Date:         Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:30:38 EST
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: FDR's press conferences

I must have missed something along the way:  1) What did you try to do in 1942 and why then - what prompted your interest again at that time?  2)  Who did you call - "that man"?
3)  Where were you working - "on the switchboard" - at the time?

Thanks,

Ted Campbell
********************************************************************
 From Ric

I'll try to answer this and trust Betty to correct me if I get it wrong. During the war Betty worked as an operator for the telephone company. In those days long distance calls were placed through an operator and, because there were many government installations in the Tampa/St. Pete area, Betty had frequent occasion to connect calls to Washington. In at least one instance, Betty took advantage of an opportunity to speak with a Washington official to tell him about her Earhart experience.  He said he would call back but never did.

Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:31:46 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re Greg's analysis

Greg writes

>since the proximate cause of the downing of the aircraft was fuel
>exhaustion

It is certainly true that all aircraft would be well advised to get their planes down before they exhaust their fuel we don't know that AE's plane was forced down due to lack of fuel. Fuel reserve analysis consistently comes up with adequate fuel to reach Nikumaroro. I've seen no evidence to suggest the plane ran out of fuel. Indeed, post loss radio messages are strong evidence it did not.

I agree with what I think you were implying and that is that there was nothing conspiratorial, complicated or mysterious about the loss of the flight. Rather it was a matter of simple error and misjudgment.

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

Date:         Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:48:02 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: FDR Interest In AE's Fate

I would guess that FDR got "dailys" from Morganthau who was most likely getting minute by minute updates as it was his Coast Guard out there looking for AE.

REB
********************************************************************
 From Ric

Fortunately, we don't have to guess.  The messages to Morgenthau and others from the Central Pacific are a matter of record.  They're all on the TIGHAR research CD available through the TIGHAR website.

Morgenthau asked for and received two reports from Itasca during the first few days of the search. After July 6 (after the 281 disappointment and after reports of post-loss messages had ceased) he disappears from the message list.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:50:00 EST
From:         Harvey
Subject:      Re Greg's analyis

Greg says:

> if, as suspected, she was
> far north of course, but believed she was on course, any "crossing" of
> the Morning sunline with a DF line, extended and moved for presumed
> speed and course would have been totally misleading.

Is there any evidence that the plane was "far north of course" at this time?

LTM,
harvey,2387
**************************************************************
From Ric

No.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:04:28 EST
From:         Jules Markel
Subject:      Screenplay

I was searching the internet last night and came across this article. Do you have any information regarding this screenplay?

http://www.sundayherald.com/26989

Thank you

Jules Markel
********************************************************
 From Ric

Earhart screenplays are a dime a dozen and rarely make it beyond the big-talk stage.  The article you reference is a year and a half old.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:40:40 EST
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Re Greg's analysis

Greg writes:

>Vacuum Tube equipment is inherently robust

I must strenuously disagree with that assertion.  The "robustness" of the vacuum tubes exceeds that of light bulbs only slightly.  Installed in a flexing, vibrating vehicle subject to static electricity and severe mechanical shock from turbulence and landings, I can see why Fred and Amelia didn't count on it's availability - in fact, didn't the radio frequently blow fuses, rendering it inoperative?  You have to remember that not just flight was new in the Thirties - the use of electricity in general, and radio in particular, were recent developments.  In a world of flip-phones, it's hard to remember that aircraft radios back then ranged in size from "suitcase" size to "wall locker" size, depending on power, capability, and intent to be serviced in flight.  The transistor shrank the "suitcase" models to "book" size, and the "wall locker" units to briefcase size. High density integrated circuits further shrank the "suitcase" size to "book of matches" size, and the "wall locker" to "playing card deck" size. Paradoxically, reliability greatly increased, and power requirements fell, while tolerance for physical abuse increased.  But back in Fred and Amelia's day, with the main transciever blowing fuses on a regular basis, I'm sure they felt that Fred would get them within 10 miles of Howland, and that they could find it from there, with the DF capability a "nice to have if it works" redundant luxury, IF the radios were up.  This assumption, alas, had fatal ramifications.

LTM,
Rich Young
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:44:54 EST
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      Col. Reineck responds

Ric,

>While you're considering IF and HOW you wish to respond"

You have such a condescending way with words.

Contrary to our expressed agreement, you are making statements in the form of questions reflecting pre-conceived answers, for the sole purpose of challenging me to debate, and demonstrating to your members how scholarly you are.

Earlier I said, that if you had a pre-determined or pre-judged answer to a question, don't waste my time.  It is quite obvious that you have deliberately disregarded my expressed wishes, consequently, you have invalidated our agreement.

Those who are helping Mr. Swindell have doctorates in forensic anthropology and are nationally recognized in the field of human identiication.  I will forward your message to Mr. Swindell so that he can advise them of the century-old study you note.  I am sure that they will find it - and you - remarkable.

Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI
***********************************************************************
 From Ric

I have done exactly what we both agreed to.  I have raised questions about assertions that you make in your book because I believe them to be demonstrably incorrect.  I have presented facts to support my challenges and I have given you the opportunity to show me that I'm wrong.

Like you, I have no desire to engage in a debate - that's why I have limited my questions to matters of discernible fact:

- I pointed out numerous problems with the supposed navigator advertisement (page 68) that reveal it as a clumsy hoax.  You offered nothing but your avowal that you believe it to be genuine.
- I challenged your claim to have solved the long-disputed question of whether Earhart had the correct coordinates for Howland Island by pointing out that 2,556 miles is not the distance from Lae to the correct Howland position, as you said it is on page 97 of your book.  This is not a question requiring great scholarship.  This is a simple question of how far it is from hither to yon. You have offered no response.
- I asked how Michael A. Lange, whoever he is, knows that Fred Noonan had a Second Class Commercial Radio Operator's license (page 95).  You haven't answered.
- I asked why you say (page 90) that Richard Black advised George Putnam about the high-frequency direction finder on Howland.  You haven't answered.

You appear to be particularly upset that I have now raised questions about the central premise of your book - that Irene Bolam was really Amelia Earhart. It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and I applaud Mr. Swindell for seeking the help of degreed professionals.  I think he needs it.  I agree with you that anyone with a doctorate in forensic anthropology should know that the Bertillion system was discredited a hundred years ago, but I have yet to see any public statement by a forensic anthropologist that supports the notion that Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam were the same person.

I'll continue to examine the statements you make in your book.  My offer to post your unedited replies stands.

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

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:53:12 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Re Greg's analysis

Harvey asked:

>Is there any evidence that the plane was "far north of course" at this
>time?

Harvey, I know of no evidence the Electra was very far from Howland in any direction. I've seen speculation that weather factors caused Noonan to DR from a long distance out which could result, obviously, in considerable error. But to the contrary no such weather factors have been shown.

If Noonan really had to DR for a long distance he would have known that on the expiration of his computed time to Howland he would have been, at best, somewhere in the general area. That was not the case, however. Earhart reported they must "be on you" implying to me, at least, Noonan thought he was dead on over Howland.

If that rationale holds up then it is most likely the plane was very close. Not close enough to be heard but possibly within sight yet unsighted due to maybe sun glare, haze, clouds or what have you. The strength of AE's radio calls also would indicate they were close rather than way off in any direction.

Certainly there is the possibility our heroes were quite far off course but there is clearly no evidence to support that idea.

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

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:53:26 EST
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: Re Greg's analysis

Was working on an anectdotal piece of info which seemed to infer she had some problems handling drift....was proceeding with the info she had a tendency to "fly left" of course, which would, had this been the situation have placed her north of Howland.  I am also working on the Itasca radio logs and the presumed max reception distance of the A/C at or before last contact.  If one takes the stance of the aircraft being beyond reception radius, this might have some standing. If, however, the comm problem was one of usable frequency, then one can't proceeed with that hypothethis.

Now, having some experience with comms in that part of the pond, I can tell yout that HF can tank in about 3 minutes..One second you have a good signal, and the next, it's faded into the background.  There is nothing quite so frustrating than to have worked with a shore  COMMSTA, gotten some good freqs worked out, and having them tank on you right after you have everything working perfectly again.  It's what makes RM's tear their hair out sometimes ;-)

If that WAS the case (left, or "north" of course), then any assumed position by crossing a sun line with a DR line would have been confusing.  Sinced DR, is, by definition, rather inexact, then if one "buys" a "true position" based on such a conjunction, then one can find themselves in deep trouble quickly.

73 de Greg WA3IVX/ NNN0BVN
Former RM1, USN
**********************************************************************
 From Ric

What evidence is there that Earhart had a tendency to fly left of course?
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:54:57 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Radio reliability

You're making a common mistake about "early life" in the U.S.

We had automatic transmissions in automobiles, television (electronic). FM radio, stereo sound, talking and color motion pictures (with some incredible special effects), "candid" (35 mm) cameras, etc. etc., although not all at the mass-market level.  Very sturdy vacuum tubes which could handle a lot of abuse too, which performed quite commendably in WW2.  I wouldn't call aircraft radio "sutcase size" either,  but admit the transistor and higher operating frequencies certainly resulted in a wave of minuturization. You should have been there!

Cam Warren
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:56:15 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Radio reliability

Greg writes:

>Vacuum Tube equipment is inherently robust

Rich writes:

>I must strenuously disagree with that assertion.

Isn't "robust" a comparative term, Rich? I'm missing how one could disagree without knowing what it is being compared with.

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

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:35:00 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Col. Reineck responds

As you all know, I refrained from posting any forum subscriber comments about the exchanges between me and Col. Reineck as long as the discussion was on-going.  Now that Rollin has withdrawn from the exchange I'll open the subject up for general forum discussion.
**********************************************************************

From Alan Caldwell

As most thought, Reineck is not going to respond to any question nor is he going to support any of his contentions. I, personally don't believe he can.

Since he will not defend his book is it not time to do a thorough review discrediting his material and post it for all to see?

Am I being too hard on Rolly?

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

I'm going to continue to raise questions and present facts here and on the TIGHAR website.
**********************************************************************
 From Lawrence

I realize that I'm a subscriber nobody and have little knowledge of the Earhart incident, but I would love to see you two professors debate your different views.
*********************************************************************
 From Ric

I am not a professor and neither is Rollin Reineck but he has written a book that makes numerous allegations which appear to be factually incorrect. On average about 1,200 people access the TIGHAR website each day for reliable information about the Earhart mystery.  We'll continue to provide that service.

*******************************************************************
 From Dennis McGee

Rollickin' Rollin Reineck said:  "You have such a condescending way with words. . . .  It is quite obvious that you have deliberately disregarded my expressed wishes, consequently, you have invalidated our agreement."

Golly, why am I so unsurprised that Rollie would take this tack. TIGHAR simply asks for sources for Rollie's "facts" and all he offers is a bunch of huffin' and puffin', and crocodile tears about how insulted he is that anyone would challenge him.  Rollie has been playing this tune for years, and any time I see his by-line on ANY aviation article I always ask myself, "I wonder if he got his facts straight this time?"

What I am surprised about is that Rollie even accepted the challenge. But then I assumed that living in Kailua, Hawaii, maybe he is used to taking the heat.  I guess I'm wrong.

LTM, who avoids hot places
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:38:10 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Directional finder capabilities

I was reading "Seizing The Enigma" by David Kahn and ran across this description on page 4 of circa 1940 directional finder accuracy. Thought it might be interesting to post:

"The directional finders of the time were not precise, however. Although the margin of error averaged 25 miles, it could range up to 60 miles 500 to 1,000 miles offshore."

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

Well...there were direction finders and direction finders.  Naturally the radios mounted on ships and airplanes had different capabilities than the big Adcock arrays that Pan American used.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:40:26 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Re Greg's analysis

Yeah, I guess they really "screwed the pooch" on this one...

(Appropriate references and accreditation on this one to "The Right Stuff)

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

There appears to have been plenty of canine intimacy by all parties involved in the Earhart debacle.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:12:48 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio reliability

>You should have been there!

Cam is dead on, Rich. We older folks were hardly living in the dark ages in the 30s and 40s. My Grandpa had HF bands on his Zenith, there was a round screen TV in the window of the little store down the way and we had phones, electricity and cars. Not everyone to be sure. Things have gotten smaller and better but stuff worked quite well.

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

I have resisted the temptation to title this thread Revenge of the Geezers.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:14:41 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re Greg's analyis

Greg wrote:

>Was working on an anectdotal piece of info which seemed to infer she  
>had some problems handling drift....was proceeding with the info she
>had a tendency to "fly left" of course

Greg, I don't recall reading anything about AE having a tendency to fly left of course. Where did I miss that?

On the inbound leg to Howland the winds were slightly from their starboard side if they were flying ENE as was expected. If that was the case and we don't know that it was Noonan's correct procedure would have been to shade to the port side if any side. He would hit his LOP sooner. I think Ric is of the opinion as I am that there was no intentional offset but rather Noonan aimed directly at his target. He apparently did not make a lot of course corrections and like most navigators I flew with allowed an off course condition to exist and then made one correction to destination.

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

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:19:59 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Col. Reineck responds

Anyway, what I wanted was to comment on this:

> Since he will not defend his book is it not time to do a thorough  
> review discrediting his material and post it for all to see?

Rather that "discredit" perhaps "examine" or "analyze" ?  It'll probably amount to the same thing, but I'd like TIGHAR to take a somewhat higher road.

- Bill #2229

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

..and I'll be in Scotland afore ye.

Setting out to discredit is as great an offense as setting out to prove.  We set out to find the facts and we follow wherever they lead.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:31:42 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      6210

Greg Moore wrote:

> ... I am also working on the
> Itasca radio logs and the presumed max reception distance of the A/C at
> or before last contact.  If one takes the stance of the aircraft being
> beyond reception radius, this might have some standing. If, however, the
> comm problem was one of usable frequency, then one can't proceeed with
> that hypothethis.
>
> Now, having some experience with comms in that part of the pond, I can
> tell you that HF can tank in about 3 minutes...

6210 seems not to have worked well for AE.  The Chater Report says that no transmission was heard from her on 6210 until 4 hours and 18 minutes into the flight:

"Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information, but local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible until 2.18 p.m. The Lae Operator heard the following on 6210 KC -"HEIGHT 7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS" and some remark concerning "LAE" then "EVERYTHING OKAY". The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it. The next report was received at 3.19  pm on 6210 KC- "HEIGHT 10000 FEET POSITION 150.7 east 7.3 south CUMULUS CLOUDS EVERYTHING OKAY". The next report received at 5.18 p.m. "POSITION 4.33 SOUTH 159.7 EAST HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS WIND 23 KNOTS".

"Miss Earhart had arranged to change to 3104 KC wave length at dusk, but signals were very strong and the plane was then called and asked not to change to 3104 KC yet as her signals were getting stronger and we should have no trouble holding signals for a long time to come. We received no reply to this call although the Operator listened for three hours after that on an 8-valve super-heterodyne Short Wave Receiver and both wave lengths were searched.

"It was presumed the plane had changed the wave to 3104, the reason for that being that Miss Earhart claimed it to be a better night wave than 6210 and had used it on her flight from United States to Hawaii previously."
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html

LTM.

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

It's interesting that Lae was unable to hear Earhart on 6210 until she was some distance (probably about 500 miles) away.  Chater thinks she changed frequencies at dusk but  Nauru heard the plane the plane later that night on 6210 when it must have been within about 100 miles.  Itasca heard nothing on 6210 the next morning when the plane was almost certainly within a similar distance of the ship.  Nauru heard what it believed was the plane again that evening on 6210 when it had to be close to 1,000 miles away.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:07:10 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Spades

Ric wrote:

>Setting out to discredit is as great an offense as setting out to
>prove.  We set out to find the facts and we follow wherever they lead.

Sorry but a spade is a spade.

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

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:10:38 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio reliability

>I have resisted the temptation to title this thread Revenge of the
>Geezers.

Thanks, Ric. I'm glad you didn't even mention the word Geezers. <G>

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

Heaven forbid.  What do you take me for, some kind of age-ist? <G>
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:11:41 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Reineck Q&A

Mr. Reineck, am I to understand that you are not going to respond to Ric's questions because you perceive that he is condescending? Condescending or not, don't you think the questions are legitimate?

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:26:19 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 6210

From the radio calls on 6210 it appears to me there was a "hole" between around 100 and 500 miles wherein that frequency was not heard. If such is the case it would well explain why Earhart was not heard on 6210 after leaving the Howland area -- if, in fact, none of the post loss messages refute that theory.

I suggested this long ago but then as now it is pure speculation on my part and based solely on the radio calls I'm aware of.

I would leave this to the radio guys to comment on the thought and to Ric in re the post loss radio messages. I have to assume the call Nauru heard when they were fairly close WAS indeed on 6210..................don't I?

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

By implication but not by direct statement.  Nauru was quite specific about hearing the post-loss transmissions on 6210 and said the voice was similar to that heard the night before when the plane was in flight, but the frequency was not mentioned.  Both occasions were after dark.

As for there being a "hole" in 6210:  way back in 1988 when we launched this project, Tom Gannon, one of the aerial navigators who first brought the Phoenix Islands theory to our attention, explained the silence after 0843 by citing his own extensive experience in that part of the world with that frequency. He said it was frequently the case that 6210 was no good for relatively short-range communications.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:36:12 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Radio reliability

One question, do we get Geezer T-Shirts?

73s 2640

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

I sense the beginnings of a movement.  We'd need a minumum order of 12 shirts at $20 each.  Someone (sure as hell not me) would need to define who is and is not a geezer and we'd need to know what you geezers want the shirt to say and/or show.  Geezers unite! You have nothing to lose but your cash!
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:54:09 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Radio reliability (sic)

I recommend all you geezers somehow incorporate the Irene Bolam picture into the geezer tee shirt design.

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

Hilarious but tasteless.

******************************************************
 From Bill Leary

It should say something about old hardware being more robust, perhaps with a picture of a vacuum tube on it and the TIGHAR web site URL.

I'll buy one.

- Bill #2229
********************************************************
 From George

Geezer = The Old Fart

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

I don't think we can put that on a shirt either.

***************************************************
 From Art Carty

I'm in as a proud member of the geezer brigade.

Art
**********************************************
 From Ric

That's two and we don't even have a design yet.  As for defining who is and isn't a geezer, that has to be up to the individual.  If you say you're a geezer, you're a geezer.

*******************************************
 From Marty Moleski

> Someone (sure as hell not me) would need to define who is and
> is not a geezer ...

Um, that's anybody with $20 in hand and a desire to buy a TIGHAR T-Shirt.

> ... and we'd need to know what you geezers want the shirt to say
> and/or show.

"Old age and treachery beats youth and skill every time."

I can't think of the right Amelia picture to go with this. Part of her charm is that she died while she was still so photogenic.

LTM.
Marty #2359
******************************************************
 From Alan

I don't think I'm going to like this whole thread.

Alan
***************************************************
 From Jon Watson

I just sent in my membership renewal at the hundred dollar level, and the form says I get a tee shirt.  Can I have a Geezer Tee, since I didn't specify??? Otherwise, send me the regular Tighar Tee, and I'll pony up for the GT...

ltm
jon
***************************************************
 From Ric

Happy to oblige if we get at least 12 orders and do the geezer shirt. We'll count this as the third order.

****************************************************
 From Dennis McGee

Ric said:  I sense the beginnings of a movement.  Someone (sure as hell not me) would need to define who is and is not a geezer  . . ."

Geezer: a person who remembers watching The Mickey Mouse Club, live; one who drove (drives) only Ford, Chevy or Chrysler products; one who had a family member or friend or friend of a friend etc. who was a milk delivery man; one who achieved adulthood without eating at McDonald's; one who has rooted for "Yukon" Eric, "Chest" Bernard, or "Gorgeous" George.  I'm sure the forum will add a few more, but those all work for me.

As for a logo:   a disheveled, toothless tiger wearing a safari jacket with sectionals, maps, "exploration" paraphernalia hanging out of the pockets etc climbing into a battered, patched, sagging Electra 10E . . .  but I can't think of a decent caption that isn't sexist, age-ist or appropriate for a Super Bowl half time show.

LTM, GEEZERS RULE!
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

I think we'll stick with the self-definition standard.  Maybe a winking toothless tiger and Marty's "Old age and treachery beats youth and skill every time." ????
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:55:09 EST
From:         Hilary
Subject:      Re: Col. Reineck responds

Mr. Reineck, Providing  the evidence for your "factual "claims made in your book surely must delight you. Here are a group of people so interested into how you came to these conclusions and you wont defend them.....If someone told me to defend my claims I would go to the Nth degree to prove my statements. It really doesn't look very validating  on your part..

Hilary
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:59:15 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re Greg's analysis

AE having a tendency of drifting to the left. Or port if you like. Is this the latest thread ? Most aircraft engines (unless British-built up to WW II types) have propellers turning to the right. Because the blades going down provide more thrust than the ones going up, propellers will provide asymmetric some thrust. This causes aircraft to have a tendency to begin turning to the opposite direction, which is to the left. Left to their own devices aircraft without a pilot will bank to the left and continue to do so in ever decreasing circles losing altitude until they crash. Very few aircraft fly without pilots. Therefore there is normally someone in the aircraft who flies and know all about this. One has to be a very, very poor pilot not to be familiar with the phenomenon and forget keeping on course ! It's the sort of thing that sometimes happens to student pilots flying VFR cross country for the very first time and keep studying their map too long. When they look up again without checking their compass and they're flying over a featureless landscape they will be a few degrees off course (to the left) without noticing it. It's the kind of thing we have all experienced on our first cross country fight, I guess. It's one of the first things young pilots learn. It shows the difference between the pilot and the student pilot. Surely by 1937 AE was beyond that stage. I've been told that the difference between a pilot and a non-pilot is that "a pilot has a compass in his head".

By the way, do I remember right that by 1939 Lockheed began building P-38s with contra-rotating propellers ?

LTM (who always said that flying is about remaining on course)
*******************************************************************
 From Ric

First flight of the XP-38 was on January 27, 1939
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:00:55 EST
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: FDR's press conferences

Thanks Ric.  What prompted Betty to think of AE at the time, if she recalls?

Ted Campbell

*******************************************
 From Betty

Ric you answered Mr. Campbell like I would have ....The answer to why I did it at that time, tell him I was getting the last of my private license hours and ready to get my commercial then head for the ferry comand service...that is why I was working to pay for lessons at Rex McDonalds Flying school at the Albert W. Field in St. Pete ...I felt like I should try one more time, to tell that I had heard her ,,,BB
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:16:12 EST
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      Re: Re Greg's analysis

Herman said

>Because the blades going down
>provide more thrust than the ones going up, propellers will provide
>asymmetric some thrust. This causes aircraft to have a tendency to begin
>turning to the opposite direction

Why would a rising propellor blade produce anymore or less thrust/lift than a downward traveling one, or vertical for that matter?

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

It doesn't, of course.  The tendency of a propeller-driven aircraft to veer to one side is due to a combination of gyroscopic forces generating by the whirling mass of the prop and the effect of the rotating prop-wash on the vertical stabilizer.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:30:27 EST
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: Radio reliability (sic)

Can't resist this.  By stealing a line from a computer list of jokes about "you know you're old when.......", I will suggest this; "You're an old geezer if a photo of AE causes your pacemaker to open the garage door."

Or maybe "A photo of AE causes my pacemaker to open the garage door!

Anyway......I've signed up for another year, the check is in the mail. I'll decide about the tee shirt later.

Jerry Ellis #2113

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

 From Alan

You guys are starting to worry me.

Alan
***********************************************************
 From Jim Preston

Hey Ric, I qualify under Dennis' criteria. I'll buy one. I feel bad since I was in Viet Nam not WW II or Korea.
Jimbo
**********************************************************
 From Ric

That's four.  I've always had a crushing sense of guilt about missing the War of 1812.
********************************************************
 From Ron Berry

Old geezers never die they are just lost on islands. I will buy one.
**********************************************************
 From Ric

I think that's five, unless I counted you before.  Can't remember.  Must be getting old.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:32:41 EST
From:         Bill Prymak
Subject:      Re: Re Greg's analysis

Rollin..could agree with you (and Herman) more.......bill

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

???????????
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:35:13 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Col. Reineck responds

Hilary wrote:

>Mr. Reineck, Providing the evidence for your ,"factual" claims made  
>in your book surely must delight you. Here are a group of people so interested  
>into how you came to these conclusions and you wont defend them.

We need to give Col. Reineck a little more slack. He had an honorable career in the U.S. military and lived the entire time under the honor code. An officer's word was his bond. No lies, no quibbling, no lies by omission. That was our charter.

Col Reineck worked very hard on his book I am certain and must be very proud of his work. He most clearly would not sully his hard earned reputation by misrepresenting facts. I think we should rest assured that Col Reineck would want his book to be as factual as possible since it bears his name. We all get our feathers ruffled when we are challenged but when the smoke clears Col Reineck will defend his allegations, his book and his good name. He is no different than all of us and if there are problems with his facts he would be the first to want to know so that they can be corrected in the next edition. That may require a healthy debate and if an allegation can be clearly refuted it will no doubt be changed and if any of his allegations cannot be clearly refuted they must stand as written. Some allegations may require a caveat that there is no certainty or that it is the author's measured opinion I would assume.

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

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:35:59 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      P-38s

Some of the first P-38's didn't but the production models had conter-rotating props.
Jimbo
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:45:12 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Re Greg's analysis

Regarding the drift to the left, it seems logical to me that one of the things AE could have done was to compensate for such drift movement by adjusting rudder trim, and / or adjusting the Sperry Gyropilot.

ltm
jon
*******************************************************************
 From Ric

In my experience there are precise pilots and sloppy pilots and every shade of gray in between, but I've never known any pilot who had a consistent tendency to drift one way or the other.  Earhart often missed her intended destination but sometimes she ended up left of course (when she landed in Ireland in '32) and other times she ended up to the right of course ( enroute to Mexico City in '35, enroute to Hawaii in March '37, enroute to Africa in June '37).
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:46:26 EST
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: FDR's press conferences

Thanks Betty/Ric.

I hope I haven't opened up a can of worms here.  I didn't realize that Betty had some aviation background.

Ted
**************************************************************
 From Ric

I see no worms in that can.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:56:55 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re Greg's analysis

Herman wrote:

> AE having a tendency of drifting to the left. Or port if you like. Is
> this the latest thread ?

I suspect Greg's idea that Earhart had a tendency to the left might be based on the behavior on reaching the African coast early in the flight.

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

The chart used for that flight, with Noonan's course lines and notations, is on file at Purdue.  It shows very clearly that Earhart's description of the events as represented to the press and later in Last Flight are not true.  The flight was right of course and turned left, as it should have, upon reaching the coast.  Dakar was intentionally bypassed, probably due to low visibility. Earhart's silly me tale about turning the wrong way against Noonan's advice may have been intended to deflect problems from French officialdom associated with landing at an airport that was not an "airport of entry".
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:06:07 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Shoes sequel?

Any news on when the sequel to "Amelia Earhart's Shoe" is due out?

LTM,

Mike Haddock #2438
****************************************************
 From Ric

Tom King may be able to answer that.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:40:52 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Re Greg's analysis

Kent Johnson wrote:

> Why would a rising propellor blade produce anymore or less thrust/lift  
> than a downward traveling one, or vertical for that matter?
>
> From Ric
> It doesn't, of course.  ...

Ric is right when the airplane is flying at zero angle of attack.

When the aircraft is nose-high, the surfaces of the propeller present themselves to the oncoming airstream at a different angle of attack, causing different effective pitch on one side and the other.  This is called "p-factor" or "asymmetric disk loading."
<http://www.lasoaring.com/images/What_is_P_factor.doc>

LTM.

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

I didn't know that.  Thanks Marty.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:18:30 EST
From:         Al Hillis
Subject:      Re: Col. Reineck responds

I must concur and agree with Dave's feelings. In fact, I would feel much better if were you aplogized to Col. Reineck for your attack on his books and beliefs. I'll call a spade a spade and I don't give a damn about your sourpuss attitude to anyone that disagrees with you. If you wish to block me from the forum, fine. I enjoy all that I read but some times find you less credable when you 'mouth off' and attack those with the same interests. Fact is you don't know where Amelia is any more  than Col Reineck, me or anyone else.

You are not an old Geezer but you do sometimes appear as a angry old man.

Respectfully, but honestly,
A Hillis
  ********************************************************************
 From Ric

Forgive me but I'm a bit confused about whose feelings you agree with. Nobody named Dave has posted recently and your posting included as "original message" Alan's discourse about Rollin Reineck having been a military officer, etc. etc.

Let me say again that I am not attacking anyone's beliefs.  Everyone is free to believe anything they want, but writing and publishing a nonfiction book carries an obligation to present information that is - well - not fiction.  When Col. Reineck's book was published and was uncritically reviewed by the Los Angles Times I received several inquiries from people asking if I agreed with Col. Reineck's conclusions.  I ordered a copy of his book and read it. Many of the factual assertions he made were contrary to the information available to me.  I wrote to him, told him I was skeptical, and asked if he would publicly answer questions I have about statements of fact he makes in his book. He agreed.  The rest is history.

I assure you that I am neither an old man nor an angry one.  I am delighted with our progress in TIGHAR's Earhart investigation.  I am constantly impressed and humbled by the intellect and competence of the scholars and scientists who are working with us on this puzzle.  But I will admit that I am greatly reassured when those who espouse competing theories produce work of the quality of Col. Reineck's book.

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

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:32:32 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Did I forget?

Yes, sign me up for the new TIGHAR Geezer Garb Collection.  First a T-shirt, then the Geezer Garb orthopedic shoes, then the Geezer Garb walkers, and later still, Geezer Garb diapers.  Ain't it great, pushing 58.

LTM, who Depends on your donations
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************
 From Ric

(pssst Dennis.... you're middle-aged.  Just a kid really.)
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:39:59 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      off topic P-38

If my memory serves correctly, The first P 38's props turned outward, some British ordered models had them turning the same way, but the majority turned inward.
***************************************
 From Ric

Awright, to end this thread:

The props on the XP-38 turned inwards. The props on the YP-38 (first production model) and subsequent variants turned outwards.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:40:58 EST
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      P-factor

I should've known that!  Thanks, Marty!!
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:46:18 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Bob Ballard and Amelia?

I see in the March 2004 edition of Air Classics that Bob Ballard is alleged to be preparing to look for Amelia et. al.  Here are the first two paragraphs of the story, the rest of which was about the airplane's history.

There is no mention of any supporting ships or aircraft, which would make working and living out there a tad dicey.  I know those Catalinas had long legs, but even they couldn't make an unrefueled round trip between Howland and what ever civilized place he is staging from.

Good luck, Bobby.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Catalina to Search for Amelia

PBY5A being rebuilt for unique mission

Famed oceanographic researcher Robert Ballard (of Titanic fame) has been undertaking an extensive exploration regarding the ever-intriguing disappearance of aviators Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, and their Lockheed 10 during an  around-the-world flight.  While details are still secret, Ballard and his team have apparently found a very positive reading on what could be the remains of the Lockheed on the ocean floor "somewhere off Howland Island." Could one of the last great aviation mysteries be solved?

Well, we will probably know some time this year.  At Greybull, Wyoming, work is nearing completion on the rebuild of Consolidated PBY-5A (N314CF), which is owned by one of Ballard's partners and will be the principal aircraft in the final hunt for Amelia (a USN PBY did participate in the initial search for the missing Lockheed).

<snip Data and history of the aircraft>

LTM, a long-legged beauty herself
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

This is truly bizarre and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but then Air Comics is not what you'd call an authoritative source.  We'll have to find out what, if anything, is really going on.  I have a hunch.  Film at 11.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:49:12 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: p-factor

Kent asked:

> Why would a rising propellor blade produce anymore or less thrust/lift
> than a downward traveling one, or vertical for that matter?

Ric said:

> It doesn't, of course.

Actually it does. The situation being described occurs to a very limited extent in level flight dependent on the aircraft attitude as dictated by c of g, speed etc. However, it only noticeably occurs at take-off  in taildragger where the propeller disc is inclined to the airflow. The downward moving blade sweeps forward with respect to the airflow and the rising blade, backwards. The result is a differential thrust on each side of the propeller axis which will tend to turn the aircraft. This is a problem which tends to show itself when taking off on a slippery surface and will make the aircraft tend to turn until the tail comes up. However, in level flight the effect will be trivial unless the plane is very heavily loaded or the c of g too far back and flying at low speed.

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

I stand corrected (again).
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:50:04 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Attacks? What attacks?

Mr. Hills, or Hillis (it is spelled both ways in your note):

Please tell me EXACTLY what Ric should apologize for. Do this by cutting and pasting the EXACT quote in Ric's words that merits an apology. I ask this in all sincerity, with no sarcasm. From where I sit, I noted that Ric asked tough but legitimate questions, that have gone unanswered. He attacked nothing, he attacked no one. I am eager to learn of Mr. Reineck's evidence, and he, so far, won't provide it. For example, why will Reineck not tell us who Michael Lang is? Or what proof Mr. Lang has that Noonan had a Second Class Commercial Radio Operator license? We are interested in these things, and I, for one, am disappointed by Reinecks's withdrawal from the discussion and refusal to answer.

I submit that the solution to the AE mystery will be brought about by studying facts, not by subscribing to beliefs.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson, PE
TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:56:43 EST
From:         Al Hillis
Subject:      Re: Col. Reineck responds

Thank you for a quick and response reply.

My mistake, it was Alan and not Dave I was referring too. I want to apologize for not identifying that my remark was to you and you only. I have since upped you integrity and will ensure anything of nature related to you will be to you and you only. I meant not for my feelings to go openly and discredit you in front of the forum.

Keep up the good work and forgive some of us old geezers.

BTW, FYI,  I worked as a consultant at Lockheed headquarters in Burbank during the early 80s. At that time and no reason to think it will have changed. There were parts of Amelia's old plane on the hanger wall. It was a replacement or damaged part and I want to think it was of a wing spar or part thereof. Also alongside of it was a wing spar from Wiley Post's old plane and other age old parts. Lockheed has an extraordinary library on site and they will bend over backwards to assist any and all questions addressed to them. At one time they went back and reduced some original drawings ('D' size) to 'B' and 'C' just for me when I was building a 1/4 scale P-38. I can't help to believe they may have some drawing that might help you in identifying parts of Amelia's plane. As I know you to be very detailed please let me know if I can give you more detail.

I am also in possession of a never published photo taken of Amelia in Kansas at an acquaintances home that I would be glad to share when I can find it.

Again, my apologies in front of the forum.

Respectfully
Al HIllis
*************************************************************
 From Ric

No apology necessary.  I take my hits in public.  It goes with the job.

This is the first I've heard of any parts of AE's plane on the wall at Burbank as late as the 1980s.  When we began the project in 1988 I met with the then-head of Corporate Communications at the then-headquarters in Calabasas, CA. The company was very forthcoming with what photos and information they had.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:05:25 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio reliability (sic)

Oh, well, it's a worthy cause. Count me in.

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

Thanks but, even so, we're only up to 7 Geezer shirts (I think).  We need at least twelve orders to make it worth doing the artwork, having the screen cut, producing the shirts, mailing them, etc.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:06:12 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: FDR's press conferences

Betty you wrote the following:

>Ric, that was interesting about what the President said at the
>press cons. all I remember is it was the talk around town

Betty could you elaborate more on your comment " it was the talk around town"

Respectfully:

Tom Strang  # 2559
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:50:46 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      KHABQ

In "Soaring Wings" by GP , he closes , p 285, with the last words of AE heard by the Coast Guard:

"KHABQ came through somewhere near Howland Island: 'circling....cannot see island... Gas is running low.'"

Everyone else knew her call letters were KHAQQ except GP. I hope ITASCA got the call letters straight!

But GP refers twice in the book to KHABQ (sic).

My book is a first edition (1949), but GP should have got that one right.

Recall also that Nina Paxton, who claimed she heard post loss msgs, also said quite emphatically that the call letter she heard was "KHABQ". Odd unless, Paxton read Putnam's book.

I think it was also odd that GP used the above call letters some two years after the event.

LTM,
Ron B.
******************************************************************
 From Ric

Thanks Ron.  You may have just solved part of the Paxton mystery.

I think you'll find that KHABQ was the call sign of AE's Vega on the 1935 Honolulu/Oakland flight.  Apparently GP just got mixed up.

As you suggest, his error may explain Paxton's insistence in correspondence with Goerner that she heard those letters.  In the July 9,1937 article in the Ashland Daily Independent she is quoted as saying that Earhart prefaced her transmission with "KHAQQ calling, KHAQQ calling.   She does not mention hearing any call sign in her 1943 letter Walter Winchell and in her 1943 correspondence with the U.S. Navy she says she heard call letters but doesn't say what they were.

Given that Nina had the call letters right in 1937 and that her claim of hearing KHABQ does not emerge until well after Putnam's book was published, it seems reasonable to suppose that she read the book and "corrected" her memory.

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

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:56:14 EST
From:         Doc Holloway
Subject:      Re: Radio reliability (sic)

As a certified old geezer please count me in on the shirt.  That should be number eight.

LTM, Who never wore a t-shirt
Doc
*************************************
From Greg Moore

Hey, count me in on this.....I do believe that at 57 qualify as an official geezer, since I operate CW (heaven forbid), and have spent many happy hours using vacuum tube equipment both in the military and as a civilian....I even have used vacuum tube aircraft radio while flying, so that makes me a geezer, I do believe.....

Greg
Former RM1, USN, and soon to be TIGHAR member, just gotta send the funds in LOL
******************************************************
From Mike Holt

Put me down for one. I'm only 54, but I try to plan ahead.

Mike Holt
**************************************************

From Bert

My wife claims I am a Geezer.  Count me in.
*****************************************************

From Ric

That's 11.  Close enough.  We'll work up some artwork and put it on the website. I'll all you geezers know when it's up (the artwork that is).
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:59:54 EST
From:         Hilary
Subject:      Re: p-factor

When you are flying a prop driven aircraft at a high angle attack the descending blade takes a greater bite of air than the ascending blade on the other side...It is caused by a higher angle of attack for the descending blade than the ascending one. This creates an asymmetrical thrust (P-Factor) The descending blade is usually on the right so the P-factor makes the aircraft yaw to the left about its vertical axis.

P-factor is most prominent at Full power at high angles of attack ..In straight and level flight it is hardly noticeable as  both the ascending and descending blades are  almost at the same angle of attack and are producing the same amount of thrust. HH

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

Thanks Hil.  And all these years I've thought that the p-factor was what determined the maximum duration of any given flight in a light aircraft.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:27:06 EST
From:         Bill Hillier
Subject:      Re: off topic P-38

At Williams Air Force Base in Arizona during WWII, we had a number of early P-38's, which were at that time designated YP 322's. They were supposedly from a batch of 50 ordered by the British who refused to accept them because the props were not counter-rotating, causing the planes to pull out only to the right when diving. THese planes were available for pilot training. A second person could ride behind the pilot if all the radio equipment was removed.

Bill Hillier 2264
*****************************************
 From Ric

You're absolutely right.  I did some more digging.  According to Francillon ("Lockheed Aircraft since 1913") in April 1940 the Anglo-French Purchasing Committee ordered a batch of 667 Lightnings.  They wanted to standardize the engines so they stipulated that all of the engines be the same non-turbocharged version of the Allison V-1710 used on the Curtiss P-40s they had also ordered.  This, of course meant no counter-rotating engines. The airplane was designated the Model 322.  Then France fell, and the Brits took over the entire contract.  When the British tested the first three airplanes built under the contract they found them unacceptable and got into a huge dispute with Lockheed resulting in cancellation of the contract.  Only 20 airplanes were ultimately built with same-way turning engines and these went to Williams Air Force Base as P-322s just as Bill says.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:33:08 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Over the top

Ric said:  "That's 11.  Close enough.  We'll work up some artwork and put it on the website."

Ric, you know "close" counts only in horse shoes and grenades.  So to make us "officially" over the top, make my order for TWO TIGHAR Geezer Garb t-shirts.  That ups us to 12, right?   I'm sure I can find another geezer to share it with.  Or maybe I'll get two different sizes -- XL and XXL -- to plan for the future.

LTM, a wet T-shirt winner in '36
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
**********************************
From Ric

What a guy.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:41:13 EST
From:         Kent Johnson
Subject:      p-factor

I would agree with Ric on this one, but thanks to Hilary for the info.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:18:41 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Did I forget?

> (pssst Dennis.... you're middle-aged.  Just a kid really.)

Well then, I'm out.  I'll be 48 this year.

Maybe it's just that *feel* so old?

     - Bill
*****************************************
From Ric

We won't deny a shirt to anyone who wants one.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:23:31 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Geezers and HF

Since I flew C-97's which had an RCA HF  which was all tubes that makes me a geezer I guess. Order me one. We had very little trouble with our HF's probably due to the long antenna. On the groun during a radio check you couldn't get one locally but always from somewhere away. ie TRAVIS AFB, we would get Hickam Radio clear. I have been interested in watching the talk on freqs. I was taught , by Navigators, that the higher the Sun the higher the freq. It worked very well in the Pacific, we always had to search freq's in the Triangle.

JImbo
PS Good info on the P-38's
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:27:07 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Radio reliability (sic)

Ric,

> Thanks but, even so, we're only up to 7 Geezer shirts (I think).  We need at
> least twelve orders to make it worth doing the artwork, having the screen
> cut, producing the shirts, mailing them, etc.

I'll take two.

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

Thanks.  Rather then try to keep track of everyone who has said they'd order one or more shirts we'll put the design and the order form up on the website and do it that way.  I'll let everyone know when it's ready to go.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:29:08 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: KHABQ

There is also a possibility AE mistakenly used her old Vega call sign under the stress of those final hours. Radio announcers changing jobs and stations often came out with the wrong call ID.

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

The possibility is there but the evidence isn't.  No contemporaneous account of post-loss messages mentions the KHABQ call sign.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:32:41 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Shoes sequel?

The epilogue to "Shoes" has been written, subject to updates between now and press time, and thanks to several dedicated volunteers all the index items have been checked and corrected.  I'm waiting on an electronic copy of the original final from the publisher to finalize the corrected index, make a few minor corrections in the original text, replace some awful photos, and add in the epilogue.  The publisher has been delayed in part because they have several hundred copies of the first edition still on hand, and their marketing people aren't wild about a second edition when they haven't sold out the first. Hopefully this will be worked out soon.

Tom
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:34:02 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

In talking with the A&E that does my aircraft inspections, I found out he did some work on Grace McGuire's Electra 10E back in the early 1980's.  He replaced the rotted plywood floorboard in the cockpit.  He said at the time it was in pretty bad shape and the entire instrument panel was missing.  He said he had to remove and re-install a lot of stuff in the cockpit to do the floorboard replacement work.  I described what a "dado" looked like and asked him if he recalled seeing anything that may have looked similar.  He commented that after 50+ years a lot of things get removed and added to an airplane, and therefore many original factory installed components may have disappeared years ago.  He did not remember seeing anything that looked like the "dado" as I described it.

Since he had never heard of TIGHAR, I explained to him what TIGHAR is all about and why I was asking my questions about the dados.  Tonight I sent him links to Tighar webpages with the pictures and detailed analysis of the dados found on Nikumaroro.  I asked him to take a look and see if he can notice anything that looks familiar and can give any feedback about what he remembers from working on McGuire's 10E.   I'll let you know if he tells me anything significant.

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

Thanks Tom.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:35:44 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: p-factor

Ric wrote

> Thanks Hil.  And all these years I've thought that the p-factor was what
> determined the maximum duration of any given flight in a light aircraft.

Yeah, I also experienced that same p.....factor in a heavy aircraft: a domestic Philippine Airline flight in a first generation 727 (I think the serial number was 3 or 4) between Manila and Cebu in the mid 80s.

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

Date:         Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:36:25 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Bob Ballard and Amelia?

If there is any truth to the Air Classics article, I REALLY think it is time Dr. Ballard retired. After winning the world championship, exhibition games (like his PT 109 gig) are anticlimactic at best.

LTM (who retired decades ago)
Kerry Tiller
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:13:22 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Did I forget?

Ric wrote:

> We won't deny a shirt to anyone who wants one.

I hope not, since I'm one of your twelve qualifiers.

- Bill #2229
*****************************************************
 From Jim

My wife says people like me are more more of a "middlescent" than geezer.

Jim Young (a young, more adolescent-like than cantankerous, 57 year-old)
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:23:58 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: KHABQ

Ric wrote:

>The possibility is there but the evidence isn't.  No contemporaneous  
>account of post-loss messages mentions the KHABQ call sign.

Correct. I didn't make my point clear. The point is that even if someone thought they heard the KHABQ call sign there is little or no significance to that. We have enough mysteries without inventing new ones.

Psychics, Gervais', Reinecks and mistakes do little to move the ball forward.

We have a lot of good evidence, in my opinion, that DOES move the ball forward. Each piece of evidence can be easily attacked by our heretic friends as well as ourselves. Those who oppose don't seem to comprehend that we have shot at our own evidence with far more expertise than they have exhibited so far. They have not pointed out anything we don't already know.

What they don't want to deal with is the totality of evidence. There is an incredible amount of indicators and to be able to discredit ALL of it defies rationality.

It is true we have made assumptions which set our opposition into orbit and those assumptions certainly could be incorrect but logic and/or other support lends weight to their validity whereas only opinion and illogical reasoning supports their falsity. Validity wins.

An example might be the 0800 GMT radio report from AE claiming to be at 12,000 feet. Probably did not happen.

On the one side we have many books and web pages citing that radio call. Each are in identical context leading one to believe they are all repetitions of the same source.

On the other side we have the fact that on the hour AE was supposed to be listening not transmitting. Her transmission schedule was 18 past the hour. Secondly such a radio call WAS made on another flight which was probably the original mistaken source.

Elgin and others have repeatedly written about the great circle route from Lae outbound but we know that is not what they did. They flew slightly ESE to a reported set of coordinates and then to another reported set of coordinates before continuing on their route. There is a lot of significance to that and should be reported correctly.

Our fuel reserve assumptions also drive our crashed and sank folks crazy and they offer all kinds of reasons it is incorrect without any evidence whatsoever. Only opinions. Well, we may be incorrect but the weight of the known evidence is on our side and there is none in opposition.

We may well need a book of our own, Ric, to set the record straight. Showing what is in concrete and what is at least supported and that there is NO evidence, only opinion, to the contrary.

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

>An example might be the 0800 GMT radio report from AE claiming to be at
>12,000 feet. Probably did not happen.

Huh?  Never heard of such a thing.  Who claims that?

Of course, "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" by Tom King et al describes the project up until about four years ago and there will be a new edition out soon with updated information, but it is precisely because we keep learning more and more about what is true and what is not that I have put off writing my own book (or books) on the subject - but that day will come and it's not far off.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:32:52 EST
From:         Marion Grimes
Subject:      Re: Shoes sequel?

What about us who raced out to get the book? Are you going to have an addendum available for us?
Cheapskate Scotsman
**********************************************************
 From Ric

Aye.  Ye'll hae the pleesure of pairchusing the oopdated vairsion and the great satisfaction and pride of owning a copy of the original edition.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:35:10 EST
From:         Charlie
Subject:      Bones Search

How remote is the probablility that the bones and other artifacts were in the four trunks containing Gallagher's belongings that were shipped to his mother in England in 1945? Where are the trunks and contents now?

Thanks, Charlie
**********************************************************
 From Ric

I'll let our dynamic duo Marty and Roger answer that one.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:35:58 EST
From:         Betty Brown
Subject:      Re: FDR's press conferences

Tom , All I remember is.. there was a time a year or so after I heard Amelia, that I  never tried to give any more info about it, because I had heard the Pres. said to stop ....Not just to me, but to the people.....I can't remember just how I heard about it ...radio or news paper, but it was talked about when people got together..Betty
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:51:31 EST
From:         RE Bennett
Subject:      Brink's book

As a new correspondent with your organization, I am wondering if you could ask the discussion group or answer it yourself the following question: Has the contents of the Randall Brink book: "Lost Star", 1994, WW Norton, Co, New York ever been verified as to the factual allegations of the Earhart plane being upgraded by Lockheed after the Hawaii crash and the aerial photo of the plane on Taroa Island taken by the US Forces in 1944?

RE Bennett
***********************************************************************
 From Ric

Brink's allegations have been thoroughly discredited.  Official records and numerous photos show that the only "upgrading" of the Electra following the Hawaii crash was some beefing up of the landing gear attach points, later model Hamilton Standard propeller hubs and a few other minor changes.  The engines remained the same.

The airplane in the aerial photo of Taroa is probably a Kawasaki Type LO (Allied codename "Thelma") transport - a license-built copy of the Lockheed Model 14 "Super Electra" that was common in Japanese service.

Brink's book is arguably the most factually inaccurate of all Earhart books (quite a distinction) - but that record may not stand.

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

Date:         Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:37:30 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones Search

Charlie asked:

> How remote is the probablility that the bones and
> other artifacts were in the four trunks containing
> Gallagher's belongings that were shipped to his mother
> in England in 1945?

I'd say there is no chance that the bones and other things were IN Gallagher's trunks.  The Western Pacific High Commission (WPHC) kept an inventory of what they were intending to ship to GBG's mother.

In my imagination--and solely as an act of speculation--it seems not entirely improbable that the bone coffin and the sextant box with shoe parts and corks inside might have gotten bundled together into one box or trunk at some point in time.  It's also not inconceivable to me that they would have been in the same trunk room where GBG's things were kept for the duration of the war.

> Where are the trunks and contents
> now?

I wish we knew.

Gallagher's great nephew thinks that the trunks might have gotten lost in transit.  The only record we have is a letter from the WPHC asking a shipping company to pick up the four tin trunks from the office and transport them to England.  We don't have--or, I should say, we haven't seen any evidence yet--of either the pickup or the delivery of the trunks. I assume that the pickup and delivery went OK; GBG's nephew thinks it did not.

When Roger and I were in Suva, I went to the shipping company.  There I was met by Foua Tofiga's daughter, who is the Company secretary (not a clerical worker, but a person of some standing with the board of directors).  She and I both laughed at the oddity of me arriving on her doorstep by pursuing this particular line of inquiry--she said she'd been avoiding TIGHAR since 1999.

The shipping company's records do not go back to 1945, when the original request was sent from the WPHC to them.  The company has been sold and/or has merged several times since then, and it seems unlikely that we could ever get the records of the original transaction.  They apparently do not have a warehouse with undelivered materials, just waiting for a balding, overweight Jesuit or an ex-Sergeant from LA to explore.

Cleaning out Gallagher's trunks is one of the dozen or so "turning points" in the history of the WPHC that I speculate could have been the moment when the two boxes from Gardner were discarded.  The war was nearly over and someone was clearly taking care of business at headquarters, working through some kind of list of things to do when peace came.  The strongest argument against the idea that the bones were discarded in 1945 is that the filing system was intact and a note should have been made in the 1940 bones file.  But people mkae mstikaes.

LTM.

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

Date:         Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:40:25 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      questions

Ric said:  "Brink's book is arguably the most factually inaccurate of all Earhart books (quite a distinction) - but that record may not stand."

Which begs the question  . . . ah . . .well, you know what it is.

LTM, who has no need to beg
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:40:56 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: FDR's press conferences

Betty,

I appreciate your quick response and clarification regarding my question - Thank You!

Respectfully:

Tom Strang  # 2559
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:00:49 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

After looking at the "dado" pictures and information on the Tighar website, my A&E friend that worked on McGuire's Electra 10E back in the 1980s sent me the following e-mail :

"Thank you for the info.  The airplane I worked on had no interior and it was many years ago that I had any contact.  The photos do look like airplane parts, but I do not recognize any of them."

Downside:  After spending considerable time in the Electra replacing the rotten plywood floor board, he had plenty of time to notice if there were any dados.  He states that he does not recognize any of the dados as depicted in photos on the Tighar website.   He also indicates the airplane had no interior in the early 1980s.  Therefore, it is highly doubtful a current inspection of McGuire's 10E will find any remaining dados still attached to the airframe.

Upside: At least we've now got a professional opinion that the Tighar dados "do look like airplane parts"

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

Heck, we had professional opinions way back in 1989 that the artifact we found on the first trip to Niku was not only an airplane part but specifically a dado.  The 2003 team merely found more of them near the same spot where we found the first one.

We also have photos that show that at least some Electras back in the 1930s had dados installed in the cabin, but we can't see enough detail to tell if they were just like our dados.  So:

- We know we have dados.
- We know that at least some Electras had dados.

What we don't yet know is whether original Electra dados were just like our dados.  That's why we're tracking down old Electra wrecks.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:19:00 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Brink's book

Ric wrote:

>Brink's book is arguably the most factually inaccurate of all Earhart
>books (quite a distinction) - but that record may not stand.

I would argue that Donahue's "The Earhart Disappearance: The British Connection" would give Brink's book a run for the money!

LTM,

Dave (#2585)

P.S. Last week, there was some discussion of something Bob Ballard was up to with a PBY... Willing to put forth any speculation about what's he might be planning?
******************************************************************
 From Ric

Yeah, I have to agree.  It's a toss up between Brink and Donahue.

As to Ballard - first of all let's remember that we don't know that Ballard is planning anything.  What we have is an allegation in a notoriously inaccurate magazine that claims that Ballard is involved in an Earhart search with a "partner" who has a PBY under rebuild in Greybull, Wyoming.

I'm aware of no statement from Ballard but I do know that the airplane under rebuild in Wyoming is owned by New Mexico millionaire Mike Kammerer and that work has recently resumed on the rebuild after nearly three years of inactivity.  You may recall that Kammerer purchased the commercial exploitation rights to TIGHAR's Earhart project for the period Jan. 2000 through Dec. 2003 but never exercised those rights.

I can also tell you that whatever is going on does not involve Nauticos. They were hoping to resume their search later this spring but funding could not be completed.

That's all I know at this point.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:22:00 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

Any 10's in fresh water begs the question and not fully cleaned up and/or removed?

Carl Peltzer
****************************************
 From Ric

I don't understand what you're asking.  Could you perhaps rephrase the question?
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:40:14 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      No forum yesterday

Sorry there was no forum yesterday.  I was in New York City doing some archival research into the Irene Bolam case.  I have a few more questions for Col. Reineck.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:43:56 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

Ric--Just for your information ...

> Any 10's in fresh water begs the question and not fully cleaned up
> and/or removed?

He's asking whether any Lockheed 10s crashed in fresh water and, if so, whether there is any hope that the wreckage is still in good enough condition to help with the dado research.

                         Marty
*******************************************************
From Carl Peltzer

sober [honest] when I wrote that!  try again. subject: dadoes Wood in fresh water will last longer than salt.

See Navy WW11 a/c [Douglas  sbd's and such] brought out of the Great Lakes off Chicago in excellent condition after 40 plus years and most wooden vessels in fresh water in fabulous shape after hundreds of years.

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

There was an Electra that is believed to have gone down in Lake Michigan on approach to Milwaukee but nobody seems to have come across it.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:45:29 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Ballard v. Earhart

From the Wichita Eagle, November 12, 2003, last three paragraphs of an interview with Ballard:

Since he has located some of the most famous finds in the world, any chance he might one day lead an expedition to find fellow Kansan Amelia Earhart's plane, missing since 1937?

Not likely, Ballard said.

"That's like finding a needle in a haystack," he said.

Full article at http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/7239014.htm

Of course, that was almost three months ago.  I suppose he could have changed his mind in that time.

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

I suppose.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:53:08 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

The Electra southwest of Palmdale that was an airliner was burned out but the rest of it was covered up with dirt. this airliner would have the best chance to have dados in it because it was a new aircraft. I realize that the chances are remote that our dado will be on the site but would it be worth a little digging to find out. Not all parts burn in a fire. Even if they were discovered and were in poor condition it would prove that they were used in the building of the airplane.

Ron 2640
******************************************************************
 From Ric

TIGHAR researcher Roger Kelley has determined that the "Electra" southwest of Palmdale was, in fact a Model 14 "Super Electra".  We see this problem often.  There was the original Model 10 Electra, then the Model 12 Electra Junior, and later the Model 14 Super Electra.  It wasn't until the Model 18 Lodestar that Lockheed stopped using the Electra name, which they resurrected much later for the Model 188 four-engined turboprop.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:57:33 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia at Meeteetse, Wyoming

Amelia history buffs,

For those on the forum that would like to learn more of George Putnam in the early days and his Greenland expedition, a book by his friend and co-expedition partner ,Carl Dunrud, "Lets Go" , pub in 1998, tells of those adventures; additonally he describes  the Putnam's purchase of  a mining claim and land at Kerwin, Wy, not far from Meeteetse, during the summer of 1934 for a cabin for himself and Amelia. It was lovely country and GP and AE wanted a place for privacy. This was the perfect place. Dunrud started the log cabin in 1936 but stopped in July 1937 when the world learned that AE had disappeared.

Meeteetse Museum sells the book and on the first Sat of every year drives up to  Kerwin to visit the cabin remains. Meeteetse is quite proud of their "most famous visitor" aside from Buffalo Bill. The book contains many photos of Amelia, Dunrud, GP, Rye , N.Y., David Putnam, et al. Lovell mentions this respite in her book but no details.

Interestingly, AE drove across country in 1934 from Rye, N.Y. to meet with GP  in her air-cooled Franklin. Just before she left on her World Flight she sent Dunrud her leather jacket she wore on her Atlantic flight and a buffalo coat that movie actor William S. Hart gave her. They are on display at Cody, Wyoming.

A dedicaton plaque was erected in 1972 in her Memory. The Cheyenne Zontas were contributors as well as her "Wyoming friends".

For those that wish the book, pls contact me off the forum for the address. The Museum sells them for $19.95.

Or see you in Aug, 2004 for a trip back to AEs favorite spot!

LTM,
Ron Bright
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:59:35 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Ric's Books

Ric wrote:

>because we keep learning more and more about what is true
>and what is not that I have put off writing my own book (or books) on
>the subject - but that day will come and it's not far off.

Er uh, hopefully not until you send us that long-awaited post-loss radio analysis.

Sincerely,
Tom Riggs #2427
**************************************************
 From Ric

Absolutely.  The Post-Loss Radio Study is top priority.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:14:49 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Earhart Crazies

Since things are a little slow on the Forum, I thought I would pass along a story that perfectly illustrates the amount of craziness that surrounds the Earhart disappearance.

As most of you know, I have been researching Noonan's life. Over the last year or so I had heard about someone who said he knew Fred's father. The first time I heard about the possibility I pegged it as a long shot and didn't pursue it. After hearing about it from the third person recently I decided it was time to check it out.

So I contacted the gentleman in Sacramento who said he knew Noonan's father. This person said he had rented a room from Joseph Noonan sometime around 1959/60. His story was that one day his landlord pointed to a picture on the wall and said it was Fred Noonan. He also had some old radios, supposedly from the plane, and other items that had belonged to his famous son. The man I talked with said Joseph was angry because he was not allowed by the government to see Fred, who was living in the United States under an assumed name. He further related to me that Joseph burned a trunk full of government, or other, records right after his wife's death about the same time period. He only rented from Joseph for a year and a half, but also provided me with some other details about the Noonan family, including the house address. I thanked him for sharing his information with me.

After hearing his story, I recollected that the conspiracy reference was one of the reasons I did not initially pursue the lead. That, plus the fact Joseph would have been nearly 100 years old in 1959. But it was still possible that an elderly, and somewhat deranged, Joseph could have been telling stories to his renters.

Want to guess how this turns out?

Many things relayed to me turned out to be true. The address was correct. Noonan rented rooms. The person I interviewed lived there in 1959. The names of other Noonan family members were correct. Noonan's wife died in 1961. The landlord Noonan was elderly. He was also, apparently, as crazy as a loon. Or the gentleman I interviewed embellished his story rather substantially.

"Joseph" Noonan's actual name was Walter T. Noonan. He was born twelve years after the real Joseph. He died in 1971 at the age of 96. His actual name of Walter is on all the city directories with his address and phone number. It is on census records and his death record as well. Everything matches.

The question driving me nuts is where the hell does this delusional stuff all come from. I have talked to other people with equally fascinating Noonan connections and stories. Nearly all of them, like this one, turn out to be complete fantasy.

After getting the facts I called the gentleman in Sacramento to let him know what I found. He had no explanation to offer. Neither do I. It's just another wild and wacky story attached to the Earhart mystery.

blue skies, jerry
***************************************************************
 From Ric

We've seen it often enough that you could even call it a syndrome - the Earhart Connection Syndrome (ECS). I'm certainly no psychologist but there seems to be such a desire on the part of some people to connect themselves with the Earhart mystery that they invent recollections, or in this case even entire identities, that they then become convinced are true.  I'll betcha that the same phenomenon has been observed in other contexts.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:23:29 EST
From:         Dick G.
Subject:      NOONAN'S RADIO QUALIFICATIONS

IN READING ABOUT PAN AM FLYING BOATS - THEY MENTION THAT ALL CREW MEMBERS WE'RE CROSS TRAINED AND INTERCHANGEABLE TO SOME DEGREE.  COULDN'T THIS REQUIREMENT LEAD TO ESTABLISHING HIS LEVEL OF RADIO SKILLS ??  ANY OLD OLD PAN AMMER'S OUT THERE??

    DICK G.
**************************************************************
 From Ric

We've looked into that and it's my recollection that we found that Pan Am initiated that policy just about the time Noonan left the company. Before that there were dedicated pilots, navigators, and radio operators who just had the one job.  Later the company adopted a policy that brought pilots "up through the ranks" very much as is done today.  Noonan was hired in 1930.  At that time he was a highly experienced sea captain and nautical navigator.  Although he had a pilot's license I've seen no evidence that he ever did anything at Pan Am other than administration (he was station manager in Haiti for a while) and navigation.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:43:31 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

>There was an Electra that is believed to have gone down in Lake
>Michigan...

just maybe we could get Bob Ballard on that search???

Ron 2640

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

Why would he want to do that?

*********************************************************
 From Carl Peltzer

there is one to research I will do some  may I suggest  others assist scube shops and fisherman have lots of information and will give to those who inquire.
Carl Peltzer
****************************************************************
 From Ric

I think you're suggesting some kind of massive effort to find out if anyone knows where the Electra in Lake Michigan is.

*****************************************************************
 From Rick Metzger

Ric,
Of the remaining 10E's only the #1042 of McGuires and the made up #1015 in Texas are still intact. Where is the twin to AE's plane? The Vanderbilt # 1065? No other ones are currently registered. Where are the pieces and parts? What was the date or year of the one that allegedly crashed in Lake MI.?

P.S. I have some questions on your White Bird investigation, where can I contact you?

STL
Rick
****************************************************************
 From Ric

1065 was purchased by the Soviet Union and used in the search for lost polar flier Sigismund Levanevsky.  After that - no one knows.

The airpalne that was lost over Lake Michigan was a 10A #1044 originally delivered in 1935.   I served for a while with Cubana (the Cuban subsidiary of PAA) and was privately owned as N14981 when it disappeared over Lake Michigan while on instrument approach to Milwaukee on Christmas Eve 1952.  Given its fairly long and diverse service history the airplane's usefullness to us as a source of original dados is, in my opinion, very doubtful.

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

Date:         Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:37:13 EST
From:         Terry
Subject:      Re: No forum yesterday

Ric,wy don't you leave Col Reineck alone,getting sick of you bashing people....... Terry

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

Believe me, I am much more interested in pursuing positive possibilities that in debunking nonsense and my intent is not to bash anyone.  This forum is about solving the Earhart mystery.  The only way to do that is with accurate information.  Col. Reineck wrote a book that claims to solve aspects of the mystery and offers what he says are facts to support his claims.

A book is not a forum posting or even a magazine article.  Books stay around for years and years.  They end up on library shelves.  People have a reasonable expectation that information presented as fact in non-fiction books has been thoroughly researched.  Most people, perhaps naively, tend to believe what they read in non-fiction books, so the writing and publishing of a non-fiction book carries some responsibility.  From his responses to my questions it appears that Col. Reineck does not recognize or accept that responsibility.  He has presented information as fact that is not fact and in some cases, by his own admission, has not even been researched.

I have nothing personal against Col. Reineck.  His greatest error seems to have been his failure to check the veracity of stories he has been told by his fellow "researchers".  But as the executive director of TIGHAR  I have a responsibility to make accurate information about the Earhart disappearance available to the TIGHAR membership and to the public at large - and that includes exposing bad information when it is irresponsibly marketed to the public.

LTM,
Ric
************************************************************************
 From Alan

>I have a few more questions for Col. Reineck.

It doesn't appear likely he will answer you. I'm disappointed in a fellow military officer. I suppose it is possible that when he retired he retired his honor and integrity at the same time. Hopefully he is just busy and slow in responding.

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

Let's not get too teary-eyed about military officers.  All of us who have received the salutes of others know that some are deserving and some are not - and the folks doing the saluting know that too.

"A prince can make a belted knight
A marquis, duke, and all that.
But an honest man's above his might.
Good faith, he must not claim that.

For all that and all that
Their dignities and all that
The pith of sense and pride of worth
Are higher rank than all that."

From: A Man's A Man for All That
Robert Burns, 1795
(translated from Broad Scots)
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:23:09 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Soviet L10?

There's one for researchers to go on!   the Soviet Union is loaded with old airplanes so there is a great place to look.  I know the place is huge, but why not, it could still exist and the Russians never seem to throw anything away for which many are very thankful.  they have been  finding them all over the place since 1990  and bringing old warbirds aircraft back to restore, some of which had been thought to exist no more.

Carl Peltzer
********************************************************************
 From Ric

I'll be interested to see your research plan on how to track down the 10E Special.  It would be quite a find.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:51:43 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      USS SWAN

In talking with a researcher yesterday, he says he interviewed  a few years ago a Angus Rose, former radioman aboard the USS Swan on watch for AE. Rose told him that he heard AE's last few radio msgs to ITASCA, including the last. He couldn't contact her. Reportedly he wrote an article in "Our Navy", a publication unknown to me, in Nov 1937 about his duty aboard the SWAN, but didn't include the radio traffic! It apparently described the Swans search for AE. Have you or anyone on the forum heard this story or heard of Angus Rose. To my knowledge, and I have a Swan Log, the Swan didn't heard AE at anytime.

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

I've never heard of Angus Rose.  (Did he have a sister named Tokyo?)

USS Swan described her radio transmitting capabilities in a June 22, 1937 message to Itasca as follows:

SWAN CAN TRANSMIT ONE HALF KW BETWEEN 195 AND 600 KCS AND BETWEEN 200 AND 3000 KCS PERIOD CAN TRANSMIT 100 WATTS 600 TO 1500 KCS AND FROM 3000 TO 9050 KCS PERIOD 35 WATTS VOICE AVAILABLE 350 TO 1500 KCS AND 3000 TO 9050 KCS

I can't find a message describing her receiving capabilities but it seems reasonable that the ship could receive voice on 3105 and 6210.  If Rose heard Earhart it does seem very odd that there is no mention of it anywhere in the logs or reports.

His later claims don't mean much unless the 1937 article in "Our Navy" turns up.

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

Date:         Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:53:52 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

>> Why would he want to do that?<<

Bob Ballard was a joke.

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

Sorry.  You never know with this bunch.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:02:42 EST
From:         Laurie McLaughlin
Subject:      writing non-fiction

Well spoken about Col Reinicks book -

I have not read it - and will, eventually - but you are right - it is the responsibility of the writer of non fiction to be as accurate as possible - I am very aware of that as I work on the biography for George Palmer Putnam Question - if I put something in my George book that I can not substantiate with facts - how would you suggest I denote that so I do not end up in the Colonel's situation?

And I love the Robert Burns quote - As one Scot to another - I suppose now would be a good time to tell you that in my last job, I ran into a woman who sells children's books - she knew (knows?) you and said she went to some affair where you were wearing your kilt and you looked very handsome, she said -- I am sorry, I do not recall her name -

Cheerio and adios - Laurie McLaughlin
*********************************************************
 From Ric

I'm flattered, thank you, but I have no idea who she might be.   Must have been at a Scottish games or a Burns Night.  I don't inflict the kilt on folks out of context.

To answer your question - it's perfectly acceptable to speculate in a non-fiction book as long as you make it clear that you're speculating and present the facts and reasoning behind your speculation.  Readers can then make an informed decision about whether they agree with your opinions.  Use lots of solid facts to support a little bit of speculation.

For example, we speculate that the word "circling" in Earhart's 0758 message "We are circling but cannot hear you..."  was misheard and was, in fact. "listening".  To support that opinion we note that the word as typed in the original log is clearly a type-over of an erasure.  By digitizing the entry and removing "circling" you can clearly see that the erased word was "drifting" (kids, you can try this at home).  In other words, here appears to be little doubt that the operator first typed in "We are drifting but cannot hear you..." but later went back and changed it to "We are circling but cannot hear you..". Neither makes any sense.  "List'ning" contains the same number of syllables and the same short "i" and "t" sounds in the same positions as "drifting", and it makes the phrase make sense - so we speculate that Earhart said "We are listening but canot hear you..".  Lots of facts and little bit of speculation.

Reineck takes the opposite tack. He will occasionally preface a paragraph with "This researcher believes..." and then state his opinion about what happened.  But what few facts he presents are extremely shaky at best and he uses them as the foundation for virtual palaces of speculation.

For example,  Reineck claims that in April of 1937, while the Electra was being repaired following the Luke Field accident, Earhart had two secret meetings at March Army Airfield in Riverside, CA with FDR's special advisor Bernard Baruch and Chief of the Army Air Corps Major General Oscar Westover. His sole basis for stating that these meetings took place is a 1966 interview with Earhart's former personal secretary Margot DeCarie that appeared in the San Fernando Valley Times and other statements Ms. DeCarie made to Joe Gervais.  Reineck does not claim to have ever met DeCarie hmself but in Gervais' 1970 book "Amelia Earhart Lives!" (page 42) Ms. DeCarey is described as Earhart's former maid, not personal secretary, and she alleged three meetings, not two.

Ms. DeCarie did not claim to have been present at the meetings but Col. Reineck accepts as fact that they took place and then, prefaced by the caveat, "This researcher believes..." he launches into six pages of detailed exposition of what transpired during the meetings, the Plan A and Plan B that Westover outlined, the concerns Earhart expressed, and the assurances Baruch gave her - complete fantasy and fabrication excused by a simple, "This researcher believes...".

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

Date:         Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:33:36 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum on Sunday?

Tomorrow, Monday, I'll be visiting the new NASM Udvar-Hazy Center with my Dad so, as penance, I'm posting the pending forum traffic today (Sunday).
========================================================================

Date:         Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:37:01 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Soviet L10?

Simply a getting older and hopefully wiser pilot attempting to add something worthwhile.

I know- the fellow who comes up with the idea gets to carry it out! This keeps some people quiet and others like myself simply cannot but continue on.  I'm a fairly poor grandfather trying to keep flying  and do not have resources to go over there and search as much as might like to.

Just maybe the archives in the USSR have some record past that time I will look into that.

Best regards
Carl Peltzer
**************************************************************
From Ric

Archives would be a good place to start but I have no idea if there are any such things in Russia that survived the devastation of WWII and the disolution of the Soviet Union.
========================================================================

Date:         Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:40:00 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      "Bashing people"

Terry writes:

>Ric,wy don't you leave Col Reineck alone,getting sick of you bashing
>people

Asking questions, disputing the veracity of "facts" and discussing the evidence presented is in NO WAY "bashing people". Debunking a theory is not the same as an attack on a person's character.

If you read what Ric wrote to Col. Reineck, you will see he has attempted to restrict his points to discussing the evidence put forward by Col. Reineck. That is wholly appropriate, and if you read this forum, you will note that people do the same to Ric's positions.

LTM (who liked a good bashing every now and then)
Paige Miller, #2565
*********************************************************
 From Roger Kelley

On February 13th Terry said,  Ric, why don't you leave Col Reineck alone, getting sick of you bashing people....... Terry"

Ric responded, " I have nothing personal against Col. Reineck.  His greatest error seems to have been his failure to check the veracity of stories he has been told by his fellow "researchers".  But as the executive director of TIGHAR  I have a responsibility to make accurate information about the Earhart disappearance available to the TIGHAR membership and to the public at large - and that includes exposing bad information when it is irresponsibly marketed to the public."

Col. Reineck wants to sell books.   Money changes hands.   Could it be that here lies the foundation for Reineck's stretching the truth to the point of breaking?

Through Ric's leadership and integrity we do our best to keep the TIGHAR house clean.  Sounds to me like Reinneck could use some help in cleaning his own house.  In the mean time, Reinneck's reputation as a serious Earhart Researcher had been tarnarished if not thoughly bashed.  He brought it upon himself.

Roger Kelley
========================================================================

Date:         Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:18:47 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: writing non-fiction

Re: The Baruch Affair

In May 2001, I looked into the claims by Gervais (made prior to 1970) and Rollin Reineck that Bernard Baruch, an FDR advisor, and Gen Westover met at March Field, Riverside, Cal in during the month of April 1937". Actually Gervais, p 41- 42, AE LIVES, said Baruch and Westover visited Amelia three separate times at her Toluca Lake Home, Hollywood, Ca., NOT at March Field. Also Gervais does not describe the nature of these visits or conversations at Toluca Lake.

In order to confirm that Westover and Baruch met with AE in March or April 1937, I contacted the Princeton University, Seeley Mudd Manuscript Library, where the Baruch papers are located. Project Archivists Ms  Christie Lutz researched the entire Baruck collections regarding his alleged visit to California in 1937. In a letter to me on Oct 9, 2000, she wrote that she found only one reference referring to a trip to "the West".

Baruch wrote a letter to FDR, a copy of which I have, on 30 April 1937, about certain economic factors in Europe facing the US congress, and concluded with "I am leaving tonight for the West and will be returning about the same time you do, in case you desire to speak further with me on this subject."

In addition to his correspondence during this time frame, Lutz consulted press clippings in the collection, but found no documentation of a trip to specifically California. I would however presume his reference to "west" was California, and we know he was an investor in repairing the Electra then located at Burbank.

At best, even as Rollin estimates , it would take about 5 days by train from Washington DC to California, thus if Baruch left 30 April 37 that would put Baruch there the 5 May 1937. Thus Baruch could not have visited AE three times in April 1937 without three trans-continental trips.

Baruch "wired" AE a check for $2500 , see page 208, My Courageous Sister, sometime in May 1937.

As Ric pointed out deCarrie wasn't present at March Field .The 1966 San Fernando interview contains no references to a April 37 meeting or Gen Westover or Bernard Baruch, only a vague reference to "many meetings with government men" at Toluca Lake. And, contrary to her assertion that she was present and  overheard Baruch's offer, [see infra] DeCarrie said she and GP had "to leave the room". I can't imagine GP doing that!

Brink complicates the deCarrie interviews further stating he interviewed DeCarrie in Aug 1980.

According to Brink's report of his interview , DeCarrie said that Baruch, no mention of Gen Westover,  visited the Toluca Lake residence in late March or early April 1937. DeCarrie was present, she said, during  "portions of the conversations with the Putnams", with Baruch asking AE to volunteer for an "intelligence" mission. [ Hard to imagine that  secretary deCarrie would be allowed to hear a Top Secret espionage  proposal]

On p 99, according to DeCarrie, AE met with General Hap Arnold (not Baruch)and Gen Westover at March Army Air Force Base, date not reported, but prior to the second world flight.

So we have no solid evidence that Baruch or Westover met with Amelia at March  Airforce base in March or April 1937. The preponderance of evidence from the collection of the Baruch papers does not support a meeting with AE and certainly not in March or April 1937.

Another researcher, close to DeCarrie and able to interview DeCarrie wrote me that DeCarrie said that "Bernard Baruch met came to the Burbank Airport a number of times (sometimes accompanied by Gen Oscar Westover). (sic) The researcher said she had  no specific discussions of Gen Westover, meetings at March Field, so forth, so she could not be conclusive about any meetings.

It seems to  me when writing a non-fiction book, the whole story should be revealed so that the reader can make an educated opinion of the events described.

LTM,
Ron B.
********************************************************
 From Ric

>According to DeCarrie, AE met with General Hap Arnold (not Baruch)
>and Gen Westover at March Army Air Force Base, date not reported, but
>prior to the second world flight.

It's entirely possible that, at some point, AE did meet Hap Arnold. According to his autobiography "Global Mission", Arnold was a Brigadier General in 1937 and the commanding officer at March Army Airfield.  His main concern at that time was the development of high altitude bombing tactics using Martin B-10s and helping to lobby for the new B-17.  Earhart is mentioned nowhere in his book but, as a celebrity, if she happened to visit March Field for any reason she may well have been introduced to the CO.  Arnold makes no specific mention of Westover visiting his command but he does say that:

"Westover worked harder than anybody. Too hard.  He flew all over the country, always flying his own plane, landing here and there, talking to some group or other about air power while his sergeant got the ship ready for the next hop, then flying on to give another enthusiastic talk to people in another town."

So it would not be terribly surprising if Earhart did meet Arnold and Westover.  What would be surprising is either of them being involved in recruiting spies.  They were both totally absorbed in building up the Air Corps. 
========================================================================

Date:         Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:42:10 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Questions for Col.Reineck

I understand that these questions make you uncomfortable but I feel that they must be asked because it now appears that one of the cornerstones of the case you make for Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam being the same person is crumbling.

On page 180 of your book you describe the lawsuit filed by Irene Bolam against McGraw Hill, the publisher of "Amelia Earhart Lives!", and the book's authors Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas.  You say that Bolam sued for invasion of privacy and libel but that "There has always been some question about what was libelous" about the book.  You also say that the exact amount of damages being asked is also in question but that it was "in the neighborhood of two million dollars".

From these comments it would seem apparent that you have not reviewed the court documents and yet you go on to describe specific aspects of the case.

- You say that Bolam, rather than the defendants, was responsible for delays in the case.
- You say that the defendants, in offering to settle the case for the requested amount, persuaded the judge to ask Mrs. Bolam to appear in person before the judge and provide her fingerprints.
- You say that, rather than accept this offer, Mrs. Bolam dropped the lawsuit.

Upon what sources are you relying for this description of events?  It would seem that you are on good terms with Mr. Gervais and Mr. Klass, whose "scholarly work" you quote at length with their permission.  Do they not have copies of the court documents?  Do they not remember why and for how much they were sued?

Are you aware that the case of "Irene Bolam v. McGraw Hill, Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas" is available to anyone?  Simply go to the New York County Courthouse at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, Basement Room 141, and ask for Index No. 18983/1971.  There is no charge and you don't have to be a lawyer.  It's all free pubic information.  You'll be handed a packet of microfiche cards and directed to any of several microfiche reader/printers.  You can copy as many pages as you wish for .25 each but there are many, many  hundreds of pages to this case, so bring lots of quarters.

Hawaii is a long way from Manhattan but Nikumaroro, Tarawa, and England are all a long way from Delaware.  If you want the answers you have to go where the answers are.

On February 11, 2004 I went to the New York County Courthouse and reviewed the file.  Many, but not all, of the answers to the Bolam case are there.

- Bolam sued McGraw Hill, Gervais and Klaas for defamation on May 26, 1971 - The damages asked were $500,000 in actual damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.
- The defense raised the question of what was libelous or defamatory about being accused of being a popular, some would even say heroic, American celebrity.  The plaintiff responded with a reminder that the book accuses Bolam of being a liar, a traitor, and a bigamist.
- I saw no evidence of any delaying tactic by the plaintiff.  She did ask the court to throw out as irrelevant 33 of some 600 questions posed as interrogatories for her to answer.  She willingly gave a lengthy affidavit replying to the charges in the book.
- In 1975 the defendants moved for summary judgment.  In other words, they filed a motion with the court enumerating all the reasons that Bolam's lawsuit was without merit and asking the judge to dismiss the case. (This is a very standard move in civil cases.) On August 26, 1975 the court denied the motion and ruled that there were "triable issues" in the case.
- The defendants (McGraw, Gervais and Klaas) appealed the decision.  On May 4, 1976 the appellate court affirmed the lower court ruling.

At that point Bolam held all the cards. The defendants had two choices, they could go to trial (an extremely risky proposition having twice failed to get a summary judgment) or they could settle.  Unfortunately, the final resolution of the case was not included in the file I saw.  It may be that one of the microfiche cards was missing.  We'll continue our research and expect to have an answer before too long.

So far, there is nothing to support the story about the judge asking Bolam to produce fingerprints and, given the established facts of the case, it doesn't make any sense.  The burden of proof was on the defendants, not Bolam, and they had clearly failed twice to make their case.  Bolam was in a position to say, "Pay up or we go to trial."  It will be interesting to see what did happen.

Our suspicion is that McGraw Hill paid some amount in settlement in return for Bolam dropping the case, thereby letting Gervais and Klaas off the hook. We'll see.

My question to you, Col. Reineck, is why you didn't do the research before writing your book?  It's fine to repeat your friends' stories but don't present them as fact without checking them for accuracy first.

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

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:50:33 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: writing non-fiction

Ric wrote:

>So it would not be terribly surprising if Earhart did meet Arnold and
>Westover.  What would be surprising is either of them being involved in
>recruiting spies.

I think that whole scenario is utter nonsense and clearly has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Moreover the time and distance of AE's Lae to Howland area flight plus the obvious fuel requirements and night time flight makes any kind of spy mission totally impossible. The best she could have done was spy on the Myrtlebank and one of the Gilbert Islands. The spy conspirators will never give up nor will they ever present a rational theory of how a spy mission could have been accomplished.

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

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:56:29 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Questions for Col.Reineck

Ric, you just gave Col. Reineck (if that is an appropriate title) a lesson in researching. Perhaps his first introduction to the grand art.

And yes, Terry, that's a bash. Not of Rollin personally but of his methods or lack thereof and his unwillingness to stand behind his words.

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

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:58:02 EST
From:         Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: Soviet L10?

Try trade-a-plane.Contact a Yak importer or an an owner. Anybody try some salvage yards for 10E parts? Hey ya never know.
LTM
Mike J.
***************************************************************
 From Ric

I have an even better idea.  You do it.  Let us know how you make out.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:17:28 EST
From:         Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      Irene Bolam

I haven't read Rollin's book so I don't pretend to answer for him concerning your questions.

I ask myself why do I even bother with this forum. I bother because the questions are being put forward by you on your forum. I know there is no guarantee you won't edit out whatever you please anyway. I always send a copy to our forum so I am also speaking to them in a sense.

Ric writes:

>Unfortunately, the final resolution of the case was not included
>in the file I saw. It may be that one of the microfiche cards was
>missing. We'll continue our research and expect to have an answer before
>too long.

I hope you find the final resolution to the case. Not all of us have the money or can travel to the source of all truth, the US Judicial System. A Judicial system that permits the sealing of court documents in settlement cases and imposes penalties for a breech of the sealing.

.25 cents a page you say. That's about 2.5 times Kinko's rate. Do I hear a new fund raising scheme coming up?

>- The defense raised the question of what was libelous or defamatory
>about being accused of being a popular, some would even say heroic,
>American celebrity. The plaintiff responded with a reminder that the
>book accuses Bolam of being a liar, a traitor, and a bigamist.

I know it's painful but try and let your imagination stretch just a little bit.

The "281 message" on July 5th suggests survival. The same message combined with other circumstantial evidence can produce an area in the Marshalls for that survival to have taken place. Everyone knows you don't agree with that scenario.

Fast forward......

At the conclusion of WWII in 1945, what if the circumstantial survival evidence proved correct and Earhart sailed into San Francisco Bay or landed in Hawaii on an Army Air Force plane?

The Charge of Traitor that Irene Bolam protested against could very well have been levied on Amelia Earhart by some people who didn't like her before the war. She would then have had to document her past 7 years of captivity and what if she couldn't prove her innocence in the eyes of the public?

In light of the horror of the war and lost loved ones, someone would ask the question of Amelia; "How did you survive when so many died. What did you have to do for the Japanese?".

We know that Lindbergh had his own stigma concerning some of his prewar speeches. Earhart at one time was called the "Lady Lindy". This is only one obvious contemporary example that Earhart would have faced after secretly being with the Japanese for 7 years. Metaphorically it parallels John Ford's "The Searchers" in a different time period.

I can make the argument that Amelia couldn't have really survived in the eyes of the public, returned as herself and lived a normal life.

By 1960, if she had assumed a different name, then the Charge of Liar would be validated.

The Charge of being a Bigamist wouldn't hold to much water because the Court declared her legally dead in '39'. Is that a free pass then to remarry or even become a different person?

All she, Irene Bolam, had to do was give her fingerprints to put an end to all of this. I think that would have substantially improved her legal position above and beyond your own evaluation. If truth was on her side, why settle when you know you could win at trial with a conclusive identification?

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

Daryll, I don't think I've ever edited your stuff.  Why would I?  The length of your ramblings is inversely proportional to their credibility.

None of the Bolam case documents are sealed.

.25 per copy is what the courthouse charges, not TIGHAR.  The microfiche machines take quarters - what can I tell ya?  It would be easy for me to be highly offended by your implication that I would misstate the cost as a fundraising scheme - but life's too short to waste emotion on something that ignorant.

The rest of your posting isn't worth a reply.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:26:20 EST
From:         Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      Irene's Posthumous fingerprints??

The question of constitutional rights regarding the taking of a person's fingerprints while they are still alive and who is not charged with a crime, is a no brainier.

This article below appeared in the The N.J. Woodbridge News Tribune Oct 26, 1982. pg1.

This begs the question, why wouldn't Irene let her fingerprints be taken after her death, if she was who she claimed to be? There would have been no consequences at all in a negative outcome. If a positive outcome, how would the court "settlement" be affected if it was proven she was Amelia Earhart after all ?

#############

"BOLAM'S PRINTS A SECRET"

Irene Bolam's fingerprints are one of the state's best kept secrets.

The prints have been unavailable to police agencies, a county prosecutor, Mrs. Bolam's doctor, medical examiners, hospital authorities, and Mrs. Bolam's immediate family.

Each person, in turn, has either found no standing to enter the case or has come up against the same stone wall-- The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.

Mrs. Bolam, a resident of Rossmoor which is in Monroe Township and has a Jamesburg mailing address, died July 7, at Roosevelt Hospital in Edison. She donated her body to science.

After her death, rumors resurfaced that she was in fact Amelia Earhart, the famous aviatrix who disappeared on a flight between Lae, New Guinea and Howland Island in the South Pacific on July 2, 1937.

Mrs. Bolam's son , Clarence Heller, then requested Mrs. Bolam's fingerprints from the medical school to settle the Amelia Earhart question.

The request was denied.

Heller's wife, Joan, said her husband, Mrs. Bolam's only child sent a registered letter to the medical school requesting the fingerprints, but that the request was denied.

She said she spoke to Norma Davenport, attorney for the school, and was told that an agreement that Mrs. Bolam signed with school precluded the release of her fingerprints.

"We're not entitled to them ," Mrs. Heller said she was told.

"They won't tell me anything except that her identity has been switched."

She said Ms. Davenport refused to give her a copy of the agreement between the school and Mrs. Bolam or tell her what the agreement specified.

An agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation also requested Mrs. Bolam's fingerprints from personnel at the school.

See Irene, page 4.

He said the school wouldn't acknowledge that the body was there, let alone give him fingerprints. "I was stonewalled right there," he said.

The identity question was also raised by James Hardiman, president of the Roosevelt Hospital Board of Managers.

He said he was unsure of Mrs. Bolam's true identity and wanted fingerprints to establish who it was that died at the hospital.

His request was denied.

Dr. Man Wah Chung, medical director of Roosevelt Hospital, also attempted to check Mrs. Bolam's fingerprints. He too was refused by the medical school.

Middlesex County Medical  Examiner Dr. Marvin Shuster said that since the death was not suspicious or sudden, his office had no standing to enter the case. In reference to the identity question, he said as long as Mrs. Bolam's family was satisfied, he could not question her identity.

But he said he was surprised that the medical school had refused all requests for the prints. "It's the simplest thing in the world," he said.

Middlesex County Prosecutor Richard Rebeck said that because the question of Mrs. Bolam's identity was a civil matter, his office could not get involved.

The Essex County Medical Examiner and the N.J. State Medical Examiner each said they had no jurisdiction over bodies at the medical school.

The state attorney general's office said it might enter the case if the family were to request help.

FBI officials in Washington said that agency could become involved only if asked to do so by a police authority.

Fingerprints are a conclusive means of establishing a person's identity.

Det. Casimer Smerecki of the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, who has been qualified many times as an expert in fingerprint identification, said "Never have two people been found to have the same fingerprints.

"Based on years of study, it is estimated at four billion to one that any two individuals would have the same fingerprints," he said.

[end]
###########

Daryll
******************************************************************

 From Ric

It was never up to Irene Bolam to prove that she was not Amelia Earhart.  The allegations made in the Klaas/Gervais book clearly infuriated her and she was just as clearly determined not to play their game.  I'd say that she succeeded admirably.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:32:58 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Amelia's fingerpints

It occurs to me to wonder if anyone has Amelia Earhart's fingerprints? I don't think I've ever seen them.  There's a palm print at Purdue but that's not the same as official fingerprints.  Does anyone have AE's fingerprints?
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:56:06 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Dulles Museum--off topic

Ric---OK-OK-OK---for all of us out here who are lurking in the bushes-----

HOW  GOOD WAS THE MUSEUM AT DULLES???????????????

i ASSUME YOU WILL TAKE PITY ON US WHO CANT GET THERE YET and give us a brief overview--------PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LTM--who always loved a good museum...
Jim Tierney
*****************************************************************
 From Ric

OK, OK......

NASM's new Udvar-Hazy Center is a work in progress.  At least at this time, the museum is clearly an overflow facility for the airplanes that are either too big or not quite cool enough to be displayed at the museum on the Mall. The exhibits in the wing of the building which houses the Shuttle "Enterprise" are not finished and all you can do at present is stand in the doorway and marvel at the sheer size of the spacecraft.

The main museum building is a long, quonset-stlye hangar very much like the buildings at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB and presents the same virtues and vices as exhibit space.  Like the USAFM, the airport location and the big doors on the end of the hangar make it relatively easy to move airplanes in and out, but unlike NASM's museum on the Mall, the building does not lend itself to the presentation of "galleries" where artifacts can be used to tell a story.  Instead you have clutches of airplanes of more or less the same era or type parked on the floor and suspended overhead together.  Aerial walkways provide closer views of the hung aircraft and a good overhead view of those on the floor. The exhibition technique is what we call "P to the fourth" (Park Plane Post Placard).

The placards themselves, though quite brief, do usually make some mention of where this specific airplane came from and whether or not this one ever really looked like this or is just a representation.  You'll find very little discussion of the aircraft's historical significance aside from noting that "This was the first aircraft to..." thus and so.  This minimalist approach to interpretation is, no doubt, a lesson learned from the debacle surrounding the 1995 exhibition of the Enola Gay's forward fuselage section at the museum downtown.

Enola Gay is now, of course, fully assembled and on exhibition at Dulles with its land gear supported on tall jack stands that lift the entire airplane well up off the floor.  A surrounding assortment of fighters and other WWII types behind velvet ropes insure that nobody can really get anywhere near the B-29.   The result is that the huge airplane is curiously inconspicuous.

The airplanes that are exhibited in such a way as to catch the eye are the SR-71 standing pretty much alone to provide good views of its exotic lines; the Boeing 307 Stratoliner polished to within an inch of its life and gleaming like a jewel; and the Boeing "Dash 80" prototype for the 707 series, which stands out not only for its size but for its mustard and chocolate paint job.

The degree to which the various aircraft on display have been restored, reconstructed or rehabilitated varies greatly.  Oddly, as a rule, the newer aircraft (the Concorde, the Shuttle, the Gossamer Albatross, the modified racing Bearcat "Conquest One") are permitted to look old while the older aircraft (the WWI , Golden Age, and WWII types) look like they just rolled off the showroom floor.  There are exceptions.  The P-38 is very scruffy and there is a Kawasaki Ki-54 "Nick" fuselage that looks sort of half-reconstructed.  These apparent contradictions are products of the changing historic preservation standards at NASM over the years.

Still lurking in the dust and the dark back at the Garber Facility in Suitand, Maryland are the Lockheed XC-35, the B-17C/D "The Swoose" and lots of other historic aircraft.

All in all, I'd have to call the Udvar-Hazy Center a good start.  It will be interesting to see how the museum develops and progresses.

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

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:00:58 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Soviet L10?

Garber Museum possibly in Springhill, Md?  They have all kinds of stuff but I was there in 1989 long before I found the forum.

I will do some research and perhaps get my Civil Air Patrol unit into this as have several in college locally to look around; also wonder if the Air Force museum in Montgomery, Al has some info for us.

Sorry am not even living close to Maxwell AFB but might find someone to do research up there. Maybe these have already been done but,  what the heck.

Carl Peltzer
******************************************************
From Ric

The Smithsonian's Garber Faciility in Suitland, MD does not have c/n 1065 nor does the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio or the USAF Historical Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama or any other airplane museum in the whole wide world.  Trust me.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:06:26 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      AE's prints

Ric said:  "It occurs to me to wonder if anyone has Amelia Earhart's fingerprints?  I don't think I've ever seen them.  There's a palm print at Purdue but that's not the same as official fingerprints.  Does anyone have AE's fingerprints?"

Actually, I think they are on file with the Amelia Earhart Society.  Give Darryl and Col. Reineck a call.

LTM, whose prints are with the FBI

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

Well heck...let's ask them right here.  They're both subscribed to the forum. How about it guys?  Do you have AE's fingerprints and, if so, where did you get 'em?
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:12:51 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      "AES" reply

Ric said:  "Well heck...let's ask them right here.  They're both subscribed to the forum. How about it guys?  Do you have AE's fingerprints and, if so, where did you get 'em?"

1.  You have insulted me and violated the spirit of our contract.  I refuse to answer any more of your questions.

"Rollin" 

2.  This is not implausible.  My contacts in the Marshalls, told me that General McArthur  . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

"Darryl"

LTM, who holds no hope
Dennis McGee #0149EC

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

That's okay.  It's just their way of saying, "We're just making this stuff up."
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:40:35 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      A challenge to Col. Reineck

Col. Reineck, from the court documents I have seen so far that describe Irene Bolam's defamation lawsuit against McGraw Hill, Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas not only have I seen no mention of the money-for-fingerprints offer you describe in your book but such an offer seems to make no sense given the way the case is now known to have progressed.

Please note - I am not accusing you of knowingly spreading a false story but if you, or those who told you the story, cannot produce the court documents that prove that it is true, then I must conclude that it is not true.

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

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:19:56 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Amelia's fingerpints

Jerry Steigman claimed he had copies of AEs fingerprints obtained from some Mass police Dept after she was arrested in the 20s for some infraction, which I can't recall off the top of my head. He claimed he also had Irene Bolams prints, which didn't match AEs. He would never produce them.

As I understand a friend of IBs, Diana Dawes, had obtained IBs prints. Steigman says the prints of Bolam are on file with some state agency when she gave them in connection with her job with several banks. All very vague. Has anyone FOIAed FBI for AEs prints? A FOIA request re Irene Bolam came back negative.

Theorectically, if there are some original letters or documents preserved at Purdue, and not handled by researchers, prints could be obtained from them. I guess your question is relevant re the civil suit. If IB gave her prints voluntarily, are AEs prints available to compare?

REB
**********************************************************************
 From Ric

Exactly.  It's just like the DNA question we've dealt with.  It does no good at all to have "suspected Amelia" fingerprints or DNA if you don't have "known Amelia" prints or DNA to compare them to.

In my experience, all of the original documents at Purdue are available for hands-on inspection.  I've handled many myself.  I can't imagine any artifact or document still in existence from which fingerprints could be retrieved with any certainty of them being AE's.

If Amelia Earhart's documented fingerprints were not readily available to the court, then the whole story about a judge asking Bolam to be fingerprinted is a lie.

LTM,
Ric
*****************************************************************
 From Russ Matthews (#0509EC)

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

I've seen newsreel footage from the early '30s of AE being fingerprinted in California as a part of some sort of civic initiative.  Can't recall the specifics now or tell you if anyone still has the prints on file (LA Sheriff's Office? State Police? FBI?)... however it is certainly possible that an "official" set still exists.

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

Sounds like prints might exist but the question is whether Gervais and Klaas had prints at the time of the lawsuit.  Joe Klaas has recently subscribed to this forum.  Surely he'd be happy to answer this simple question for us.  How about it Joe?  Show us the fingerprints.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:21:19 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Almanac

Does anyone know what was the highest value of Hc for the sun for which Noonan's almanac gave star data i.e. was there any constraint on the latest time for star observations and if so when (in terms of Hc)?

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

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:24:59 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Irene's Posthumous fingerprints??

Medical school cadavers are usually not fingerprinted.

LTM (left the morgue)
Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
*****************************************************
 From Alan

Daryll wrote:

>Irene Bolam's fingerprints are one of the state's best kept secrets.

All that is utter nonsense. Anyone who wanted Irene's fingerprints could have got them at any time. Almost anything she touched would have produced her fingerprints.

I have to assume Daryll is not suggesting she wore gloves all the time and never touched anything anywhere.

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

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:27:00 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      aerial navigation

Anyone interested in discovering the challenge faced by Noonan on this flight should read "The Lonely Sea and The Sky" by (Sir) Francis Chichester, who, by the way, basically invented the offset DR method that the forum discussed in depth.

Chichester navigated across considerable distances of ocean using this method (by trail and error), flyibg solo and taking sextant shots and drift measurements.

Makes one appreciate just what is involved, especially when we read that making a few course adjustments could have got Noonan lost.  Chichester often had to fly circles while trying to take a sight, as well as heading off course to find a patch of visible sky.

He still managed to find the islands, and at times was using only a school atlas for navigation.  He also had to create his own sight tables after his official ones ran out.

Worth a look for the navigational aspects if nothing else.

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

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:28:04 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

With all due respects Daryll your post brings to mind a comment attributed to JFK in the summer of 1962.

"The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic...."

Just a little food for thought.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:31:36 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

Daryll wrote;

>If truth was on her side, why settle when you know you could win at
>trial with a conclusive identification?

Daryll, what makes you think Irene Bolam was the one who settled? It was Gervais, Klass and McGraw-Hill who gave up and withdrew their book from the book stores. Why would they do that if they were right? Having made their allegations they could have forced Irene to provide fingerprints. We don't know whether she did or not but we DO know your heroes did not prevail.

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

According to Reineck, the book was pulled from the market before the lawsuit was even filed.  It would be interesting to know why.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:40:01 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Irene Bolam/Darylls Response--

Ric---Forgive me for awaking out here in Lurkers Land----but I just had to comment briefly on Darylls  diatribe on poor old Irene  B....

Question---What the hell does--

a-a missing microfiche card--that might imply a sealed case---
b-25cents a page copy charge--
c-Charles Lindbergh and his prewar statements---
d- John Fords movie --The Searchers----

have to do with AE/ Irene Bolam/ Rollin Reineck/ Niku/  and the rest of this matter.???????  I am sorry-but Darylls musings/speculations/tortured reasonings/ and overlong ravings are getting a bit boring and annoying to this lurker....

Anybody else feel the same way..????????

Jim Tierney

Simi Valley, CA
********************************************************************
 From Ric

I can't cut Daryll off without being accused of trying to silence the truth but you, the forum subscribers, can request that you be spared the enlightenment of his submissions.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:41:41 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

>Not all of us have the money or can travel to...

.... New York City?  We're not talking about Mount Everest, the South Pole, or Saipan for that matter.  It's just the Big Apple.  Book early and save.

>... the source of all truth, the US Judicial System. 

"Source of all truth?"  Sheesh.  Careful, your bias is showing.

>A Judicial system that permits the sealing of court documents in
>settlement cases and imposes penalties for a breech of the sealing.

Um... yeah.  Only nobody said that the records of the Bolam case were sealed (Ric accessed them with no trouble).  It's just that the file is currently incomplete or arranged out of order.

>I know it's painful but try and let your imagination stretch just a
>little bit.

Good advice... you should take it yourself.   I love the hypocrisy of someone who constantly carps that Ric refuses to accept circumstantial speculations about spy missions as valid, then brushes aside reams of documented facts as "conspiracy" when they don't match with his own pre-conceived notions.

LTM,
Russ
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:54:26 EST
From:         Ross Devit
Subject:      Geezers

Ric wrote:

> (pssst Dennis.... you're middle-aged.  Just a kid really.)

Ummm,  taking the biblical "3 score and ten", wouldn't middle aged be something like 25 to 50?

(Was 3 score and ten a biblical reference somewhere, Marty?)

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

Psalms 90:10
"The days of our years are three score years and ten..."

Probably an optimistic assessment 3,000 years ago.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:58:22 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: 6210

> The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we STILL could
> not get it.

Am I really the only person on the forum who sees anything significant in that statement?

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

Let's look at it in context.   Chater said:

"Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information, but local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible until 2.18 p.m. The Lae Operator heard the following on 6210 KC -"HEIGHT 7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS" and some remark concerning "LAE" then "EVERYTHING OKAY". The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it.

There is a clear implication that Earhart repeated the report.  What is less clear is whether the repetition was in response to Lae's request or simply a pro forma repeat of the report.

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

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:03:16 EST
From:         Terry Lee Simpson
Subject:      Re: writing non-fiction

Alan, you said to day on the forum

>The spy conspirators will never give up nor will they ever present a rational
>theory  a spy mission could have been accomplished

Respectfuly,no one really knows,think of it like this.FDR and AE are having cocktails at the  White House and FDR says to AE,hey Amelia,when you and Fred go from Lea to Howland how about buzzen by Truk and see whats happening.Verbal,no paper trail.It would be like myself asking you,hey Alan ,tonight on your way home how about going by Ric,s house and see if his car,s in the yard,VERBAL ! We could prove it because were still alive,if eather of us didn't lie.All the people from then are mostly gone now,how could we ever find the truth ?.........Also sir you mentioned <fuel requirements>I have read in three differnt books where they mentioned AE's L-10 had a range of 4000 miles,i am confused about this,if so she could have flown to Nuki, Marshell's,hell,almost to Hawaii.I will look it up for you where I read this if you want me to,time is short right now.I would appreciate you strighten me out on this fuel matter.Also forgive my spelling,I am not the brightus dude that ever come down  the pike......
God Bless....Terry
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:07:03 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

Daryll said;

>All she, Irene Bolam, had to do was give her fingerprints to put an end
>to all of this. I think that would have substantially improved her legal
>position above and beyond your own evaluation. If truth was on her side,
>why settle when you know you could win at trial with a conclusive
>identification?

I've heard the AES make that statement about fingerprints before.  I would like to know the circumstances behind that statement.  Where is it stated that she was ordered to do so, and refused.  And I won't accept:

>... a friend who was dating my best friend, had a friend in the
>courthouse that day, and he heard part of a conversation from a guy who
>he thought was working for an attorney, who represented Irene Bolam, who
>said he heard something about fingerprints.  And that they couldn't get
>fingerprints from whom ever it was that they were talking about.  My best
>friend is a decorated war hero, and a fine upstanding person.  So I know
>this to be true... cause my friend would not date anyone who was not
>trustworthy!

Sound familiar?

Unless I'm mistaking, you can get fingerprints from a multitude of items.  If Rollin signed his book and sends it to me. . . .I've got his fingerprints!  If Irene Bolam left her house and went anywhere, she left fingerprints all over the place.  What did she do . . .wear gloves all the time?

Maybe someone should try and find the mortuary that handled her service, and see if they were told not to take any fingerprints.  Maybe the autopsy records are still on file somewhere.  Maybe someone could tell us why this statement is being made.

Or maybe it's time for someone to do an in-depth search for the real history of Irene Bolam.  Much like we did with Fred Noonan.  Surely Ron Bright would be good at that!

Don Jordan
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:08:12 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Soviet L10?

My best friend from high school works for the UN and spends about 6 months out of the year in Russia. His wife is a Russian PHD - Chemist. I have asked him to check his contacts for the airplane. If there is a chance of finding it, then he is probably the most qualifed (that I know) to do so.

LTM,

Dave Bush
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:15:03 EST
From:         Terry Lee Simpspn
Subject:      Re: A challenge to Col. Reineck

Dear Ric,the other day I said you were "BASHING" the Col.and it seemed to upset some of the folks.SORRY! I thought your e-mail back too me was really cool and I ecepted it,no problems.I have rethought what I said and I guess bashing is the wrong word.As a student of Amelia and Fred for ten years now I think I am getting a little burned out.I have a shop set up in my basement where I have built R/C model airplanes for the last 36 years and have collected boo-koo books on AE,pictures,charts for the last ten,all my tigar-tracks have been put in a book plus on your last trip to Nuki has been printed out and put in a second book and in front of me now is the print I bought from Tighar of AE's plane over Niku.Awsome picture,love it.What I am getten at is I have read so many books on this subject with wrong information,I am not surprized at anything new.I was really bumed out when you posted that your 2004 expedition was cancled because your to busy this year.It just seems that bugging the Col. is a waste of time,what good is it going to do.A friend of mine who is a shrink told me once that 80% of the worlds population has an IQ 72 or less.if this is so how can you change there mines,mite as well get on to something more important,just my thinken. I have told you before I don't beleave your looking in the right place and I have not wasted your time and the forums with my thoughts.I have said before wy I joined Tighar,I beleave in you.You for the past 15 years have kept Tighar going and have taken so much flack,dart throwing,hammered on ,and you stick to your guns.The things you do and  the places you go amaze me,I am the opposite of you,I guess thats wy I have so much respect for you.Don't get me wrong man,I am not kissing up to you,I kiss no mans six,I am just saying what I think.I got Scott in me too.........With all this bilgwater said my membership fee's were due Jan 31st,I have not sent them yet,frankly I have not had the spon-dullects.but March 3rd I can send it out,I don't want to be a luker .I hope you still want me as a member even though I think your looken in the wrong place.I don't care where they went down,I am enjoying the hunt.Again,sorry about the bashing word to you and the forum....should have been BUGGING!........
Terry Lee Simpson(#2396) LTM
************************************
 From Ric

Terry, my man, you just send along the spon-dullects whenever you've got 'em and we'll happily carry you in the meantime.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:20:32 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Amelia's fingerpints

> Exactly.  It's just like the DNA question we've dealt with.  It does no good
> at all to have "suspected Amelia" fingerprints or DNA if you don't have "known
> Amelia" prints or DNA to compare them to.

I would however have thought there was an excellent chance of getting DNA information from eg deep inside a pair of shoes, flying helmet etc. The PCR process of DNA amplification is so good now that you can get DNA from fingerprints and so a comparison could be made and prints identified.

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

Getting AE's mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is not a problem.  There is a living relative in the direct female line.  But we're talking about events alleged to have  occurred in the 1970s.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:26:05 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Klaas' prints?

Ric said:  "Sounds like prints might exist but the question is whether Gervais and Klaas had prints at the time of the lawsuit.  Joe Klaas has recently subscribed to this forum.  Surely he'd be happy to answer this simple question for us.  How about it Joe?  Show us the fingerprints."

Nope, don't work.  So he produces some fingerprints he CLAIMS are AE's. We have nothing to confirm his claim, so we're back to square one. It's his word; are you willing to believe him?

LTM, who likes print or plaid
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
 From Ric

Obviously the prints would have to documented as being AE's or the court would not have accepted them either. It would appear that the Bolam/Earhart crowd has been caught in a lie.  They can correct that impression by producing court documents that support their story or at least show that it COULD be true by producing documented fingerprints of Amelia Earhart.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:45:56 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Lawsuits?

Ric said:  "According to Reineck, the book was pulled from the market before the lawsuit was even filed.  It would be interesting to know why."

I'm guessing, but I'd bet the lawyers got a look at it and pulled the plug to limit their damage.  On the other hand, how could Bolam sue if the book wasn't published?  And if it wasn't published then how can it be libelous?

Was the suit for libel, or simply to stop publication of potential libel?

LTM, who utters only truth
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

The book is copyrighted 1970 but I don't know when it actually was released. The copy I have is a "second printing" so obviously it was released and sold enough copies to justify a second printing. The summons was served on May 26, 1971.

Reineck says (page 180):

"The book - Amelia Earhart Lives! - was off to a good start and was destined to be a best seller until suddenly and without notice, just seven weeks after publication, McGraw Hill took the book off the shelves.  No explanation for this action was given.  It just happened."

Reineck then, of course, goes on to speculate about why the book was mysteriously withdrawn. "Did those who were trying to hide Earhart's identity - under a witness protection program of some sort - have to take swift and drastic action to keep the secret from becoming public knowledge?"

He also says that Gervais was "nominated for the Pulitzer prize for best nonfiction biography."  What he doesn't say is that in the early 1970s anyone could nominate themselves for a Pulitzer and finalists were not named publicly.

It would be interesting to track the actual sequence of events.  It wouldn't surprise me to find that the book was withdrawn by the publisher in direct response to the serving of the lawsuit so as to minimize damages.

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

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:52:38 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam/Darylls Response--

I think Daryll should stay on the forum.  Even though I don't agree with him in any way when it comes to I.B., or AE for that matter, he should be allowed to state his case as he believes it.

Don J.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:06:37 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

After mulling this whole thing over in a very unscientific manner, I've come up with a handful of possible explanations regarding the Bolam affair.

1. Irene Bolam was Amelia Earhart. We know this story....

2. Irene Bolam was not Amelia Earhart but enjoyed being part of the mystery and wanted to perpetuate her "enigma" status. This, of course, relies on the story of her not cooperating with authorities to prove her identity.

3. Irene Bolam was not Amelia Earhart, but she wasn't Irene Bolam either. Identity theft? New Identity?

4. Irene Bolam was Irene Bolam and she was brought up in different times from us. We now often have to submit to background checks and drug testing as part of fairly routine jobs. Maybe she was just aggravated as hell at her privacy being invaded, dug in her heels  and refused to cooperate in any way with furthering the author's intrusion into her personal life.

And finally <start drum roll here>

5. One word.... Anastasia!

I feel a book coming on...

Bob
***********************************************************
 From Anne

I have a quick question about Irene Bolam. I am not sure if I believe the AE connection or not, but its interesting anyways. If nothing else, food for thought. Sorry I haven't done much research on this topic, in case you have already discussed this...

Q. Was Irene Bolam into flying or airplanes? Why I ask is if it was truly AE and AE obviously loved to fly, then "Irene" should be flying/into airplanes as well. How could you so easily give up the thing you love and were famous for?

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

As I recall, Bolam had a pilot's license and had been active in aviation as a young woman but was no longer flying at the time of the lawsuit.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:08:22 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Let's keep Daryll

I vote for letting Darryl stay on.  He's got weird ideas -- in my HUMBLE opinion -- but he's not abusive, threatening, or disruptive.  Also, by letting him stay on TIGHAR takes the moral high ground by letting those with dissenting opinions say so, and thus avoid the censorship bogyman.

Of course it does force the moderator to continually plow the same ground time after time repeating for the umpteenth time facts known to long-term subscribers.  For that, the moderator will get a higher seat in Heaven, but check with Marty first.

To paraphrase my 12-Step friends, "The only requirement for membership is a desire to solve the Earhart mystery," and Darryl has demonstrated that, albeit in a "different" manner.

LTM, who favors dissent
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:38:16 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      No forum Thur & Fri

I'll be away on a research trip Thursday and Friday.  The forum will resume on Saturday.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:54:41 EST
From:         Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      Noth'in but the facts mum

Ric wrote:

>It was never up to Irene Bolam to prove that she was not Amelia Earhart.
>The allegations made in the Klaas/Gervais book clearly infuriated her and
>she was just as clearly determined not to play their game. I'd say that she
>succeeded admirably.

It was up to Irene to prove she was Irene Bolam. So you like the way Irene set things up do you. Do you think Amelia could have been that clever? What do you think about Viola Gentry claiming to have planted the seed for the Irene/Amelia connection. What do you think about Joe Gervais being invited to that meeting where the seed was planted?

>Daryll, I don't think I've ever edited your stuff. Why would I? The
>length of your ramblings is inversely proportional to their credibility.
>None of the Bolam case documents are sealed. .25 per copy is what the
>courthouse charges, not TIGHAR. The microfiche machines take quarters -
>what can I tell ya? It would be easy for me to be highly offended by
>your implication that I would misstate the cost as a fundraising scheme
>- but life's too short to waste emotion on something that ignorant.
>The rest of your posting isn't worth a reply.

I don't think you want to go down that road.

>That's okay. It's just their way of saying, "We're just making this
>stuff up."

Since Ric thinks we conspirators have our own coded language and he needs to translate what we write, turn about is fair play.

>The rest of your posting isn't worth a reply.

Since the AES forum reads this also, I have to run your last sentence through the Yahoo translator for them and it came out.

"...You are so totally right, I can't think of anything intelligent to say..."

>Well heck...let's ask them right here. They're both subscribed to the
>forum. How about it guys? Do you have AE's fingerprints and, if so,
>where did you get 'em?

It's all about provenance for you isn't it. Not really the quest for truth. We can watch a cop show on TV where they hand the suspect a glass of water to surreptitiously collect his fingerprints, but would that stand up in court as "his" fingerprints? Who is testifying to the chain of evidence in an obvious violation of the suspects constitutional rights?

>Col. Reineck, from the court documents I have seen so far that describe
>Irene Bolam's defamation lawsuit against McGraw Hill, Joe Gervais and
>Joe Klaas not only have I seen no mention of the money-for-fingerprints
>offer you describe in your book but such an offer seems to make no sense
>given the way the case is now known to have progressed.
>
>Please note - I am not accusing you of knowingly spreading a false story
>but if you, or those who told you the story, cannot produce the court
>documents that prove that it is true, then I must conclude that it is
>not true.

Ric you are under the same gun that Rollin is. This is what you posted.

>Unfortunately, the final resolution of the case was not included
>in the file I saw. It may be that one of the microfiche cards was
>missing. We'll continue our research and expect to have an answer before
>too long.

What Are you doing to find the final resolution? You must have asked someone there for the final resolution of the case because that was why you were there.

Did you leave your phone number with the archivist to call you if anything turns up? Yeah...well....we know how that form of research works.

I do know what one of the principles in the case told us. His own lawyer would NOT tell him what the settlement was between McGraw Hill & Bolam's attorneys and they were part of the lawsuit.

Do you expect to find settlement documents, that appear to be sealed, in the public realm for the researcher to thumb through? It's my guess that they are retained by the settling parties. They provide the security for the seal because it is no longer is part of a court case.

The reason meetings take place in Judge's Chambers is to exclude the court reporter. The only way someone outside of the Chambered parties learns of what took place in there is via hearsay.

Your demand on Rollin is typically unreasonable.

Daryll
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:56:32 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Amelia's fingerpints

Russ Matthews writes:

>I've seen newsreel footage from the early '30s of AE being
>fingerprinted in California as a part of some sort of civic
>initiative.  Can't recall the specifics now or tell you if
>anyone still has the prints on file (LA Sheriff's Office? State
>Police? FBI?)... however it is certainly possible
>that an "official" set still exists.

I gave mine to the FBI in that era too .. it was a national program that did not last long. Despite military service in several branches since then and a Federal Firearms License in the late 60's, it would not surprise me if mine could not be located anywhere       ...   RC
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:04:53 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Lae Operations

When we mention the "Lae Operator" can you tell me what info we have on the type of HF antenna they had at Lae?

I guess we know about the radio, but I was just wondering what setup they had there in 1937. Such as:

1. Was the Lae Operator at the airport? If so, would the radio operator also been housed in that hangar? (didn't see any other buildings around except the hangar back then)

2. What kind of Antenna did they have there and how far was it effective? It must have been effective enough to reach Australia but maybe it was directional and didn't world well east or west.

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

Chater does not mention the name of the radio operator but he refers to the person who checked over Earhart's radios as "our radio operator", implying that the person was a Guinea Airways employee.  He later makes reference to "the Lae operator" who may or may not be the same person.  No way to tell.  Harry Balfour later claimed to be the sole operator at Lae.  I've never seen any mention of where the operator was physically located or what the antenna arrangement was like.

I guess the short answer to both your questions is - I don't know.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:06:46 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Bolam v. McGraw -Hill/ Fingerprints

In order to clarify  the alleged fingerprint demand issue, I went to the horse's mouth, Joe Klaas. I asked if there was a court order, a Motion to Compel, a transcript, or other memoranda to support that IB was asked for fingerprints by the judge in the case.

He answered. " There are no documents. Informally, in the judge's chamber, I was told the judge asked Benedict Ginsberg if his client [Irene Bolam ] would submit to fingerprints to settle the issue once and for all. My understanding is that Ginsberg said no."

So we have no motions, memoranda or  transcripts . We have Joe Ks recollection of what someone told him. Perhaps it was his attorney and Joe could ask him now to reconstruct the "informal" chambers meeting. It may well be true. Joe was not present.

The most interesting question is why , if the fingerprint story is true, Klaas and Gervais would settle at all? Bolam's refusal to provide fingerprints should have been a dead giveaway. You could use that in front of the jury, if she declined a court order.

A collateral issue. If no fingerprints of AE were available in 1971, what good would IBs be?  We have asked Klaas, and Rollin, et al., if they are aware of any documented prints, signed by a witness ect., as most of us had done in our lives. (No we don't take prints off of glass of water)

LTM,

Ron Bright
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:07:56 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      The "other" forum

Hey Daryll, how do we subscribe to "your forum"?  Doesn't seem to be open to just anybody, what are the qualifications for being accepted?

Andrew McKenna
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:12:04 EST
From:         Anne
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

Ric wrote:

> As I recall, Bolam had a pilot's license and had
> been active in aviation as a
> young woman but was no longer flying at the time of
> the lawsuit.

When was the license issued and for what state? And what type of information do you have to give for a license? I'm assuming it was simple back then to obtain one...

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

Pilot's licenses have always been issued by the federal government, not individuals states.  Then, as now, obtaining a pilot's license required passing a proficiency test.  I haven't done any research into Mrs. Bolam's flying experience.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:18:45 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: 6210

> The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we STILL could
> not get it.
>
> There is a clear implication that Earhart repeated the report.

Not so! The implication is that in spite of Earhart repeating it they "could not get it" OR in spite of ASKING Earhart to repeat it (whether she did or not)  they "could not get it". There is no way to distinguish the two possibilities.

Regards Angus.

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

I see what you're saying but I don't think it works.  Let's change the context and see what happens.

"He told me his name but I couldn't understand him so I asked him to say it again but I still couldn't get it."

I think that anyone reading that sentence would take it that the man said his name twice, not that he refused to say his name again.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:19:43 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Chichester's circles

>Chichester often had to fly circles while trying to take a
>sight,...

Are you sure about that, Ross? <G>

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

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:21:27 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

Ric wrote:

>According to Reineck, the book was pulled from the market before the lawsuit
>was even filed.  It would be interesting to know why.

I suppose that could be possible if their lawyers suggested it but that would have essentially negated Irene's lawsuit. Why would she still file a law suit? If their lawyers recommended it the reason that comes to mind was that they couldn't defend their allegations.

Personally, I doubt the horse came before the cart. It would be interesting to track that one down too.

Reineck's "accords" have not proven reliable yet.

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

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:22:54 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam/Darylls Response--

Ric wrote:

>I can't cut Daryll off without being accused of trying to silence the truth
>but you, the forum subscribers, can request that you be spared the
>enlightenment of his submissions.

No, no, no, Ric. Don't cut Daryll off. Like the thousand monkeys typing on a thousand typewriters who will eventually type Shakespeare's works, Daryll will
eventually post something we've missed.

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

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:24:43 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: writing non-fiction

Terry writes:

>I would appreciate you strighten me out on this fuel matter.

Terry, you are correct you have read the 4,000 mile range statement. Don't hang your hat on that peg. There are too many variables and too much about aerodynamics and weather to go into to answer your question properly.

You can do that yourself, however. Lay out the "spy course" on a good scale map and the weather information that is known. Go into the performance charts for the Electra 10E and create a fuel profile for the route you want AE to have taken. Keep in mind the time of day when you do this. Many of us on the forum have done this already.

What you will find is that it will be night time so there could have been no spying. You will also find, if you review the archives, there was nothing to spy on during July of 1937. You will then find that the Electra will run out of gas a hundred or so miles west of Mili Atoll so it would have been a suicide mission as planned.

I hope AE pointed all that out to FDR during their secret lunch.

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

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:26:34 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Amelia's fingerpints

Angus wrote:

> I would however have thought there was an excellent chance of getting DNA
> information from eg deep inside a pair of shoes, flying helmet etc. 
> The PCR process of DNA amplification is so good now that you can get DNA from
> fingerprints and so a comparison could be made and prints identified.
>
> *****************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> Getting AE's mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is not a problem.  There is a living
> relative in the direct female line.  But we're talking about events 
> alleged to have  occurred in the 1970s.

I think you two may be talking at cross purposes. You may dance on my head if I'm wrong.

1. THE CASE AGAINST THE 1970s ALLEGATIONS (Ric's response):

     It seems that no one at that time had AE's fingerprints.

     There would then have been no point in taking Bolam's
     fingerprints, since there would have been nothing
     to compare them to.

2. A METHOD FOR FINDING AE'S FINGERPRINTS TODAY (Angus' suggestion?):

     Look at all AE memorabilia.

     Find all fingerprints.

     Do DNA tracing on all fingerprints (if technically
     possible).

     Match DNA found to AE's living relative.

     If a match is found, then we've got some of
     AE's fingerprints for future reference.

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

Oaky.  That makes sense.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:40:13 EST
From:         Rick Metzger
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

I thought that the comparison of AE to IB was visual.

That the Col. R.'s expert said that they looked alike using the Bertillion System.

I found a picture of AE on the web that was facing the same way as the photo of IB on your web site. Even to me there are five glaring differences.

1. IB's nose was bulbous while AE's was small and rounded

2. AE had flared nostrals, IB's were flat

3. the long shape of IB's face to the rounded shape of AE's

4. AE has curled ends to her mouth, IB's are straight

5. the teeth

Unless AE had some plastic surgery she does not resemble IB at all.

STL,
Richard Metzger

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

Let's clarify something.  Reineck does not claim to have any experts.  He describes comparisons that film-maker Todd Swindell has made and makes an oblique reference to two "renowned anthropologists" Swindell is working with.  Neither Reineck nor Swindell ever mentioned the Bertillion method.  That was me.

On Thursday and Friday I was at the annual meeting of the American Association of Forensic Sciences in Dallas, Texas.  It was a good opportunity to learn a little bit about what can and cannot be done with human identification through imagery. Both of the forensic anthropologists mentioned by Reineck were present at the meeting and I had a very pleasant conversation with one of them. More about that in a later posting.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:41:08 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Almanac

There was no constraint on shooting stars or the sun caused by the almanac or by the navigation tables being used by Noonan (H.O. 208.) The only limit on shooting the stars was dawn which made it impossible to observe the stars due to the brightness of the sky.

Gary LaPook
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:42:09 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Chichester

Chichester's book, "Seaplane Solo" describes how he invented the offset technique. It is a very interesting and exciting book. See the following link for more information.

http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/chichester.html
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:45:54 EST
From:         Alex
Subject:      Re: Irene's Posthumous fingerprints??

Out of interest Ric are there any fingerprints of A.E's ? so they would have a set to compare these others with if and when they could or did become available. I thought i would ask as up to now nothing has been mentioned in regard to anyone having ORIGINAL A.E fingerprints as far as i can remember.

Alex 'the interested'
*******************************************************************
 From Ric

We've been trying to find out but, incredibly, for all the fuss about allegations of judges asking for Irene Bolam's fingerprints, it's beginning to look like those who allege that it happened do not even claim to have AE's prints to compare them to.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:48:06 EST
From:         Lawrence Glazer
Subject:      Bolam

Re: Irene Bolam Lawsuit

As a former trial judge (15 years, not in New York), I may be able to provide some context on the court file Ric reviewed. My knowledge of the court file is, of course, based entirely on Ric's description, but that description appears on its face to be of good quality.

- First, it is significant that the Defendants (the publisher and the authors) moved for summary disposition and lost. This normally means that the trial judge has determined that (a) the Plaintiff (Irene Bolam) had a valid legal theory and (b) the Plaintiff has demonstrated that she had evidence which, if believed by the jury,  would win the lawsuit.

- It is even more significant that the trial judge's decision was appealed and affirmed. Essentially, this means that if the jury then finds in favor of Bolam, there is very little chance of the Defendants overturning the verdict on appeal.

- Of the three Defendants, the only one with deep pockets was probably the publisher. Thus, if the publisher decided to settle, this would put great pressure on the authors to settle as well. Otherwise, they have to go to trial and expose their personal assets to seizure if the jury awards Bolam a goodly sum.

- It is NOT  particularly significant that no final outcome is found in the court file. It is common for parties in a lawsuit to settle it "outside the record", i.e., with a private written agreement never recorded in the court file. Normally when this happens, the parties' attorneys  file with the court a stipulation to dismiss the suit. However, it is not unknown for the parties and attorneys to just walk away, without filing anything. If anyone later tries to pursue or renew the existing lawsuit, then the Defendants can simply produce the written agreement, which is a bar to further litigation.

LTM, who always settled out of court.
Lawrence Glazer

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

Judge Glazer, we are indebted.  Thanks yerhonor.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:50:11 EST
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Noth'in but the facts mum


Daryll wrote:

> It was up to Irene to prove she was Irene Bolam.

No, it was not.  In any scientific or legal exercise, it is up to the person attempting to prove the point based on evidence they have, or can gather (in places where "innocent until proven guilty" applies, of course).  Irene Bolam may have been able to clear things up with her fingerprints, but she was completely within her rights to tell anyone who wanted them to shove off and respect her privacy.  Putting the onus on her to prove who she was is improper, legally and scientifically...such a move usually (but not always) points to someone who cannot prove their point.

> Your demand on Rollin is typically unreasonable.

The Colonel has put forward a statement, without any supporting evidence.  As a scientist, I would be fried for doing such a thing...any work that I publish must be supported clearly by the data. Ric is just asking that the same be done in the search for Amelia Earhart.

                     Reed
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:07:15 EST
From:         HH
Subject:      Re: Amelia's fingerpints

Do you have a mitochondria DNA profile already of AE's living relative, if not ,it might be worth getting for future comparisons.
HH

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

She prefers to wait until there is something credible to compare to.  Can't say I blame her.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:09:17 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noth'in but the facts mum

Daryll gets it wrong again.

>It's all about provenance for you isn't it. Not really the quest for
>truth. We can watch a cop show on TV where they hand the suspect a glass
>of water to surreptitiously collect his fingerprints, but would that
>stand up in court as "his" fingerprints? Who is testifying to the chain
>of evidence in an obvious violation of the suspects constitutional
>rights?
>
>Ric you are under the same gun that Rollin is. This is what you posted.
>
>I do know what one of the principles in the case told us. His own lawyer
>would NOT tell him what the settlement was between McGraw Hill & Bolam's
>attorneys and they were part of the lawsuit.
>
>The reason meetings take place in Judge's Chambers is to exclude the
>court reporter. The only way someone outside of the Chambered parties
>learns of what took place in there is via hearsay.

Daryll, if you would run your proposed postings through someone a little more knowledgeable you wouldn't post such incorrect nonsense.

You're smarter than this and we're not nearly as dumb as you clearly take us for.

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

Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:11:01 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The "other" forum

Andrew McKenna wrote:

>Hey Daryll, how do we subscribe to "your forum"?  Doesn't seem to be
>open to just anybody, what are the qualifications for being accepted?

Ric, I promise not to respond to this question.

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

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:11:35 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Amelia's fingerpints

What method would you use to obtain these old and degraded prints? It is my understanding that older prints degrade and most of the time cannot be useful.
**************************************************************
 From Ron Bright

re: fingerprints

In an inquiry with Joe Klaas , who said the civic id program for kid identifiction, was at Berkeley, Ca but when the police dept moved, the fingerprints were lost to eternity. No fingerprints.
Ron .
**************************************************************
 From Ric

Is Mr. Klaas admitting that he and Mr. Gervais had no AE fingerprints to compare to any they hoped to get from Mrs. Bolam?

(Incidentally, somebody apparently signed Joe Klaas up to this forum without his permission.  As soon as he discovered that he was on this forum he asked to be removed.)
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:14:19 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      DNA from fingerprints

Re Marty's explanation of Angus' suggestion that DNA from fingerprints could be used to authenticate fingerprints on objects.

Ric said:

>Okay.  That make sense.

No, it doesn't.  You could have the fingerprints of another relative who handled the artifact.
Dan Postellon #2263
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:16:09 EST
From:         Neil
Subject:      Now for something irrelevant

In about 1971, D.B. Cooper disappeared from a plane in mid-flight, while in possession of a large sum of cash. It is unknown whether he used a parachute. No trace of him or his body has ever been found.

In the 1980's I realized that I bore a striking resemblance to Cooper, and I embarked on a get-rich-quick scheme. I moved to a city where I was unknown, and started a rumour that I was D.B.Cooper. Whenever anyone asked me directly I would always deny being Cooper, but I would surreptitiously feed the rumour by saying "Well, people are always saying that I'm Cooper".

Soon I came to the attention of would-be authors who embellished the facts as authors are wont to do, and the story was picked up by the reputable newspapers. Soon, it was being alleged everywhere that I was D.B. Cooper. My plan was working. I initiated court proceedings against a prominent author and a newspaper. However, my plans came unstuck when my true motives were determined, and I was very fortunate to escape with an out-of-court settlement which was only enough to pay my court costs.

I lived thereafter in obscurity, having learned the lesson that those who practise false pretences never succeed.

Neil in Auckland, N.Z.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:18:01 EST
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Noth'in but the facts mum

Daryll,

You are so full of BS that your postings are making less and less since. Please show me a case were the accuser in a deformation case  - Irene Bolam - has to prove anything, the defendant needs to prove its allegations are correct! Jezz, dumb argument!  It's a reversal of the prosecutor's and defendant's role in a civil case if you want a comparison.

You make a stupid comment regarding fund rasing at $.25/page and Ric explains what the costs are and you "don't want to go down that road."  What in the H.. are you thinking and/or what is your argument?

Regarding fingerprints.  Just answer the damn question - do have a set or not?  We will deal with the technicalities i.e. authenticated, recorded, etc., later.

Regarding your comment about the "resolution of the case" - why has this become Ric's obligation?  I don't recall Ric reaching a conclusion that there was a "money for fingerprint offer," Reineck did!

Regarding what one of the principals in the case told you; "his own lawyer would NOT tell him what the settlement was" would lead a halfway intelligent person to conclude there is no public record of the "resolution of the case" and therefore your challenge noted above is really stupid.  Ric, didn't talk to your "principal in the case" you did, so why make the challenge?

Daryll, your comments are becoming "dumb and dumber" yep that's dumb and dumber Daryll!

Ted Campbell
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:19:42 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Almanac

Gary LaPook wrote:

>There was no constraint on shooting stars or the sun caused by the
>almanac or by the navigation tables being used by noonan (H.O. 208.) The
>only limit on shooting the stars was dawn which made it impossible to
>observe the stars due to the brightness of the sky.>>

Gary, I referred his question to you in re the data contained in Noonan's books and tables. I did not know the answers. I didn't know if the tables were as comprehensive as they are now. He also wanted to know how far, timewise, into the dawn were any celestial bodies still visible enough on which to take a reading. I'm not sure that is an answerable question. One might have to be there to know the answer.

I know from my own experience some bright bodies were visible fairly well into the morning light but I sure couldn't quantify that. And of course the western sky remains darker longer than the eastern sky but I thought that was rather common sense and didn't point that out.

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

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:21:25 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bolam

Lawrence's commentary, once again, demonstrates the most probable and most logical reasoning of the law suit outcome whereas Rollin's scenario is decidedly illogical.

I believe the fingerprint subject to be a non issue. Having not researched the specific issues here I am only guessing that the McGraw-Hill, Klass, Gervais group, having made the allegation that Irene was Amelia, had the burden of proof. Irene did not have the burden to prove she was not. Her chore was to refute any legitimate evidence McGraw-Hill could produce. I have no clue what that could have been.

Certainly, she could have been asked informally if she would agree to be fingerprinted but she didn't have to comply. If such a request was made McGraw-Hill would have had to first make a showing they had AE's prints for comparison. If no such prints existed or were not available they either did NOT make such a request or they foolishly did so and the judge shot them down. Logic tells me no such request was made. I'll change my opinion ONLY if Reineck can show proof McGraw-Hill had AE's fingerprints.

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

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:28:10 EST
From:         Marty Joy
Subject:      Re: Noth'in but the facts mum

>It's all about provenance for you isn't it. Not really the quest for
>truth. We can watch a cop show on TV where they hand the suspect a glass
>of water to surreptitiously collect his fingerprints, but would that
>stand up in court as "his" fingerprints? Who is testifying to the chain
>of evidence in an obvious violation of the suspects constitutional
>rights?

Whose ramblings are these? "Obvious violation of the suspect's constitutional rights"? Nonsense.

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

These are the ramblings of Starship Daryll Bollinger.  I don't write 'em.  I just post 'em.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:30:25 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

Ric wrote;

>According to Reineck, the book was pulled from the market before the
>lawsuit was even filed.  It would be interesting to know why.

Alan wrote:

>I suppose that could be possible if their lawyers suggested it but that
>would have essentially negated Irene's lawsuit. Why would she still file a law
>suit?

Because pulling the book does not remove the damage done from the copies already sold, or the publicity for the book.  Dan P.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:34:33 EST
From:         Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      Several Forum responses

Ron Bright wrote:

>The most interesting question is why , if the fingerprint
>story is true, Klaas and Gervais would settle at all? Bolam's refusal to
>provide fingerprints should have been a dead giveaway. You could use
>that in front of the jury, if she declined a court order....
>A collateral issue. If no fingerprints of AE
>were available in 1971, what good would IBs be? We have asked Klaas, and
>Rollin, et al., if they are aware of any documented prints, signed by a
>witness ect., as most of us had done in our lives. (No we don't take
>prints off of glass of water)

Who is "we" ????

Joe Klaas and Joe Gervais were being dragged into this lawsuit on McGraw Hill attorney's coat tails. They did not have the "Deep Pockets" to make this lawsuit advisable to Irene.  Because they (Joe K. & Joe G.) claim to have no direct knowledge of the settlement should be indication enough in who was in the positions of power in this litigation.

The legal poker game could have continued on even in the Judge's Chambers. Bolam's attorney's would NOT be in a position to know for sure IF McGraw Hill (Klaas & Gervais) attorneys had a set of AE's prints. If they did have those prints they could have been contained on a simple piece of paper in a brief case. In Irene Bolam's case, her fingerprints were located at the end of her arm.

From a constitutional point of view Irene had every right to refuse to give them of course. BUT to succeed in a civil court case, as opposed to a criminal court case and the presumption of innocence, she could be required to give them. Bolam's attorneys would be taking a gamble that McGraw Hill didn't have AE's fingerprints if they let Irene give hers.

It's the classic lesson that is given to lawyers, gleaned from what I've seen on TV of course, DON'T ask a question that you don't already have an answer for.

There have been a multiple of questions and responses on this forum addressed to the point of the existence of AE's fingerprints.

I have no knowledge of what went on in the Judges Chambers of course but let me speculate on possible hypothetical exchanges.

JUDGE to McGraw Hill attorneys; "Do you have a set of Amelia Earhart's fingerprints to compare with Irene Bolam's fingerprints?"

McGRAW HILL ATTORNEY'S to the Judge ; "Hypothetically speaking of course your Honor. Suppose an Amelia Earhart Autographed Cover Letter, similar to the thousands that were carried on the ill fated World Flight, still existed because it missed, metaphorically the boat, and WAS NOT personally placed on Earhart's plane at the start of her world flight. This Autographed Cover Letter, is the property of a close personal friend of Amelia Earhart's, who is still alive and could establish it's provenance. Because of Earhart's loss during the flight, this close personal friend kept the Autographed Cover Letter in a pristine condition. We don't feel we have to prove which fingerprints on the Cover Letter are Amelia's BUT only that Irene Bolam's fingerprints are or are not on it. The ball is now back in the Plaintiff's court your Honor."

Andrew McKenna wrote:

>Hey Daryll, how do we subscribe to "your forum"? Doesn't seem to be open
>to just anybody, what are the qualifications for being accepted?

Andrew, we are not prudish people. It's a closed forum to protect the references of the research material. I think you have noticed how often that research references are requested on this forum. It's not what the research reveals but where you got it from that seems to count here.

Every applicant has to submit a bio for our membership to approve.

Anne wrote:

>Ric wrote:
>
>>As I recall, Bolam had a pilot's license and had been active in aviation
>>as a young woman but was no longer flying at the time of the lawsuit.
>
>When was the license issued and for what state? And what type of
>information do you have to give for a license? I'm assuming it was
>simple back then to obtain one...

Anne, If you are truly interested, the New Jersey Woodbridge News Tribune did a series of articles in Oct. 1982 on the Irene / Amelia connection, after Irene's death.

Daryll
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:47:53 EST
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: 6210

While still going over the voluminous logs, etc from the ITASCA  and Howland Island, I have been trying to put some type of theory as to what happened after the sunline position transmission. Now, first off, I do believe that there were most likely some mistakes in transcription on the logs.

From actual experience, most RM types keep a "rough log" which is just a sheet (with several carbons, in the '60s) in the mill (typewriter) which we were using to get the info for the log, more mills at the operating positions, similarly equipped with plain paper, since logs, as an official document, can't be changed without striking out the incorrect info (not "X" ing it out, drawing a line thru it with a pencil and initialising it with ones "Sine/Chop) then entering the correct information with an OPNOTE explaining the deviation.  In additon, since, in copying messages, one occasionally has to make changes, due to poor reception, not recieving a character correctly and asking for "fills", etc., as well as working at such speed that the final copy is really not "fair"  (properly aligned, the right line length, etc),  it was much easier, and legal, to just copy the stuff on plain paper, and then make the "official" log entries when one got caught up with the work.  Now, none of this "rough copy" was destroyed, and was filed with the "smooth" copies, for just such an occurrence as we are now discussing.  It was just done this way so the official logs didn't earn the wrath of inspecting Brass, etc.  One signed off the logs EXACTLY as the logs from the ITASCA were done, as the one's we used were Identical in the '60's (I will happily provide a scanned copy of one of my own personal copies, which I have to establish my longevity as a "Telegrapher" required for Commercial Radio Licences to show the similarity).

OK, now that the log business is sorted out, I kind of think that something  (and I don't want to speculate at this time) happened after the call concerning 6210 which caused comms to be lost.  I don't believe that  a catastrophic failure occurred, nor a crash, nor fuel exhaustion, but  SOMETHING concerning  the tuning of the radios).  Possibly there was some confusion that day in the cockpit, for I am full well aware of the feeling when one's landmark does not appear in the proper place when the estimated time runs out.  Possibly there was some confusion concerning reception of voice vs CW (a different reciever setting, including the turning on of the BFO to recieve CW signals is necessary, and this may have not been done, and without a BFO being active, one only hears a "thump" or a "dullness" when a CW signal is recieved). I have to ck the logs to see if the transmissions on 6210 were done (from the ITASCA) on voice (A3) or CW (A1), and I don't have the logs in front of me at thie present time.  I also have to check the wiring diagram of the transmitter with the 500Khz mods and the CW mods to see if, and this is speculation only, that if the cockpit switch were placed in the "CW" position, the modulation input to the xmtr would have been lost, and a carrier would have only been sent when the PTT switch was depressed (remember that one of the functions of the "Voice/CW" switch was to place the dynamotor supply in "continuous", so when sending CW one would not have the B+ supply coming on and off, resulting in a "whoop" type of signal, and also to enable the grid block keying of the transmitter (remember they didn't have QSK (full break in) capability, due to the design, for whatever reason, and which is discussed in the TIGHAR "The Radio's" analysis.  If the switch was in the wrong position, there is a possibility that nothing could have been transmitted via voice, but I have to go back, again to the schematics to verify this, so don't flame me for making this quasi-theory--hi--........  I wonder, also if Murphy wasn't present, and possibly caused problems with the remote tuning unit for the reciever (flex drive slippage, etc)... 

I apologize for not answering one question that was sent to me on the forum (Greg's Analysis), and that's where I got the info about AE having a tendency to fly "left of course".  OK, the "evidence" was the anecdotal stuff in the Loomis/Ethell  "AE, the final story".  In this particular book, this tendency is mentioned on many occasions.  Now, the only reason I considered it in any way valid is that both authors had been pilots, Loomis had considerable time in SoPac flying between atolls, during and after WWII in a C-47/DC-3/R4D (according to the book)  and Jeff Ethell (RIP) was both a  friend (Whom I now wish I had kept in more contact with than I did)  and outstanding pilot.   I am very familiar with Torque and P-Factor effects, as I am (albeit without a medical any more) a commercial pilot,  even though the closest, I ever have been to flying a Lockheed 10 is the venerable" Twin Beech",  (some have told me they have similar handling characteristics, but that is only hearsay) and I never had a problem with torque on the Beech, nor of maintaining course. OPNOTE: I do not have a great deal of hours in the Beech, as when one is paying for the fuel, one has to be VERY frugal with those thirsty round engines ;-) I was fortunate to be able to trade Avionics Installation/Repair for time in this wonderful A/C.    I hope this answers where I obtained the info for my speculations on the "left of course" scenario.

I am still working hard on the logs, the timeline, the freqs, what the radios of all concerned were capable of doing, and trying to recreate, independently, those last minutes and where they actually were.  I also am working on making all the logs easily readable and understandable to a "Non Sparks"  and will, at some point, submit a translation from "RM speak" into plain language for easy comparison.

Regards to all,

Greg "GW" Moore
TIGHAR #2004
Former RM1, USN
*********************************************************************
 From Ric

Thanks Greg.  A couple of points of clarification.

Are you suggesting that there may also have been plain paper rough logs aboard itasca?  That would surprise me because we have both the smoothed logs and the logs provided by Leo Bellarts which are clearly the rough logs.

As has been explained several times on the forum, the switch for CW transmission was on the keying unit which was left behind.  The only way Earhart could send morse was with the PTT which would produce a "whoop" as the dynamotor kicked in every time the button was depressed.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:10:06 EST
From:         Jim Pearson
Subject:      Amelia Earhart's fingerprints

Copies of Amelia Earhart's fingerprints are available. Apparently she had her her palm and fingerprints made for a palmistry reading in 1937. They are featured on the cover of Handanalysis Journal vol. 1 issue 4. Check their website at www. handanalysis. net/publications/. Copies can apparently be ordered, see handanalysis. net/order/. Now do you suppose that Irene Bolam ever....

Jim Pearson

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

Yes, that palm print is at Purdue.  I don't know if there is sufficient resolution for fingerprint identification but the interesting thing for our purposes in evaluating the claims in Reineck's book is that none of his defenders have mentioned the palm print.  Either they are not aware that it exists or they know that it is useless as a reference.

The settlement-for-fingerprints story as related in Reineck's book is clearly not true.  Neither Klaas nor Gervais can produce any record that it ever happened nor do they even claim to have witnessed the event personally.   They can't even agree on what they say they heard happened.

As a sidelight, ....palmistry, astrology, ESP experiments.... the Earhart legend rarely mentions how superstitious and into psuedo-science AE apparently was.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:12:48 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      "Millionaire"

This was the $100,000 question on last night's "Who Wants to be a Mega Millionaire:"

     Who was the navigator that disappeared with Amelia Earhart in 1937?
     A) Fred Noonan
     B) Wiley Post
     C) Floyd Bennet
     D) ??? (I forget)

It took the guy 10 minutes and two life lines (the audience had Noonan at a slight 31 percent over Wiley Post at 28 percent; he called a friend who "thought" it was Noonan) before he got it.   Sheesh, all he had to do was call Ric.

Based a plurality of 31 percent and a friend's hunch, he walked away with a total of $500K.  Maybe this should be TIGHAR's next fund-raising effort -- get on "Millionaire."

LTM, who had her hand up, too
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
***********************************************************************
 From Ric

Wouldn't work.  None of our members could get a low enough score on the IQ test required to be a contestant.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:14:51 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      speculation

Darryl said:

>I have no knowledge of what went on in the Judges Chambers of
>course but let me speculate on possible hypothetical exchanges.

Excellent job Darryl.  Now would care to speculate on possible hypothetical exchanges between me and my supervisor on January 18, 1969?   I'd be interested in your insights, which I'm sure will be about as valuable as the ones you just posted.

LTM, who knows a  . . .never mind
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:16:48 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Now for something irrelevant

Neil wrote:

>I initiated court proceedings against a prominent author
>and a newspaper. However, my plans came unstuck when
>my true motives were determined, and I was very fortunate
>to escape with an out-of-court settlement which was only
>enough to pay my court costs.

I suspect that you would win in this case.  If an author said you were DBC, without proof, wouldn't that be defamation?
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:17:45 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Almanac

Alan wrote:

> ... I know from my own experience some bright bodies were visible  
> fairly well
> into the morning light but I sure couldn't quantify that.  ...

I'm not a navigator.

I only play one in my dreams.

That said, does anybody know where Venus was that day? Is it ever far enough away from the sun to be useful to provide a second line of position (LOP)?

I suppose it doesn't really matter much.  Even if Fred got other LOPs from other stars or planets, the only LOP reported was 337/157.

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

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:14:15 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      For Col. Reineck

Col. Reineck, on page 192 of your book you write:

"Renowned forensic anthropologist Dr. Walter H. Birkby of Arizona and Dr. Todd W. Fenton of Michigan State University, fully recognized the Earhart-Bolam controversy through the quality of Swindell's extensve (sic) physical and personal traits comparisons.  With the enormous amount of research presented to them, they felt it was hard to disagree with the conclusion that there had once been two separate individuals, both identified as one person: "Irene Bolam". Significantly, one of these was previously known as Amelia Earhart."

On February 20, 2004 I had the pleasure of chatting with Dr. Birkby at the annual meeting of the American Association of Forensic Sciences in Dallas, Texas.  I was rather surprised to learn that he is not familiar with your name nor with your book and was unaware that his name was being used to enhance the credibility of your claims.

When I asked him if he and Dr. Fenton were working with Todd Swindell on the Earhart/Bolam question he said, "We're looking into it but we're not sticking our necks out."

I said, "Well, I'm afraid that your necks are being stuck out for you."

He said (chuckling), "Oh that's nice.  The blade cuts cleaner that way."

I explained, "In his book, Col. Reineck says that you and Dr. Fenton 'find it hard to disagree' with Swindell's conclusions."

He replied, "Yes, and we also find it hard to agree with his conclusions. You know, you can't prove anything from photos.  He showed us a bunch of overlays but the photo quality is so poor and they've been blown way up - you can almost make anybody look like anybody.  Dr. Fenton has the photos up in Michigan now where there is decent equipment.  We'll see if anything can be learned."

Once again, Col. Reineck, the facts appear to be very different from the information presented in your book.  It's one thing to present folklore as fact, but falsifying the endorsement of respected professionals is serious business. Unfortunately, you can't unring a bell and you can't unpublish a book.  In a perfect world yours would be recalled just as "Amelia Earhart Lives!" was yanked from distribution but Mrs. Bolam is long dead and that remedy seems remote.  Your work will likely join the ranks of so many other Earhart conspiracy books - deceiving the unwary and perpetuating the myth.  And you'll have to live with it.

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

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:16:56 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Amelia's fingerprints

Ron Berry asks:

>What method would you use to obtain these old and degraded prints? It
>is my understanding that older prints degrade and most of the time cannot be
>useful.

It depends on how the prints were made and stored.  Identifiable fingerprints have been found baked into ancient pottery, and have been used to identify a group of pots made by the same potter.  A fingerprint in paint has been used in an attempt to identify a Jackson Pollock painting decades later.  I remember a "body in a trunk" case, where fingerprints were pulled more than a decade after they were made.  The prints might be there, but what is tough is documenting that they are AE's, and not the maids, some researcher, etc.    Dan Postellon TIGHAR # 2263
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:28:53 EST
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: 6210

Thanks, Ric, I have all the log copies which you kindly sent me, and the copy of the Bellarts interview.  I was just passing on the info about "plain paper" rough logs because that's the way we did it, and that's both USCG and USN, at least where I was stationed at the time where I gained my MF/500Khz experience.  Since we had a LOT of circuits up at the same time, on myriad freqs, and traffic and communications were liable to come at any time, both via voice and CW, along with the physical separation of the various recievers, it was far easier to keep plain paper rough logs for the various circuits, then transcribe them into a fair copy, since sometimes things got a little hectic, and since there were different mills at every position, one just copied on the one in front of them at the time.   I have, and am analyzing the rough logs, along with the fair copies, to, as I have stated previously to make them understandable to "Non RM" types.  The abbreviations can be very daunting to one who hasn't actually done this for a considerable period of time, and sometimes, are "made up on the spot" if there was no other acceptable abbreviation.  The log sheets were of a finite size, and it was general accepted procedure to fit as much as possible on each sheet (economy was a laudable asset --hi)...

As far as the switch goes, I didn't realize that the whole thing had been removed, at least  I may have misinterpreted the radio analysis. I thought that the key had been removed, but not the switch assembly. Why I did is up for speculation, heck, I'm still trying to figure out the belly antenna enigma, and if, as is probably true, they were sense antennas for the DF, which, when apparently torn off during the Lae takeoff, would have left a 180 degree ambiguity problem with the DF loop. Incidentally, this could have been completely overlooked by AE when attempting to null a signal, since there could have been enough antenna left to still work to a degree.     There simply isn't any other radio equipment aboard which would account for their presence other than the DF reciever, unless there was something that nobody knows about.

Thanks for straightening me out on the switch removal, that makes the whole scenario easier to interpret.  Also, tnx much for the log info.. I was brainstorming based on my own experience, but I do have the Bellarts logs here, which are clearly "rough".....

Greg "GW" Moore
# 2645
*******************************************************************
 From Ric

It appears that the belly antenna served as the HF receiving antenna and may also have served as the sense antenna for the DF.  Earhart's transmitter had the capability to use the dorsal vee antenna for both transmitting and receiving (that is, the transmitter had a terminal to which the cable from the receiver could be attached permitting dual use of the antenna) but photos of the transmitter installed in the Electra show that that terminal was not used.  Photos also show a lead-in from the belly antenna going into the underside of the Electra just under the copilot's seat where the receiver was mounted.

It was a somewhat unorthodox arrangement but the photos are very clear.   With that set-up the loss of the belly antenna on take-off would account for reception problems encountered during the flight.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:30:52 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Now for something irrelevant

D.B. Cooper ? Was that the guy who jumped out of a Boeing 727 using the airstairs ? This indicated he had some 727 background for few people knew one could exit a 727 in-flight from there. I seem to remember the newspapers reported he had brought a parachute but that it failed to open. No matter how irrelevant the story may be to the forum, it's worth knowing what happened...

LTM (who always said to check your parachute before jumping)
****************************************************************
 From Ric

Somewhere there is undoubtedly a D.B. Cooper Forum, but this ain't it.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:20:03 EST
From:         Alex
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

Is there any research into Mrs. Bolam's flying experience mentioned in this book as it seems if there isnt then how much research actually got done to produce it ? If you are producing a book and one of the people in it is supposed/allegedly be the person its about then i thought these little bits of info would be there... possibly it is or maybe not as the case may be. Maybe you could put me right on this matter and possibly the forum.

THNX
Alex G
******************************************************************
 From Ric

It would appear that Col. Reineck relied to a very great extent upon the research of others, which is fine as long as their work is properly cited and supportable.  Sadly, Col. Reineck seems to have neglected that step.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:21:08 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Irene Bolam

Dan wrote:

>Because pulling the book does not remove the damage done from the copies
>already sold, or the publicity for the book.

Correct, Dan but that's why I said "essentially" negated her law suit. Once the book is pulled it becomes much harder to prove she is being damaged. Most lawyers would be less inclined at that point as the cost of suit Vs. remuneration becomes less attractive.

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

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:29:14 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: For Col. Reineck

Ric wrote:

> On February 20, 2004 I had the pleasure of chatting with Dr. Birkby ...

Thanks for a pleasant memory. I had the privilege of being one of Walt Birkby's students thirty years ago during the hey day of the U of A's Anthropology Department; when Dr. Ray Thompson ran the Archaeology field school and Bill Rathje was just cranking up his now famous "garbage project". Does Dr. Birkby still sport a crew cut?

LTM (who was footing my bills in those days)
Kerry Tiller
*********************************************************************
 From Ric

He sure does.  Feisty, witty and very approachable.  I had not met him before but we have some mutual friends in the forensic anthropology community.  He presented a paper on identifying the probable ethnicity of human remains found in the desert along the U.S./Mexican border by noting specific skeletal features.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:36:36 EST
From:         Julie
Subject:      Re: Almanac

Venus, known as "the morning star" and "the evening star", precedes or follows the Sun and I believe(if memory serves), that it is always within 26 degrees of the Sun. My experience has been, whether it precedes or follows the Sun it is also in line with the Sun and you can't get a big enough "cut" to get a position. That being said, when it comes up in the morning prior to any light in the east it is very useful for a LOP with those from stars.

Also, when it comes over the horizon it appears quit large and appears to be moving due to atmospheric refraction. So much so that pilots often think another aircraft is coming at them until they realize what it is. I don't have the reference material to determine where it was that day.

I think we must also assume that a good deal of this flight was spent below and in, cloud and perhaps not all that much was "on top" as a more modern aircraft might be.

Cheers.
Julie

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

We would you assume that?  At no time did Earhart say she was flying in cloud and we have no evidence of a major weather system along her route that would produce significant cloud cover.  The only mention of weather in her received radio transmissions was the phrase "part cldy" noted in the Itasca radio log at 04:53 local time.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:37:32 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Now for something irrelevant

Here in the Northwest, D.B. Cooper (not the real name) remains a legend and annualy a tavern near where he jumped out (with a chute) has a "reunion". People still maintain he attends! By the by, some $20 thousand ( can't recall exact amt) was recovered by a young boy fishing past Vancover, Wa on the Columbia river bank. (I also remind others that a bottle was found near Everett, Wa, a couple of years ago, with a nice note from Fred Noonan describing their fate)

Ron
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:38:49 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: For Col. Reineck

Ric,

This should be posted to the AES forum for review.

Ron B.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Not my job.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:02:51 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      AES forum

Darryl said:

>It's a closed forum to protect the references of the
>research material."

Nice try.  I think they tried that approach back in the 12th (?) century, and then everyone agreed the world was flat.  That worked well, didn't it?

Good research demands accuracy, transparency, and provenience, among other things, most of which the AES has ignored and instead uses speculation, secrecy, and innuendo.  You guys have zero credibility, but you ARE easy targets.

LTM, who sees clearly now
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
****************************************************************
From Alfred Hendrickson, for Daryll:

>> It's a closed forum to protect the references of the research
>> material.
>
>I think you have noticed how often that research references are requested
>on this forum. It's not what the research reveals but where you got it from
>that seems to count here. Every applicant has to submit a bio for our
>membership to approve.

Why do the references need protection? And from who or what? If "opening" the closed forum leaves the references vulnerable in some way, I'd say the exposure would be healthy. Cleansing, even. I also wonder what sorts of individuals are denied "approval".

Hmmm.

LTM, who prefers an open forum,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:05:46 EST
From:         Neil Barnett
Subject:      Re: Now for something irrelevant

Ron Bright wrote:

> Here in the Northwest, D.B. Cooper (not the real name) remains a legend and
> annualy a tavern near where he jumped out (with a chute) has a  
> "reunion".

I repeat, it is not known whether he used a parachute, because no witness saw him leave the plane. He and the money and two of the four 'chutes could have been sucked out of the open door before he put on his 'chute.

I really do not want to turn this forum into a Cooper forum, but I thought it necessary to point out how easy it is to make a wrong assumption.

Neil in Auckland, N.Z.
**************************************************
 From Ric

I'm sure that the Cooper mystery is as burdened with assumption and folklore as all of the other popular mysteries.  We now return to our regularly scheduled mystery.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:06:47 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Almanac

The early PanAm navigators regularly used Venus for celestial nav. In fact, they got upset when PAA updated their octants because they were less capable of getting Venus. The earlier versions had upside down images. The "improved" versions had right-side-up images, but the extra lenses absorbed more light making it much more difficult to sight Venus. At least that's the way I understand the accounts I read.

I personally believe Noonan would have used Venus if he could have. I don't know what the borrowed octant was capable of, however.

blue skies, jerry
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:10:24 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Noth'in but the facts mum

Good On, Ted Campbell ! You are absolutly right.
Jim Preston
USAF Retired
****************************************
 From Dave in Fremont:

>Starship Daryll


Ric, I have to hand it to you, I couldn't have thought of a better moniker, myself:) Especially considering his later response to the "qualifications" for admittance to the AES.

Keep posting Daryll's missives, equivocations, and delusional postulations; it's a good time for all!

For example:

In Daryll's words:

>I have no knowledge of what went on in the Judges Chambers <sic> of 
>course but let me speculate on possible hypothetical exchanges.

This seems to be what the AES's "bread and butter" is all about: "... speculate on possible hypothetical exchanges." If this is incorrect, I apologize, beforehand. If this is not incorrect, I would suggest that the AES's philosophy is that of an "old boys' network", so the major conspiracy theorists of their "tribe" can spout ad nauseum theories of any stripe, with no responsibility to PROVE anything they issue; therefore, "we have said it; therefore, it must be TRUE (FACT)."

I don't know much about anthropologic identification, but as I recall, the easiest DISqualifier are the shape of the ears... If more than a few similarities exist, let's look further. If not, let's call it a day and start over at zero.

As for me, it only takes a cursory view to see that Irene Bolam was NOT our Amelia... The most obvious thing is Ms. Bolam had buck teeth; AE did not. But I'm sure Daryll and his ilk will strongly posit the theory that AE had cosmetic surgery upon her return to the U.S. to disguise that famous, slightly gapped-tooth (but not buck-toothed) smile of our heroine...

Note to Daryll: Look up the big words, it won't hurt... much.

LTM (who wishes that we would keep with the physical evidence and quit relying on flights of fancy),
Dave (#2585)
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:11:32 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Chichester

Gary LaPook wrote:

> Chichester's book, "Seaplane Solo" discribes how he invented the offset
> technique. It is a very interesting and exciting book. See the  
> following link for more information.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/chichester.html

Chichester writes a fairly critical account of Seaplane Solo in his later book.  He was very unimpressed with the way he wrote Seaplane Solo, and tried to make up for it in The Lonely Sea And The sky. Both however, are worth a read.  I prefer the latter account.

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

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:13:31 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Chichester's circles

Alan wrote:

>>Chichester often had to fly circles while trying to take a
>>sight,...
>
> Are you sure about that, Ross? <G>

According to Chichester in his book.  I have had it returned to the library, but i can probably ask someone to get it out for me again, so I can quote from it.  I read it whilst i was in hospital, and was fascinated by the story.

Unfortunately I am a broken wombat (my son's motorcycle + my 50y.o. bones + a delivery van) at present and won't be able to walk any distance for at least another month (just about everything that isn't broken is sprained).

On the other hand, Alan, I think you'd find the book in your local library, and the navigating stuff makes fascinating reading for anyone interested in the subject.

What got me was that with the number of missed sights, errors and changes of course, as well as what were primitive and untried methods, he found his islands.

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

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:15:47 EST
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Almanac

Venus can get as far away as about 47 degrees from the Sun.  That should be more than far enough for it to be used for navigation...and it is pretty easy to spot it during the day, as long as you know where it is in the sky (which Noonan should have).  Whether it can be seen through the windows of an airplane is another matter.  It also should have been clearly visible, even through the windows, until dawn.  I have personally been able to view the brighter stars all the way up until about 10 minutes to dawn, especially those in the western sky.

  From what I can gather in a quick search, Venus and Jupiter should have been visible in the morning sky before sunrise.  Jupiter would have been pretty close to the Sun at that point, but Venus would have been further away.  Venus underwent a transit (passed between the Sun and Earth) on May 11, 1937; I'd have to calculate it, but I'd bet that Venus was far enough away from the Sun to make it a good navigation target for Noonan.

                     Reed
**************************************************
 From Jack Clark.

Julie,  Re position of Venus.    If you go to

http://mach.usno.navy.mil 

and follow links, data services, celestial navigation data, and scroll down to Date and time of observation you can enter any date, time, Lat. Long.  and get the position of the various Nav. stars/planets etc visible then. This gives you GHA Hc and Zn. This covers from year 1700 to 2035.

Jack Clark    #2564
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:20:26 EST
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Amelia Earhart's "Handprint" Online

As seen on the net:

Amelia Earhart's hand print taken by palmist Nellie Simmons Meier
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/earhart/aa_earhart_last_2_e.html
CREDIT: "Amelia Earhart's palm print and analysis of her character prepared by Nellie Simmons Meier." June 28, 1933. Words and Deeds in American History: Selected Documents Celebrating the Manuscript Division's First 100 Years, Library of Congress.
Here is a 1200 x 1544 pixel handprint image:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/mss/mcc/038/0004.jpg

The article is located here:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(mcc/038))

If the long URL does not make it through the email, go here and put in a search for Earhart.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ammemhome.html

Put in a search for Earhart and many articles come up.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:54:10 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: AES forum

Dennis McGee wrote:

> ... I think they tried that approach back in the 12th (?) century,
> and then everyone agreed the world was flat.  That worked well, didn't  
> it?

TIGHAR is an educational purposes organization.

TIGHAR models the proper uses of scholarly resources in settling historical questions.  The focus happens to be on the search for the final resting place of AE and FN, but the methods exhibited in the search are of general value for studying any other period in history.

Your claims about how culture functioned in the twelfth century and what the educated elite thought about the world are demonstrably false.  When you examine the primary materials--not secondhand, contemptuous, polemical caricatures--you will find that the people of the 12th century founded our university system, knew that the earth was round, enjoyed extraordinary academic freedom, and invented the whole idea of publishing results so that others could criticize them.

My source for these claims is Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).  Stark is a sociologist who is methodologically agnostic in his work.

"Trouble is that almost every word of White's account of the Columbus story is a lie.  Every educated person of the time, including Roman Catholics, knew the earth was round.  The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1224-1274), and all four ended up saints.  ... [Those who opposed Columbus did so] only on the grounds that he had badly underestimated the circumference of the earth and was counting on much too short a voyage.  ... In none of the scholastic writings was there any mention of a flat earth except for a few asides to refute perceptions of flatness.

"The reason we didn't know the truth concerning these matters is that the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith.  From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to 'free' the human mind from the 'fetters of faith'" (122-23).

I think you are quite right to excoriate those who do not use historical sources to back up their claims about the fatal flight.  I think it is quite wrong to use demonstrably false claims about history in making your case.

LTM.

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

Whoooo....sounds like Dennis struck a nerve.  I suggest that we all strive to keep our historical references informed and accurate and that we not debate the merits of atheistic attacks on faith or religious attacks on atheism.

There are plenty of valuable lessons to be learned from the AES.  They are a classic illustration of what happens when a closed circle of true believers makes the facts subservient to the forgone conclusion.  Conjecture that fits the conclusion becomes fact and when facts are shown to be false they are readily explained with new layers of conjecture.  The inevitable result is an increasingly convoluted version of reality that can only survive outside the closed circle if the audience is unable or unwilling to question the foregone conclusion.

If you think this only happens in the Wonderful World of Amelia ....think harder.

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

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:06:43 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noth'in but the facts mum

>I'm sure Daryll and his ilk will strongly posit the theory that AE had
>cosmetic surgery upon her return to the U.S. to disguise that famous, slightly
>gapped-tooth (but not buck-toothed) smile of our heroine.

Dave, you have ferreted out their secret. AE not only had cosmetic surgery but skull surgery. As one can easily see from the pictures AE had her skull reshaped as well as her chin, nose, forehead, hairline, eyes and ears. Add in the false teeth after yanking all of hers and you have Irene.

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

Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:07:29 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Chichester's circle

Ross, I was having you on with the "circling" jibe. To take a celestial shot the airplane must be in stable level flight holding any particular heading.

On a more important subject, what in the world was a man of your intellect and maturity doing speeding along on the outside of a vehicle? Only drive machines where you can get safely inside. <G>

I'm terribly sorry to hear you have been seriously injured but you are lucky you weren't killed. I suspect that is the more usual disposition of motorcyclists in accidents.

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

Date:         Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:57:37 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Chichester's circle

Sorry Alan,

I didn't realise the joke at the time.  My original post could have been worded better.  I have to admit Chichester wasn't circling as he actually took the shot, but thinking about that after reading this email set me laughing.  Laughing with all those broken ribs set me crying.

Must have looked hilarious had anyone been here to see it.

What fascinated me about the account is the number of times he had to do things like fly away from his course, or circle an area looking for a hole in the cloud to find some way to take a shot or to try to work out his drift.

really is an amazing thing to read after all the discussion a few years ago about how easily Fred could have lost his way.  Sort of makes one think that Fred getting lost would be very unlikely.

Noonan was a trained navigator.  Chichester basically taught himself (taking sights as a passenger in a moving motor car), then invented a way to do it all while flying solo.

Certainly other pilots had crossed oceans, but most of them were aiming for countries.  Chichester was aiming for small islands in terrible conditions.  The main difference between Chichester and Noonan/Earhart is the size of the island, although, once again, you have to read the account in The Lonely Sea And The Sky to really get an idea what the final feeling must have been when Noonan/Earhart couldn't see Howland.

Chichester was lucky.  The cloud on the horizon turned out to be an island.

Reading Chichester's account really brought home some of the feelings that must have been running in the Electra on that final approach to Howland.

As for me, I suspect there might be a couple of motorbikes for sale soon.  Think I'll stick to sailing my beautiful tropical islands, with a little flying for good measure.  Had already been forced to stop horseriding due to spinal problems.  Thought the bikes were a way to retain some of my youth!

Cheers, and if you do read the Chichester book I'd like to know what you thought.

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

Date:         Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:07:34 EST
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Provenance

Daryll wrote:

>It's not what the research reveals but where you got it  
>from that seems to count here.

Well, yes.  That's because HOW you reached your conclusions, and WHERE your information came from, is at least as important as the conclusions themselves.   Unfounded "research" is called speculation.

As an example let's take Msgr. James F. Kelley, former president of New Jersey's Seton Hall University, who is the current darling of the Bolam Brigade because of the stories he told while overwintering on St. Croix in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  Kelley, it seems, was personally recruited by agents of the US government to oversee the repatriation of Earhart and her transmogrification into Irene Bolam.  These tales have been accepted at face value, despite the fact that Msgr. Kelley couldn't remember them when Rollin Reineck and Bill Prymak interviewed him in 1991.

Strangely, Msgr. Kelley's 487-page memoirs contain no mention of either Earhart or Bolam, although they are replete with accounts of his involvement with other major news events and celebrities of the day.  A few hours' research showed that three of these accounts (chosen at random) are demonstrably false.

Msgr. Kelley did not visit Bruno Hauptmann on the night before his execution for the Lindbergh kidnapping.  Hauptmann's final visitors are well-documented and Kelley is not among them.  New Jersey Gov. Hoffman (who allegedly accompanied Kelley on the visit) wrote his own account of the Hauptmann case for Liberty Magazine.  It's available on the net.  Hoffman did visit the kidnapper in October 1935, several months before the execution, but makes it clear that was the last time he saw Hauptmann face-to-face.  Hoffman went into great detail about who accompanied him on this visit, and on his subsequent visit to Mrs. Hauptmann.   Kelley is not named.

Msgr. Kelley was not chatting in his office with Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox when word of the Pearl Harbor attack came over the radio.  Knox's biographers are in unanimous agreement that he broke the news personally to FDR at 1:40 pm Washington time, while the attack was still underway in Hawaii.

Msgr. Kelley did not act as a "witness" when Clark Gable commandeered a P-61 Black Widow fighter in order to test an experimental ejection seat. Although the P-61 >was< used in ejection-seat testing, the first manned test was conducted in 1947 in Ohio, and the guinea pig -- uh, volunteer -- was a Sgt. Lawrence Lambert.  Photos are available from the USAF museum website. Gable mustered out of the Army in mid-1944 and was never a pilot.

Toss in Kelley's reported remarks about shaving Earhart's head to look for Japanese implants, and it becomes apparent that the good monsignor is, shall we say, a less-than-reliable source.  So in this case "where you got it from" definitely counts for more than "what the research reveals."

Daryll, lest you think I have become a TIGHAR sycophant, I urge you to review my posts over the years.  There is a huge difference between misrepresenting or overhyping the research, as I occasionally accuse Ric of doing, and failing to conduct any research whatsoever.  AES' main problem, as I see it, is its tendency to accept absolutely anything anybody says at face value, without even a cursory reality check.  Speculation and conjecture are fine but let's not mistake belief for facts.

Pat Gaston
************************************************************
 From Ric

With sycophants like you, who needs skeptics?
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:10:30 EST
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Re: Nothin' but the facts mum

Say for a moment that that was true about her having ANY plastic surgeory/bone surgeory or other related stuff there surely would be a trail of receipts as this would cost quite a lot especially if it was the 60's - 70's.

Not that i am falling for that line of thinking but all possibilities/excuses should thought out.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:22:11 EST
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart's fingerprints

This court case that went on wouldn't it have been reported on in local/national newspapers of the time... I have noticed on the news and in papers these days the reporter seems to have information from inside the court that they mention on air or in print but only as what could happen. Would it have been possible that it was reported on that the said outcome we are proving was being done/not done...

just a thought, no one has mentioned the newspaper angle! as far as i am aware.
****************************************
 From Ric

I'm not aware of any newspaper coverage of the lawsuit.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:26:49 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Receipts

Alexander said:  "Say for a moment that that was true about her having ANY plastic surgeory/bone surgeory or other related stuff there surely would be a trail of receipts as this would cost quite a lot especially if it was the 60's - 70's."

I'm sure the AES would deny this, but you are closer to the truth than you realize.

:-)  "I recently hacked into the AES data base and located the story behind the receipts.  To make a long story short, the receipts did in fact exist, though only for a few days or weeks.  At that time they were confiscated by the FBI/CIA/NSA/NSC/OPM/FDIC/HUD and U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the overall plan to hide Earhart's true identity.  The receipts are part of a large cache of files, records, and whatnots stored in an abandoned salt mine in the Nevada desert -- in Area 51, of course.  The salt mine and its security apparatus is commanded by none other than the AES's own Col. "Rollickin' Rollin" Reineck, a noted researcher and author." :-)

LTM, who is seldom alienated
Dennis O. McGee, #0149EC
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:27:12 EST
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Was Reineck's Mind Already Made Up?

Found this while, um, wasting time at work today. It would appear that Col. Reineck might, possible, have made his mind up about five years ago - it just took him that long to write the book. Of course, that IS an assumption on my part, or reasonable speculation, connection the various evidentiary dots, etc., etc.
----------
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
FRI 11 DEC 1998

'Circling . . . cannot see island . . . gas is running low'

More than 60 years after Amelia Earhart disappeared over the Pacific Ocean, there are more theories about what happened to the legendary American flier than there are Elvis Presley sightings.

"Amelia is our favourite missing person. She has Elvis beat hands down," said Thomas Crouch, aeronautics curator at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington.

The theorists pose some peculiar questions about what became of Earhart after she vanished in July 1937 while trying to become the first woman to fly around the world.

Was she captured by the Japanese? Did she secretly return to America? Was she Tokyo Rose? Was she a castaway? Or did she die of dysentery on Saipan?

"There's reason to believe she was flown out of Japan on a B-29 dressed as a nun, given a new identity and then lived in New Jersey," said retired US Air Force colonel Rollin Reineck, a member of the Amelia Earhart Society.
-----------

LTM,
Monty Fowler, #2189
*********************************************************************
 From Ric

My goodness, yes.  Rollin has been preaching the conspiracy gospel for many, many years.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:28:14 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Provenance

As far I'm aware of Clark Gable was the head of a USAAC film unit during WW II and was involved in the making of instructional films. The one that is best known is "Combat America", which focuses on the work of air gunners in B-17s. This instructional film is still available on the circuit and was shot during an actual combat mission in 1943 (the target was the General Motors plant at Antwerp, Belgium). I understand Washington did not want to lose him, so being a celebrated film actor he was later involved in PR work for the military.

LTM (who own a copy of Combat America)
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:47:00 EST
From:         Tom Riggs
Subject:      Earhart/Bolam,  R.I.P.

Forget the fingerprints, DNA analysis, photographic comparisons, lawsuit records, blah,blah.   All the proof you need is to look at the emotional and social bonds between AE, George Putnam (her husband), her mother, and her sister Muriel.   It is blatantly obvious that AE had genuine affection for these three people, and they were extremely close to her.    To believe that AE would move to New Jersey,  re-create herself as Irene Bolam, marry another man, and totally abandon and reject all contact with these three people she loved from her past life is absurd.  Unless of course it was all one big scam, and they all played their roles extremely well.

My $0.02

Sincerely,
Tom Riggs (#2427)
******************************************************************
From Ric

Any time the true believers run up against someone who HAD to know, they just make that person part of the conspiracy.  No problem.

The mistake we've all made is to approach the Earhart/Bolam controversy as if it were a serious hypothesis.  We've made the assumption that those who espouse the theory are making a good faith effort to present well-researched facts to support their position, but - as Col. Reineck has shown us -  that's not how these guys operate.  They start with the received wisdom that Earhart and Bolam were the same person. This truth was revealed to Joe Gervais at a party on Long Island in 1965 when he saw Mrs. Bolam and just knew that she had to be Amelia.  From that moment on the facts became subservient to the theory.

Bolam as Earhart is not a hypothesis, it is a neurosis.  Bolam and Earhart look no more alike than do thousands of other women of similar northern European descent.  The impression that the computerized age-progression image of Earhart at age 75 somewhat resembles the photo of Bolam at age 74 is caused primarily by the artist's decision to put 75 year-old Earhart in dark clothes, give her the same hair color and style as Bolam, and adorn her, like Bolam, with necklace and earrings (Earhart NEVER wore jewelry).

 From what we've been able to learn so far, none of the stories about Bolam's incriminating legal behavior are true and the priest who claimed to have facilitated Earhart's repatriation from Japan had zero credibility.

Although interesting as a mental health issue, the Earhart/Bolam controversy is not worth the bandwidth, let alone the time, of the subscribers to this forum.  More information will undoubtedly come out to add more nails to the coffin but we certainly have more than enough already to proceed with the funeral. I'll wrap up our review of Reineck's book on the TIGHAR website and we'll move on.

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

Date:         Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:47:55 EST
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Provenance

I believe "Combat America" was the only film Gable made while in the service.  The intent was to attact volunteers for gunnery school which was (correctly) perceived as a low-glamour and high-risk job.  I can't even imagine what it must have been like to sit in that belly bubble with ME-109's coming at you from every direction.

Anyhow, by the time the film was finally completed it was no longer needed, as the Army Air Corps had plenty of gunners.  I think Gable mustered out not long after the film was delivered, although I'm sure he continued to support the war effort in other ways.  But not testing ejection seats.

Pat Gaston
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:50:36 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      research methodology

Darryl,

A few days back you said (as if it were a bad thing?!) that this forum clearly places more importance on the provenance of research materials than it does on what the research reveals.  Has it never occurred to you and the AES that faulty provenance (or none at all) throws very serious doubt on "what the research reveals?"  I'm not (yet) poking fun at you,  I'd really like an answer to the above question.

Without a need to show source material for research, I could start my own AES, make claims even bolder and more ridiculous than yours, and claim that my sources are closely guarded, and won't be revealed except to members of my own secret organization of true believers, all of whom are, of course, well respected by their peers, and universally acclaimed as experts in their various fields of endeavor.

For research in any field to be credible, the researcher must use primary source documents whenever possible, and note clearly when not doing so.   At the heart of peer reviewed journals is the ability of ones peers to look at the same material the researcher has used, to see if the claims made by the researcher stand up to credible scrutiny.

When I stumbled across TIGHAR in January of 1999 I was pleasantly astonished at the level of material presented.  Source documents are not only identified, they are often reproduced on the website and in the newsletter. Discrepancies between sources are duly noted.  TIGHAR even goes so far as to detail exactly how and when they have come into possession of source material.   Speculation is clearly labeled as such, and nothing is kept secret.  Everything we (yes, I'm a member) have is laid out in logical fashion for others to examine, comment on, question, concur, or refute.

Many of the principal personalities of TIGHAR have taken time from their own busy schedules to correspond personally, off forum, with me, an apprentice pipefitter/ refrigeration & air conditioning mechanic from suburban Detroit, simply because I asked them to.  To Ric, Pat, Tom King, Skeet Gifford, Marty Moleski, and any others I may have unjustly forgotten, thank you for your kindness.  I'm proud to be a part of an organization such as this.

Love to Mother, Dave Porter, #2288
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:58:04 EST
From:         Bert Hampton
Subject:      Re Earhart/Bolam,  R.I.P.

I am not a supporter of the Bolam band wagon.  However, Tom Riggs' claim that the Bolam story demands AE abandon those close to her is not necessarily true.   I attended a lecture for a 99's Chapter a year or two ago where numerous old photos were presented showing Bolam in the company of both Muriel and Jackie Cochran at various 99 events. The presenter at the evenings lecture also presented evidence that the Bolam's lived, at least for some extended period of time, in the same gated New Jersey community as the Odlums (Jackie Cochran's married name).  And finally, it was stated that Muriel and Bolam were guests at the same time at the Indian Palms Country Club in Palm Springs, owned by Jackie and Floyd Odlum.  I have no idea how valid any of this is/was.  Since I'll be working for a living until at least next year, don't ask me to wander off and conduct field research on the validity of the speaker's presentation.  All I remember about the presenter is that he was a PhD. college professor of history, who's special interest was aviation history.
**************************************************************
 From Alfred Hendrickson:

Ric wrote: "Bolam as Earhart is not a hypothesis, it is a neurosis."

I find that this rather sums it up for me, too. Thanks.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
***********************************************************************
 From Terry Simpson

To Tom Riggs,your two cents worth is worth a million, very well said.......

Terry (#2396) LTM
*************************************************************
 From Herman De Wulf

Ric,

I agree the forum should remain serious. However, I don't mind having some fun from time to time. The Bolam story is too silly for words as everyone understood from the  beginning. But remember, if one wants to SELL a book, the story he has written has to be far-fetched and spectacular. I think some people write books hoping to attract Hollywood's attention.

LTM
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:59:51 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: research methodology

> Many of the principal personalities of TIGHAR have taken time from their own
> busy schedules to correspond personally, off forum, with me, an apprentice
> pipefitter/ refrigeration & air conditioning mechanic from suburban Detroit,
> simply because I asked them to.

Don't be so sure.

I hear EPAC's refrigerator (almost wrecked from a relentless six-pack cooling schedule) needs a LOT of work!

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

Excuse me?
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:06:18 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Off Topic- Clark Gable

Major Clark Gable was relieved from active duty on June 12th, 1944. He might never have produced "Combat America" if his wife, film star Carol Lombard hadn't been killed in a plane crash on January 16th, 1942. The DC-3 which brought her home to Hollywood from a War Bond drive flew into a mountain. From Indiana there she had sent a cable to Clark Gable with a teasing line :

"Pappie, you'd better get in this man's army".

Gable was grief stricken by the loss of his wife. He finished the film "Somewhere I'll Find You" and the next day enlisted. He attended the Officer's Candidate School at Miami Beach, Florida and graduated as a 2nd Lieutenant on October 28, 1942. He then attended aerial gunnery school.  In February 1943, on personal orders from General Arnold , he was sent to England to make a film on aerial gunners in action and was assigned to the 351st Bomb Group at Polebrook. He flew five combat missions over Europe to obtain combat footage, doubling as a photographer and a tail gunner which won him a DFC.

As I mentioned in a previous posting I have a copy of his "Combat America". It came with a booklet with detailed information on how the film was made. It says that he was considered too old for combat flying duties but AAF HQ decided to capitalize on his motion picture experience by assigning him to a film unit making documentaries, receiving orders directly from General Arnold, Commanding General of the USAAF. The film would be a documentary on combat gunnery and a morale booster aimed at motivating an aggressive spirit in trainee gunners. The film was  never intended for a wider audience than the USAAF.

Upon his arrival in England First Lieutenant Gable was promoted Captain and assigned to the 508th Bombardment Squadron of the 351st Group on January 28, 1943, based at Polebrook (Station 110). He was accompanied by Second Lieutenant Andrew J. McIntyre, a senior Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer cameraman. Later First Lieutenant John L. Mahin was assigned to the team to work on the script. Many parts of the film were specially staged for the cameras. To meet the final story line some juggling was performed with the order and location of events in true Hollywood fashion. The 351st BG flew its first combat mission on... May 13, 1943. It had to be abandoned over the Channel due to unsatisfactory formations. The second mission, the first completed, is presented in the film as the initial action. Preparations for the raid are covered in detail in the film. The target was the airfield at Wevelgem (Courtrai) in Belgium (home of Jagdgeschwader JG 26). It was a rough mission and two bombers failed to return. However, Gable's first combat mission was on May 4th when flying in a B-17 of 303rd BG. With that unit he flew a mission to Antwerp (Belgium) on 22 June. 303 BG is shown sustaining heavy losses the next day while on an abortive operation on Villacoublay (France).

All the best combat footage taken by Gable and his team is used in the climax of the film, a mission that is not named and is presented as an amalgam of the hotly-contested long-range missions flown by the 8th Air Force in the summer of 1943. Much of the air battle footage was photographed while Gable's team were flying with the 303rd BG (the B-17s with the C-in-a-triangle tail marking). This contains remarkable sequences in which enemy fighter types such as the FW-190, Me-109 and Me-110 were filmed at close range. External views of machine guns firing were obtained on the ground. By late October 1943 Captain Gable and his team had sufficient material for their purpose and on November 5th flew back to the USA with some 50,000 feet of color film. A year would pass before "Combat America" was completed and the theme was changed in order to give a wider view of bomber operations.

Additionally five small training films were produced from the exposed film. However, "Combat America" was to some extent eclipsed by William Wyler's "Memphis Belle" (the original one, not the recent remake) which had a better story. It appeared some months later and covered more or less the same subject. Clark Gable was relieved from active duty on June 12, 1944 as a Major.

LTM
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:49:01 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Off Topic- Clark Gable

Herman,

Did you ever find in your research any evidence that Clark Gable was attached to the Newark area for 6 months, testing P-61 ejections seats, and met Monsignor James F. Kelley?

I can't find any.

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

We can make it easier than that.  Does anybody have any evidence that Clark Gable could fly an airplane or that the P-61 had "ejection seats"?