.)  I also speculated that those within the Naval Air community who felt strongly that AE ended up on Gardner made no serious attempt to challenge Lambrecht's account or request a second search of Gardner out of concern over the possible consequences for Naval Aviation should their theory prove correct.

To test this hypothesis, I have, to date, made good on my promise to find out more about the Bureau of Aeronautics' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER to which Lambrecht submitted his account.  We now know that it was not some obscure shipboard newsletter, but a highly respected Navy publication which was disseminated to the entire Naval Aviation community and which was intended to keep them appraised of information of an official nature regarding Naval Air operations.  Armed with this information, we can now make some realistic assumptions: 

1.  Lambrecht's account of the Phoenix Islands search would have been readily available to the vast majority of  active duty Naval aviators and was probably also made available to Marine Corps and U.S. Army aviators as well.

2.   Since the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER was unclassified, courtesy copies were undoubtedly sent to foreign aviation organizations such as the British Royal Air
Force.

3.  Since it was primarily used for passing along internal information of a military nature, the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER  (and Lambrecht's account) was probably not made available to nor reprinted in the national news media.

4.  Given the wide spread interest in AE's disappearance and the subsequent air search, Lambrecht's account probably received more than an average amount of scrutiny and peer review. (With this much attention being paid to what he wrote, Lambrecht undoubtedly came to regret the occasional lapses into flippancy that mar an otherwise straight-forward report on the Phoenix Islands air search.)

5.  Lambrecht's account was undoubtedly the subject of ready-room discussions, conducted by experienced aviators, and which included some in-depth analysis of how the search was conducted and its effectiveness.

6.  Those readers who were "put off" by Lambrecht's flippant comments regarding what was supposed to be a deadly serious search effort might have come to question his judgment and conclusions.

7.  Those who also had access to the COLORADO's CO's report of the operation, could have compare his version to Lambrechts' and noted the discrepancy regarding signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island.

Naval aviators are usually quite perceptive when it comes to taking available information and then working up likely scenarios which later prove to be valid.  (As early as 1932, they had even demonstrated how carrier-based aircraft could successfully stage a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.)   Any subsequent discussion/analysis of the Phoenix Islands search that took place prior to World War II might well be contained in back issues of the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER, which is today known as NAVAL AVIATION NEWS.  As the next stage of testing my hypothesis, I am using my Navy contacts to locate a set of these back issues for review.  When I do, I'll report anything useful that I find to the forum.

And the reason for all of this?  As someone who generally believes in the TIGHAR hypothesis, I want to do what I can to help validate it.  In addition to being a dues-paying member of TIGHAR and occasional providing modest financial support to the expeditions, I like to contribute to the arena of ideas via this forum.  Sometimes my contributions go nowhere.  Sometimes they generate discussion which leads to my further enlightenment.  And there is always the possibility that some chance comment or question might bring to light another piece of the puzzle that will bring us that much closer to finding out what ready did happen to AE and FN.

Incidentally, Tom, my wife and I actually do own horses which we keep on our property in East San Diego county. While I don't get the chance to ride as often as I did a few years ago, I do know how to sit on a horse so that I'm facing the right direction.

LTM,
Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:51:32 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Burning eyeballs

>There is a Matson Line ship in the September 1937 list called "Golden Bear".
>Its call letters were KEXX.

Matson Line?  My recollection (possibly faulty) is that the Golden Bear was a U.S. Maritime Academy training vessel, based in San Francisco in the late thirties.  It was a fully rigged sailing ship, with (undoubtedly) an auxiliary engine. It might have been  the same vessel, under new management. Anybody remember her?

Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:26:55 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      WEEKLY NEWS LETTER Back Issues

The following is in regards to where back issues of  the Naval Aviation WEEKLY NEWS LETTER from 1937 are possibly archived.  It is being provided for the convenience of TIGHAR researchers:

We assume that the National Archives in College Park, MD
http://www.archives.gov/facilities/md/archives_2.html
would have this publication within the records of Record Group 72, Bureau of Aeronautics. A brief finding aid for RG-72 is located online at
http://www.archives.gov/research_room/federal_records_guide/bureau_of_aeronautics_rg072.html.

You may also wish to check with the Naval Post Graduate School 
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/
in Monterrey to see if they might have this publication within their collection.

Best wishes,
Navy Department Library
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:29:45 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Eric's assumptions

Eric said :  ". . . . [I] can now make some realistic assumptions . . . "

None of Eric's "realistic" assumptions provide a single iota of evidence to support his belief that no one challenged Lambrecht's report because to do so would embarrass the Navy and Naval aviators in particular.

The 157/337 message was well known and was -- if my imperfect memory serves me here -- used as a basis for the original search.  So it was no secret that AE could be somewhere southeast of Howland.

Wait a minute, I get it . . . the fact there is no evidence anyone challenged Lambrecht's report means higher-ups in the Navy put a lid on it, suppressing any dissension and intimidating everyone into silence.  Wow, it's so clear now . . . .

LTM, who sees clearly now,
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
******************************************************************
From Ric

To Eric's credit, he is actively looking for documentation to support his hypothesis.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:44:27 EST
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Financing the search for AE

As a new member I'm curious to know how you go about financing the search and if you have ever considered opening up the search to private investment. If you could pull a magic number out of the sky to finance an expedition that could thoroughly comb Gardner island, haul equipment to canton to dig for the engine etc. and even fund archival searches perhaps...how much might that cost? 

Rusty Metty
************************************************************
From Ric

Welcome to the forum and thanks for asking.  TIGHAR is a nonprofit foundation recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c) (3) Public Charity.  That means that financial contributions toward the search for Earhart and other projects are tax deductible to U.S. citizens "to the full extent permitted by law" (as the saying goes).  Being a "public charity" means that most of our support comes from a broad base of small contributors rather than a few wealthy donors.  The organization does not pay taxes on money it takes in that is related to our "exempt purpose" (historical research and education).  TIGHAR does, of course, pay the other taxes (payroll, etc.) that businesses normally pay.

"Nonprofit" and "Not for Profit" (the two terms are used interchangeably) are really misnomers.  "Tax exempt" 501 (c) (3) organizations like TIGHAR , your church, the medical charities, etc., etc.  are free to make all the profit they can.  They are, however, restricted in what they can do with it.  They can put it back into the business, hire people and build buildings, they can put some of it aside for a rainy day, they can invest it, or they can give it away. What they can NOT do is distribute it to investors or members or board members or anybody.  That's the real difference between a "nonprofit" and a "for profit" business.  The "for profit" can share the wealth but has to pay taxes. The "nonprofit" gets a tax break but can't distribute profits.

This is a long-winded way of saying that we cannot "open up the Earhart search to private investors" any more than the American Cancer Society can sell stock in their research.  TIGHAR operates solely in the interest of history and historical education.  In that respect we're unique among the handful of organizations and consortia that are searching for Earhart.  The deep-sea searchers are basically treasure hunters.  They invest in the search hoping that they'll get a return on their investment from the eventual display of the aircraft. The Japanese-Capture advocates form loose associations to pursue their hobby but none, to my knowledge, has ever either incorporated as a for-profit company or filed for tax exempt status as a nonprofit organization.

Funding for TIGHAR's work has always relied primarily upon charitable contributions from our members.  That's why it's so important that forum subscribers who believe that we're doing something valuable here should become members of TIGHAR. Many times those donations come in the form of outright financial contributions either as checks in the mail or via our secure website.  A few of our members are able to help with contributions via family foundations.  In other cases, members donate stock or a share in real property and thus avoid some capital gains penalties for themselves while also helping TIGHAR.  The sale of publications and wearables is another important source of revenue. On occasion we have also been able to sell exclusive media rights to coverage of our work.

But the real secret to TIGHAR's success is the creativity and dedication of our members in supporting our work. Tom King, Randy Jacobson and Kar Burns donated their share of the royalties from their jointly-authored book "Amelia Earhart's Shoes".  Andrew McKenna donated a week at his Virgin Islands villa as the prize in this year's Paradise Now raffle.  Skeet Gifford funded the production of the Final Approach artwork.  Walt Holm, Tom Roberts, and Art Carty funded most of the Niku Vp expedition.  Van Hunn and John Clauss covered their own expenses on that trip. Roger Kelley paid his own way as a member of the Fiji Bone Search II team and Father Marty Moleski, vows of poverty notwithstanding, was active in raising the money to cover the cost of his participation.

I could go on and on but when I start talking about the people who make this organization the powerhouse of reason and research that it is I tend to get a little over-the-top so I'll shut up.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:55:59 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Golden Bear

Here's my info on Golden Bear:

KEXX, #217906, Steam screw, burns oil, radio with radio compass; 5342 gross tons, 3339 net; 410' x 54.4' and 27.2'; built 1919 in Los Angeles, freighter, 3500 hp; owned by Matson Navigation Co., California, San Francisco, CA.  Crew of 5.

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

Crew of 5???  Norwich City was smaller and had a crew of 35.

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

The "Golden Bear" was a California Maritime Academy Training Vessel, based at Vallejo on San Francisco Bay near Mare Island Naval Base.  It was not a Matson ship.  It was ship powered by an engine(s), not a sailing ship.  It was in the area of 281 miles north of Howland Island when Earhart disappeared.  It had departed Australia and was delayed enroute in the southwest Pacific area because of volcanic eruption. It then continued its progress northeastward across the Pacific toward Vallejo, CA. It was contacted by the Itasca, but indicated it was low on fuel and other supplies and not able to participate in the search and continued on its way.

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

Have we uncovered another piece of Earhart mythology?  No such vessel is listed in either the September 1937 or May 1941 Berne List so, if such a vessel existed it did not have a licensed radio.

On July 3rd a ship called "Golden Bear" did contact Itasca and gave its position as LAT 5.38N 179.19W 1533 MILES FROM KNK / PLS GIVE WHEX The position is roughly 300 miles NW of Howland. I don't know what "KNK" refers to but that location is roughly that distance from Honolulu.  I speculate that "PLS GIVE WHEX" is a garbled request for the weather.

At  13:43 Itasca time on July 3rd the radio operator logged: CQ DE NRUI GE QRU ? 600 / NRUI DE KEXX GA ANITING YET / NO TRACE Translation: ITASCA TO ALL SHIPS: GO AHEAD, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR ME? ANSWER ON 600 KHZ; GOLDEN BEAR TO ITASCA: GO AHEAD; ITASCA: ANYTHING YET?; GOLDEN BEAR: NO TRACE

Note that the original log entry (NRUI DE KEXX) leaves no doubt that the Golden Bear referred to is the Matson ship described by Randy.  There are no further references to Golden Bear in the log.

The "281 message" was not  received until late on the night of the 4th/5th.

What's the basis for your information?

********************************************************
From Dave in Fremont:

Cam Warren wrote::

>My recollection (possibly faulty) is that the Golden Bear was a U.S.
>Maritime Academy training vessel, based in San Francisco in the late
>thirties.  It
>was a fully rigged sailing ship, with (undoubtedly) an auxiliary engine. It
>might have been  the same vessel, under new management. Anybody remember her

All I've been able to find is that the current "Golden Bear" is the former World War II assault ship USS Crescent City. It currently serves as a research vessel belonging to the State of California, but is on loan to the USCG as a training/research vessel. I haven't been able to locate any information about the Golden Bear prior to World War II.

Considering this particular vessel's name/designation/mission, your recollection is very much in-line.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
*************************************************************
From Ric

But it's pretty clear that this is the wrong Golden Bear.

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

Cam,

Ric wrote:

>There is a Matson Line ship in the September 1937 list called "Golden Bear".
>Its call letters were KEXX.

The 1919, ex-West Cajoot was in 1928 renamed Golden Bear. 1936 purchased by Matson renamed Kailua. This may be the one above.

The Golden Bear in question was a USA freighter which was at Rabaul end May '37 and helped with rescue from the eruption. She sailed for Hawaii with a cargo of timber I believe.

> Matson Line?  My recollection (possibly faulty) is that the Golden Bear
> was a U.S. Maritime Academy training vessel, based in San Francisco in
> the late thirties.  It was a fully rigged sailing ship, with
> (undoubtedly) an auxiliary engine. It might have been  the same vessel,
> under new management. Anybody remember her?

The Calfornia Maritime Academy's training ship, TS Golden Bear [II], was built in 1939/1940 in Sparrows Point, MD as the Del Orleans, an art-deco passenger/cargo vessel. It served in WWII as the USS Crescent City and then as the Golden Bear, a training ship for the California Maritime Academy. Renamed the ARTSHIP in 1999, it now is a floating community arts and cultural center. The TS Golden Bear is now docked at the 10th Avenue Pier in Oakland, Calif., near Coast Guard Island.

As for TS GB [1] I have no information but it seems you could be right.

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

Myth debunked.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:57:25 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Eric responds to Tom Strang

That's an outstanding job of research, Eric but your conclusions are pure speculation. The services have always had publications widely distributed and widely read such as the Airforce, Navy and Army Times and the Stars and Stripes. I would not draw ANY official conclusions from anything in any of those publications.

I currently receive similar publications from military organizations. They contain all kinds of information regarding military affairs but they hardly rise to the status of official reports, directives or otherwise.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:00:14 EST
From:         Anne
Subject:      Re: Eric's assumptions

Hi! I'm one of the silent forum members, but I just couldn't pass up this:

>     Wait a minute, I get it . . . the fact there is
> no evidence anyone
> challenged Lambrecht's report means higher-ups in
> the Navy put a lid on it,
> suppressing any dissention and intimidating everyone
> into silence.  Wow, it's so clear
> now . . . .

Has anyone out there seen the movie A Few Good Men? I have been reading and doing my own research on AE and I just keep coming back to this thought- there is a coverup somewhere! There is no way they could have missed AE and FN, because one person talks of seeing the "recent inhabitation", but also those islands should have been thoroughly searched and you'd think you wouldn't miss a big plane either...

I would be more interested in finding out exactly who was in charge and their relationship (if any) to either the flight around the world and/or AE. Why would the Navy be helping these people?

If anyone would further like to talk to me or hear my thoughts on this, let me know or email me at teblhasa@hotmail.com.

Anne
***********************************************************
From Ric

Oh dear....
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:03:05 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Eric responds to Tom Strang

Eric,

Caveat: These comments are not meant to be for any other reason than to give you some things to "shoot for" in your research.

Let's review the bidding from your last post:

"...we can now make some realistic assumptions:"

Eric, "realistic" is a relative term.

"...probably also made available to Marine Corps and U.S. Army aviators as well."

True, but do we "know" they were?

"...courtesy copies were undoubtedly sent to foreign aviation organizations such as the British Royal Air Force."

What makes you say "undoubtedly"? Do you have direct evidence that this actually happened?

"...the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER  (and Lambrecht's account) was probably not made available to nor reprinted in the national news media."

I don't know if "For Official Use Only" (IIRC, the lowest level of restrictive classification for Navy documents) was around in 1937, but I would think that anything not stamped with an explicit classification would be fair game for public dissemination.

"...probably received more than an average amount of scrutiny and peer review."

Please cite any evidence that conforms.

Parentheses yours "(With this much attention being paid to what he wrote, Lambrecht undoubtedly came to regret the occasional lapses into flippancy that mar an otherwise straight-forward report on the Phoenix Islands air search.)" How do you "know" he felt any regret? Is there any memoir by Lambrecht to that effect?

"Lambrecht's account was undoubtedly the subject of ready-room discussions..."

As the son of a Naval aviator, the subject of about 99% of ready room discussions were "undoubtedly" about cribbage games or women's legs and/or posteriors...

"Those readers who were "put off" by Lambrecht's flippant comments regarding what was supposed to be a deadly serious search effort might have come to question his judgment and conclusions."

I don't really know how much credence Lambrecht would have garnered, in any event. According to my father and his wartime associates, pilots of patrol/observation planes off cruisers and battleships were not even close to the "top rung" of the naval aviation ladder, to use my father's terms.

"Those who also had access to the COLORADO's CO's report of the operation, could have compare his version to Lambrechts' and noted the discrepancy regarding signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island."

Yes, that's possible, if your unbiased point of view is that there were some who believed there to be a conspiracy/cover-up at the time (ca. 1937).

"Naval aviators are usually quite perceptive when it comes to taking available information and then working up likely scenarios which later prove to be valid.  (As early as 1932, they had even demonstrated how carrier-based aircraft could successfully stage a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.)"

Yes, that's true. More can be found at this site

http://members.cox.net/yarnell17/pearl_harbor.htm

However, it must also be considered that these war games were envisioned and developed at the Naval War College and the Navy Department in Washington, certainly not with any substantial input from ready room "scuttlebutt"... Further, Eric,  you must remember that prior to World War II, the U.S. Navy was defined by a highly inflexible, stratified "chain-of-command" and really had a "yacht club" mentality, especially as it relates to the relationships between senior officers, junior officers, and enlisted men. In short, today's Navy is one willing to accept and act upon considered inputs from below; the U.S. Navy of 1937 was more akin to the structure shown in the film "The Sand Pebbles."

"Any subsequent discussion/analysis of the Phoenix Islands search that took place prior to World War II might well be contained in back issues of the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER, which is today known as NAVAL AVIATION NEWS.  As the next stage of testing my hypothesis, I am using my Navy contacts to locate a set of these back issues for review.  When I do, I'll report anything useful that I find to the forum."

I wish you luck with that and eagerly await your findings. So at least plan on getting that crow out of the freezer for subsequent cooking and presentation. :)

"And the reason for all of this?  As someone who generally believes in the TIGHAR hypothesis, I want to do what I can to help validate it.  In addition to being a dues-paying member of TIGHAR and occasional providing modest financial support to the expeditions, I like to contribute to the arena of ideas via this forum.  Sometimes my contributions go nowhere.  Sometimes they generate discussion which leads to my further enlightenment.  And there is always the possibility that some chance comment or question might bring to light another piece of the puzzle that will bring us that much closer to finding out what ready did happen to AE and FN."

Eric, if this investigation truly succeeds with more than additional conjecture, I and many other "dues-paying" members will be pleasantly surprised, and I do wish you all the luck in the world.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:04:45 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Financing

There are two points that I will add/reinforce on Ric's posting. I'll be shameless here. These things have been said before, but hey, it don't hurt to say them again:

1) If you are on this forum, and you are not a TIGHAR member, please become one. Then you won't be riding the wagon without paying the fare. An Associate membership costs a paltry $55. That's 15 cents a day.

2) This is work that is advanced by the people who care about it. If you care, contribute in any way you can. Buy a shirt or a cap, or send a check.

LTM, who thinks anyone looks good in a TIGHAR baseball cap,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:45 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Financing the search for AE

Just two comments on your response to Rusty, Ric.

1. If "opening up to private investment" means recruiting people to invest in TIGHAR in the expectation of turning a buck, obviously we can't do it.  But just as in the past we've sold media rights to specific expeditions, it seems to me that we COULD partner with somebody who thought he or she could make money off something related to the search, provided it wasn't inconsistent with=20
TIGHAR's mission and principles.  Right?

2. You didn't answer Rusty's question about what it might cost to do more or less everything we've talked about doing, but in fact we HAVE kicked this question around at various times just in case somebody came along with the necessary money and asked it.  Of course, the figure keeps changing because new opportunities and needs keep arising, but my personal, unofficial guestimate is about US$15 million to:

A. Do a really thorough study of the village, with its many, many airplane parts;
B. Do a really through study of the Seven Site;
C. Do other bits and pieces of archeology in various places on the island;
D. Do some comparative surveys on other islands in the Phoenix group;
E. Conduct a modest program of remote sensing along the Nutiran reef face (a more-than-modest program could eat up a LOT more money);
F.  Excavate the Kanton dump site (just to be sure);
G. Conduct further archival and oral historical research in England, the U.S., Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, Funafuti, and maybe Tarawa.
H. Complete analysis and reports on everything, and organize all the existing data into a georeferenced database; and
I. Lodge all the artifacts and records in a suitably equipped repository.

Lots of money, but I think that's a fair estimate of what it would cost to really do the job right.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

It doesn't cost anything to dream and there are people out there who could write a check for 15 million without batting an eye.  (If this describes you please drop me an email.)

As far as TIGHAR getting in bed with somebody whose primary motivation is to profit financially from our work, I'm open to suggestions but I've been burned before and, as a famous man once said, "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:30:52 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Golden Bear

Ric wrote:

>Myth debunked.

Excuse me for asking; but what myth, and how debunked?

Postings by Randy et al, indicate I was right, in that there was a sailing ship named Golden Bear, and that it was in existence "in the late thirties" in the San Francisco area.
*************************************************************
From Ric

Dec. 1  - John Luttrell asked if the W40K in Betty's notebook might be the callsign of the ship "Golden Bear".

On Dec. 2  - I replied, explaining that "Golden Bear" was a Matson Line ship with the call letters KEXX.

On Dec. 2 - You responded with, "Matson Line?  My recollection (possibly faulty) is that the Golden Bear was a U.S. Maritime Academy training vessel, based in San Francisco in the late thirties."

On Dec. 3 - Ron Reuther wrote:

>The "Golden Bear" was a California Maritime Academy Training Vessel, based at
>Vallejo on San Francisco Bay near Mare Island Naval Base.  It was not a Matson
>ship.  It was ship powered by an engine(s), not a sailing ship.  It was in the
>area of 281 miles north of Howland Island when Earhart disappeared.  It had
>departed Australia and was delayed enroute in the southwest Pacific area because
>of volcanic eruption. It then continued its progress northeastward across the
>Pacific toward Vallejo, CA. It was contacted by the Itasca, but indicated it was
>low on fuel and other supplies and not able to participate in the search and
>continued on its way.

That is the myth that has been debunked.  The Golden Bear mentioned in the Itasca log was not the California Maritime Academy training vessel and it was not asked to participate in the search.  Granted, as Earhart myths go it's not in the same league with the Bendix RA-1 but it's still important that we keep the facts straight.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:33:06 EST
From:         Pete
Subject:      Re: Do harmonics go down?

For Neil...

No, to my knowledge harmonics are only multiples of the input frequency.  I humbly beg leave for a figure of speech (as in the "up and down") being misinterpreted.

As for the circuitry, since you have built some transmitters since 1965, remember how nic it was to use differential amplifiers of Bipolar Junction Transistors and the wonderful Common Mode Rejection Ratio involved with those components?  I have seen a 741 OpAmp chip get a little weird when subjected to too much stray capacitance caused by nearby wires.  Things a vacuum tube would not even notice.  Then there's the heat issue, as in the modern components changing resistance value from heat that the oscillator does not function as designed. The old tubes love heat!   Today we also have the wonderful vari-cap, rather than the 1930's bulletproof (figure of speech warning) ganged capacitor arrangements.

Then there's the might Frequency Modulation as opposed to noisy 1930's Amplitude Modulation......

No, I don't think AE was heard below 3105 kHz, so would not suggest such as thing.

Love to Mother
Pete  #2419
***************************************************
From Ric

The only part of that I understood was "bipolar".
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:37:32 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Lt Lambrecht

For Eric,

Concerning Lt Lambrecht's observations of Gardner Island the morning of 9 July 37 and integrity of naval aviation, perhaps you are unaware that Fred Goerner also wanted to learn more like you about the flight that Lt Lambrecht, Short and Fox made over the Phoenix Islands.

In an eight page letter he wrote to J. Gordon Vaeth in 1993, which I have a copy, he described how he became quite friendly with all of them, corresponded with them and recorded their conversations in the late 60's and early 70's.

Goerner questioned Lt Lambrecht at length,.and learned from Lt Lambrecht what he meant by "signs of recent habitation".

Ric has cautioned that  this is a 33 year old anecdotal recollection. It may or may not be accurate.   Lt Lambrecht concluded that " If we had seen anything on any of the islands that possibly was connected to Earhart, we would have recommended landing and making a ground search." Goerner or Lt Lambrecht make no mention of any additional official or "unoffical" reports on that search. [ Except the CO ]

In an attempt to further document what was seen on the islands, I attempted to contact Lt Lambrecht's observer J. Ashley Wilson about two years ago. Carol Osborne, however, advised me she had interviewed Wilson, a retired Pan Am pilot, a number of times and that  Wilson had accompanied LT Lambrecht only on the afternoon flight over Hull Island, and couldn't confirm any sightings. He had high praise for Lt Lambrecht and those searching the Phoenix.

LTM,

Ron Bright
******************************************************************
From Ric

Goerner said that Lambrecht recalled that he had seen "markers of some kind" on the ground at Gardner.  I talked to Ash Wilson on the phone many years ago. As Ron says, he was not on the flight that searched Gardner.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:33:53 EST
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Re: Eric's assumptions

I guess some people see conspiracies everywhere and some don't. I used to. In this case the evidence leads me to believe the most likely scenario by far puts AE and FN on Gardner island being completely missed by the search pilots. Although I would like to know how much time elapsed after the last AE radio call (that TIGHAR believes was actually from AE) and the first search plane. I'm still trying to understand how AE and FN could miss a low flying plane looking for them making low passes on an island as small as Gardner. I suppose injury might explain it. Or am I missing something? It just seems like at any given time they could not be more than 150 yards from open beach and surely one could hear the planes coming?
Rusty Metty
**********************************************************
From Ric

Only a handful of alleged post-loss calls occurred after the 5th.  The aerial search was on the 9th.  There are many places on the northwest end of the island (where all the evidence points to the landing taking place) that are well over 300 yards from the nearest open area.  If you're in an area where the route to a beach is blocked by dense underbrush it can take 15 minutes or more to go 50 yards no matter badly you want to get there.  If you're in the jungle and a plane comes over fairly low you don't hear them until they're right overhead (been there, done that).  But even if you get out to the beach and wave your little arms you there's a good chance you won't be seen.  Anyone who has bought the Niku Aerial Tour video can readily understand how Lambrecht and company could have missed people on the ground who were desperately trying to get their attention.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:36:41 EST
From:         Jerry
Subject:      Re: Golden Bear

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!  I can see it now! "Recently uncovered reports reveal that SS Golden Bear reportedly sat idly by, 10-12 miles away as Earhart and Noonan, clinging to the wing of their floating aircraft, frantically fired distress rockets into the night skies.  Golden Bear continued to do nothing as the lights from the downed Electra slowly disappeared below the frigid North Atlantic.  Shortly thereafter, Golden Bear disappeared between the many icebergs as she made her escape into oblivion..."

How'm I doing so far?  Granted it needs a little massaging, but.... 

LTM (who has too much time on her hands)
Jerry
**************************************************
From Ric

Did I mention that the ship's full name was the "Golden Bear Maru"?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:40:33 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Eric's assumptions

Welcome to the Forum, Anne. You are going to fit in well. Let me make one quick comment and then suggest you go to the web site and brush up before you say something more you might regret.

An Electra 10E is NOT a big airplane. Oceans are. Islands are. Airplanes are not.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:42:24 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: KACA - some thoughts on identity

> and if bradcasting in Dutch, could explain the
> "unitelligble" nature of the receptions, especially on a harmonic.


Yes - and "Unitelligible bradcasting" (sic) in Dutch on the second harmonic would be doubled Dutch - even more difficult to understand.

FYI -  Perdue Earhart collection has an information sheet titled "Wireless Station Data" showing some of the cities encountered on the world flight with station names, call signs, wavelengths, and remarks.  You can see them at this link:

http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/Earhart/EarhartDisplay/list.cfm?type=identifier&library=&criteria=IX.C.6

Tom Riggs #2427
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:44:49 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      KACA and KCWR

No joy finding either KACA or KCWR in the May 1941 Berne List.  Could these be commercial stations onshore ala KGMB?

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:00:01 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

Those stations (KACA and KCWR) were reported to be on or about 3105 kHz, which is far outside the range of AM broadcast bands, where KGMB resided.
**********************************************
From Ric

Wouldn't the same be true of ship stations?  Who are these guys???
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:08:56 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: ISLAND TOPO

Would I be wrong and completely out of the box, having not been to the islands in question, in feeling that the Electra very possibly might have made an acceptable landing on the beach, rolled into the heavy brush that was described in the book Amelia's Shoes, leaving just a hole which might only be seen at a certain angle and cover the aircraft completely. Is that brush tall enough to cover it completely in Tighar's estimation?

AE and FN were not well enough to do more than clear an area to run one engine in the time they had before the Navy searchers arrived?
************************************************************
From Ric

That scenario is certainly possible but then you have to explain where the airplane went by the time Maude and Bevington visited the island in October and the New Zealand Survey mapped that whole area in great detail in December 1938 and the USS Bushnell survey did the same again in November 1939, etc., etc.

That's why we think the plane must have gone over the edge of the reef and hung up in relatively shallow water obscured by the surf except at times of very low tide where Emily's father pointed it out to her in 1940 or '41.  In later years, circa 1953, it apparently began to break up and pieces appeared on the reef flat and beaches.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:10:42 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Lt Lambrecht

I am starting to wonder if the reason that Lambrecht's comments about signs of recent habitation were not acted upon was because this finding wasn't unexpected or thought to be unusual in the absence of visible plane wreckage or some other attempt to signal potential rescuers.

I would venture that although Gardner wasn't inhabited, it can't be assumed that it wasn't visited (legally or not) by various parties over the years. With the Norwich City wreck clearly visible and not knowing what (if anything) was really known about Gardner by the searchers the comments about the 'signs' could've been just that -- signs of recent habitation -- no plane -- no signal -- no sign of anything else. No conspiracy necessary.

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

I think that's probably right.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:18:30 EST
From:         Richard Metzger
Subject:      Re: Golden Bear

A little research produced this info on the "Golden Bear" per The ShipsList (say that three times )

Kailua
1919, ex-West Cajoot,
1928 renamed Golden Bear.
1936 purchased by Matson renamed Kailua,
1942 sold to U.S. Maritime Commission,
1943 transferred to USSR, renamed Viborg.
weight 5,342

P.S. to Alan
What does TIGHAR stand for? are you looking for the plane or AE/FN I thought I was confused......or maybe you?

LTL
Richard Metzger
Lyon Investigations
*******************************************************
From Ric

>1928 renamed Golden Bear.
>1936 purchased by Matson renamed Kailua

Interesting.  The September 1937 Berne List had not kept up with the name change although it does list her as a Matson Line ship.  In the May 1941 list she's shown as the Kailua but with the same call letters as before.

I can also answer your question to Alan.  We're trying to solve the Earhart mystery - something of a prerequisite to recovering anything that may be left of the plane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:21:51 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

Ric wrote:

> No joy finding either KACA or KCWR in the May 1941 Berne List.  Could these
> be commercial stations onshore ala KGMB?

A quick Google search turned up KCWR-FM on 107.1 MHz in Bakersfield. It may well have started out life as an AM station there in the Thirties.

A search for KACA was less fruitful from a radio standpoint, but I got lots of pages of search stuff: turns out "kaca" is the Indonesian word for glass or mirror (according to my 1984 edition of "Kamus Mini Lengkap" pocket Indonesian translation dictionary). I had no idea there were so many Indonesian web pages out there!

Where's our radio historian? There should be an American broadcast station directory from the period in existence somewhere. At that time, only "K" and "W" prefixes were used by the U.S. (and exclusively by the U.S.) "W" east of the Mississippi plus Atlantic possessions, "K" west of the Mississippi plus Pacific possessions.

In the Amateur Radio world it is common practice to re-assign call letters from expired station licenses because of the sheer number of station license requests; but not so in the commercial arena. I would be very surprised if KCWR was not always in Bakersfield. In the 50s and 60s when a broadcaster added an FM or TV outlet; they usually just added -FM or -TV to the old AM call letter. That's why I suspect KCWR-FM started out as an AM station. I don't remember a KGMB radio station when I lived in Hawaii in the late 80s, but there was (and still is) KGMB-TV, channel 9 in Honolulu.

Most (some? many?) current radio stations seem to maintain some sort of internet web page. My inability to find one for KACA (I expected Google to find it before all those Indonesian pages since I was searching from the English language Google page) suggests to me that it is a defunct call sign.

I'll keep looking. This is fun. Did you know that in Indonesia, the average.......oh never mind.

LTM (who remembers her father picking up KFI, Los Angeles from St. Louis on a home made radio in the 20s)
Kerry Tiller
******************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds logical.....but what's a commercial station doing on 3105?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:27:33 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      AE records in the Naval Historical Center

Although this will probably be old news to some of you, the Naval Historical Center has 4 cubic feet worth of documents related to the loss of Amelia Earhart.  (Does anyone know off hand how many filing cabinet drawers are required to hold 4 cubic feet?)  According to the Naval Historical Center, all aspects of the Earhart case are covered in these documents including official investigations conducted since 1937 and which have sought to evaluate the various theories of her disappearance.  Microfilm copies of these documents are available for purchase.

Incidentally, the Naval Historical Center's write-up on AE  (which can be found at http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq3-1.htm) contains the following statement: "Modern analysis indicated that after passing the Nukumanu Islands, Earhart began to vector off course, unwittingly heading for a point about 100 miles NNW of Howland.  A few hours before their estimated arrival time, Noonan calculated a "sun line," but without a successful, radio-frequency range calculation, a precise "fix" on the plane's location could not be established. Researchers generally believe that the plane ran out of fuel and that Earhart and Noonan perished at sea."

(The write-up does not elaborate on the "modern analysis" which led to the theory that AE vectored off course to a point NNW of Howland, nor does it identify the "researchers" who generally believe that AE and FN perished at sea. The possibility of her vectoring off course SSE and ending up in the Phoenix Islands is not raised.)

There is also a link to the full texts of declassified FBI documents concerning AE.  (Are there any FBI documents on her that ARE still classified?  If so, WHY would they still be classified after all these years?)  Using the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet, I was able to access these documents on line. (Most of them are quite amusing and would make for good reading on a rainy day.)

Happy researching.

LTM,

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca.
**************************************************************
From Ric

I've been through the Earhart file at the Naval Historical Center.  We have much more than they do.  The "write-up" was done by somebody who bought into Paul Rafford's analysis of the flight (he's the guy who was sure they went via Nauru because Earhart received a message in Lae telling her about a new light on Nauru).
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:00:27 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: ISLAND TOPO

good points and raises a query:  Is there knowledge of bad enough storms before those who walked on the island in October  with high surf which might have moved the plane out over the reef? Did Maude and Bevington see the whole island and or possibly did the vegetation grow over and totally cover it as it grows so fast in the tropics.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

There is no record of a storm in the Phoenix Group between July 2 and October 13, 1937 and it would be highly unusual for there to be one at that time of year. Maude and Bevington did not come anywhere near seeing the whole island but they did make theri camp and spend most of their time on the western end of the island where the evidence points to the plane landing.  None of the evidence points to a landing on the beach.  All of the evidence points to a landing out on the reef flat.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:33:55 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

Ric said re: KCWR and KACA:  "Sounds logical.....but what's a commercial station doing on 3105?"

A harmonic of 1550 KCs, 1035 KCs, 775 KCs, or 620 KCs?

LTM, who is often 5X5
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Michael Holt

>Sounds logical.....but what's a commercial station doing on 3105?

Weren't there some "commercial stations" that existed to re-transmit telegrams?    That kind of thing would not be in the usual broadcast band.

Michael Holt
*********************************************************************
From Ed Croft

> > No joy finding either KACA or KCWR in the May 1941 Berne List.  Could these
> > be commercial stations onshore ala KGMB?

There is a KACA-TV in Modesto California.

http://www.thefirsteaster.com/tfe_telecast_us_ca.html

ltm,
Ed
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Now we're getting somewhere.  We have presently existing stations with those same call letters - KCWR and KACA - in California.  Now the big question is whether those stations were in business in 1937.

**************************************************************************
From David

There is a KGMB in Hawaii TV and KGMD - KGMV radio am stations and here is link to history of call letters etc

http://earlyradiohistory.us/statlist.htm

David
#2505
**********************************************************************
From Ric

What a great resource!  Thanks.  But a search of 1934 and 1942 turns up no KACA or KCWR.  Damn!

*******************************************************************
From David

Prior to 1929 all call signs that started with KA were assigned to German stations.

David
#2505
********************************************************************
From Mike E.

Carl Peltzer wrote:

>Small points:
>Commercial Broadcast stations use the number 770 or 1520 as an assigned
>frequency not any in between up to and including today

Pardon my skepticism, but Since When?

US commercial broadcasting stations are assigned to frequencies from 540 Khz to 1700 Khz (though most above 1600 are Traveler's Aid stations, with a few exceptions).   In the 30s the AM band was 550-1500 KHz.

Stations are assigned to all "channels" in this range in 10 KHz increments, i.e. 540, 550, 560, 570 etc etc. and are held to a frequency tolerance of plus or minus 15 Hz.  This has been the band plan since the early 30s at least, as has the frequency tolerance rule.

Many foreign governments, however, do not adhere to the 10 -KHz step plan. Canada does, and Mexico as well, but many nations in Central and South America, and even in Europe, stick 'em wherever there is a relatively clear spot.

>and a K preceding the
>callsign would mean it is usually based west of the Missippi  river except
>for KDKA
>in Pennsylvania which kept that one because of being first.
>   K and W being assigned to U S radio stations.

There were a few instances (other than KDKA) wherein K call letters were assigned to stations east of the Mississippi because the FCC official who did it could not recall which side of the river a particular location was.

Ditto for W calls west of the Big Muddy.

For more info do a web search for an article titled "Building the AM Broadcast Band."  I can't recall the URL but a simple search should turn it up.

Thus endeth this off topic thread.

However, it is a fact that ship stations and broadcast stations are/were assigned call letters from the same block WAAA-WZZZ and KAAA-KZZZ.

Broadcast call letters have been recycled for many, many years.  And as ship call signs go dark, they are returned to the pool after a certain length of time, probably 3 years but I am not certain of this.

73

Mike E.
******************************************************************
Ric, for Kelly

KCWR, 107.1 FM (currently) started out as an AM 550 station in 1/17/97 being owned by Buck Owens Productions Inc. KACA currently is used by an educational station, channel 36 in Macon, (GA)

LTL (I like the big yellow bird)
Richard Metzger
Lyon Investigations, Inc.
*************************************************************************
From Cam Warren
This is going to shock the trousers off of Ric, but the call letters KRCW-FM were assigned to Channel Broadcasting Co. of Santa Barbara in the 60's, the president/chief engineer of same being yours truly. Often heard at sea, thanks to our 4,000' transmitter site, atop Mount Santa Ynez. (There was also a KRCW in Santa Monica, but unrelated). For KACA and KCWR, look for a copy of the Broadcasting Year Book, circa 37-40.

KFI (Los Angeles) could be heard almost everywhere in the US since it was a 50,000 watt, clear channel AM station.  "Clear channel" meaning no other station shared their frequency. There were only about 20 or 30 in the country, as I recall, including WGN (Chicago Tribune; "Worlds Greatest Newspaper"),  and WLS (Sears Roebuck, "World's Largest Store").

Cam Warren
********************************************************************
From Ric

My trousers are more secure than you suppose.  Anybody got a copy of the Broadcasting Yearbook for the appropriate years?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:35:31 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

Ric wrote:

> Sounds logical.....but what's a commercial station doing on 3105?

I don't know....testing a new short-wave outlet? I thought if we could find out the WHO, it could give us leads to the WHAT and WHY.

Kerry Tiller
********************************************************
From Ric

I agree, but the WHO is proving to be rather elusive.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:41:26 EST
From:         Michael Holt
Subject:      Re: AE records in the Naval Historical Center

Eric wrote:

>Although this will probably be old news to some of you, the Naval
>Historical Center has 4 cubic feet worth of documents related to
>the loss of Amelia Earhart.  (Does anyone know off hand how
>many filing cabinet drawers are required to hold 4 cubic feet?)

Forgive me ...

My filing cabinet's drawers each measure 12.5x10.5x25.5 inches of usable space.   This gives me a total useable volume of 3346.875 cubic inches.  Four cubic feet is four times 1728 cubic inches; that's 6912 cubic inches.  It would appear that all the relevant files at the Naval Historical Center would fill only two drawers in my filing cabinet.

That's not a lot of paper.   Or did I miss a decimal point or something? (You DID ask.)

Michael Holt
****************************************************************
From Ric

That pretty much matches my memory of what they have.  We have two four-drawer filing cabinets crammed to overflowing plus a box and several stacks of overflow plus at least 20 Gigs of hard-drive space filled with Earhart-related stuff.  Hopeless.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:50:07 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: AE records in the Naval Historical Center

>([Paul Rafford is] the guy who was sure they went via
>Nauru because Earhart received a message in Lae telling her about a new light
>on Nauru).

Not such a dumb idea as you imply.  Nauru would have made an excellent way point to confirm Noonan's navigation, besides serving as an emergency landing opportunity about midway to Howland.

Cam Warren
*********************************************************************
From Ric

What is dumb is to conclude that it happened based upon nothing more than speculative interpretation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:53:24 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE records in the Naval Historical Center

Eric asks:

>Does anyone know off hand how many filing cabinet drawers are
>required to hold 4 cubic feet?

Think about that a little, Eric. It's not very much. There are 4 cubic feet in a bin that is 8 inches deep x 2 feet wide x 3 feet long.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:09:15 EST
From:         Michael Holt
Subject:      Re: ISLAND TOPO

> None of of the
>evidence points to a landing on the beach.  All of the evidence points
>to a landing out on the reef flat.

Just out of curiosituy, had they landed on the beach, how long would the plane have lasted?  Even better, how long would the tracks of the landing have lasted?
****************************************************************
From Ric

If they had landed on the beach I don't know why the plane wouldn't have lasted for a long, long time.  Storms may have busted it up and pushed it inland but not remove every trace.  Landing tracks on the beach, like footprints, last only until the next storm pushes water up onto the beach.

For what it's worth, I suspect that Lambrecht's "signs of recent habitation" were marks in the sand.  He uses the same expression in describing what was seen at Sydney Island where we another account ( a prees report sent from the Colorado) says they saw letters in the sand.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:12:33 EST
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: AE Disappearance

G'Day Y'All

The Atlantic Ocean has it's Bermuda Triangle; Could it be that the Pacific Ocean has  an: Amelia Earhardt Triangle?

Cheers
GeorgeRatWerth
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Good hypothesis.  The Bermuda Triangle was invented on a slow newsday in 1954.  The Earhart Triangle was invented by three USAF officers - Joe Gervais, Bob Ringer and Paul Briand - in 1960.

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:07:25 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

Let me ask what seems a logical question. Let's assume in 1937 there were two stations with the call letters KACA and KCWR BRIEFLY. Too brief to make the registry you're looking at. Then they went out of business. What happens to those call letters? Could I, twenty years later, start up two stations and use those call letters?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:13:26 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: ISLAND TOPO

> None of of the
>evidence points to a landing on the beach.  All of the evidence points
>to a landing out on the reef flat.

I assume we have concluded it was not possible for AE to move the plane once it came to a stop? I would also assume we have concluded that once on the ground AE would not have had a reason to take off to move the plane to the beach?

I ask this having not ever been there and therefore can't make a guess that the beach or any other place would have been a safer place for the plane than the reef which appears to be the logical landing choice.

This ought to be easy to put to rest.

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

Only about the first 150 feet of reef (the part out near the ocean) is smooth enough to land or taxi the airplane.  Otherwise the reef surface is deeply pitted and jagged.  You can't even walk on it without being super careful.

The beach is quite narrow, steeply sloped, and either rough coral or deep, soft sand - not someplace you'd want to land an airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:35:59 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

Yes they can be reassigned or requested

David
#2505
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:37:20 EST
From:         Greg Robinson
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

I'm relatively new here but this question caught my eye.  Weren't remote broadcasts transmitted via shortwave and then re-transmitted via the broadcasting station (i.e. via AM, Shortwave, etc)?  And, if so, it seems to me that a person might want to see what those remote broadcast freq's were usually.  For instance, perhaps a station was using one freq for gathering their remote broadcast (and using the same station call letters) and then re-transmitting on their broadcast frequency.  However,  I'd imagine that there might not be a whole lot of standardization on freq's for remote broadcasts in the 30's.

Greg Robinson
Plano, TX
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:38:22 EST
From:         Richard Metzger
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

For Alan,

That is a possible scenario given that all of the search engines do not list the call signs, HOWEVER, They do not list the current users of the call signs as well. KACA is an independent educational TV station 36 in Macon KCWR is used by 105.1 FM in Bakersfield, CA (1997)

LTL
Richard Metzger
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:44:02 EST
From:         Emmett Houlihan
Subject:      a new  "take" on earhart mystery

I'm sure you're aware of the new publication by Rollin Reineck--but just in case--here goes:

An article appeared in the November 23 edition of the Los Angeles Times advancing the Marshall Island theory--with a couple of twists.

AE & FN go down in the Marshalls but the Japanese find them first. FN is immediately dispatched to that big Hangar in the sky while Amelia is kept (in Japan ?) until hostilities cease in 1945.

Twist #1) She is released by the Japanese under the guise of Irene Craigmile(she no longer wants to be recognized as Amelia Earhart) into the hands of Reverend James Kelly who brings her back to the U.S.. She subsequently marries Guy Bolam and is hence known as Irene Craigmile Bolam.

Twist #2) Through computerized age progression enhancement, a local detective was able to "see" what Amelia looked like at age 75 and when compared with Mrs. Bolam at age 80, one can see a striking resemblance--not to mention the unique wings pin and honorary Major's insignia on the left shoulder of her dress.

I guess I missed the lawsuit filed by Mrs. Bolam in the 70's. I did NOT miss the "Amelia Lives!" publication and read it over & over. I also missed the lawsuit part where the authors agree to a 2 million settlement IF Mrs. Bolam would submit to fingerprinting. She not only declined to do this but immediately dropped the lawsuit.

In her will was a strong demand that her organs be donated and her identity not be changed in any way.

I've checked with the forum as I religiously do and would confess to being on a short vacation when the article first appeared yet I've seen no forum discussion regarding the article. Certainly I'm not the only one who is aware of this--am I?

LTM,
Emmett 2405S

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

The forum has let the announcement of Mr. Reineck's book pass without comment.  I have ordered a copy and will post a review on the TIGHAR website in due course.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:22:01 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Amelia morphs into Irene ?

The solution to the mystery of Amelia Earhart's disappearance will have to consist of ironclad proof, a "smoking gun", as it were. Skeptics of the TIGHAR hypothesis want a very high standard of proof before they are convinced. I'm okay with that. But the converse also applies. I, for one, will require extremely convincing evidence if I am going to be brought to a place where I believe that Irene Bolam began her life as Amelia Earhart.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
****************************************************************
From Ric

That's not the contention.  Irene O'Crowley, later Craigmile, later Heller, and ultimately  Bolam was born in New Jersey on October 1, 1904.  It is claimed that Amelia Earhart returned from Japan in 1945 and assumed the identity of this existing person.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:24:34 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Discovery of Canton Is (Kanton)

In 1852, Capt Andrew Wing of Acushnet,Mass, commanded a whaling barque "Canton" from New Bedford Mass to the South Pacific in search of whales. By March of 1853, the barque was somewhere near the Phoenix Island chain  around 03* 173 West. His charts showed no low lying atolls etc, yet the ship hit a submerged reef and wrecked . It couldn't be refloated on this atoll-since renamed Kanton.

The crew of 33 souls left in four whaleboats and after 45 days made it to Saipan, then to Guam.  Wings sextant had been heavily damaged and with some spare parts he fabricated an instrument that guided the crew.

I wonder if anyone ever found evidence of this rather large three masted barque?

Maybe this has been posted before on the origin of the name. [ Source: Ocean Navigator, Sep/Oct 2003, article by David Berson]

Ron  Bright
************************************************************
From Ric

Perhaps...but the connection with Saipan is ominous.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:41 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Amelia assumes identity

>Irene O'Crowley, later Craigmile, later Heller, and ultimately  Bolam
>was born in New Jersey on October 1, 1904.  It is claimed that Amelia
>Earhart returned from Japan in 1945 and assumed the identity of this
>existing person.

My apologies, all. I thought I understood this theory. Now I'm completely confused. If these theorists have it that AE assumed the identity of Ms. Irene-of-many-names, what do they suppose happened to the REAL Irene? Did she go swimming with the fishes, or something? Please tell me, so I don't have to read the book.

LTM, who had one name, and stuck with it,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I'm the one who is stuck with reading the book.  It hasn't arrived yet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:15:33 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Discovery of Canton Is (Kanton)

Very interesting; Thanks, Ron.

Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:25:51 EST
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: compliance, and other speculative rants

Just was going back over the messages which I have recieved since subscribing to the list (Thanks DR), and noticed this one about "thinking outside the box".

Yes, I saw the same program on the Discovery Channel, but there is a caveat here concerning the Pacific. Now, it is an open secret now, thanks again to the selfsame Discovery Channel and Natl Geo Channel, that the Navy did indeed commission Dr. Robert Ballard, of  the Titanic fame, to seek out certain sunken subs and do some up close and personal inspection.  That being said, and without revealing tooo much of my background, as much is still classified,  let's just say that I was "somewhat" involved in the cat and mouse games of the cold war regarding the fun sport of subhunting... I also happened to be a Radioman, so both search procedures, and also the logs of the Itasca are just as familiar to me as when they were written.

OK, given that the sunline which was the last line of position shot by Fred Noonan was correct, one has to remember that a sunline is only one linear "line of probability" and must be crossed by at least one, and preferably two additional lines, either radio bearings, celestial obs, or at worst, the last known position by DR set off by the determined ground speed and wind drift, either known or estimated.  This  provides one with a "triangle" the smaller the better, as the assumed "true" position is the center of said triangle. The correctness  of the fix, of course, is directly related to the accuracy of the obs, and one can't get a true posit with only a sunline.

If this is correct, then the Itasca, nor any other ship, managed to get a reasonable DF on the Earhart aircraft.  Now, this could be a problem with the times involved, as it was getting pretty near and after dawn, and as any RM knows, condx change rapidly following sunup.  I, along with David Ring are going over all the radio logs we can get our hands on, both having been professional radio officers at sea, and  familiar with procedure, and we are helping each other out with what is hazy to the other (I was trained the Navy Way, worked with the USCG, and the logs used in the mid '60's were identical to those in the '30s.

There is no confusion regarding 600 or 500, in that period of time, many frequencies were described by wavelength, and 600Meters, happens to be 500Khz.  I am not sure if the Itasca, or any other ship on station  (We are trying to establish if there were any USN vessels in the vicinity, who would also be guarding 500, as a matter of course) but  I seriously doubt that they had MF/DF capability on 500KHz.

As far as the "disappearance" of the signals is concerned, I somehow feel that it is a combination of the loss of the trailing wire antenna, leaving a "V" as the only xmit antenna the Electra had, and that is absolutely not a very high gain antenna, and is also very directional. If the plane were in the wrong attitude, the signal lobe could be so attenuated that it would be virtually unreadable.

From the first reading of the Itasca logs, it appears that the RM's on watch did all the right things at the right times, including attempting comms on 3105 on all modes (CW and AM) as well as CW on 500Khz.  Having no knowlege of what was transpiring on the aircraft at that time, it is concievably possible that there was a radio failure, since transmitters in those days involved coil changes in both the Master Oscillator (MO) and Power Amplifier (PA), which, incidentally is why they were called MOPA transmitters.  If a coil came adrift in the  aircraft when the frequency was being changed, it could have virtually knocked the transmission capability out for once and for all.

Incidentally, concerning the different shore stations and "broadcast" stations, and the question of them being on 3105, well, that's not too much of a mystery. It was a very common practice in those days for any radio station which could conceivably contact a record-seeking aircraft to provide whatever navigational aids they could, and evidently the FCC wasn't too picky about "authorised frequencies".  The regulations were not as structured or enforced at that period, especially when safety  of life at sea or in the air was considered.

My best guess here is that both Noonan and Earhart did their level best to establish a position, a pretty good accomplishment considering  the "pucker factor" which must have been present (Yup, I'm a pilot myself, and know all about the queasy sensation one develops when one's calculations run out and the landmark (if flying VFR) isn't where you think it is..one can get a fixation on where one thinks the destination is, and happily ignore same passing under one's wingtip (happened to me when I was but a student pilot, and it was embarrassing, but fortunately not any worse.... IF they found an island, with what looked like a doable landing area (wet beach, etc, or were running out of gas, and made the best of it by landing in the surf, or on a coral outcrop) they would have been pretty much out of the transmission biz, because the engines would have been unusable, the dynamotors possibly flooded, and as some people have surmised, there usually weren't separate batteries for the A+ (Filament Voltage) B+ Plate Voltage, and C+ Grid Bias. Most of the A+  and C+ were established from the aircraft power, either generator or battery, and B+, of course, was generated by a dynamotor.

This would have been equally true on both the transmitter and receiver carried, so a common failure mode could have existed. 

Anyhow, to get back to the point, I am not too sure that the USN, even to this day, would have much interest in the area around Howland Island, as it has not been, to my knowlege, a hot zone for suspicious subs, even during the cold war.  Even if the area was well surveyed and mapped with side scan sonar, there is so much junk left over from WW2  that combing over all of it would be an extremely involved process, and considering that some of the methods used to gain topo and undersea info are still classified, they would not be easily available to the casual researcher.

Your comments, flames, discussion, queries, etc are welcomed and invited.

73 de Greg Moore WA3IVX/ NNN0BVN
Former USN Sparks 1, with a lot of merchant ship operating experience...
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Greg.  Not a whole lot to comment on.  We've provided David Ring with all the Itasca radio log information we have, including the Howland Island log.  As you probably know, we've already worked out some previously puzzling aspects of the logs and David is still working on putting together the whole picture.  I'm sure your help is invaluable.

No trailing wire was installed on the airplane during the second World Flight attempt.  There is disagreement about whether it was removed in Miami or simply never reinstalled when the airplane was repaired after the Luke Field accident, but the point is moot - there was no trailing wire at the time of the final flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:28:58 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Discovery of Canton Is (Kanton)

The Barque is a three masted cargo ship with the sail square rigged on the first two masts the last is a gaff rig affair, that could be rigged in different ways. I cant imagine it with those pots for rendering whale blubber.  Then what do you do with  the whale oil when your done? Kanton is an island not a reef.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:31:20 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Amelia morphs into Irene ?

>I, for one, will require extremely convincing evidence 

Alfred, have you not noticed? Only TIGHAR attempts to offer proof. The proposers of other theories offer no proof whatsoever but only theories and anecdote.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:01:56 EST
From:         Bonnie Jacobson
Subject:      Reading the Reineck Book

Ric:

If you are so thoroughly disgusted over your "job" to read the Reineck book, send it to me as I would be happy to review it for the forum.

Personally, I think you need a vacation.  You are quite snippy with ANYONE who has the nerve to think beyond YOUR or TIGHAR's envelope.  Given that the "evidence" you have gathered is circumstantial, I think you are negligent to disregard other theories -- especially when they have been offered for wide assessment in the form of a published book.  Maybe there are some of us scholarly folks who don't agree totally with YOUR assessments.  I read, digest, and make up my own mind based on the facts as I see them.  And, facts can take many forms.

Now I am sure I will feel the wrath of Lord Ric.

Bonnie Jacobson
*******************************************************************
From His Lordship

We are most appreciative of your kind offer but our keen sense of duty and commitment to fairness compels us to perform even those offices which may be repugnant to our sensibilities.  We do, however, welcome and applaud your desire to provide the forum with your review of Mr. Reineck's book and you have our sincere assurance that such review will be posted on this forum, without editing or alteration, so that subscribers may have the benefit of your scholarly assessments.

We are sure you will want to reward Mr. Reineck's efforts, as we have, by ordering your own copy of his book. http://www.SpecialBooks.com/amiliasurvived.htm
We eagerly await your review.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:26:08 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: compliance, and other speculative rants

More rants from Florida;

1:Glad someone got to reading some of the stuff I typed in here and not an insult by any means; just another viewpoint.

2:With the end of the cold war sure wish it were possible to go over US  Navy underwater fixes in that area.  Just suppose that the Electra got to the bottom in one piece [and realize that it would ruin our collective wish that they did land on the island Tighar has searched with such great results]  and in that case would make a target findable by side scan sonar.

3: Tighar and all concerned has done a great job so far, but, are there any more places in the S W Pacific which we might do research on those lost bones and artifacts.  ie; more forms of personnel in that area which we, collectively, might develop and foster and finally solve this?

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

TIGHAR has, from time to time, been fortunate to have the assistance and cooperation of many government agencies in the pursuit of our Earhart investigation - the Office of Naval Research and the CIA among them.  If the ocean floor in the Central Pacific had been mapped to the degree needed to find something as small as a Lockheed Electra I think we'd know about it.

Our researchers who have pursued the bone and artifacts that were taken to Fiji by conducting research on the ground in Fiji (Dr. Tom King, Dr. Kar Burns, Kristin Tague and Barb Norris in 1999; Marty Moleski and Roger Kelley in 2003) have immersed themselves to a truly impressive degree in the paperwork, politics, and personalities that may have influenced the disposition of the bones and artifacts.  We are following the trail as best we can.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:26:55 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: compliance, and other speculative rants

Greg, your input is quite welcome. You bring up some interesting points in regard to AE's radios and who might have been listening or transmitting on 3105.

Probably the most important point is that things were not all that well regulated and folks didn't always follow the rules in the 30s. That's important for the Forumites to grasp so that concepts are not ruled out simply because it isn't done that way in 2003.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:06:48 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Reading the Reineck Book

Ric: - your reply truly amazes me. In fact, it scares me, sounds  like you may be running for public office soon. Truthfully, it is a wonderful reply and you are to be applauded for your totally diplomatic and kind dispatch to Ms. Jacobson.

Keep up the good work.

LTM,
David Bush
**************************************************************
From Ric

Fear not.  There are already WAY too many people running for public office.

******************************************************
From Alfred Hendrickson:

If Ric wasn't snippy, I'd think he was mad at me, or something . . .

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
*****************************************************
From Marty Moleski

> Personally, I think you need a vacation.  You are quite snippy with ANYONE
> who has the nerve to think beyond YOUR or TIGHAR's envelope.

The quality of Ric's character is really not an appropriate topic for this forum.  But I agree that Ric needs and deserves a vacation.  He's worked very hard this year on behalf of TIGHAR and its audience on the Forum.

"No good deed goes unpunished."

Ric and Pat (who works in the background to make TIGHAR's website and publications first-rate) have to use their own personal judgment about how to conduct the Forum and organize the projects that fulfill the organization's mission.  By the laws of nature, they are not allowed to use ESP or Vulcan-mind-melding to borrow someone else's judgment.  TIGHAR exists and continues to grow because of their gifts, vision and commitment.  Without them, we wouldn't be here debating the various theories of what happened to AE & FN.

Ric has a remarkable sense of humor--or, perhaps I should say, I find his sense of humor most entertaining. I can't count how many times his remarks make me laugh out loud.  I understand that other people may not share his taste or mine, and I know that some folks have left the Forum because they feel that they have been ill-treated.  That's life.  Ric's job is to call 'em as he sees 'em.  If we got a different referee for the forum, that person would have to do exactly the same thing, and, human nature being what it is, that person would seem "snippy" to some and funny to others.

For all practical purposes, there is nobody here but us humans.  If there is a God, that divinity has not volunteered to take over the TIGHAR operations.  As long as human beings are making the judgment calls, other humans are going to take potshots at them. Someone said, "We like to put our leaders up on pedestals so that we can strike at their knees."

No one is forced to participate in the Forum.  You may even ask Ric to return some portion of your dues, I suppose, if you're dissatisfied with his decisions. I've paid dues since ... uh ... 2000 or 2001 ... because I want to be part of this organization and play a small part in funding Ric and Pat's work.  I'm betting that they're right about the Niku hypothesis.  That's my personal judgment, and I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

Sorry for going on so long.  All best wishes to everyone in the dark days of winter.  For those who are religious, I hope you find great consolation in your winter festivals; for those who are not, I hope that nature grants you all your heart's desires.

LTM.
Marty #2359
***********************************************************
From Ric

How do you reply to something like that?  Thanks Marty.  For Pat and me the real rewards in this work are the people who come together under the TIGHAR banner.

Let me echo Marty's wishes to everyone who does us the honor of letting us clog up your in-box with forum e-mails.  May the season bring you joy and may the New Year bring us all peace.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:25:26 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      AE a Smoker?

Was Earhart a smoker? I saw a film clip of her on television with what looked like a carton of Camels tucked under her arm.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
******************************************************************
From Ric

AE was not a smoker.  Early on, 1928 I think, Putnam got her to do a cigarette endorsement ad for a magazine but she reportedly felt so bad about it that she donated the money to charity.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:33:59 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Reading the Reineck Book

Marty wrote:

> If there is a God, that divinity has not
> volunteered to take over the TIGHAR operations.

All I know is, SOMEBODY left Ric in charge.  The Lord works in mysterious ways...and some days Ric is a mystery to us all, but we have become closer through adversity and stronger because of our diversity.  Fire makes steel stronger...

I echo the sentiments of the season, and wish all, happy holidays.

ltm
jon
**************************************************************
From Ross Devitt

>The quality of Ric's character is really not an appropriate
>topic for this forum.
>

The quality of Ric's character has been a topic for this forum for years.. Let's not drop all the humorous posts at once!

Th' WOMBAT
********************************************************
From Alan

>Given that the "evidence" you have gathered is circumstantial, I think you
>are negligent to disregard other theories -- especially when they have been
>offered for wide assessment in the form of a published book.

Bonnie, we all get snippy from time to time and not in the way of apology but we've been at this for many decades.

You may well be correct in terming TIGHAR's evidence as circumstantial. TIGHAR either does not have a smoking gun or hasn't recognized it yet.

No other theory is disregarded or ignored and this may come as a surprise but just because something is in a "published book" doesn't make it so or bestow upon it any degree of authority. I might add the material in the Earhart books have NOT been offered for assessment or peer review. They have been offered as FACT. No manuscript has been circulated for peer review prior to publication. In house, yes but not otherwise.

If you would be so kind as to tell me what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, supports any other theory I would be happy to discuss that with you. To the best I can recall the theories are:

1. Crashed somewhere in the ocean
2. Crashed in the Marshalls
3. Captured by a Japanese fishing boat and crew and plane taken to the Marshalls
4. Crashed in the Gilberts
5. Crashed in the jungles of New Britain (David, I know you have good evidence for this. My question is to Bonnie)
6. Buried on some island in the Solomons
7. Repatriated from Japan as Irene Bolam

Now, Bonnie if you will take each one and give the evidence that supports that theory we can go from there. No anecdotes. No quotes out of someone else's book. And to be fair I will disregard TIGHAR's anecdotal evidence of a wrecked airplane on Nikumaroro.

If you want help I can offer mine. Theory #1: NONE. Theory #2: NONE. Theory #3: NONE. Theory #4: NONE. Theory #5: David Billings has excellent evidence to support his theory. Theory #6: NONE. Theory #7: NONE

Bonnie, you're up to bat.

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

Well THAT tosses a torch into the powder magazine.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:39:11 EST
From:         Brian Rourke
Subject:      Marshall Islands contact.

I am a long time lurker that has not chimed in because I felt that I have not had anything to offer. But after watching and reading about your work I have decided that I can perhaps offer something. I have a friend that lives on Majuro in the Marshall islands. She is a professor at the teaching college there. If you ever have any need of a well contacted and educated person to do some poking around for you, please let me know. I know that the Marshall Island theory is not one of your favourites, but surely all knowledge can be usefull for proving or discounting theories. She is holidaying in the UK at the moment, but is due back late January.

All the best, Brian Rourke.
Australia.
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Brian.  The son of one of the key players in the saga of the bones found on Nikumaroro supposedly now lives in the Majuro and we've been trying to track him down.  Maybe your friend can help.  We'd appreciate the contact.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:41:25 EST
From:         John in Atlanta
Subject:      Golden Bear

If I were you I would not make light of the ship Golden Bear. There's more here than meets the eye. Maybe I should say "meets the Tighar's eye."

Something's rotten in Denmark
John in Atlanta
*******************************************************************
From Ric

By all means...enlighten us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:44:39 EST
From:         Clayton Davis
Subject:      Ric's Non-Snippiness

I know Snippy.  And Ric ain't no Snippy. I've been snipped at by experts.  Yes, I have. Y'all keep up the good work, y'heah!

CLAYTON DAVIS
************************************************************
From Ric

I know what you mean.  I was married to her once myself.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:50:48 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: AE a Smoker?

While at Purdue University, I ran across an article stating that AE went to a local drugstore/soda fountain and was smoking a cigarette...I'm not sure as to the veracity of this...

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

Uh oh....could it be that another part of the Earhart legend was pure PR?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:15 EST
From:         Bonnie Jacobson
Subject:      For Alan, et. al.

I have NEVER stated that a published book is PROOF of anything.  I DID say that you are negligent if you do not read and assess the value of a published document.  Ric dismissed the value of Reineck's publication BEFORE it was even obtained for review.  The fact that any information is published MEANS that it is available for peer review.  Just because Mr. Reineck did not send you an autographed copy of his book does not mean that it should not be taken seriously.

I believe in keeping ALL possibilities active especially when there is ONLY circumstantial evidence being used as support for the "leading" theory. Given you believe that only 1 of your ideas is viable and given the attitudes shown on this forum, I believe that you will not review fairly any other information provided to you that does not support your position.  Innocent men have sat on Death Row due to similar inappropriate thought processes.

I am now beginning to think that this forum is not one offered for scholarly thought.  It is a little boy's clubhouse to be used to raise funds for camping trips and to denegrade anyone who thinks beyond YOUR envelope.

And, I was kind when I said Ric was snippy.  As a forum host, he is plain RUDE when people disagree with him.

Bonnie Jacobson
**********************************************************
From et al

Bonnie, I have offered you the opportunity to provide the forum with your own review of Reineck's book.  What more can I do?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:48:56 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: AE a Smoker?

If it helps, the particular show was shown on the Discovery Wings channel and was about Earhart's trans-Atlantic flight in the Vega. The clip I'm noting is of Earhart prior to departure with what looks like a clipboard, a journal-type bound notebook, and a carton of Camels. The silent clip shows her talking while putting these three items (stacked) under her left arm, as if getting ready to board the aircraft.

Maybe she was just smuggling the Camels to a friend in Ireland ;)

LTM,
Dave (#2585)

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

I haven't seen that show.  There may be still photos taken at the same time. I presume the scene you describe is in Harbor Grace, Newfoundland. (She did not fly the airplane to Newfoundland. Bernt Balchen did. She rode as a passenger.).

You mention Camels specifically.  Was there a logo visible?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:56:43 EST
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Mr G on tv

I was up late the other night when 'unsolved mysteries' came on the channel... about half way thru the programme who should pop up but Mr G who proceeded to show to media some artifacts from the island, this was followed by a Mr elgin long who had other ideas(!). It was a few years old the programme in question but i did enjoy it none the less and it was good to put a face to the person.

I just thought that i would share this with one and all, the only let down was that they didnt give an address or anything for people who were interested in the subject to contact.

Alexander
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:00:16 EST
From:         PK
Subject:      Re: Ric's Non-Snippiness

Funny, I think I was married to her as well.

PK
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:53:37 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Any dado news?

Ric, is there anything new you can report yet on the dados?

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
***************************************************
From Ric

Nothing definitive yet but lots of research underway.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:57:03 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Ric's Non-Snippiness

>Funny, I think I was married to her as well.

Hey, WAIT! I was, too!!! I know she's safely in Fredericksburg, VA... No wonder I'm so happy here in CA :)

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
********************************************
From Ric

Look...guys...I didn't mean to start a thread and if she finds out we've all been taking about her...well...none of us need that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:02:45 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: AE a Smoker?

Yes, a logo was visible. There was the outline of a camel (hump and all) on the end of the carton, in silhouette. You can see it briefly as she tucks the items under her arm. The subject of the show (other than her stunt flights, generally) was the red Vega at the Air & Space Museum, so it will probably be repeated often on the Discovery Wings Channel.

And yes, you are correct; the film shown was supposedly taken at Harbor Grace.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
**************************************************************
From Ric

Let's keep an eye out for that show and get some more opinions.  Maybe the show is available on tape.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:10:20 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: For Alan, et. al.

Bonnie, everyone read my post to you and it is obvious to all you read what you wanted and not what was written. We ALL notice you have not taken up the challenge I made to you. The reasons are obvious.

Since you seem to have trouble with the English language I thought it might be helpful if I was more specific. I did not write you had, "....stated that a published book is PROOF of anything." I said it, "....doesn't make it so or bestow upon it any degree of authority."

I also didn't say I should have had, "....an autographed copy of his book."

What I wrote was, "I might add the material in the Earhart books have NOT been offered for assessment or peer review. They have been offered as FACT. No manuscript has been circulated for peer review prior to publication. In house, yes but not otherwise."

If you are going to enter into a rational discussion on the Forum You need to be able to read what is written and respond to that and not what you make up.

And I'm still waiting for your responses. Are you not capable of that?

Alan
*******************************************************
From Don Jordan

It might help Bonnie to understand why nobody is that enthused about the material in Rollin's book.  That material is not new.  It is a rehash of material that was first published over thirty years ago.  It was dismissed as foolish then, and is hard to believe that people are still trying to sell it.  There are those out there who will believe it to their dying day.

Don Jordan
Cal City, CA
****************************************************
From Ron Berry

Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie,

Its plain that you have not been around the forum for very long. If Mr. Reineck's research proves to be valid then that mean Mr. Gillespie will be told about it by a lot of our more educated cohorts. You know those good old boys that can read. Now I qualify myself to be here because I drove by a collage once, I hope that barber colleges count in your world. You should read all of the published material that is available on the forum. Most of it backed by experts in their individual fields. That mean Mr. Gillespie will not hesitate to argue with any of the good ole boys that say anything that is not supported by fact. So put away that thin skin that you are sporting and roll up your silk shirt sleeves and prove something, we will listen.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:13:59 EST
From:         John in Atlanta
Subject:      Re: Golden Bear

PLEASE BE PATIENT I JUST MARRIED OFF MY ONLY DAUGHTER AND ALL OF MY WIFE'S RELATIVES ARE HERE. I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW WITHIN A FEW DAYS.......

DENMARK'S A PRISON......

JOHN     ATLANTA
********************************************
From Ric

Sounds like a bear of a situation.  We can wait.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:18:28 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      For Bonnie

Lighten up, Bonnie. If you think AE came back as Irene, just tell us why we should believe that. If someone wrote a book positing AE was nabbed by Elvis clones, would you suggest we give serious consideration to that, too?

BTW, the Forum Usage Guidelines state: "Our purpose here is to promote an intelligent and productive discussion of the Earhart disappearance. Specifically, we want to further our investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island (now known as Nikumaroro) in the Phoenix Group.  We will not discuss conspiracy theories on this forum, nor will we debate whether the airplane crashed at sea near Howland.  We feel that we have already established a strong probability that the flight arrived in the vicinity of Howland Island pretty much on schedule and, as of the last officially received radio transmission, had adequate remaining fuel to reach Gardner Island.  The question is, did it?"

"We recognize that this forum is not for every Earhart enthusiast. Some may find us unsuitably irreverent or excessively scientific in our approach. But if you're interested in hard answers instead of idle speculation, we think you'll enjoy what happens here."

Ric has already allowed a good deal of straying off-topic on this issue. This is not evidence of rudeness, if you ask me. Your own "little boys clubhouse" comment is a bit rude, though, don't you think? Still, I would very much like to hear your review of the Reinick book. Ric has offered to let you air your review right here on this Forum. So, tell us what you think. But quit insulting us.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:20:39 EST
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      re wreck of the whaler Canton

Woody posted on this topic on the forum over 2 years ago. Contemporary accounts appeared in the "Whaleman's Shipping List and Merchants' Transcript" (November 7, 1854), and Alexander Starbuck's "History of the American Whale Fishery" (1878). An article by Irvine C. Gardner, describing Canton island and an account of the wreck, appeared in the June, 1938, "National Geographic Magazine". Sylvanus S. Longley, one of the survivors, wrote in "The Wreck of the Whaler Canton"(The New England Quarterly 13:324-335, [June] 1940), "Soon after the ship struck, the larboard quarter below deck broke away...  [after 2 or 3 days] the ship had been pushed farther on the coral and soon parties went aboard and got some things that we needed."

More to the point of the recent question about whether or not remains of the whaler Canton have been found, S.A. Mitchell, one of the astronomers on the 1938 eclipse expedition, described landing at Canton (The Scientific Monthly 47:5-21, [July] 1938): "Ashore were found some old timbers from a wreck, which were dragged to the edge of the lagoon and a wharf constructed. With the efficient help of the Navy it was a comparatively simple matter to load the 150 cases of instruments, the 10,000 board feet of lumber and 60 bags of cement into the Navy launches in the quiet waters at the anchorage and put everything ashore on the wharf..." It looks to have been a fairly substantial wharf, a photo of it is shown on page 8 of the article.

Eighty-four years (1854-1938) is a long time, but the eclipse expedition may have unknowingly walked onshore on the remains of the whaler Canton itself. 

Dan Brown, #2408
****************************************************
From Ric

I think that's entirely possible.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:12:10 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      For Pete's Sake

"Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie" sound the alarm a GIRL IN OUR CLUBHOUSE! - Sounds reminiscent of the little rascals Women Hater's Club - Hey Spankie where is our dog Pete, I thought you had him guard'in the door?

It is always amazing what happens when a little perfume meets the smell of musty old socks.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang  # 2559
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Is there any truth to the charge that this forum has become the He-man Woman Haters Club of Little Rascals (Our Gang) fame?  It is true that the overwhelming majority of postings are by males.  It is also true that we have had our share of memorable female posters.   Unfortunately, some of them have been memorable in the same way that Bonnie has achieved notoriety. There are many, many women subscribed to this forum.  It has frankly always puzzled me that more women do not participate in the discussions.  Perhaps we could hear from some of them and let us know what we're doing wrong.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:13:44 EST
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Camels and Bonnie

While unlikely, it's not impossible that Earhart would have laid in a supply of Camels for the transatlantic flight as an emergency stay-awake measure. (According to one website, Earhart did not drink coffee or tea and said that she would use "smelling salts" to keep her eyes open during the trip. Perhaps this was just a bit of a fib.)  However, one would think that for a planned 18-hour flight, a pack or two would have been enough.

Even in those days, it was not unusual for celebrities to decry smoking in public while puffing away in private.  Alf Landon, the 1936 GOP presidential candidate, was a chain-smoker but would never be photographed holding a cigarette because, as he told a reporter late in life, he didn't want to set a bad example for the kiddies.  I happen to know this because I was the reporter.

For Bonnie:  As you have discovered, the TIGHAR forum is not the place for a discussion of other theories, scholarly or otherwise.  However, I'm always happy to talk Earhart with you at pd_gaston@yahoo.com iffen ya wish.

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:10:47 EST
From:         Jackie
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

I think the reason most of the ladies don't participate in the discussions is that we are not usually as technically educated, and as for myself, I'm not really interested in learning about boring technical specs...   That doesn't mean we don't thoroughly enjoy the back and forth debates on these issues.

As far as I can see, you guys are doing NOTHING wrong.  I enjoy the forum, and especially the Tighar website immensely.

I might add that I get just as frustrated with dingbats like Bonnie and feel that she's no representative of women in general.

Jackie :)

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

Thanks Jackie.
**************************************************************
From Paula

The reason why more women don't contribute, in my opinion, is that us novices get intimidated by those who know more when we ask questions or try to offer info.  My lack of contributions to the forum has nothing to do with me being female, its more that at this point I am not as educated on the subject as others.

However, I do enjoy reading everybody's opinion and I have learned a lot by subscribing which is the whole point I suppose.

I like to "hear" the boys go at it.  Sometimes, it is very entertaining.  I think Bonnie was a wee bit out of line for what she wrote about Ric.  No matter what the forum, those who are more read up on a subject than others usually can be a bit short with those who aren't as well read. That's just the way it is and there is no point in being thin skinned about it.

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

Thanks Paula.

*****************************************************************
From Alan

Ric, I don't think we are doing anything wrong to cause our distaff side not to post. We have a lot of guys who don't post too. I think most of the women are very interested but don't feel they have all that much to add. What they haven't noticed is that many of us guys have little or nothing to add but that doesn't seem to stop us from posting. I think the ladies are in a learning mode. Only one or two ladies seem overwhelmed by the feminist movement and thus feel a need to spout off in inappropriate ways.

I'm sure some women feel a little intimidated and are a bit shy to leap into the fray. That's unfortunate, unintentional on our part and affects both genders to some extent.

I think we add to that when we torch someone, of course, but what they miss is reason the torchee finds themselves in our sights.

Lack of knowledge gets a suggestion to read the web site. Erroneous postings gets corrected AND a suggestion to read the web site. Questions get answered. Belligerence, arrogance and pettiness gets piled on. Unsupported postings gets requests for documentation and lectures on the meanings of evidence, proof, theories, speculation and the like.

All women on this forum and for that matter anyone not posting ought to post their thoughts and questions. If they do it will help us make the forum better as we will be able to recognize what we are not getting across and what we need to focus on in a better way. In addition they might add something none of us has thought about which may turn out to be quite important. The new thoughts on the 8:43 message is a good example.

No one should be afraid they will say something stupid. We all have and frequently do.

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

Why is it that a man responds to a request for information from women and then includes a disparaging remark about the feminist movement?
******************************************************************
From Kerry Tiller

Maybe it's more like the GROSS club of Calvin and Hobbs fame (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS). I may have had one too many glasses of wine with dinner, but I'm going to extend a theory on this phenomenon that will, hopefully, bring some female forumites out of the closet. With the exception of a couple of blondes (Carol Dow and Janet Whitney), most of the female forumites listen intently to the real discussions we have on the forum that are enlightening and informative and move the proverbial ball forward; but just when they think it might be appropriate to chime in, we start cracking jokes or insulting each other. That's a guy thing. The girls then get all mature on us and decide we aren't worthy of their comments.

Women are feline; men are canine.

LTM (the lone cat in a house full of of dogs)
Kerry Tiller
******************************************************************
From Ric

You guys are providing support for the hypothesis that we men are, in fact, porcine.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:24:58 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Little Rascals!

Ric said (re: lack of female contributors to the forum):  "Perhaps we could hear from some of them and let us know what we're doing wrong."

UH!  I was shocked -- shocked! -- that Ric would buy into the current PC environment with this statement.

Why do you assume "we" -- spelled M-A-L-E? -- are doing something wrong? Maybe women just don't like the idea of mucking around tropical islands, fighting off "man"-eating crabs, sweating all day like a linebacker in August, living with few amenities, and other general discomforts of life.  I would suggest that it is not how we're doing it but rather it's what we are doing that fails to attract women contributors.

And for your transgression, I sentence you the task of reading and critiquing Rollickin' Rollie Reineck's book.   :-)


LTM, who takes pride in her sex

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Allow me to point out that there have been female participants in seven of the eight TIGHAR expeditions to the Phoenix Group.  The one exception was this past summer's four-man team who traveled to Niku on a boat whose crew was two-thirds female.

Dennis, you and I go all the way back to the Round Lake Hills of Maine.  By now you should know that political correctness is not in my vocabulary.  In forum postings, research work, and expedition team selection I try my best to be gender blind.  All I care about is a person's ability to do the work that needs to be done.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:29:20 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Camels and Bonnie

Wouldn't smoking in the Electra be dangerous, with all the high octane gasoline around?  Maybe that is why she didn't make Howland! 

Daniel Postellon #2263  LTM (Love those Marlboros)
*****************************************************
From Ric

A new theory!  Blown-to-Oblivion. Actually, as long as there wasn't spillage during refueling (as there was prior to the South Atlantic crossing) there's no reason that smoking in the cockpit would be any more dangerous in NR16020 than in other aircraft.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:56:49 EST
From:         John Luttrell
Subject:      GOLDEN BEAR

After reading Alfred Hendrickson's memo to Bonnie in which he stated the FORUM USAGE GUIDELINES included the following:  "...specifically, we want to further our investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island...."

And "...nor will we debate whether the airplane crashed at sea near Howland." I  don't feel like my theory concerning AE and Golden Bear will be printed and/or transmitted to the Forum.

I have no "evidence", "proof", or the airplane, and I don't know anything about "scientific investigative principles", 'scientific archaeology principles", or "scholarly research".......

All I know is no one has any true "evidence" or "proof"...I have spent over thirty years researching this mystery.  At one time I truly believed AE crashed on Winslow Reef, but I now know that theory to be wrong.

I believe the answer to the sixty-six year old mystery will be found in the post-loss messages.  That is all we have..  We have got to go with logic. We have to ask ourselves one simple question:  What went wrong with AE and FN's navigation???  With FN having the reputation as one of the world's finest navigators, where and how did they go wrong and get so lost?  Their navigational error had to be so enormous that no one in the search efforts could believe it possible. This is where the entire search efforts became so confused.  Amelia was transmitting messages telling where she was, but everyone in the search felt they were hoaxes.

When the post-loss messages become available to the Forum, I believe the mystery will be quickly solved.

Now, the Forumites that believe AE could not transmit with the plane in the water, might as well throw out the post-loss messages and continue on with their never ending search.

The Rosetta Stone of this whole disappearance is the "....281 North Howland"...message. If you know what to look for, even the Messier message makes sense.

Now Ric, this is your Forum, and you can filter any ideas that do not agree with the Garner Island hypothesis, but I hope you will allow other theories to be discussed.

Have you ever considered dividing the Forum into two sections?  One section for those who believe in the Gardner Island theory, and the second section for those who have other theories.

If you promise to submit my research on Golden Bear,  I will send it to the Forum.

"Fish are where you find them"..
~Socrates

LTM
John-Atlanta
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Although the primary purpose of this forum is to investigate the Nikumaroro Hypothesis, anyone who has been subscribed to the forum for any length of time knows that we happily debate, evaluate, and investigate any other theory that rears its head.  If other theories do not fare well in the crucible of forum review that is a measure of their merit, not any bias that I might exert as moderator.  Of course, the proponents of those  theories don't see it that way. When this forum rips an alternative theory to pieces by pointing out errors of fact, logic, or methodology the proponent usually dismisses the criticism by accusing me of prejudice.  That's just the way it is.

I'm not going to split the forum into Niku-ites and nonbelievers.  Despite appearances, TIGHAR is not a religious cult.  There are no sacred truths, no items of faith.  We go wherever the evidence leads us.

So..by all means..let us hear your Golden Bear theory.  I promise to post it unedited (unless you use bad words).  Given your admission that you have no evidence to support it, I have to wonder what you do have.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:59:53 EST
From:         Bonnie
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

This DINGBAT is sick of your idiotic slamming.  You are no more professional then the funny papers.  And, Ric is ONLY in this for his 15 minutes of fame and for a full salary to do nothing but go on adventure trips for which he produces nothing.  Have there been any recovered aircraft AT ALL for all his money spending?  NO.

REMOVE me from this forum.  If I receive further email from you, I will assume it is SPAM and will report you to the proper authorities.

Bonnie Jacobson
****************************************************************
From Ric

Anybody surprised?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:16:39 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

For what it is worth, Bonnie Jacobson is no known relative of mine.  If she was, I'd quickly dis-inherit her.

Randy Jacobson
************************************************************
From Ric

We all have these embarrassing coincidences.  You have Bonnie.  I have Ed.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:26:37 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

I think the lady needs some hormone shots or whiskey shots or whatever.

LTM,
David Bush
*********************************************************
From PK

Now that reminds me of an ex!

PK
******************************************************

From Alfred Hendrickson:

Bonnie should do her own TV show.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:29:56 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      15 minutes

>And, Ric is ONLY in this for his 15 minutes of fame and for a full
>salary to do nothing but go on adventure trips for which he produces
>nothing.

Ric, is this true? You get 15 minutes AND a full salary? D*mn! I want a job like yours!

LTB, (Love to Bonnie)
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
****************************************************************
From Ric

Actually it's more like 15 years and a partial salary.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:31:24 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      navigation

John Luttrell said:  "I believe the answer to the sixty-six year old mystery will be found in the post-loss messages.  That is all we have..  We have got to go with logic.  We have to ask ourselves one simple question:  What went wrong with AE and FN's navigation???"

Well, John I think that's your first error.  You say the answer is in the post-lost messages but then you ask, "What went wrong with AE and FN's navigation?"   If the answer is in the post-lost message then concentrate your energies there, not on the navigation.

The two issues aren't really related other than they had to "navigate" to wherever the post-lost message emanated from, assuming they are valid.  The navigation issue has been beaten like a stubborn mule and we are really no farther along that line (no pun intended --  LOP, you know) than we were earlier. So I don't see a direct connection between the post-lost messages and Fred's navigation.

LTM, who is often lost
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:35:06 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

Well, I guess she told us!

Sheesh, even Carol Dow had a sense of humor...

LTM
Dave (#2585)
*****************************************************
From Ted Campbell

Ric,

DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*****************************************************
From Jon Watson

Oh great. Now you're going to be under investigation by the Spam Police... Wait - that's probably them at the door now, with a search warrant.

ltm
jon
*************************************************************
From Alan

Ric, you asked "Why is it that a man responds to a request for information from women and then includes a disparaging remark about the feminist movement?"

Has Bonnie not answered your question? I should have made clear it was this kind of feminist not the legitimate and welcomed advancement of women's rights and recognition.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:00:17 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

>Ric is ONLY in this for his 15 minutes of fame
> and for a full salary

Och its the Scottish blood coursin' wild through his veins d'ye see! Those bonnie bonnie banks are never very far frae our thoughts!

Frae anither auld Scot.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

"From the lone sheiling of the misty island
Mountains divide us, and a waste of seas
Still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland
And we, in dreams, behold the Hebrides"

Dinna get me started.
**********************************************************************
From Bill Leary

He ain't gettin' all that famous.

And the chance to be misquoted, misrepresented and misunderstood.  Don't forget those perks.

    - Bill #2229
*************************************************************
From Ric

God how I suffer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:13:46 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Amelia Earhart The Salvaging of NR16020

Probably aware of this site already but just in case some are not might be of interest Bonnie might of had some editorial input in summary section

David
#2505

http://www.e-southerndata.com/earhart/index.htm
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks David.  No, I was not aware that Don Iwanski had put his story on line.  I think it speaks for itself.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:21:46 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Bonnie's departure

Rats! There goes our chance to hear Bonnie's answers to my questions. And I was SO hoping.

Alan
*******************************************************
From Jackie

I say good riddance.

Jackie
************************************************
From Jeff Lange

Just answer this one query regarding Bonnie Jacobson. Tell me she isn't related to Randy!

Jeff Lange
# 0748C
************************************************
From Ric

No relation.
**************************************************
From Alexander

Well i wont have o ask where 'bonnie' went months from now!

TIGHAR do research on other historical aircraft too as far as i am aware or maybe im wrong...over to the others who know these things
****************************************************
From Ric

TIGHAR has, and continues to, research many other historical aircraft.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:28:10 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      The ballad of Bonnie and Ric.

A regular forum poster who wishes to remain anonymous submitted this for the forum's enjoyment.  I swear I had nothing to do with it.

Ric

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

To the forum she replied
I like pretty lookin people
And I can tell you people
You are the devils children
Bonnie did decide
to begin her evil doin'
One lazy afternoon down the Tighar site

She soon got flamed
And high tailed outa that town
Got clean away with a single post
And waited till the heat died down!

Bonnie said that Ric
Had besmirched her reputation
And so made the graduation
Into the slanging business
"Where's the airplane in the sky?" sweet-talking Bon would holler

As Gillespie loaded dollars in the dewlap bag
Now Rollin Reineck - he tried to take him alone
Ric left him lying in a pool of blood
And laughed about it all the way home.

Bonnie soon tried to become public enemy number one.
Runnin' and hidin' from Ric the American lawman's gun
She used to waste forum time cryin'
but one day she knew
that pretty soon she'd start lyin'
or givin' ground - whatever
brushing up phrases
to ruin us men and the forum too.

Well acting upon
anecdotal information
A Tighar deputation
laid a deadly ambush
When Bonnie next tried
a talkin' all her sunshine
a half a dozen Tighars opened up on her


Well Bonnie sure tried
But she was not a lot "together"
and at the very end of her tether
She "died".

Anonymous
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:36:15 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Adventure

>Actually it's more like 15 years and a partial salary.

But you DO get to go on SOME of the adventure trips......

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

Very true, but they are never intentionally adventurous.  We do our best to avoid adventure.  Old TIGHAR sayings:

"Adventure is what happens when things got wrong."
"Adventure is what a poorly run expedition gets instead of results."
"Adventure is terror and discomfort recalled from the perspective of security."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:40:34 EST
From:         Hilary
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

This woman is interested in the Forum on more than one level and the more technical the information the  better.  The problem I have  in contributing to the Forum is I am up to my elbows in my life ( I am a Reg. Nurse, Private Pilot, Scuba Instructor(NAUI) and am very behind in the Forum e-mails thus the topic is more than over its exhausted when I get around  to starting it. I also read the background on everything associated with AE and FN and have in a very short time learned some new skills (I can now navigate using a sextant...not  ready to throw away the GPS though).When I tell people what I am up to ,its amazing all the knowledge people share with you. e.g I was given a sextant by someone whose Grandfather had and no one else in the family wanted..I own and have read many of the Earhart books and am presently enjoying as was recommended by the Forum , Amelia Earharts Shoes. I am hoping after the Christmas Season is over (I work until Xmas Day afternoon then am off home to  Canada and England ) I will make an effort to participate in the Forum discussions . But today I will make a start by Joining TIGHAR and wishing you all A very Joyous Season and a Happy ,Healthy and  Discovery Rich New Year.....Hilary....
****************************************************************
From Ric

So we lose Bonnie and we gain Hilary as a member.  Life is good.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:47:55 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

John Luttrell wrote:

> All I know is no one has any true "evidence" or "proof"...I have spent
> over thirty years researching this mystery.

I would respectfully suggest that John review the website.  The fact of the matter is, there is a large volume physical evidence that argues for the TIGHAR theory.  John, don't forget that while no single piece of evidence by itself may conclusively prove ANY theory, as evidence accumulates it tends to support one theory or another.  In this case, the landed at Niku theory.

Smoking gun?  Not yet, but as John points out the post loss radio study could get us pretty close.

> We have got to go with logic. We have to ask ourselves one simple
> question:  What went wrong with AE and FN's navigation???

Personally I'm not convinced that their navigation was faulty.  I think they got real close.  I just think it was darned difficult to pick out Howland while at low altitude with their view severely restricted by the physical limitations of the cockpit windows and the patterns of light and shadow on the water.  Remember, Howland had no lagoon, which makes it a lot harder to spot than, say, Niku, which has all that bright colored water in the middle, surrounded by darker ocean.  Niku shows up like a beacon.

ltm,
jon
2266
**********************************************************************
From Alan

>All I know is no one has any true "evidence" or "proof"...I have spent over
>thirty years researching this mystery.  At one time I truly believed AE crashed 
>on Winslow Reef, but I now know that theory to be wrong.

John, it is even harder to discard a theory than prove one in many cases. I would be interested in your Golden Bear rationale AND why Winslow cannot be.

Note that I said "rationale" not opinion. That means your ideas need to be laid out in a logical order with support for the idea. Support doesn't mean iron clad proof. It means you have some articulative reason for the idea. For example one of the "supports" the crashed and sank folks put forth is the Pacific is almost all ocean and hardly any land and so the odds favor ocean. Weak reasoning but reasoning just the same.

On the other hand to disprove a theory you need something quite hard and fast. Something that shows up front the theory is not possible. In the case of your dismissal of the Winslow theory what makes that impossible?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:53:31 EST
From:         John Luttrell
Subject:      GOLDEN BEAR

First of all, I would like to thank Ric for allowing me to post this story on the Forum.

To fully understand my earlier statement, "...There was more to Golden Bear than meets the eye."  I ask that you have a good chart that shows Lae and an area North of Howland Island, at least 350 nautical miles North of Howland Island.

First, draw a line ( or use map tape ) from Lae to latitude 7.3 S , 150.7 E, then on to latitude 4.33 S, 159.7 E (Tasman Island), then on to a point about 50 nautical miles SE of Nauru Island (approximately latitude 1.10 S, longitude 167.10 E. Stop right there, go no further.

GOLDEN BEAR

A few years ago I spent most of the day researching the ship, Golden Bear, in the national archives in Washington. The following is from memory because I gave my only notes to Don Goldstein at the University of Pittsburgh.  I never received them back.

Golden Bear was a freighter, owned by the Matson Line in San Francisco, California.

In the summer of 1937, while docked in New Guinea, she was caught in a violent volcano eruption, so violent that the captain said, "He feared for his ship".  The ship was covered in hot ash and the crew went berserk.  During the commotion, the radio operator went "missing".  It was finally assumed, by the captain, that he fell overboard and drowned because he was never seen again.  Golden Bear, once it was cleaned-up, went on a rescue mission trying to evacuate the locals out of harms way.

When the Golden Bear was ready to leave New Guinea, there was a lavish send off by the natives that must be reminiscent of the scene from the movie ""The Pink Submarine"", where the voodoo witch doctor did his dance on the pier.

Golden Bear set sail for Tarawa, Gilbert Islands, arriving the last few days of June, 1937.  Golden Bear left Tarawa on July 1st, Tarawa time (June 30th Howland Island Time) and promptly ran aground ...not the infamous reef...that gave our invading Marines so much trouble in 1943.  The captain waited for high tide(s) and the ship floated loose on the late morning/early afternoon of July 2nd (Tarawa time) (July 1st Howland Island time) and headed for San Francisco.  Evidently there was little damage to the ship for the "Bear" made 10 knots.  The ship set a course of approximately 65 degrees true.

Twelve hours later, between 3 and 4 am, July 3rd, (Tarawa time) (July 2nd Howland Island time) while Golden Bear was at approximately latitude 2.40 N, longitude 175.0 E, a plane was heard flying overhead....

At this time, this is all I want to divulge to you, so that you can figure it out yourself..  Make sure you run the LOP, or Sun Line, or whatever you want to call it, 157/337 right through Howland and extend it all the way to the dateline.

Since the finished project will be very close to a right triangle, don't forget our our ole friend Pythagoras.

While flying a two engine aircraft, and you lose one engine, you just have enough power to arrive at the crash site.

~Socrates

LTM
John - Atlanta
*********************************************************************
From Ric

One simple question - what is the source of this information?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:54:53 EST
From:         John Luttrell
Subject:      Golden Bear corrections

After reviewing my print-out of the e-mail I sent to you yesterday, I have found two mistakes..

(1)  With the paragraph that begins "..twelve hours later, between 3 and 4 am...please delete the 3 and 4 am and replace with "a little before 2am"..

(2) In the next to last paragraph, I found a garble.  I wrote, "don't forget our our friend Pythagoras.. Please delete one of the "our"..

It is better to be healthy and rich, than sick and poor.
~Socrates

LTM
John-Atlanta
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:12:39 EST
From:         John Luttrell
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

Roses are red, Bonnie is blue.
Please come back ...we really love you

Shame on all you porcine guys!

Don't pay any attention to these mean and ugly males. Down deep they are all pussy cats.

Seriously....come on back.

Hell hath no fury.....
~Socrates

John   Atlanta
**************************************************************
From Ric

She can't hear you John.  I rarely have to throw people off the forum but I never keep someone on who wants to leave.  By the way, I also do not post messages from non-subscribers.  There is apparently a considerable underground of folks who forward selected forum postings to friends who then occasionally send an incendiary message to the forum address.  I certainly have no objection to forum postings being passed around and I welcome anyone's comments - positive or negative.   But you don't get to air your views on this forum unless you're also willing to take responsibility for them and deal with whatever responses they bring.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:14:06 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: The Ballad of Bonnie and Ric

OK, I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I was unsure if "Bonnie and Ric" is a poem or is suppose to be sung?  Is it a parody on something I missed back in Eng. Lit. 101 or something else.

I liked it -- I just don't know what it is!

LTM, who has gaps in her education
Dennis O. McGee
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:17:01 EST
From:         Matt in Michigan
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart The Salvaging of NR16020

Oh boy, thats a friggin classic. lavish parties dancing around the fuselage?? Im gonna walk around smiling about that one all day.....

Matt in Michigan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:42:48 EST
From:         John Luttrell
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

All the Golden Bear, just the part of narration from memory, came from a file in the national archives (main bldg). I even donated a picture I obtained of Golden Bear to the archives. This file even had a write-up about the ship's arrival in the San Francisco area and shows pictures of Capt. Olson being feated by distinguished citizens for his rescue efforts in New Guinea. NOW I remember I spent many long distance phone calls to San Francisco talking to old timers at Matson discussing Golden Bear. This goes back about 20 years (guess) ago. As I told you, I gave all of my files on Golden Bear, plus many, many others to Don Goldstein @ Univ. of Pittsburgh.

One more correction......Golden Bear ran aground on a SAND BAR...I assume it was on the northern tip of Tarawa... I believe it was around 1.45 N Latitude.

John  Atlanta

When you look for something and you can't find it then you have looked in the wrong place.
~Socrates
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, it came from a file at the National Archives - but what was in the file?  What I'm trying to get at is the source for the claim that somebody heard an airplane.  Did this come from an entry in the ship's log?  Or a newspaper article that dates from the ship's arrival in San Francisco?  Or a later recollection by a crewmember?  It sort of matters.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:23:39 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart The Salvaging of NR16020

What did you do to Mr. Iwanski to PO him so bad? He has spent considerable time and effort building a website to try and discredit you and to delude people into believing him. For me, his biggest mistake is in his personal scenario - on board a US aircraft carrier passing so close to a dangerous reef - what skipper would do that - and that the skipper would make the announcements on the intercom system to the crew. Total BS. Of course, I've never worked on a carrier (but I visited the US Enterprise back in the 60's when she was docked in Galveston, Texas, so that may make me as expert as Mr. Iwanski, so I could be mistaken in my assessment. Also, how many ordinary seamen would remember an event like that with such detail as to be able to determine the make and model of an airplane that they had never seen before and had no knowledge of. Unless he has absolutely perfect recall, there is WAAAY too much detail in his description. Maybe he had too many magic mushrooms for breakfast.

What's the REAL story Mr. Gillespie?

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

Okay, I have not wanted to talk about Don Iwanski because I didn't want to embarrass him, but he has now gone public with his claims and has taken some very public shots at me and TIGHAR so I guess I need to tell my side of the story.

Don first contacted me back in July saying that he had seen an aircraft wreck on Nikumaroro from the hangar deck of USS Constellation in 1980.  I thought that was pretty interesting and I discussed this new  "lead" with our Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) but we soon learned that Don didn't really know that the island was Nikumaroro.  He was just sure that it must have been Nikumaroro.  The more he tried to remember, the more he remembered, and the more skeptical we became - but we honestly tried to help him check out his recollection.  We did research on the Constellation's 1980 cruise and we even tracked down the address and phone number of the now-retired commanding officer.  Don declined to contact him.  One of our researchers had occasion to visit the Naval Historical Center in Washington on other business and took time to research the route that Constellation had taken enroute from the Indian Ocean to California.  She passed nowhere near Nikumaroro.

Don was undeterred.  If it wasn't 1980 it must have been 1979 - the only other cruise he was on.  Week by week he remembered more and more and the tale got more and more complex and bizarre.  It was, frankly, a bit alarming to watch but the more I tried to make him see that this was all happening in his head the more I became, in his mind, an antagonist who was trying to keep him from exposing the truth.

Sometime after the first of the year I'll be down at the Naval Historical Center myself doing research on another project and I'll check out the 1979 cruise.  But Don is now way beyond accepting official documentation that disagrees with his story.  I'm sorry that he decided to lash out at me and at TIGHAR.  I feel no resentment toward him.  I just wish I could have helped him.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:29:20 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

Bonnie, bonnie banks! I thought she was history.

Ric, to be serious for a moment, if any of our ladies would like to ask questions or try out their responses privately to me they are welcome to do so. Should they take me up on my offer you may give them my email address. Maybe they will realize the fray is not all that foreboding and will feel more comfortable posting.

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

I'll be happy to pass along your email address to any of "our ladies" who care to seek your reassurance but I have a hunch that they may be more interested in trying to educate you about unwittingly sexist attitudes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:32:07 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR in New Guinea

This website has a photo of the Golden Bear during the 1937 eruption at New Guinea:

http://www.library.uq.edu.au/fryer/ms/uqfl272.html

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:33:45 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart The Salvaging of NR16020

I just realized what Mr. Iwanski's purpose is. He is out to make money by getting people to his site and linking the AE books that are for sale. He makes a tidy commission by creating intrigue, anger and confusion. But, still, what did you do to end up in his sights?

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

No.  I don't think so.  Don really believes this stuff.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:37:34 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Adventure

Ric writes:

>Very true, but they are never intentionally adventurous.

Ric! You play down the exciting memorable times. Sharp coral, crabs,
rats and quick sand.

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

Yes, there has been plenty of adventure because there have been plenty of screwups by yours truly and occasional large doses of just plain old bad luck.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:38:21 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Volcanic Eruption at New Guinea 1937

Here is a website that backs up what John Luttrell describes regarding the eruption in New Guinea in 1937; however, it does not make any mention of the Golden Bear.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/img_rabaul.html

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:40:26 EST
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Off Topic - A General Comment

Ric, at TIGHAR, had been a compulsive worrier for years until he found a way to overcome this problem.  His friends noticed the dramatic change.  "You don't seem to be worried about anything anymore."

"I hired a professional worrier for $1000.00 a week," Ric replied.  "I haven't had a single qualm since."

"A thousand a week!" said George.  "How are you going to pay him?"

"That's his problem."
**************************************************
From Ric

I love it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:41:37 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

John Luttrell wrote:

>At this time, this is all I want to divulge
>to you, so that you can figure it out
>yourself..  

John, we don't play games here. If you have something to say then do it. Serials are for TV and the movies. We have enough to do without childish whodunits.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:49:46 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

Based upon the date and time of the plane fly-by, it might have been the PBY coming down from Honolulu.

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

But he's saying this happened a little before 2 a.m. on July 2nd (Howland time) .  That's well before the first inflight message heard by the Itasca.  At that time the Electra should have been just coming up on the Gilberts.  If the source (whatever it is) is at all credible, the first thing I'd check is the date/time conversion.  If it really happened in the wee hours of the 3rd the plane may well have been the PBY.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:50:38 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

John, let me echo Ric's request. Give us the support for your contentions about an airplane flying over the Golden Bear. I wouldn't lift a finger to consider anything you wrote without something significant in the way of support.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:54:02 EST
From:         Doc Holloway
Subject:      Thoughts from an old Naval Aviator.

A few days back someone mentioned that forumites should share their ideas. So here goes.  One of my U.S. Navy celestial navigation instructors told us the hardest thing about celestial nav was adding two and two and always getting the correct answer!  It was the stupid mistakes that would get you in trouble.  He was indeed a very smart man.  Back in my Ferry Squadron days I occasionally had to navigate instead of drive.  On one of these legs I managed to plug the magnetic variation in backwards.  By the time I caught my mistake we were 300 nautical miles south of track and getting farther from it every minute.  Fortunately we had plenty of fuel and we were heading AWAY from Russian airspace.  Has anyone ever plotted out AE's proposed track using the opposite variation?

LTM( Who never got lost or disoriented),
R.L."Doc" Holloway

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

That would be a big mistake for a guy as experienced as Noonan, but no one can say it couldn't happen.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:01:52 EST
From:         Christy
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

A while back, OK September, Tom King asked for some information about "water bags", in an effort to identify the cork and chain artifact.

I must have missed the ending...how was this resolved.

Christy creyts

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

Unfortunately we don't have the artifacts; we only have a short description - "corks with brass chains" and an opinion that they may have come from a "small cask".  At this point we have reason to believe that some waterbags were stoppered with corks attached to brass chains.  We also have a mention in a newspaper article that Earhart planned to carry two desert waterbags with her - but we have no proof that she did carry such bags on the Lae/Howland flight. Canvas waterbags would logically rot away leaving corks with brass chains to be found later. Bottom line: desert waterbags seem to be a good hypothesis as a source for the corks with brass chains reportedly found with the bones.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:45:55 EST
From:         Bert Hampton
Subject:      Re: Camels and Bonnie

> Actually, as long as there wasn't spillage during refueling (as there was
> prior to the South Atlantic crossing) there's no reason that smoking in the
> cockpit would be any more dangerous in NR16020 than in other aircraft.>>

Hate to disagree with Ric --- but, having seen pictures of the fuel tanks that line the inside of the Electra's cabin (available at the Purdue U. site), and looking closely at the fuel system fittings/connections in those pictures,  then thinking about the vibrations inherent in the ship, and remembering that gas liquid burns and gas vapors explode, and finally remembering that at the end of a long flight fuel tanks are mostly fumes ---- I must suggest that it was much more dangerous to smoke in AE's ship. It is the one scenario that has often haunted my thinking on the disappearance.  Accounting in my mind for the lack of an SOS type final radio transmission.

Bert Hampton (LTM who finally quit smoking)
***************************************************************
From Ric

Well, unfortunately there's no way to resolve our difference of opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:27:36 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

It seems to me John needs to track his files down, provide us with a copy of the National Archive annotations while we don't waste our time with something so nebulous. If John has something he needs to produce it so that it can be properly pursued rather than playing guessing games.

Alan
****************************************************************
From Dave Bush

I copied you on messages that I sent to some "experts" at UQ - University of Queensland. I selected these individuals for their specific areas of expertise - primarily dealing with history of the Pacific Islands, US-Australian history, etc. As you can see from my messages, there is at least confirmation that John Luttrell is correct in stating that the Golden Bear was in the Pacific around the time of AE's disappearance. As to its exact location on June 2, 1937, I can't attest, but it does add credence to what he states.

When I found the connection between his information and the photos in the collection at UQ, it suddenly hit me that their experts might actually be a resource - if any of them get interested enough to take an active participation. But, if they don't then I figure we haven't lost anything and along the way we at least found out more about the Golden Bear.

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

Thanks Dave.  There is no doubt that Golden Bear was in New Guinea and did help rescue survivors of the volcanic eruption.  Perhaps some of the sources you've contacted can verify the parts of John's story that relate to the Earhart disappearance.
*********************************************************************
From John Luttrell

This has nothing to do with you but I think it is best I be removed from the forum.

I was trying to tell the forum how AE became lost and where the plane hit the ocean and where it drifted and where it finally sunk but it seems no one was or would ever believe my theory. I thought I would leave you with the following:

At 1775 GCT AE made a change of course to 85 degrees then about 30 minutes or so turned to 67 degrees.

She overshot the Howland 157/337 line by about 20 miles.

5.23 N Lat.  176.10 W  Long. will one day prove to be interesting.

One last request... could I have Eric's in North Island San Diego"s email address.

Thank you

John    Atlanta
**********************************************************************
From Ric

You warned us that:

I have no "evidence", "proof", or the airplane, and I don't know anything about "scientific investigative principles", 'scientific archaeology principles", or "scholarly research".......

It is, therefore, unfair for anyone here to hold you to those principles. You have given us your opinion of what happened - or as much of it as you care to.  I thank you for that.  But knowing full well that "scientific investigative principles", "scientific archaeology principles", and "scholarly research" are what this forum is all about, you should not be surprised if no one here buys your theory.  Several people have, however, expressed a real interest in finding out if someone on the Golden Bear did claim to have heard an airplane. We have seen repeatedly that "scholarly" investigations into these kinds of claims can yield unexpected and valuable results (the Garsia diary is only the most recent example).

I'm sorry that you have decided to leave rather than stay and learn with the rest of us.

Be well.
(I'll send Eric your email address.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:58:52 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      FRED!  DON'T LIGHT THAT CA .

Actually, the Kablooey Hypothesis has been around for some time.  It all goes back to AE's 8:43 am xmission.  Everyone who heard it seems to agree there was >something< odd about it -- incomplete, cut short, truncated.

Possible explanations:

1.  That's when the engines quit (the Long theory)
2.  AE blew her transmitter again (accounting for the lack of further xmissions and incidentally ruling out any post-loss messages)
3.  Fred, his olfactory membranes long since desensitized to the gasoline fumes filling the cockpit, takes a break and fires one up.

Now Alan is going to ask me how to prove it ....
Pat Gaston

PS  Somebody mentioned Marlboros.  Interestingly, the brand was originally targeted at women; they were unfiltered, with a red tip to conceal lipstick stains.  When sales failed to take off the company did a 180, replaced the red tip with a filter and marketed them to he-men.

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

>Everyone who heard it seems to agree
>there was >something< odd about it -- incomplete, cut short, truncated.

Like who?  We have the entry in Galten's radio log.  No comment there about anything odd. O'Hare's log doesn't mention it at all. Commander Thompson's report describes it as "hurried, frantic, and apparently not complete." Lt. Cooper described it as "Very loud and too rapid for accurate reception. Earhart sounded as if she were very excited and did not talk distinctly." In Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts' 1973 interview with Elgen Long he talked about the 0843 transmission but said nothing about it being incomplete or in any way odd.

Those are the only first-hand accounts I know of by people who actually heard the transmission. It appears that from Thompson's one comment "apparently not complete" has grown the myth that "Everyone who heard it seems to agree there was >something< odd about it -- incomplete, cut short, truncated."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:04:01 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Thoughts from an old Naval Aviator.

>Has anyone ever plotted out AE's proposed track using the opposite
>variation?

Doc, nothing on this forum is left to chance. I've plotted opposite variation and no variation. It is not a mistake I would expect. It is too easy to catch. The variation in 1937 at Howland was 9 degrees 30 minutes which is a big chunk of error.

Alan
*********************************************
From Greg Robinson

> That would be a big mistake for a guy as experienced as Noonan, but no one can
> say it couldn't happen.

Again, I have no real insights on aviation at this point but I want to offer this counterpoint.  I participate in 24 and 36 hour motorcycle rallies.  In 24 hours, a competitive rider will typically cover 1200 to 1300 miles. Navigation is the key to these rallies because the more efficient route you plot, the better the chance of winning.  As you can imagine, fatigue does take its toll.

I cannot imagine that flying or navigating an airplane such as the Lockheed under the conditions AE and FN would experience would be any less fatiguing.

Under fatigue, it becomes real easy to make an error even with vast experience.  One of the biggest mistakes I ever made happened here in the Great State of Texas.  I know this state _very_ well and yet I still made a simple mistake costing me more than 100 miles and 2 hours of time.  And that mistake was made using modern road maps and actually knowing where I was.  (Although I own a GPS system now, I feel pretty certain even that wouldn't have prevented the mistake because I still had to make a navigational choice under fatigued conditions.)

I wouldn't discount the fatigue factor for AE and FN given the conditions they were flying under and the fact that they'd already been making the trip for a long time.  As anyone knows, rest stops help but they never fully restore a person even after many days.

Just My Humble Opinion
Greg Robinson
********************************************************
From Carl Peltzer

The last thread makes me wonder if a combination of get-home-itis, exhaustion, sickness, equipment being left behind, some not working  and supreme overconfidence [having visited me on some very long days of flying over the past 40 years, which is why on-duty time was invented] on their [or his] part just added together to get the ending received.

I spent almost 5 years over the Gulf of Mexico  on certain patrols using a Cessna 182 r/g  at the altitudes they reported and can say that it should be fairly easy to see islands from a great distance at low altitudes, willing to bet they look much down there as near Key West, however this came from experience and practice.  Suppose you are not sure where you are, are extremely tired and very sure of your position, anything seen can be thought to be your target till you get close then your wild goose chase is evident and you have wasted your reserves for nought.

Tis a shame they did not communicate more even in the blind with some clues of what they observed as it might have made it easier to find them back then.

I think this is a great and quite diplomatic site also realize that noses get bent from time to time -even mine!

Carl Peltzer
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:08:50 EST
From:         Ed of PSL
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

This query intrigued me so I used google to search for desert water bags and found several listed on ebay for sale. The interesting part was contained in some of the photos of the bags. Some look like they were equipped with corks with chains. The water spouts were metal and looked simething like a lightbulb socket. Also, they were made with what looks like two brass grommets. Didn't TIGHAR find brass grommets at the seven sight? This looks like an item that could be the source of some of the artifacts found. The bags are made out of duck so they wouldn't last long but the grommets, spouts, corks and chains would remain.

Best regards,
LTM and Merry Christmas to ALL!
Ed Of PSL #2415
**********************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Ed, but the light bulb socket is clearly a light bulb socket unless it's a flashbulb socket (still working on that one) and we have not yet found any grommets at the Seven Site.  But you can bet that we'll be on the lookout for spouts and grommets the next time we get a crack at the site.  The bags being made out of duck may explain the bird bones we found .  (sorry)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:10:51 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

>about unwittingly sexist attitudes.>

I've been attacked in court by professionals but I'm not worried. I think the women who have such an interest in the Earhart mystery to have searched out the Forum are hardly worried about my perceived attitudes. I suspect they are here out of genuine intrigue and a desire to help and be a part of such an exciting mystery.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:13:31 EST
From:         Warren
Subject:      Re: Camels and Bonnie

When I was on a merchant training ship in the 70's we used cartons of cigarettes as additional payment (or bribes) to harbor pilots, custom  officials and other dignataries. Marlboro and Kools back then; I bet Camels were preferred in AE's day.  Cigarattes, like gold, are the currency of the world.

Warren in Houston
*****************************************************
From Ric

So Earhart, about to embark on a flight from Newfoundland to France (she ended up in Irleand), carried a carton of cigarettes with which to bribe dignitaries?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:22:58 EST
From:         Anne
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

I just wanted add my two cents... and a day late as usual. <g>

There's nothing wrong with this forum; I think either Bonnie is having tremendous PMS problems or she's pyscho... Scary thing is I know people like her who fly off the handle, and its usually nothing personal, they just do it. Some get a rise out of it too.

She did do one good thing though- she brought us entertainment and even inspired a few to write about her. We ought to write her a thanks. he he

From my own point of view, my own, I am certainly no lady or a spokeswoman... I tend to be quite sensitive and I don't like making a fool out of myself, so I don't post. But I read every post and do my own research, but I won't waste anybody's time or e-box space unless I have an important thought/contribution.

The only downfall I have right now is I joined the forum so late and even though I've done a ton of reading and studying, there are things I've missed and are curious about, but I've noticed once ya'll say something, you don't like to repeat.

But as to abusing power and being abusive... its quite amusing. Maybe Bonnie should get into politics. <g> This is a more serious forum with a goal in mind. If Ric was out for the fame and fortune, he'd either have that by now or be in showbiz, and he certainly wouldn't be running this forum. *shakes head* I believe TIGHAR to be no evil; they are human, just like the rest of us.

I will now fade back into the woodwork.
Anne
**************************************************************
From Ric

This thread has really been an eye-opener for me.  It's apparent that we have a strong, but largely silent, contingent of bright and thoughtful women listening to our rantings.  As Anne suggests, I'd like to thank Bonnie, wherever she is.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:37:50 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart The Salvaging of NR16020

I just read this account at the southerndata website. Wow! This is quite a story. Ric, if what this man says is true, it is not inconsistent with the TIGHAR Hypothesis. What other thoughts do you have about this thing?

I am amazed that anyone could dredge up some old aircraft wreckage and it would not receive some amount of media attention. IF he saw something (as opposed to making something up), AND what he saw was unrelated to Amelia Earhart, it makes me wonder what he saw. Hey, do you suppose what he saw was related to the wreck photo? (Oh, nooooooooooo!)

LTM,

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

I just hope that Don finds some peace of mind.

**********************************************
From Anne

Hello

I am curious about this guy's story. I already found some things to not be credible- for instance, the map he's got on the site doesn't match up with Niku. He's got the Norwich City wreck site, and as far as I know, there's only one, and its by Niku. But the island he's showing doesn't even remotely resemble Niku.

But interesting how his story sometimes resembles Emily's story, where the plane was in the water and how some pieces floated by shore. My problem here is how come only two people have reported this? I am sure there was a lot more traffic on the island than this... And bigger wigs would report their findings.

I am interested even though I don't necessarily believe this tale. Is there something credible here and if so, what is it?

Anne
***********************************************************
From Ric

Don knew about TIGHAR's findings and about Emily's story before he remembered seeing an airplane wreck.  This entire episode reminds me of the tragedy of the "recovered memories" of childhood sexual abuse.  The human mind is a strange and wonderful vehicle that can take us to places where we've never been.
***********************************************************************
From Russ Matthews (#0509EC)

Ric wrote:

>Sometime after the first of the year I'll be down at the Naval Historical
>Center myself doing research on another project and I'll check out the 1979
>cruise. 

Probably the best and only thing you can do now is get that documentation. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by addressing Don's ever evolving spectacular "salvage" scenario in any greater detail than that.  Not that the logs will convince Mr. Iwanski. mind you -- it'll just be the simplest answer if anyone ever asks for TIGHAR's take on these latest "revelations."

Even so, I just have to say... wow, the Ayatollah ?!?!?!?!? That's got to be some kind of new benchmark in Earhart conspiracy theory.

LTM,
Russ
*****************************************************
From Ric

Yeah.  Sorta raises the bar. Let's see Rollin top THAT one.
****************************************************
From Dennis McGee

I just wasted about 20 minutes reading Don Iwanski's fictional account of his fictional visit to a fictional island on a fictional aircraft carrier skippered by a fictional captain with an IQ about three points higher than a carrot. Don should never have mixed that Jet A with the hydraulic fluid, the fumes are deadly.

What a crock of  ----!  What I found so amazing was Mr. Iwanski's visual acuity -- Chuck Yeager and Ted Williams should have had such great eyesight. Reading the Electra logo, identifying fuel pumps, vent tubes, engine cowlings and other minor debris from a distance of -- how far is the reef edge from the shore, 200 feet?  You bet.

Poor Don.  Should we take up a collection so he can get the correct meds?

LTM, who's knows a pile when she smells it
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:43:57 EST
From:         Terry Lee Simpson
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

Bonnies don't bother me, Carole Dows don't bother me. What bothers me is <know it alls> like Alan,if he is such good member why don't he sign off with a member number like the rest of us..............Terry Lee Simpson #2396 (LTM)
***************************************************
From Ric
Alan Caldwell is TIGHAR #2329.  He joined in 1999.  You joined in 2001. "People who think they know everything are especially annoying to those of us who do."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:56:21 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: The ballad of Bonnie and Ric.

I apologize before hand, I normally don't violate party rule one!

With your posting of this anonymously authored ballad, how can you remain "frankly always puzzled" as to why more women do not participate in forum discussions? - Reference your reply to my " For Pete's Sake" post of 16 Dec.2003.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
***************************************************************
From Ric

This thread, which I thank you for starting, has resolved my puzzlement. From the several responses we've had from female subscribers I have learned that, far from being offended or intimidated by the boisterousness of us boys, they enjoy the show and appreciate the occasional useful pieces of information we inadvertently dispense.  They enter the fray only when they have something to say.

I've also learned how quick we men are to speak for women and assume that they must be explained, protected and defended.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:03:51 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

Hilary wrote:

>The problem I have  in contributing to the Forum is I am
>up to my elbows in my life ( I am a Reg. Nurse, Private Pilot, Scuba
>Instructor(NAUI) 

Wow... are you single? :)

LTM,
Russ

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

Look for the new "TIGHAR Personals" section coming soon to the TIGHAR website.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:24:27 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of NR16020

I read some of the post in regards to my website, The Salvaging of NR16020. I am a pretty easy going guy and I expected a few good punches ahead of time, so I was prepared for it.  I knew it was only time until a TIGHAR member came across my website. The event itself is a very true story.  The Summary, I've taken the event my ship experienced in 1979 and tried to rationalize it because there was never any closure for me regarding the events of that day.  The biggest obstacle here for me is that I am not story teller by nature but at the same time I felt this story was so important to what Ric was presenting that it had to be told.  I came to Ric with it first and I can only hope he appreciated that. Unfortunatley, it's too sensational of a story to be told.  And he doesnt believe it.  But that doesn't lessen the importance of the events my ship experienced that day.  So my choices were to crawl away and hide somewhere or put the story out there where it can at least be read and hopefully come across some day by a true skeptic and be investigated. Basically what I am doing here is I am cramming my story down Ric Gillespie's throat because I don't appreciate being accused of making it up.  And if he doesnt't look into it someone else will.

I have not talked to one of his EPAC Earhart Panel members, but I encourage them to contact me.  My home phone number is [excised] and I am usually available in the evenings.

D. Iwanski
*******************************************************************
From Ric

I have never accused Don of willfully fabricating his story.  On the contrary, I am utterly convinced that he absolutely believes that it happened.  I am happy to post his thoughts and the forums questions for him.  I will recuse myself from commenting unless specifically asked to do so or unless somebody posts something that I know to be untrue.  We can discuss this for as long as the forum desires.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:40:04 EST
From:         
Subject:      new enola display

Ric:

What is your opinion of the new Enola exhibit?

ltm
Michael Hyman #iforgot
*********************************************************
From Ric

Hi Mike.  Your member number is 2431.

Your question is, of course, off-topic for the Earhart Forum.  I have not personally seen the new exhibit.  I plan to visit the new Udvar-Hazy NASM museum in February.  I understand that the Enola Gay exhibit has stirred renewed controversy because it does not address the historical/political issues associated with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.  I can understand the museum's reluctance to get into any of that, given the firestorm surrounding it's earlier attempt to deal with the subject.  Now it appears that even its attempt to lay low is controversial.

The whole issue illustrates the quandary museums face in exhibiting historic properties.  Some museums try to merely present objects and avoid any interpretation of their meaning, allowing the public to ascribe whatever significance they choose - but as NASM is finding out, that doesn't work.  With any artifact, but especially with a symbol as powerful as Enola Gay, you can't exhibit it without sending some kind of message.  By exhibiting the airplane without comment, NASM is saying "Too hot to handle".
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:42:26 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: The Ballad of Bonnie and Ric

Dennis McGee wrote:

>     OK, I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I was unsure if
> "Bonnie and Ric" is a poem or is suppose to be sung?  Is it a parody on
> something I missed back in Eng. Lit. 101 or something else.
>
>     I liked it -- I just don't know what it is!

And there I was thinking Dennis (whom I have never met, and no disrespect intended), was the likely author! It scans to the tune of  "The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde", which was an hit over here in the UK for Georgie Fame around the time the film starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty came out. Don't know if it is also in the film or just a music business cash-in to coincide with Bonnie and Clyde mania at the time.

LTM (who wouldn't let me see it as I was too young)
Phil Tanner 2276
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:51:40 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Camels and Bonnie

I used to fly a high wing four seater airplane. Before take off I always pointed out to the  passengers that over their heads was a fuel tank containing 55 gallons of 100LL. After that no one even dared to ask if they could smoke. With that big tank for the flight around the world filling most of the fuselage of Earhart's Lockheed 10E it would have been suicidal to light a cigarette. I'm sure both AE and FN were aware of that.

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

I can understand your desire to discourage your passengers from smoking but people have been smoking in airplane cockpits - big and small - since the first time somebody put a roof on them.  Any fuel system so flawed that it made any source of ignition in the cockpit suicidal would also prohibit the installation of equipment that would be much more dangerous than a cigarette.  Do you think for one second that Lockheed would have installed an electrical dynamotor under the pilot's seat of NR16020 if the cockpit was awash in gasoline fumes? How about the electric gear motor and flap motor under the cabin floor - right under those fuel tanks?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:53:00 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

I've been searching Ebay for bags, too, Ed, and almost nailed one a couple of weeks ago but got aced out at the last moment.  In the process I've learned a couple of things:

1. Some of the bags with corks on what appear to be chains actually have them on pieces of cordage.  I haven't yet found one that certainly has a chain, but I'd be very surprised if they don't exist.  The screw-top variety I had as a kid in the '50s had a chain.

2. Many of those I've seen on Ebay are "Desert Water Bags" made by Canvas Specialty in Los Angeles.  Canvas Specialty still exists, and they started in business only in 1942.  They say they got their printing press from an earlier company, but I haven't been able to find out whether the "Desert Water Bag" name predates Canvas Specialty.  A newspaper article shortly before the first World Flight attempt says that Earhart was carrying water in "two desert water bags," so it would be useful to know how long the brand name has been around.

I figure what we should do is get one and send it to Th' Wombat to put out to rot on his favorite island.

LTM
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:54:03 EST
From:         Greg Robinson
Subject:      Re: Camels and Bonnie

Ric wrote:

> So Earhart, about to embark on a flight from Newfoundland to France (she
> ended up in Irleand), carried a carton of cigarettes with which to bribe
> dignitaries?

It isn't as far fetched as it sounds.  I still bring cigarettes with me on travels to many countries in Europe and Russia as "gifts."  Sometimes I get requests for "American" cigarettes and I always take some no matter what.

Not saying that would have been her purpose but it illustrates one of many innocent reasons as to why she would be carrying them even if she wasn't a smoker.

Greg Robinson
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:57:55 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

John  Atlanta wrote:-

> Hell hath no fury.....
> ~Socrates

William Congreve actually - from "The Mourning Bride":

"Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned....
Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorned"

LTM (who can't abide mis-quotes ;-)
Simon Ellwood #2120

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

If the forum ever gets slow it would be fun to do a thread on Famous Quotes That Nobody Ever Said.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:59:24 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart The Salvaging of NR16020

Ric: wrote:

> Don knew about TIGHAR's findings and about Emily's story before he remembered
> seeing an airplane wreck.  This entire episode reminds me of the tragedy of
> the "recovered memories" of childhood sexual abuse.  The human mind is a
> strange and wonderful vehicle that can take us to places where we've never been.

True.  Cf. the sad case of Paul Ingram, who was persuaded to testify falsely against himself (Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, 161 ff.) and spent a substantial amount of time in prison for crimes he never committed.

From this and other like cases, it is wrong to draw the hasty generalization that memory never can be trusted.  His case was reversed by his daughter realizing and testifying that her allegations were made out of whole cloth.  We use our memories (as well as other lines of evidence) to correct our memories.

Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:04:39 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Camels and Bonnie

As an experienced aviator I have to agree with Bert. There were stories going around during the 60's-70's when I was flying the Pacific of all the people ferrying small civil aircraft to Australia and New Zealand. These aircraft had aux tanks in them, sometimes right next to the pilot, and quite often the planes never made it. I saw some of them at Hickam, actually Cessna O-2's and even single engine planes and they were really scary. Some of the pilots smoked and it seemed more of the smokers didn't make then the non-smokers.

Jimbo (who never smoked)
***************************************************************
From Ric

It is true that ferry flights with poorly installed aux tanks are scary.
It is true that some ferry pilots smoke.
It is true that some of those ferry flights never arrive.
However, in 11 years as an aviation accident investigator I never heard of any instance where an aircraft had an inflight fire or explosion that was known to be attributed to someone smoking.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:11:08 EST
From:         N. Owen
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

>People who think they know everything are especially annoying to those of
>us who do.

Come on Ric. You don't know anymore about where she is than I do. "We who do"... in deed!
***********************************************************
From Ric

(oh dear)  It   was   a    joke.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:33:24 EST
From:         Gary F.
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

I thought I'd throw out a few comments about the forum from observations I've made over the past year or so. Many people come here from time to time, get beat up and go away. Some deserve it; others are naive and propose solutions to the riddle that are unfounded, cannot be validated or are so far out in left field that they border on the supernatural. I have no problem with losing one's patience with those who push the envelope too hard or those whose sole purpose is self-aggrandizement through outlandish claims. I do have a problem with the lemming complex, though, that many here display; everyone is open to scrutiny, even Ric. I don't have the answers; only questions so I keep out of the line of fire and listen to what others have to offer.

What irritates me most is one who I perceive as a condescending, pompous ass in Texas who, as far as I can remember has not contributed anything of value and who only likes to criticize the offerings of the unwary who put their thoughts and conjectures in writing. As soon as I see his name in a post I hit the delete key since I can only assume the content will be meaningless drivel that will not serve to advance the quest of TIGHAR.

The other posts that I find nauseating are the endless streams of sycophants who sound so foolish as they try to stoke Ric's ego. I'm sure you see it Ric, you're not an unintelligent man and I'm sure you've a strong enough sense of worth not to need such brown nosing.

I'm certain that I've set myself up to be flamed, and perhaps stricken from the list for expressing how I view the forum. If that's the case so be it. I want to make it clear though that I don't discount the value of TIGHAR and its quest to solve the mystery of AE and FN's disappearance. I don't know if TIGHAR is right or wrong, I do think that they have some promising fragments of potential evidence that others do not. As far as I know no other investigative group has anything physical or otherwise substantiating their hypothesis.

To be sure, quite a few posts do stimulate one to think and reflect upon the possibilities of what happened on that fateful day in July. There are many intelligent, dedicated members associated with TIGHAR and the forum and I look forward to their posting. If I'm toast, it's been nice. Have a great holiday.
************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Gary.  For my part, I'm sure not going to toast you.  Your comments strike me as honest and valuable.  The forum has its cast of characters - both heros and villains - and everybody gets to decide for themselves which is which.  I try to referee as little as possible.

On a personal level I think I've learned to deal with the very public aspects of my job.  I get vilified by some and lionized by others.  If I let my own sense of self-worth be influenced by either group I'd be a basket case.  I just do the best I can and leave it up to my wife and my horse to tell me how I'm doing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:35:19 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      For Mr. Iwanski

Thanks, Mr. Iwanski, for coming on and addressing us. I was putting a note together to send to you. Instead, I'll post it here.

Your story has some things that I find odd. And I want to ask you about these things. I do not wish to be negative about it, I just want to resolve some things about your story. Some of my questions may simply be founded in ignorance. Please clarify these things for me.

1) The skipper of your carrier actually drove (is that the right word?) the carrier along the reef edge quite close to the island?

2) Close enough for you to see, in great detail, some things on the shore?

3) This cruising close to a reef seems to me to be a reckless act on his part. Is this sort of thing routinely done with these huge vessels? (Maybe I just need some education!)

4) This boat is over 1000 feet long and weighs 88,000 tons. And the skipper just cruises it along the shoreline, close enough for you to see small things like a barometer, the finish on a wood table, and a fuel pump?

5) Aren't reefs dangerous to boats? How far were you from the stuff you saw? 500 feet? 1000 feet?

6) You have some really good vision to be able to pick out such detail. Did you have or use binoculars?

7) The course your boat took on that voyage ought to be verifiable. Have you researched that?

8) What other corroboration for your story can you provide? Can you give the names or statements from any of your crewmates? Or your captain?

9) Have you seen the infamous Wreck Photo?

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:37:02 EST
From:         David
Subject:      The Salvaging of N16020

I was the one who posted Don's website and was glad to here from him and hopes he will continue to have input the only way to confirm or reject his story is to check it out and see what did happen maybe his location is wrong or maybe the whole thing is crazy but Don seems honest even though that Ayatollah thing seems way out their. But thru my quick checks he did name the correct Captain of the ship and it was in the Pacific at the time but its a big ocean and all that info is easily available. Ric already sounds like some checking has been done and story has holes in it so it will be up to Don to convince us skeptics but I am willing to listen

David
#2505
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:39:40 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR Personals

Gee, wonder if tighar might do that  [personals]  it could generate quite a lot of money, wow!  lol

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

I'm sure the IRS would consider it to be "unrelated business income" and outside the foundation's "exempt purpose".
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:40:45 EST
From:         Ed of PSL
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

Thanks for the comments. I believe that some artifacts/relics will eventually be found on Niki that can be traced back to the flight. In the interim it may be worthwhile to continue to inventory those items that were definitely known to be on the plane so that if one or any portion of one is found a mapping of its provenance can be attempted. The more of these items or relics from such items that can be documented, the more evidence.

LTM and Merry Christmas!
Ed Of PSL #2415
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:50:23 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Enola Gay

I vote that we kill this thread NOW, before it gets any longer. Waaaaay off-topic.

LTM who believes a stitch in time . . .
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
*************************************************************
From Ric

Fine by me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:51:49 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Ballad of Bonnie and Ric

Phil Tanner said:   "And there I was thinking Dennis (whom I have never met, and no disrespect intended), was the likely author! It scans to the tune of  "The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde", which was an hit over here in the UK for Georgie Fame around the time the film starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty came out. Don't know if it is also in the film or just a music business cash-in to coincide with Bonnie and Clyde mania at the time."

Thanks for the compliment, but the kudos are owed to some other genius. :-)

I saw the movie over here in the Colonies but the sound track was mostly Blue Grass style music from Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs, exposing us city folk to such great works as Foggy Mountain Breakdown etc..  Sorry, I don't know who Georgie Fame is/was, so I don't know the tune  . . . could you hum a few bars for me?

LTM, who's country at heart
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

Aren't you the guy who just voted to kill an off-topic thread?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:55:06 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of N16020

Don Iwanski said:  Basically what I am doing here is I am cramming my story down Ric Gillespie's throat because I don't appreciate being accused of making it up.  And if he doesnt't look into it someone else will."

I think Don has explained a lot.

LTM, who knows when to get out of Dodge
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

*********************************************************************
From David Katz

Quick question to ponder:

An aircraft carrier has an enormous crew (I'm guessing over 1,000).  Out of all those crew members, NO ONE else EVER mentioned this?

And the Ayatollah Khomeini?  Whoa - that's really out there.

David Katz
********************************************************************
From Jim Preston

I would like to add to Al Hendrickson question.

1) Carriers do not travel alone, what were the other ships with it.

2) I have been on the Carl Vinson coming back to San Diego from Pearl on my son's Tiger Cruise (WestPac 96) and I have 20/20 vision and I couldn't see things like that leaving Pearl or arriving in Dan Diego from the LSO Platform. Were you using Binocs ?

3) A Carrier would not get within a quarter of a mile from a reef or the Captain could lose his career.

Jimbo (no nbr yet)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:56:10 EST
From:         Jerry
Subject:      Re: Thoughts from an old Naval Aviator.

Just to show what tedium/boredom and nondescript surroundings can do, I was on a ship in the mid-60s, that was bound from Sheboygan, Wisconsin to Milwaukee.  The radar operator was keeping track of our progress by watching the coastline on the scope.  When we came even with Milwaukee, the OOD gave the helmsman the order for "left standard rudder, come to new course 090." It wasn't until the radar operator asked why the coastline was disappearing from his scope that anyone realized we had turned in the opposite direction and were on our way to Michigan.  Anything is possible.

LTM (who now carries her own compass)
Jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:58:19 EST
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR Personals

Carl Peltzer wrote:

>Gee, wonder if tighar might do that  [personals]  it could generate
>quite a lot of money, wow!  lol
>**************************************************
>From Ric
>
>I'm sure the IRS would consider it to be "unrelated business income"
>and outside the foundation's "exempt purpose".

Maybe.   If each connection results in discussing the AE/FN mystery, it's a related act.   Research is indicated. I can see the title now:   "Uncovering the Missing Woman: finding the perfect partner through crashed airplanes."

Sorry.  It's a quiet day here -- no women have called -- and my letters of recommendation to get into grad school are arriving.   Gotta celebrate!

On a related matter, I must have missed the URL of Iwanski's site.   I'll look for it later.  Large aircraft carriers get into some odd situations.   I used to have a  file about a UFO that knocked out all the electronics on a CV cruising in the Caribbean. Anyone want that?  (If I can find it, that is.

LTM (who is neither missing nor uncovered)
Mike Holt
****************************************************************
From Ric

Spare us.  Congrats on grad school.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:03:50 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Camels and Bonnie

Good point. I bow to your superior knowledge as an investigator. How many missing a/c over the Pacific were found ? Not Amelia's but small planes that nobody misses for awhile. DO I get  a number? Those fuel tanks were installed after the a/c were built and so was the equipment under the seat. So the a/c wasn't configured for that. I like the intrigue. Keep up the good work.

Jimbo ( no nbr)
****************************************************************
From Ric

Actually the tanks and the radio installation were part of the original construction.  This was not a modified aircraft.  This was a purpose-built first example of a new version of the Model 10 - the Model 10E Special.  After delivery, the tanks were uninstalled and then reinstalled at least twice as the system was refined.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:05:10 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: FRED!  DON'T LIGHT THAT CA .

>Now Alan is going to ask me how to prove it ....
>Pat Gaston

I wouldn't think of it, Pat. We have a ton of stuff we can't prove and another ton we can't rule out. The only time I ask some one to prove it is tongue in cheek or when they offer up something like, "At 1775 GCT AE made a change of course to 85 degrees then about 30 minutes or so turned to 67 degrees." and give not the slightest clue as to where that information came from.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:54:29 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of NR16020

I did not want to take the spotlight here.  My intentions to Ric were to quietly look into the events of the Constellation and plan ahead.  This is his forum, not mine. Ric will have to decide when to check my story out and how the official resolution of the events of that day coincide with his theory. But there's some good questions that came to light and I'll try and answer them:

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

David Katz wrote:

>Quick question to ponder:
>
>An aircraft carrier has an enormous crew (I'm guessing over 1,000).
>Out of  all those crew members, NO ONE else EVER mentioned this?
>And the Ayatollah Khomeini?  Whoa - that's really out there.

David - The Connie has a compliment of 5000 as I remember.  And this was a four or five hour event.  Since the ship runs both days and night shift, lets say half were sleeping.  I have no idea how many actually viewed the event in it's entirety.  I have been reaching out and trying to contact crewmembers through webpages and such and the responses have been mixed. The event happened 25 years ago and I know what I had to go through to try and remember specific details of the events of that day.  I have only been persueing this in the past couple of months.

Yes, I know, Ayatollah - amazing huh?  It's not my story or research though, it came from a Unsolved Mystery type of TV show shown in the late 80's early 90's which I am seeking a copy of.

Jim Preston wrote:

>I would like to add to Al Hendrickson question.
>1) Carriers do not travel alone, what were the other ships with it.

Correct - there was another ship with us and I think it was the USS Mars but I might be wrong here. But there was one other ship which was not at anytime in close proximity to the island as we were. The rest of the task force was not in close proximity to us either during the event or even in sight at that time.

>2) I have been on the Carl Vinson coming back to San Diego from Pearl
>on my son's Tiger Cruise (WestPac 96) and I have 20/20 vision and I
>couldn't see things like that leaving Pearl or arriving in Dan Diego
>from the LSO Platform. Were you using Binocs ?

No, I was standing on the hangar deck looking out the hangar bay doors for the most part until the last 30 minutes or so, then I went up to the flight deck. I dont know the exact height of the hangar deck, possibly 15-25 feet above the waterline I would imadgine.

>3) A Carrier would not get within a quarter of a mile from a reef or
>the Captain could lose his career.

Well, the skipper of this ship went on to become Admiral.  I am sure the command was acting under orders.

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

>1) The skipper of your carrier actually drove (is that the right word?)
>the carrier along the reef edge quite close to the island?

Well, the skipper of a carrier is in command, whether he is actually driving I have no idea.  But, yes, we were close to the reef flat.

>2) Close enough for you to see, in great detail, some things on the
>shore?

Absolutley.

>3) This cruising close to a reef seems to me to be a reckless act on
>his part. Is this sort of thing routinely done with these huge vessels?

This was not reckless, it was tatical.  The skipper of  this ship was amazing and you can only appreciate having someone with such great knowledge,skills, and intelligence commanding our naval vessels such as him. Routinley? I have no idea.  In my two cruises this was the only experience of this sorts.

>4) This boat is over 1000 feet long and weighs 88,000 tons. And the
>skipper just cruises it along the shoreline, close enough for you to see small
>things like a barometer, the finish on a wood table, and a fuel pump?

The answer to this is Yes, I could see these things. We were that close.

>5) Aren't reefs dangerous to boats? How far were you from the stuff you
>saw? 500 feet? 1000 feet?

I am sure reefs are dangerous.  I am not a captain of a vessel so I can't really answer that.  And 15-20 feet up in the air standing on the hangar deck level and perhaps we were 100-200 feet from the reef flat, if not closer at times.

>6) You have some really good vision to be able to pick out such detail.
>Did you have or use binoculars?

No.  But I was 19 and in good health.

>7) The course your boat took on that voyage ought to be verifiable.
>Have you researched that?

I am banking on the fact that naval records are accurate.  As far as researching it? Not the location which was reported at 11 am that morning. But as far as the logical location and scenery, satellite images of the island and such, yes, I have done much research.

>8) What other corroboration for your story can you provide? Can you
>give the names or statements from any of your crewmates? Or your captain?

I would love to get 25-30 crewmembers together who remember this event in it's entirety and have those stories told.  I am not at that point yet.  No, I havent contacted the skipper.  I spent 9 months under his command and never met him once.  I am not a researcher and less of a telemarketer.  I was hoping that Tighar would find the ships location on record then launch a formal investigation and possibly contact him. His name was Paul F. Mccarthy and his home of record is Chesterfiled, Mo. But I think he lives in Coronado, Ca.

>9) Have you seen the infamous Wreck Photo?

Yes.  It in no way coincides with what was seen on the island that day.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:00:24 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Camels and Bonnie

Ric wrote: 

>It is true that ferry flights with poorly installed aux tanks
>are scary.
>
>It is true that some ferry pilots smoke.
>
>It is true that some of those ferry flights never arrive. 
>
>However, in 11 years as an aviation accident investigator I never heard of
>any instance where an aircraft had an inflight fire or explosion that was
>known to be attributed to someone smoking.

There was the Varig 707 crash near Paris Orly airport on 11 July 1973 in which 123 out of 134 on board were killed because of a fire that had started in one of the rear toilets. The fire could not be controlled by the cabin crew and worked its way forward through the cabin. Most passengers were asphyxiated by the smoke of burning cabin upholstery. The pilots had donned their smoke masks and eventually decided to make an emergency landing 5 kilometers short of the Orly runway. The aircraft was a total loss and there was huge loss of life. The fire was later attributed to a passenger having thrown a cigarette in a paper towels collector in one of the rear toilets. Ever since this accident there came a general rule prohibiting smoking in aircraft toilets.
***************************************************************
From Ric

You're right Herman.  There was an Air Canada DC-9 lavatory fire that ended up killing several passengers including folksinger Stan Rogers.  A cigarette was the suspected cause.  Although admittedly smoking related, these cases are not really relevant to the type of loss we're discussing where smoking ignites fuel or fuel fumes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:01:32 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of N16020

> An aircraft carrier has an enormous crew (I'm guessing over 1,000).

I looked it up.  The CV(A)-64 Constellation had (she's decommissioned) a crew of around 5,000.

> Out of all those crew members, NO ONE else EVER mentioned this?

Yes, very curious... or not.

    - Bill #2229
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:02:55 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: For Pete's Sake

I seem to have evoked the ire of one or two folks somehow. If they have good reason and I have done something inappropriate I apologize. I'm here for the same purpose most but not all are. I want to do what I can to resolve the Earhart mystery. I do not waste my time and that of anyone else with childish name calling. I would rather use the time and band width for something more constructive.

On a more relevant note, I've followed Don Iwanski's story from the beginning and he seems to be sincere about what he is trying to remember. Although some elements of his story appear to be at variance with the known facts he is talking about events of many years ago. Memories are not all that accurate. At the same time his story has been taken seriously and his ship's captain has been located. The routing of the ship's 1980 trek has been researched which has led Don to realize his original belief the event happened in 1980 to be in error. The 1979 route, if it occurred, will be researched to help resolve some of the discrepancies.

Don, wants his story to be believed and checked thoroughly. He knows he will be questioned in detail about everything he writes. I can see that has already begun.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:14:04 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

Ric wrote:

> But you can bet that we'll be on the lookout
> for spouts and grommets the next time we get a crack at the site.  The bags
> being made out of duck may explain the bird bones we found .  (sorry)

When the issue of this desert water bag first came up, I tracked down via a good friend what may be a 30's vintage bag belonging to my friend's aging father [that's a stupid expression. We are all aging; but at different points in our lives]. He (the friend) was going to bring it back from his father's house the next time he visited (the father lives a couple hours north of here and my friend makes trip regularly). When my friend didn't produce the bag or mention it again, I didn't press the issue. However, if it may still be a help to Tom King to see one for real, I will approach the subject again and see if I can get my hands on it. The one feature that might be interesting is the metal strip at the top. It helped keep the bag's shape and prevented the spout from tearing from the canvass. It was made of galvanized or tinned steel to keep it from rusting. The metal strips on the bags I remember as a kid from the 50s were usually rusty anyway. This metal strip might prove to be an existing artifact. I'll pursue this further if you think it might be helpful.

LTM

Kerry Tiller
********************************************************************
From Ric

We have found a photo that shows Earhart with a pile of luggage in front of the door of the Electra apparently taken sometime around the start of the first World Flight attempt.  On the ground in the foreground is a canvas waterbag. The mouth of the spout is open and in front of it there is what appears to be a wet spot on the pavement. No stopper, cork or lanyard, cord or chain  attaching same to the bag is evident.  This particular bag does not seem to have a metal strip across the top.

Still, we do need to collect information on waterbags so it would be nice if you could get your hands on one.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:18:19 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Enola Gay Thread Alive

Is this thread off topic? Please read this post carefully and you will become convinced, as I have, of the truth hidden within the names, dates and events that occur around this remarkable woman and daring aviation pioneer.

Don't you not realize that the Enola Gay was formed with aluminum salvaged from AE's Electra. Notice that Enola and Electra both start and end with the same letters (AE). Is that merely some weird coincidence? Both also have an L in them. And what about the NO in Enola? The first two letters of NOonan. The placement of the similar letters in Enola and Electra corresponds to the sections of the aluminum that were salvaged from AE's Electra. Electra also has the same number of letters in it as Earhart and they both start with E and the last three letters are merely transposed - tra and art. Do you begin to see how all this is connected. Lockheed had a secret contract with AE and Roosevelt to build an Electra and her name is codified into the name of the airplane.

And the construction of the aircraft (Electra) also contains hidden meanings that apply to AE. Enola spelled in reverse is alone and the first and last letters of alone are AE! Do I need to spell more of this out for you? Reverse the letters in Enola and add the second word in the name. Start to make sense, yet? Delve deeper into this mystery. Now, as to Gardner, again we find that AE shows up in the name. Island - a separate (LONE) piece of land. Enola reversed = A LONE! Does this mystery get deeper or clearer?

Don Iwanski was aboard the carrier USS Constellation (again contains an AE, also reversed - as a clue that we need to reverse the letters in Enola), which name also includes the letters ITASC, only missing the A from ITASCA, and NOONA, only missing the letter N from NOONAN! And the middle portion of the name Constellation is TELL! In all it contains the words ENOLA, notion, install, nation, lion, sea, sealion, sell, call, cant, ant, tat, tit, cola, coil, at, ion, elation, constant, sent, last, consent, tent, cast, last, test, toast, lest, lost, tall, sail, soon, noose, tale, east, tail, taint, noone, late, loot, let, cannot, can, not, lot, tot, sat, set, sit, sot, not, cot, nit, lit, eat, neat, son, ton, nest, onion, cone, none, lone, entail, all, loll, call, oil, toot, soot, nose, noise, toes, lose, loose, cost, sin, ten, tin, non, con, on, stone, lone, cone, one, cat, lane, cane, instant, laconic, coast, sill, nil, till, ill, soil, toil, intent, and lent. Do I have to put the words into the sentences and paragraphs for you? All of the Earhart story is contained in those words.

And, weren't the bombers used in the Doolittle Raid very similar in appearance to the Electra? B-25s - twin engine, twin tails, right? Thus it was a way of showing the Japanese that we knew they had taken AE and held her captive. AE disappeared on 7/2/1937 and Pearl Harbor was attacked on 12/7/1941 - see the 7, the 2 and the 1 that the dates have in common? This is another one of the mysterious signs pointing to the connection between these events. Pearl also has AE in the name (again reversed) thus completing the tie between AE, the Japanese (AE again - twice, showing that there was a double identity involved) and the Roosevelt conspiricy to involve the US in the war. Never doubt that these seemingly unrelated items are not connected.

And moreover, who was Electra? Have you not hear of the widespread story of the Seven Sisters, about the Pleiades, a cluster of stars in the constellation Taurus. All versions of the story say there are seven Pleiads, but only six stars are visible to the naked eye, and so some astronomers suggest that one of the seven has faded, but if that is so, it must have happened before the time of the Greeks, for they explain that one of the seven, Electra, has personal reasons for being in hiding. One of the Australian Aboriginal versions of the story also has a explanation for the missing sister...she has been detained by an amorous kidnapper (Noonan-?), who after some time of being amazed by her strange powers, realises that she is a water spirit, a goddess. In the Greek story of the Pleiades, the seven sisters are named Alcyone, Electra, Celaeno, Maia, Sterope, Merope and Taygete, and they are identified as the virgin companions of Artemis. As Artemis is in myth the most feminist/separatist form of the goddess, the seven sisters symbolise in their circle an exclusively female part of goddess lore, that is, secret womens' business. (Alcyone and Electra - the initials AE, again).

To the Greeks and those before them, these stars were important sky markers because they are near the north celestial pole, the point in the sky that the "sphere of the fixed stars" appears to rotate about, when observed night by night. Thus they indicated North to Minoan sailors, and provided an annual calendar as they dipped below and then re-emerged above the northern horizon as viewed from say, Crete or the Nile.

The solar calendar of days (which marked out the life of the sun god) and the lunar calendar of nights (which gave the moods of the moon goddess) were of central importance in ancient times. In some of the goddess-cultures, during at least part of their history, sacrifices, sometimes human, were made at a time indicated by the rising of the Pleiades. The sacrifice (be it man or bull) then rose to heaven, where it (he) could be seen as the constellation Taurus, whose crescent-moon horns are those of the sacrificial bull offered to the goddess by the Minoans. The Pleiades represented a special goddess place in the heavens where she was hostess to this man-become-god, signified by Taurus. In the Arthurian equivalent, this goddess place is a island... the apple isle, Avalon. The poet W B Yeats gives more from a celtic sensibility:

HE THINKS OF HIS PAST GREATNESS WHEN A PART OF THE CONSTELLATIONS OF HEAVEN

I HAVE drunk ale from the Country of the Young
And weep because I know all things now:
I have been a hazel-tree, and they hung
The Pilot Star and the Crooked Plough      (Pilot = Navigator)
Among my leaves in times out of mind:
I became a rush that horses tread:
I became a man, a hater of the wind,
Knowing one, out of all things, alone, that his head  (Alone = Enola)
(hEAd - AE reversed)
May not lie on the breast nor his lips on the hair (brEAst - AE reversed)
Of the woman that he loves, until he dies.
O beast of the wilderness, bird of the air,  (bEAst - AE reversed)
Must I endure your amorous cries?

W B Yeats (yEAts - AE reversed)

The Taurus also contains the CRAB Nebula (Nebula also contains AE and ebula 
or Ebola - the disease from which she eventually died) - another tie in to Gardner Island!!!!!! The Crab Nebula is a remnant of a supernova, whose explosion occurred (or rather, was visibly recorded) in July of 1054. Chinese and Japanese astronomers witnessed the event. In fact, it would have been difficult not to notice, for the night sky would have been lit up by a star with the visual magnitude of about -5, bright enough to be seen even in the daytime for nearly a month. (NOTE: July of 1054 - July, the month AE disappeared and Lockheed 10 and KI 54 - !!!) Taurus (the BULL - indicative of all the BULL, or lies, regarding the conspiricies) is known for its horns but it actually looks like an inverted human without a head. Thus there are two legs (twin tails as on an Electra) and two arms (wings and/or engines).

Hamlet's Mill............. Regarding the title, the Seven Sages, Giorgio Santilana wrote in his introduction to Hamlet's Mill; "Tradition will show that the measures of a new world had to be procured from the depths of the celestial ocean and tuned with the measures from above, dictated by the 'Seven Sages', as they are often cryptically mentioned in India and elsewhere. They turn out to be the Seven Stars of Ursa Major, which are normative in all cosmological alignments on the starry sphere. These dominant stars of the Far North are peculiarly but systematically linked with those which are considered the operative powers of the cosmos, that is, the planets as they move in different placements and configurations along the zodiac. The ancient Pythagoreans, in their conventional language, called the two Bears the Hands of Rhea (the Lady of Turning Heaven), and called the planets the Hounds of Persephone, Queen of the Underworld. Far away to the south, the mysterious ship Argo with its Pilot star (Canopus which ancients thought was the southern pole star) held the depths of the past; and the (Milky Way) Galaxy was the Bridge out of Time. These notions appear to have been common doctrine in the age before history - all over the belt of high civilizations around our globe. They also seem to have been born of the great intellectual and technological revolution of the late Neolithic period". ["Hamlet's Mill, An Essay On Myth and the Frame of Time", 1969, by Giorgio de Santillana and Herta von Dechend, Macmillan]. -

Here, again we find seven stars - that's seven for Electra (AE) and seven associated with Ursa Major and the Pilot Star(FN). I quote from the above paragraph: "...peculiarly but systematically linked with those which are considered the operative powers of the cosmos...".

Note, too, that the commander of the Itasca was Warner K. Thompson - again in Warner we find AE. Truly this all fits together into a seamless picture of the interrelatedness of these people, places and events and the timeline of the cosmos.

Noonan derivative of Neenan from an Irish word meaning child. NOONan - the time at which AE and FN reached Gardner Island? Earhart is an Americanized version of Erhart and Erhardt, the German patronymic name from the elements era = honor + hard = brave (brAvE = AE) The truth is out there!

Ric - hope you see the humor in my tongue in cheek swipe at all of those who come up with these off the wall theories and strange rantings about conspiricies and such.

Merry Christmas (see the E in mErry and the A in christmAs) - yet another sign of the conspiricy written out for us centuries ago.

Happy New Year! (two more AE's - hAppy nEw yEAr - with one set reversed!)

LTM,
Dave Bush (see the dAvE in the first nAmE)
*************************************************************
From Ric

Could somebody please find Dave a hobby?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:21:35 EST
From:         Jon-Inge Paulsen
Subject:      Re: For Iwanski

Hello, everyone. Before proceeding to point out one easily identifiable error in Mr. Iwanski's texts, let me first introduce myself.

I'm new to the forum, and I have no prior education in historical or archaeologic research. I do hold, however, a Master's degree in physics, and would claim to know something about the scientific approach. I've also done my share of genealogical research, and I earn my livings as a technical writer. I live in Norway, and caught an interest in the Earhart investigations performed by Tighar while I was researching Earhart for a possible Microsoft Flight Simulator add-on product. Thanks for allowing me to participate on the forum.

Mr. Iwanski on his "Salvage" web site presents a theory on what happened to the Earhart aircraft. He presents a theory invovling Ayatollah Khomeini, who supposedly should have bought the aircraft to demonstrate his disrespect for Americans.

Iwanski claims that Khomeini purchased the aircraft in the 1960s. He claims that Khomeini was exciled in France from 1965 to 1979, and that he threw parties in and around the aircraft.

Well, Ayatollah Khomeini was arrested in 1964 and was exciled in Turkey the first year. Due to the laws in Turkey that forbade him to wear the cloak and turban of the Muslim scholar, he left Turkey in 1965 and moved to Najaf in Iraq where he stayed until 1978. In 1978 he was forced to leave Iraq (his option was to stop his political activity or be expelled), and ended up in France, where he stayed until he went back to Iran in 1979. The rest is well-known history.

This information is based on several sources, including encyclopedia.com, iranchamber.com, bartleby.com, and the large Norwegian Encyclopedia.

Yes, this one piece of information may seem like an irrelevant piece of the puzzle. It does raise a few questions around the credibility, at least if this is a well-founded and well-documented theory. First of all, how come this crucial and easily identifiable error is still present? Second, where did Khomeini keep the aircraft while living 13 years in Iraq? Did he travel regularly to France to throw parties? Third, if he did invest that amount of money in an icon with the only purpose as to disgrace the Americans, why didn't he use it in his propaganda? Fourth, it is mentioned that the parties were large and frequently occuring, how come noone who attended these parties have come forward and verified the story? And with such value, why did he just leave it behind for the French authorities?

I'm sorry, Mr. Iwanski. With the issues already brought forward by earlier posters (which are even more important to answer than the Khomeini discrepancy), your story doesn't carry much credibility. It appears to be a work of fiction (if it is intentional or not doesn't really matter, scientifically speaking) without any supporting evidence or historical consistency. Unless you produce actual evidence to support your theories, it will go down in history as a fantasy. That's just the way it is. And the personal attack in the closing paragraphs further undermines the credibility. An attempt at spoiling other people's work or reputation doesn't prove any theory at all, except some psychological ones, perhaps.

It wasn't the fact that Newton saw an apple at one time in his life that made him the father of modern physics. It was the fact that he was able to document and proove his theory as to why it fell.

(Sorry for a long post...)

Best regards,
Jon-Inge Paulsen
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:27:08 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: KACA and KCWR

I realize we have already buried this thread, but I sent a request for info on these two call signs to Popular Communications (a magazine dedicated to the radio listening hobby), as they have a regular column devoted to the history of broadcast stations and seem to have an extensive archive of material to support the column. I specifically wanted to know if the call signs were in use in 1937. I just got a response and thought I would pass it along.

Shannon Huniwell, the Pop Com broadcast history column editor drew a blank on KCWR for the period in question, but KACA, circa 1940, was the call sign for the Atchison, Kansas Police Dept. They used a 50 watt base station transmitter and usually carried out two-way communication (with their "radio cars") on 2422 kilohertz.

This doesn't sound like "our" KACA, but I thought I would pass the info along anyway.

LTM

Kerry Tiller
********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Kerry.  The KACA/KCWR thread is not dead, it just seemed to hit a dead end.  We still haven't been able to find a credible identity for those stations.  We have "live" threads that produce useful new information; we have dead threads i.e. "dead horses" that we periodically re-flog; and we have threads like this one which we should perhaps categorize as "the undead".
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:29:20 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: For Mr. Iwanski

Although I was never a  US Navy flier I had the opportunity to land on (and take off from) four aircraft carriers during my career: USS Nimitz, USS Forrestal, USS J.F. Kennedy and HMS Hermes. Between landings and departure there was a day's work (sometimes up to 24) during which I had an opportunity to visit the ships and talk to their captains. In one case I talked to the admiral commanding the 7th fleet. From what I remember from these conversations :

1. Carriers remain at sea as far as possible from land. It is their first line of defense against any danger.

2. Carriers steam in the middle of a fleet of cruise missile ships, including cruisers and destroyers that sail beyond the horizon. Carriers are preceded by two submarines scouting for undersea danger.

3. If any aircraft carrier wants to have a look at an island it will send aircraft or helicopters to do so.

4. There is no way any captain or admiral will risk one the USS Navy's 12 expensive carriers and their aircraft to sail so close to un uninhabited island, especially one like Nikumaroro where since 1929 a shipwreck reminds of the dangers of reefs.

5. If the captain of an aircraft carrier wants to have a close look at the island he will detail a smaller ship in the escort to do so.

6. When carriers come that close to any land they do so only in a familiar harbor at the end of a tour of duty where they will give their crews shore leave.  In this case Nikumaroro can hardly be called a friendly harbor. It presents about all the dangers a carrier would want to avoid.

LTM (who always likes a good story provided it sounds credible)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:33:33 EST
From:         John Luttrell
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

I just read this post and I thank you for your kind words. I learned a lot from my few months as a member of your forum.

I was an Air Force officer in the late 50s and early 60s and obtained the rank of Capt. I was in intelligence and the U-2 program. Francis Powers was a close friend. He was the only guy I ever slept with. Now don't get the wrong idea. That's another story I might tell you about some day.

You know, life is strange sometime.

If my theory is correct, that at Nauru AE  failed, for what ever reason, to make her turn from about 65 degrees to about 85 degrees and continued on 65 degrees until she saw the sunrise at 1744GCT, a very very ironic thing might have happened. If Golden Bear had not run (ran) aground and she had  left Tarawa 24 hours earlier, by my calculations AE and Golden Bear would have crossed paths at 1744 GCT right when AE saw the sunrise. Now I know from my Bowdich there are 3 definitions for sunrise...I believe one is "nautical", one is "celestial" and I forget the other one. And I know  the "sunrise" can be seen earlier with height above sea level .....d=1.32times the square root of your height in feet. So says Bowdich. As an example....at 12000 feet you can see about 145 miles. Enough already!!! But this is for the "nit pickers' information. Just think, if AE and Golden Bear had seen each other, things could have ended differently. But then, what would we be doing? Probably looking for Judge Crater.

John   Atlanta
Tell Alan I still love him!
***********************************************************
From Ric

Forum subscribers should bear in mind (no pun intended) that I have honored John's request and have removed him from the list so he will not see any replies to this posting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:35:07 EST
From:         Pete
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of N16020

Jim Preston has some good points.  I spent 3 1/2 years aboard the carrier Forrestal, and the ship very rarely went anywhere alone before becoming the Training Carrier in 1992.  Ship's Company and Airwing numbered 5,200, and after becoming AVT, there were still something like 2,600 onboard.  Even cruising in the Gulf of Mexico, lookouts were stationed and the signal bridge was fitted with two sets of the 40X "Big Eyes" binoculars.

A quarter-mile from a reef is TOO close for a carrier, three NM is more like it.

As far as log books, the Quartermasters on the bridge are not the only ones keeping track of the ships position.  Forrestal called the place "Co-plot" and JFK calls it "Top", but Operations Specialists log ship's position at least every hour for CIC.  The Dead-Reckoning Tracer is also marked with ships position whenever a new trace paper is put on at a minimum.  The traces are usually discarded after a year if no significant events are recorded, but I'm not sure how long the CIC Surface Watch Log is kept.  If the Archives have both the Deck Log AND the Surface Watch Log, then there's two official documents of Connie's position at the time in question.  The midnight entries in the Surface watch log should note what ships are steaming in company.

LTM (who wishes Hillary a safe trip)
Pete Gray  #2419
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:59:54 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      I SAW ( NO KID'N)

Dave is definitely on the right track. The letters are crucially important. However, there is one thing he hasn't noticed.

Don Iwanski is an anagram of "I SAW - (NO KID'N)!"  -   Keep at it Dave.

Either Comrade Iwanski has a wonderful sense of humour or I am sure that Ric is right and that he suffers from recovered memory syndrome. The best part of the tale (apart from the Ayatollah whooping it up round the Electra of course) was how he worked the "corks on chains" into the story. This is a dead giveaway even if you are an Erich Von Danniken reader. The close association of corks and chains  is not a common one. That Don should see in his vision a second instance of corks on chains, once again on Gardner Island (and clearly not the type that might have applied to a small cask) is of vanishingly small likelihood. Don has read this information and incorporated it into his story. The same with the (battery) vents, the navigator's table (which was removed after the Luke-field  debacle and perhaps not reinstalled), the seaplane (cf PBY Catalina), the Ki 54 (cf the wreck photo analysis) etc etc. It is interesting because this incorporation of events into a story is exactly what happens in dreams. Next time you have a dream, think hard about each component of it and you will find that every part of it relates to something you thought of since you last slept. Dreaming is the brain shuttling information back and forth as it decides what to keep and what to reject and moves information from short to long-term memory.

The story of a dream either arises fortuitously or else is used as a framework to hang the components on whilst they are moved around. Significance seems to appear because things the dreamer is currently thinking or worrying about are incorporated into the dream. I wonder if Don has any sleep or memory problems? It seems he is "remembering" what is really a "dream" - a random assemblage of ideas into a story. On the other hand maybe Don is roaring with laughter every time someone even begins to consider his tale bears any relation to the truth.

Regards Angus.

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

This went on for months before Don went public with his story.  I watched the whole thing evolve, step by amazing step.  If Don is pulling our chain he has had me fooled from the very beginning.  There is no doubt in my mind that he is absolutely sincere.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:07:37 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: KACA & KCWR

Thanks Kerry for tracking down KACA. Atchison,Kansas was of course AE's hometown. Do you think the police there used their radio equipment to try to contact Amelia after she went missing ?

Regards to all and LTM
Ray.
*****************************************************************
From Tom King

>KACA, circa 1940, was the call sign for the Atchison, Kansas Police Dept

I haven't really been following this thread, but does anyone else find it an odd coincidence that Atchison is AE's birthplace?
*********************************************************************
Kerry Tiller writes:

" ... but KACA, circa 1940, was the call sign for the Atchison, Kansas Police
Dept."

Now wait just a minute, Kerry! Either this is some delayed April Fool's joke, or you have stumbled on an amazing coincidence -- or is it not a coincidence and the true identity of the KACA that Amelia was trying to contact????

AE was born in Atchison, Kansas.

Mark me down as "spooked" right now

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

I think it's an odd coincidence and I think that is all that it is.

Let's all calm down and remind ourselves why we're talking about KACA and KCWR in the first place.

This all has to do with a very curious incident that occurred on the evening of July 2nd.

At 18:25 Itasca time (just after sundown) the Itasca radio operator, Radioman 3rd Class Thomas J. O'Hare, hears a weak and unintelligible voice transmission on 3105 that he believes is Earhart.  He logs, "We hear her now on 3105 Kcs. Very weak and unreadable."

He responds with voice on 3105, telling her, "If you hear us please give us a series of long dashes. Go ahead please."  He also sends her a code message on 7500 Kcs saying "Give us your position. Go ahead please."  Then he sent a "long call" in code on 3105 and asked Earhart to reply with same.

At 18:34 the other radio operator on duty, Radioman 3rd Class George Thompson, hears, "Something like a generator start and then stop on 3105."  Two minutes later, at 18:36, he hears the same sound.

O'Hare hears the same on and off signals on 3105 and wonders if it is the plane reponding to his request for long dashes ("Signals on and off.  Think it is plane?) and he also hears unreadable voice but is able to make out the word "Earhart".

He keeps calling Earhart with both voice and code, then at 18:39 he hears a man's voice replying but it is distorted and unreadable.  At 18:41 he logs, "Guess it isn't her now."

It is important to note that, at this point, no one on the Itasca knows for sure that Noonan was aboard for this flight.  They didn't find that out until later.  Everything they heard from the plane in flight was from Earhart herself.  To O'Hare, a man's voice means the transmission must not be from the plane.

At 18:43 a station identified only as "QZ5" begins interfering by sending code on 3105. (O'Hare: "QZ5 interfering on 3105 now".

At 18:44 O'Hare hears QZ5 calling KACA in code.

At 18:45 O'Hare again tries to call Earhart using voice on 3105 and gets an immediate response from an unintelligible male voice. ("He comes right back, whoever it is."

At 18:46 O'Hare again hears QZ5, this time calling KCWR in code.

At 18:51 O'Hare calls QZ5 in code and asks the station to identify itself, but gets no reply.

At 18:54 the man's voice is back on.  O'Hare makes another call to Earhart and asks all other stations to remain quiet. Meanwhile, at the other position, Thompson again tries to get QZ5 to identify itself.  No reply.

Finally, at 18:56, O'Hare concludes that the voice signals are "definitely not Earhart."  He goes back to listening on 3105 but hears nothing until later that night.

So, as you see, nobody ever heard anything from KACA or KCWR and nobody ever heard anything but code that was known to come from QZ5.  The transmissions from QZ5 seem to be significant only in that they interfered with and further confused an already confusing situation.  It appears that Itasca heard dashes in response to its request and voice transmissions that may have come from the Earhart plane and which, in fact, included the word "Earhart", but dismissed them when they determined that is was a man's voice.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:08:24 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: For Iwanski

The Ayatollah story is not my own.  This came from a TV show back in the late 80's or early 90's.  I was trying to find a connection between a French vessel parked in the lagoon area that day and how that fit in with the aircaft wrecakge seen on the island.  This along with other events happening in the 1979 is how I put together the Summary.  Is it true?  I have no idea but it all does fit together neatly with the exception it is unbelievable.  I start out the Summary by saying that "any information regarding this event which I do not have could change the entire face of the Summary."  I wish it all had come out more pallatable and believeable for anyone who reads it but thats how the pieces fell. Sure I wish it went another way.  I personally didn't agree with it myself nor was I satisfied with the outcome of it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:09:07 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

>Still, we do need to collect information on waterbags so it would be nice if
>you could get your hands on one.

Indeed we do.  If you can get your hands on one, Kerry, that would be great.

The bags I've seen on Ebay have had metal strips along the tops, too, but at least those from Canvas Speciality in LA -- which seem to be among the most common -- date from the '40s or later.  The one in the Earhart photo has to have had something across the top as a stiffener; I'm guessing it was a wood strip inside the canvas.

Anyway, we need to know the basic components of such bags, so getting one would be advantageous, even if it isn't quite like those that Earhart carried.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:11:58 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: I SAW ( NO KID'N)

Getting back to the scientific part of the forum, you have your time frame, late April to early May of 1979.  You have the ship's name, and you also have the skipper's name as well.

What did you guys go through with Emily Sukilli?  Did you accuse her of being mentally unstable?  Lying to you?  String her up by her toenails until she screamed EARHART!  You guys are ruthless.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

No Don.  We listened to Emily's story and then we looked for hard evidence that would support or disprove it.  That's exactly what we're doing with your story.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:12:51 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Enola Gay Thread Alive

Gonna save this one for deep thought, yeh, sure! aren't we all? Thanks Ric for saying what needed to be said.

Merry Christmas to all
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:15:33 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Corks & Chains

Thanks, Angus for the comment on corks & chains, and your other observations. This is remarkable, isn't it? It's like he took stuff off the TIGHAR website and wove it into his story. FWIW, I'm inclined now to believe this is some sort of April Fool's joke or something.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
***********************************************************
From Ric

I don't think so.  Information that he later acquired was indeed woven into his recollection of the event but it wasn't intentional.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:18:28 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

Ric said:

> But he's saying this happened a little before 2 a.m. on July 2nd (Howland
> time) .  That's well before the first inflight message heard by the Itasca.  At
> that time the Electra should have been just coming up on the Gilberts.  If the
> source (whatever it is) is at all credible, the first thing I'd check is the
> date/time conversion.  If it really happened in the wee hours of the 3rd the
> plane may well have been the PBY.

It is of course highly unlikely that the interception could have been the PBY at N02 40 E175, as its course took it nowhere near that point although it went 370 miles west of its intended course to Howland from Hawaii. The  PBY turned back from position 06 35 N 172W, 944 nm from the sandbank at Tarawa ( N01 45 E173) a distance that it would have taken Golden Bear 94.4 hours or nearly four days to cover at 10 kts.

N02 40 E175 is 132 miles from theTarawa sandbank and at 10 kts it would have taken Golden Bear 13 hrs to reach this point. John claims it was 12 hrs later which would push Golden Bear's speed up to 11 knots. This would still result in a journey time of 85 hrs to reach what was probably the PBY's most westerly position. If Golden Bear left Tarawa at about midday on the 1st July Howland time it would not be until the 5th at the earliest that she would reach that area.The seaplane took off on 2nd July. Golden Bear and the PBY could never have met if GB's departure time is correct. By the time that Lexington's planes arrived Golden Bear should have been well to the north east of any possible interception of them.

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

Thanks for running the numbers on this.  The PBY doesn't look like a good explanation for the story, but we still have no idea where the story came from and it didn't sound like John knew either.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:20:31 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of N16020

Bill Leary said:

>crew of around 5,000.

5000 sounds correct.  This is what I think happened.  This event happened towards the end of the cruise. It had been a difficult cruise because of the unscheduled 90 days we spent in the Arabian Gulf.  Shortly afterwards, we went into Pearl Harbor which was a big relief for us which partially wiped away the events of that day from the crews thoughts.  And shortly after that we were back home again.  If there were any stories being told by the crewmembers it was probably short lived.  I went home on leave and when I was home I talked to my dad about what happened. I'll never forget the look on his face.  I did not want to see that look again, honestly.  I think I realixed then this is not a story I want to tell people. And it's probably why I never did.  And perhaps others felt the same way.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:21:28 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: For Mr. Iwanski

Herman De Wulf wrote:

>1. Carriers remain at sea as far as possible from land. It is their first
>line of defense against any danger.

Ill agree to that.

>2. Carriers steam in the middle of a fleet of cruise missile ships,
>including cruisers and destroyers that sail beyond the horizon. Carriers are
>preceded by two submarines scouting for undersea danger.

There were always other parts of the task force around us at all times with the exception of this day.  There was one other ship and I think it was the USS Mars who was in close proximity to us.

>3. If any aircraft carrier wants to have a look at an island it will send
>aircraft or helicopters to do so.

The ship launched an H-3 helicopter prior to reaching the island. One of the pilot's name was Lt. John Miller.  I have no idea of his whereabouts.

>4. There is no way any captain or admiral will risk one the USS Navy's 12
>expensive carriers and their aircraft to sail so close to un uninhabited
>island, especially one like Nikumaroro where since 1929 a shipwreck reminds
>of the dangers of reefs.

Well, it happened.  Whatever the reason we were there that day and operated in that fashion must have been very serious.

>5. If the captain of an aircraft carrier wants to have a close look at the
>island he will detail a smaller ship in the escort to do so.

In this case the smaller ship stayed away from the island.

>6. When carriers come that close to any land they do so only in a familiar
>harbor at the end of a tour of duty where they will give their crews shore
>leave. In this case Nikumaroro can hardly be called a friendly harbor. It
>presents about all the dangers a carrier would want to avoid.

We werent there for shore leave or swim calls.  The ship made a tactical approach to the island and we sat off the reef flat for approx 4 hours observing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:23:06 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of N16020

>As far as log books, the Quartermasters on the bridge are not the only ones
>keeping track of the ships position. ...

Wow - if this information is available it would be more interesting than my story, thats for sure.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:25:04 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of NR16020

Don Iwanski says:

>The event itself is a very true story.

One thing that strikes me as I read Mr. Iwanski's website was the complete absence of corroborating information. I have no doubt, as Ric says, that Mr. Iwanski is "utterly convinced that he absolutely believes that it happened." Yet, for others to believe the story, we can't rely on the remembrance of a single individual. IF the story is true, there has to be corroborating evidence out there somewhere; in fact, given the particulars of this story, I would think corroborating evidence ought to be plentiful and easy to find. It could be in the form of the ship's logs, or it could be in the form of remembrances of shipmates, or it could in the records of the companies that set up coring rig, or the remembrances of the people on the coring rig. Or one might also find documentation in the Ayatollah Khomeini's personal papers to corroborate this. So, Mr Iwanski, your challenge is to provide such corroborating evidence, and then maybe we will find you more believable.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM
*******************************************************************
From Claude Stokes

> From:  Don Iwanski
>  hopefully come across some day by a true skeptic and be investigated.
> D. Iwanski

Im a true skeptic.  I say lets investigate it till its dead!

ltm
stoker
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:27:00 EST
From:         Mike Zuschlag
Subject:      Re: Adventure

Ric wrote:

>Very true, but they are never intentionally adventurous.  We do our best to
>avoid adventure.  Old TIGHAR sayings:
>"Adventure is what happens when things got wrong."
>"Adventure is what a poorly run expedition gets instead of results."
>"Adventure is terror and discomfort recalled from the perspective of
>security."

"Adventure is a sign of incompetence."
--Artic explorer and anthropologist Vilhjalmur Stefansson

To my ear, that sounds a little harsh, unless you regard adventure as a not-entirely-reliable sign of incompetance. Sometimes you are exceptionally prepared but you suffer exceptionally bad luck.

Another quote of Stefansson is carved on his memorial in Arnes, Manitoba:

"I know what I've experienced, and I knew what it's meant to me."

Whatever that means.

--Mike Z. from Massachusetts
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:28:47 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: John from Atlanta

I understand John is no longer with us but I wanted to comment on his last note. His estimate as to when our heroes first saw the sun is fairly close. They had very little time from their sun rise before reaching the Howland area.

As to John's discussion of headings or courses whichever he meant I don't know how he could know that. Here are a few IFs. IF the plane flew over the Myrtlebank and IF the Myrtlebank was near the center of its designated area and IF we actually know what that area was (whew!) the plane was about 38 miles or so north of track. That's ball game navigation in this case. Quite a ways south of Nauru. I can't tell you what "quite" is in terms of miles but probably they could have seen at least a glow from the Nauru lights.

That's not going translate into some big correction for Howland. In any case I'm stumped as to how anyone could know the Electra's course or track at any point after their third position report.

The coordinates John lists don't compute in my book.

As to Don Iwanski, I've been in contact with two of his ship mates and both indicate the ship's routing was far, far from the Phoenix and Gilbert Islands in 1979. No final nail in that coffin yet, though. Stay tuned. When I finish with their emails I'll post their comments.

I talked today to a friend who was on the USS Maryland at Pear Harbor during the attack. He confirmed to me that no skipper would drive his ship any where near a reef. I'm sure that comes as no surprise.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:31:03 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Noonan's Radio License

Many forums ago, there was a question raised about AE and FN's radio qualifications and their proficiency at sending and receiving Morse code.  Some forum members stated that FN should have been proficient because he had received a Second Class Radiotelephone Operator's license two years prior to the final flight.

I e-mailed the Federal Communications Commission and asked them to search their archives and confirm if FN ever received a Second Class Radiotelephone Operator license in 1934, 1935, or 1936.  The FCC forwarded my e-mail to a contract service provider that performs archive searches for them.

After weeks of waiting, I finally received their following reply:  "There are no records going back that far, sorry. "

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

Thanks anyway Tom.  This is a frustrating business.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:46:02 EST
From:         Anne
Subject:      Amelia in the airforce?

I was doing a bit of reading this past weekend about AE and I came across a chapter and a picture of her being sworn into the airforce, although I haven't previously read this.

Is it true? And why would she have been sworn in, for I thought that was only if you were military, and to the best of my knowledge she wasn't.

I'm not sure how credible the book is since it has things about the Japanese capture theory, but the picture they showed looked real.

Anne
**************************************************
From Ric

The photo you reference appears in Randall Brink's ridiculous book "Lost Star".  It shows AE being sworn in as an "honorary major" in an Army Air Corps maintenance squadron at Crissy Field at the Presideo in San Francisco.  In the 1930s it was not uncommon for famous civilian pilots to be recognized with "honorary" (meaningless) commissions in military units.  I don't have a date for the photo but it is clearly long before the World Flight.  Based on AE's youthful appearance I would put it close to her 1928 transatlantic flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:47:47 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: FRED!  DON'T LIGHT THAT CA .

Re: Longs interview of Leo Bellart in 1973

In my copy here is what Leo recalled. It certainly sounds as if there was more than a routine signal:

Mr Bellarts:" Well, I'll tell you, the last---the last time we heard her on that...we never heard her from her again. Ah, actually her voice---we could hear her voice just as easy as I am hearing yours right now and I'm deaf in one ear now.  But I'll tell you you could hear her all over the shack and even outside the shack, you know, real loud and clear. ... She was a woman. We heard her quite a few times...but that last one, I'm telling you, it sounded as IF SHE WOULD HAVE BROKEN OUT IN A SCREAM, IT WOULD HAVE SOUNDED NORMAL. SHE WAS ABOUT READY TO BREAK INTO TEARS AND GO INTO HYSTERICS.  THAT'S EXACTLY THE  WAY l'D  DESCRIBE HER VOICE NOW, NOW. I 'LL NEVER FORGET IT. "

He goes on further saying how he believed she was on the verge she would go into "hysterics". Yes that is his 36 year old recollection. By the way, he was always interested in the disappearance and corresponded frequently with Balfour.

I interviewed Leo's son, Leo Bellart Jr., who confirmed that his father often discussed those last msgs and  thought AE was going into "hysteria". Of course that is anecdotal.

LTM,
Ron Bright, Bremerton, WA
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:49:03 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of NR16020

I came in late but what in a few short sentences is his story? That he observed an Electra from the flight deck of the USS Constellation (CVA -64) in 1979. I believe the Connie went from my home town to SAn Diego Ca this summer. The Cruise Ship Books are readily available that report the cruise, ports of call. The Ships log of course would have reported any significant event. I am acquainted with many COs and pilots that flew off the Connie, and worked numerous investigations aboard as a S/A of NCIS.

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:55:04 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      Forum Christmas Break

Fair Warning - the forum will be on Christmas break from Wednesday, December 24 to Monday, January 5.

Get yer licks in tomorrow (Tuesday) because after that you'll be stuck with your families until the 5th.

For all you TIGHARs who ordered mug sets, they're going out FedEx today.

Have a Happy Holiday my friends.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:58:07 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: I SAW ( NO KID'N)

Put your money where your mouth is. I'll bet you £50  that USS Constellation never came within half a  mile of Gardner Island at any date in any year. If you fail to take up the challenge we'll know what to believe.

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

Angus, you don't understand what you're up against.  I've asked Don and he has already made up his mind that if the official records disagree with his memory it simply means that the U.S. government has decided that no one must find out about what went on out there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:24:26 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: KACA & KCWR

> At 18:51 O'Hare calls QZ5 in code and asks the station to identify itself,
> but gets no reply.

"QZ5" seems to be functioning here as some kind of shorthand. It can't be a station identification; otherwise, O'Hare would not be asking the station to identify itself.

Have we asked any of the old-time radiomen about this sequence?

                            Marty
*************************************************
From Ric

I don't think so.  How about it old-time radiomen? =========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:28:38 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of N16020

Wow!

Thanks, Mr. Iwanski, for your responses to my questions. I don't know what to say about your amazing story. To me, the tale seems far-fetched, but you maintain it is true, and you know what you saw. Ric, I think I'm understanding now why you have taken the position you have on this thing.

I sure hope all of you, Ric, Pat, TIGHARs, & Forumites, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

LTM, who knew the true meaning of Christmas,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
*******************************************************
From Dan Postellon

Maybe they saw a wreck on Diego Garcia, on the way back from the Arabian Gulf.  It is an atoll with airsrips, and facilities for docking large ships. 

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
***********************************************
From Ted Campbell

Don, can you do us a favor and look at your story and remove those items (recalls) that you have become familiar with since you first started to think about writing your story.

For example (I am just suggesting some things and it's not intended to be the accurate list of things that you may come up with):

Did you know what a KI 54 cockpit looked like back in 1979?

The Norwich City wreck - how did you know the name of the ship?  By 1979 I would have expected that all the name markings would have disappeared, the wreck itself is pretty much gone today.

Did you know in 1979 that Purdue University had sponsored/purchased the AE aircraft?

No fresh water and the island was uninhabited - if no one from your ship went ashore how did you know there wasn't any fresh water available?

What I am trying to understand is what was your factual recollection of the time before you embellished it with more recently gained knowledge of the AE disappearance.  If we can get this far we all can try to fit in our knowledge of the AE history, explorations, discoveries, etc., into your facts and see if we can come up with the same explanation of your eye witness observations.

*************************************************************
From Carl Peltzer

Regarding Don's story;
Perhaps he is mistaking another WW2 wreck that was being removed for construction purposes on some other island out that way? Just to be fair I think we should find out more, other info might come to light as research is carried out.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:31:01 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: GOLDEN BEAR

Ric said,

>The PBY doesn't look like a good
> explanation for the story, but we still have no idea where the story came from
> and it didn't sound like John knew either.

I don't think for a minute that John did not know where it came from, nor do I think he made it up. You'll remember that he interviewed some Matson line old hands and my guess is that the story came from one of them.

Had a plane really been heard, the significance of such would probably not be very apparent at the time. Although planes were unusual in mid Pacific, they were certainly used by the US navy as carrier and spotter planes and the pacific fleet was based not that far away in Hawaii. It is unlikely therefore that the time of such an incident would be recorded. Whilst Navy ships keep more detailed logs, merchantmen generally only keep a log of ports of call and major incidents. Some masters would keep very detailed logs, but they were in the minority and most crew wanted to do the minimum paperwork.

This makes me think that the timing was perhaps way off and the incident completely unrelated to the Earhart search. Otherwise the story is likely to be just that - a story, probably made up some time later or a case of confusion.

It would seem remarkable that Golden Bear should have heard an aircraft overhead and yet failed to mention the fact when replying at 13:43 on July 3rd to Itasca's query on Earhart after the search had started and it was known that Amelia had disappeared.  Their reply was "NO TRACE". I imagine the news of her disappearance would have spread like wildfire round the ship, and the idea that some individual was unaware of the search and that hearing an aircraft was not deemed significant is hardly tenable. Even if GB was halfway to Hawaii, once it became known that someone had heard a plane, they would likely have radioed Itasca or Hawaii with the news.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:32:14 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: KACA & KCWR

It's important to remember 4 letter calls were not exclusive to broadcast stations and/or ships, although in this case it was most likely the latter.

Example: KNBH, in the 30's, was assigned to one of the Pan-AM stations in the Pacific. When it was closed after WW2, NBC Hollywood wanted that call for their flagship TV station on the West Coast, which wasn't yet on the air. So they got the call assigned to a portable broadcast remote unit, which spent most of it's life in the basement of the TV station. When the TV station debuted, it then bore the KNBH call letters.

Bottom line, KACA and KCWR might well have been portables in use by some fishing boat, totally unrelated to AE.

Cam Warren
(Former KNBH engineer)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:32:58 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Noonan's Radio License

About all a 2nd Phone license let you do was turn a transmitter off and on, and talk into a microphone. No code requirement.

Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:34:06 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Forum Christmas Break

Happy whatever it is that doesn't offend you!

And a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Seasoned Greetings to you and yours and to all the TIGHAR Forum members - one and all.

LTM,
Who says there might be something to the crashed at sEA theory afterall.
Dave Bush

Who is still looking for a hobby - maybe I'll get one for Christmas in my stocking!
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:15:18 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Norwich City

Ric, I found this picture of the Norwich City. I have read many of the Forum Archives, and I don't think this has ever been posted. This website:

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/shipbuilding/shiprepa.htm

has a picture of the Norwich City (scroll about halfway down), and it indicates that it was damaged in a collision with the "first Second Narrows Bridge" in 1928. I'm not sure where that is yet, but its a nice photo, all the same.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
********************************************************
From Ric

Good photo. Thanks.  We have a newspaper photo from that same event.  As I recall it happened in Vancouver.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:16:43 EST
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Re: Noonan's Radio License

> After weeks of waiting, I finally received their following reply:  "There
> are  no records going back that far, sorry. "

Sorry, could have saved you the trouble. We got the same response about 3 years ago.

Smooth Sailing,
Ron Dawson
2126
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:32:07 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: KACA & KCWR

Marty Moleski wrote:

> "QZ5" seems to be functioning here as some kind of shorthand.
> It can't be a station identification; otherwise, O'Hare would not
> be asking the station to identify itself.
>
> Have we asked any of the old-time radiomen about this
> sequence?
>
> Marty
> *************************************************
> From Ric
>
> I don't think so.  How about it old-time radiomen?

As I think was discussed here before, there is a radio telegraphy short hand known as "Q codes". They are three letter code groups beginning with Q. Q was chosen because so few real words begin with Q, and none of the Q codes used a "U" for a second letter so that the Q code could be easily and immediately identified as such. None of the Q codes use numbers, however. They are a series of three letters only. The only Q code I can think of that uses a "Z" is QRZ. It is used as a request for a station to identify itself. Usually it would be sent if you hear a station calling you, but didn't catch the caller's call sign. I have taken the dits and dahs for "Z5" (_ _ . . .....) and tried playing with the spacing to come up with a legitimate Q code, but have drawn a blank. I haven't used the Q code in over 20 years, so I'm a little rusty. Maybe someone else?

LTM
Kerry Tiller
**************************************************
From Ric

The Itasca log sure implies that someone is using "QZ5" as a call sign, and it's not a typo because it recurs half a dozen times.  What do we know about QZ5?

- He's sending code on 3105.
- Itasca can hear him (and Itasca is not hearing a lot of other traffic on 3105).
- He's trying to call KACA and KCWR but apparently not having much luck.
- He does not respond to Itasca's query.

Every call sign I can find that consists of two letters and a number is a U.S. military or naval station but usually the the number is between two letters not at the end.  For example, the PBY was F3Y.  The most likely source for a transmission on 3105 is an aircraft.  I wonder if QZ5 was a military or naval aircraft in the Hawaii area.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:32:56 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

You know the thing that I could not stand about those desert water bags? When you were really thirsty you could always depend on them being empty. No matter how much you soaked them they would evaporate quite fast, I am amazed that they were around so long. I want to wish everyone best wishes for the holidays!

ltm
Ron
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:33:36 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Forum Christmas Break

From Brussels:

Merry Christmas to Ric and all forumites

LTM (from a distant place, unknown to many but to Amelia Earhart).
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:16 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: The Salvaging of N16020

Dan Postellon wrote:

>Maybe they saw a wreck on Diego Garcia, on the way back from the Arabian
>Gulf. It is an atoll with airstrips, and facilities for docking large ships. 

Dan : This was not Diego Garcia.  No airstrips. No docking.

>Did you know what a KI 54 cockpit looked like back in 1979?

In 1979, no.  I always assumed that the cockpit section on the reef flat was perhaps part of the Earhart aircraft.  It wasn't until recently while writing back and forth to Ric about this did I realize the cockpit section was that of a KI-54.  The Lockheed 10 does not have the square cutouts in the nose section but the cockpit section on the reef flat had these cutouts.

>The Norwich City wreck - how did you know the name of the ship? By 1979 I
>would have expected that all the name markings would have disappeared, the
>wreck itself is pretty much gone today.

I can't really remember when I realized the wreck on the reef flat was the Norwich City.  Was it told to us during the event? Did I see a sign on the wreck itself?  I do remember when I first saw pictures of it on Ric's website in 1997 I was pretty zoomed in on it.  My first impression was, hey, I was by an island once and saw a ship just like this.  But in 1997 I think the thoughts of that day were pretty well washed from my memory.  I really didnt make the full connection at that time but found it very intrigueing. You have to understand, 23 years after the event took place I was able to see a satellite image of the island and all those thoughts I was having about this possibly being the same island exploded.  I was to able to see the entire island and was able to pick out specific areas in which I viewed that day. It sort of exploded from there that indeed this was the island.  It's very hard to describe what a person goes through trying to remember specific details of an experience 25 years in the past.  It didn't all come out at once. I was kicking myself in the butt so to speak because as I was trying to remember this I was sharing this with Ric, sort of on the level as a dutch uncle.  Which I should not have done. I should have spent more time by myself trying to remember specific details and handed him a full complete story right up front.

>Did you know in 1979 that Purdue University had sponsored/purchased the AE
>aircraft?

No, I had no idea about this.

>No fresh water and the island was uninhabited - if no one from your ship went
>ashore how did you know there wasn't any fresh water available?

The command of my ship had allot of detail about this island which he passed to us over the 5MC.  I am sure because of what was happening there was much information being passed to him.  We did not happen stance by this island. We had changed course and this event was pre planned to some degree.

>What I am trying to understand is what was your factual recollection of the
>time before you embellished it with more recently gained knowledge of the AE
>disappearance. If we can get this far we all can try to fit in our knowledge
>of the AE history, explorations, discoveries, etc., into your facts and see if
>we can come up with the same explanation of your eye witness observations.

You can't.  You were not there.  All's I am trying to do here is to make this group aware of an event that took place.  I've given you a time, a place, and some good direction to look into.  I can't fully explain the events of that day. Perhaps if you'd like to give me a call we can talk about it and perhaps I can answer this question better for you than trying to answer it here in Ric's forum.

From Carl Peltzer

>Regarding Don's story;
>Perhaps he is mistaking another WW2 wreck that was being removed for
>construction purposes on some other island out that way?
>Just to be fair I think we should find out more, other info might come to
>light as research is carried out.

Carl:  Not that I havent taken this into consideration.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:46:07 EST
From:         Rusty
Subject:      Low Tide...

Just had a thought I wanted share, get some feedback on...I live in Seattle and we have a beach in the western part of the city called Alki. About every ten years the tide is at it's lowest point and this of course causes more of the beach to be exposed. At one time there was a large amusement park/board walk on Alki beach constructed partly on a pier. It is now deep under the shores of Alki beach in Puget Sound. The low tide we get about every ten years exposes much of the old boardwalk, you can even see the merry-go-round. It's pretty neat...So I was thinking it might be an idea to find out when the lowest tides will be and try and plan the next visits to Gardner around them simply to increase the odds of finding something that would otherwise be underwater...maybe you already do this?

Rusty
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Good suggestion but the two factors that govern the timing of our expeditions, aside from funding, are time of year - never, ever between mid-November and late April (storm season) - and ship availability. =========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:47:25 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Iwanski story

I may be a bit harsh here, but I think Don Iwanski simply wanted some attention -- and we gave it to him in spades.  He has this cockamamie story using data from TIGHAR's website and tosses in a few more improbable items and expects us to swallow it.  And to top it off, if we don't believe him AND official records don't support him, then OBVIOUSLY it was a conspiracy of silence. Further, he admits to " . . .cramming my story down Ric Gillespie's throat because I don't appreciate being accused of making it up," which should give us additional insight into the guy's motives.

On the other hand, he's great entertainment and it beats the dickens out of listening to Christmas carols.

LTM, who celebrates Festivus for the rest of us
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:51:51 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Coffee mugs

Glad to hear the mugs are on their way -- just in time for Xmas.  Before I ordered them I had to promise my wife she could have exclusive use of the Earhart mug.

LTM, who always enjoys a good cup of joe
Dennis McGee #0149EC
************************************************************
From Ric

We're very pleased with how the mugs turned out but, as usual, we had to raise the devil with the supplier and reject the first batch before we got the quality we insist upon.  Hence the delay - but we did manage to get them out in time for Christmas.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:01:31 EST
From:         Warren
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

I'm new to forum so please excuse if this has been discussed.  Couldn't find reference in archives.

Mary Lovell in "The Sound of Wings" gives Clarence William's (AE's navigational consultant) location of Howland Island as "Lat. 0 deg 49'00 North, Longitude 176 deg 43' 09 West" correct according to Lippincott's in the spring of 1937.  The Itasca a year earlier had corrected it to "Lat. 0 deg 48' 06 North; Longitude 176 deg 38' 12 West", a difference of maybe 6 miles. But in looking at a photo (Purdue Archives) of Clarence Williams flight analysis data sheet from Howland Island to Lae (first attempt, I suppose), Howland Island is clearly given as "L-00deg-49'N; Lg 179deg-43'west.  This is 3 degrees of Longitude difference, which is considerable.  Is there an explanation for this discrepancy and has it been determined which point AE and Noonan were shooting for?

LTM (more clearly confused with each passing year)  Warren in Houston.
******************************************************
From Ric

We have a photocopy of the Clarence Williams flight analysis data sheet from Howland Island to Lae (yes, first attempt) and it gives the island's longitude as 176 degrees 43 minutes.  No 3 degree discrepancy.

No one knows whether Earhart and Noonan had the correct coordinates for the island by the time of the final flight.  All that can be said is that they were in close communication with people, such as the Bureau of Air Commerce's Bill Miller, who certainly did have the correct coordinates.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:04:27 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      QZ5

Ric said:  "The Itasca log sure implies that someone is using "QZ5" as a call
sign, and it's not a typo because it recurs half a dozen times."

Just because it appears a half dozen times doesn't mean that it was copied correctly, or that QZ5 was even the correct call sign.  From my days as a intell analyst it was not uncommon for our operators to copy a call sign one way and continue using that version until it became clear that it was wrong.  At that point the operator usually entered some note to the effect that call sign such-and-such should be thus-and-so.  The error was usually attributed to poor atmospherics, a ham-fisted keyer, weak signal, or some other anomaly outside the control of the operator.

It was also common that the incorrect call sign could go uncorrected for days on end, with the operators assuming what they heard earlier was correct and simply entered the incorrect call sign each time they heard that series of dits and dahs.  In such cases, it usually took a fresh set of ears to iron out the mistake.

The fact there is no indication by the operator(s) on the Itasca that QZ5 may be a garbled etc. call sign, lends proof to the theory that it was in fact copied correctly.  I just wanted to point out that mere repetition does not guarantee correctness.

LTM, who has lost her ears

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
****************************************************
From Ric

So noted.  Thanks.