Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:51:11 -0500
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: triangulation

Basically yes...

IF signals were heard in specific geographic areas (this is important, because it  tends to support propagation quirks, which would allow specific areas to hear weak signals while other areas would not hear a thing) then one could reasonably conclude that the signals did originate from the area in the Pacific where AE presumably made a forced landing.

Now, of course, the caveat.  Did the media of the day, newspapers and radio, report the frequencies which AE was using? I would much rather have a report from a person or persons who "stumbled" on to the signal than from those who tuned in a freq and waited for developments.   While the "15 minutes of fame syndrome" didn't really exist then, hoaxing was a fairly common phenomenon, especially among the press, both print and radio, to increase circulation.  Reporters reported what the people wanted to hear, and would stretch the truth on occasion.  Remember, the equivalent of the "breaking news" on TV today was the "Extra Paper, Mister" shouted by the newsboys, etc.   Circulation improvement stunts were a very common occurrence.

I am not trying to doubt the veracity of those who heard, and reported the signals, and yes, a group of people who heard them would tend to prove their authenticity, but only if that group was not "fed the goods" before they reported the signals.  It would be exceedingly easy to operate a low power transmitter in such a way as to simulate weak, distant signals, and remember, people actually believed the news media, and the radio (think "War of the Worlds". We had not yet become cynical, critical, distrustful and jaded, as we are today.

However, I will not fence sit on this one. If a group of people heard signals, the content of which was the same (or as same as any group of untrained (as in radio ops) copying messages can be, then yes, it is safe to conclude that the signals actually did happen, and from the various accounts, there is no reason why they couldn't have originated from AE.

To  Cam,

Yes, I know about the RDF-1 HFDF set.  I don't know if there was one aboard the Electra or not, but one of the transmissions "Can hear you but can't get a minimum" might suggest that there was. Now, there is also the possibility that she was circling the aircraft and trying to get a null with the existing HF antenna, but I don't believe, as Ric said below, we can ever prove the existence of such a set being aboard on the final flight.  The aircraft had been thru so many modifications, removals, weight reductions, etc and there doesn't seem to be a real coherent account of just what was aboard, other than the US Army Air Corps documents when the plane crashed on takeoff on the previous world flight attempt, and what was being shipped was listed on manifests. Not too much help, but at least a stab in the dark...

Greg Moore
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:45:13 -0500
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: triangulation

It would be interesting to plot the "Post Loss" messages geographically 1st by contemporaneous records e.g. Betty's Notebook & her town in Florida then by 2nd those anecdotal accounts which came along later but from the same general geographical area.

It seems to me that this would accomplish a couple of things: 1) it would somewhat validate the authenticity of the contemporaneous records by suggesting that something could have been heard in the general geographical area by more than just a single person 2) possibly, if you have enough of these plots, it could give you a broad triangulation for the message's origin and 3) it might show that messages were being received in a pattern that was more diverse than just directed toward the U.S.

This later issue, number 3) above, has bothered me for some time. I would have thought that a signal from the airplane would have radiated outward in all directions albeit possibly more strongly/directionally along the antenna axes. If this is the case could the resulting plot (from that above) possibly give us an idea of the aircraft's orientation while on the ground and does this line up with the theory of where and in what direction(s) AE and FN could have landed on Gardner?

Just some thoughts. I am waiting to see the analysis it should be very interesting.

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

We tracked the distribution of reported post-loss radio receptions according to five criteria:
geography (location of receiving station in concentric 1,000-mile bands from Howland)
time
frequency
signal type (carrier wave, dashes, code, unintelligible voice, intelligible voice)
station type (professional, ham, shortwave)

I can tell you that fully 44% of the reports came from professional operators who were within 1,00o miles of Howland Island and that Itasca heard far more post-loss radio signals than any other single station.

LTM
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:47:00 -0500
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: triangulation

For Greg Moore,

As a retired RM 1 USN "sparky" I understand your viewpoint as to radio system operation and it appears believable due to lack of forum criticism - But your comments directed towards 1937 press coverage of the events surrounding the search for Amelia Earhart appears to be opinionated - But then again may be? - Which generated the following questions.

 What is your experience level or background to evaluate the news coverage of 1937?- Can you identify any purposely false news accounts pertaining to the search for Amelia Earhart and her sidekick Fred Noonan?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:00:42 -0500
From:         Dan Ball
Subject:      Re: triangulation

One thing I haven't really heard discussed, maybe it was earlier, is the propagation of radio waves in the HF spectrum.  It's been awhile since I had to setup an HF radio, but I remember I had to cut the wires to a certain length to create full-wave, half-wave, or quarter-wave signals, and orient them correctly to reach the intended receivers.

HF has a tendency to bounce off of objects instead of passing through. We had many incidents where the antennae wasn't "tuned" and/or oriented correctly and the intended recipients were not able to receive the signal.

It also bounces of the atmosphere quite readily, so communications half-way around the world were not unheard of.  We had regular radio sessions from Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm to our base in Hawaii, although the signal was weak, it was legible.

Based off of this, the frequency of the radio, and the shape, length, and
orientation of the antennae would make a huge difference.
************************************************************************
From Ric

The vagaries and complexities of HF propagation as they apply to the alleged post-loss radio signals has been the subject of intense scrutiny, although not necessarily in the context of this forum. ======================================================================= 
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:02:16 -0500
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: triangulation

Tom Strang asks Greg:

>What is your experience level or background to evaluate the news
>coverage of 1937?

Tom that's a very good point. What experience or background would be needed to evaluate 1937 news?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:11:48 -0500
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Scenario

Hello all:  After reading most of the data on the TIGHAR website, something popped into my mind about another potential scenario regarding AE & FN.  When I was stationed on Guam in the early 1960's, I met both Jerrie Mock and Joan Merriam-Smith.  They were racing around the world.  Mock landed in the evening the day before Smith arrived from Lae.  Mock took off in her Cessna 170 early the next morning. Smith arrived late that afternoon in her Apache.  I noticed that both ladies flew with a large internal gas tank in both of their aircraft. At the time, I paid little attention to that fact, other than knowing that they needed lots of locomotion potion.

While reading about AE and her bird, I found out that she had several tanks inside the cabin.  Having been a pilot for more than 40 years, I can tell you one fact about those tanks....when they have fuel in them, they are gas tanks.....when they are empty, they are extremely dangerous....especially when inside the aircraft cabin.

Although remote, there nevertheless exists the possibility that one of the tanks might have had a leak and it would only take a small amount of static electricity to set it off.  A full tank of gas would merely burn, but an empty or partially empty tank would ignite with disastrous results.

Many years ago at NAS Corpus Christi, Texas, I was flying a Navy T-34. We always had full tanks on takeoff and used the fuel booster pump to assure good flow to the engine during prolonged climbs.  On one flight, I noticed that the fuel booster pump light was flickering.  After the short flight, I noted same on the aircraft gripe sheet.  The next day, the plane captain (mechanic) advised me as to the nature of the problem.  He said that the SUBMERGED fuel pump had been arcing (electrical sparks) and if I had flown the fuel down to the point where turning the aircraft might have exposed the electrical motor to the air/vapor in the tank.....THE AIRCRAFT WOULD HAVE EXPLODED.

I merely propose this as a possible scenario that should be considered by TIGHAR.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, it's a possible scenario but I'm aware of no evidence to suggest that it happened and there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that it didn't.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:18:49 -0500
From:         Dan Ball
Subject:      Re: triangulation

Ric wrote:

> The vagaries and complexities of HF propagation as they apply to the
> alleged post-loss radio signals has been the subject of intense
> scrutiny, although not necessarily in the context of this forum.

And the results were?  (Probably posted on the website where I should be smart enough to look for them! <g>)

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

For an example of HF propagation analysis relating to just one of the alleged post-loss messages go to the Research Reports section of the Earhart Project webpage, click on Research Bulletins and go to #30 "Could Betty Have Heard Earhart On A Harmonic"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:44:01 -0500
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: triangulation

Gentlemen, Ric, Tom, Alan, etc.

Ok, my experience re newspapers, of any era, is limited to a couple of things (A.) Serving the Philadelphia Bulletin when I was a kid and (B.) Copying hours and hours of news files from NSS, etc while a  Sparks 1 (Radioman 1/C) and the various rates leading to that, in the Navy. While press was available via Teletype, I used the news files to improve my CW speed, and besides, I enjoyed copying CW, and worked CW circuits whenever and  wherever I could.

Now, my knowledge of  '30s newspapers is mainly anecdotal stories from my parents and grandparents, along with reading some microfilmed copies of same.  There has been some evidence, Particularly in Anne Morrow Lindbergh's books, of writing about hearing both radio announcers and press reporters either broadcasting completely fictitious accounts of the clothing they were wearing, as well as some rather fictionalized accounts of the truth.   I have also heard many stories about "circulation gags" which were perpetrated to generate readership.  Now, I have no idea if this was similar to the  trash that appears in the tabloids today  (Bat Boy, etc  LOL)  and have  no real knowledge if exaggeration was a general thing, or simply limited to certain circumstances.  I also have no idea of  if the  portrayal of  newspaper reporters in that time period is accurately reflected in the movies of the time, and I do admit to being an old movie buff.  I was born a few years after the AE flight, grew up in the 50's and early '60s, so I have some idea of the rise of broadcast journalism and the demise of some of the better newspapers. My expertise however, is in all honesty, limited to electronics, radio and aviation. I hold Degrees in Electrical/Electronics Engineering, Aeronautical Engineering, and hold a Commercial Pilot's Certificate, replete with a type rating, besides the usual corporate stuff, in the great  Twin Beech, which is the closest I have ever come to actually flying an Electra. I have been told they have similar flight characteristics.  However, I am  now grounded  for some years, (groan) without a medical due to spinal injuries and degraded sight in my left eye due to Venous Stasis Retinopathy). I can only claim extensive knowledge in those aforementioned areas, and not, by any means, of the news business, other than to vent my anger when I feel I see biased reporting, and agendas taking the place of facts.   Any "conclusions" which I may have reached concerning newspaper reporting is strictly based on much anecdotal and hearsay evidence, and thus should definitely NOT be considered expert.

What I was trying to get across, however, was basically a query, and that was, Were the HF frequencies used by AE publicized in the press. Since many home radios of that era covered HF (and are, if my Zenith Trans-Oceanic is representative of the period, pretty darn good and sensitive.  They also have what is basically a loop antenna on the rear panel, which acts as a fairly good DF loop both on LF/MF and HF reception, although an external antenna could be attached.   I was wondering if the post-loss communications were received serendipitous, by someone stumbling on the frequency, or if the listeners already had a list of the frequencies used.  It would help greatly in knowing this, for if the listeners had simply stumbled on the active freq while scanning the band (still an enjoyable pastime) then I would consider this possibly more sincere than if they knew the freq in advance which could be set up for hoax potential.

That was the basic reason for my newspaper statements.  Since I am actively involved in researching all the logs involved from the AE flight, as well as the post-loss reception of signals, I am desperately trying to get a handle on if the receiving parties (post loss) KNEW the freqs involved, and in addition, if the freqs used were in use by any other commercial HF broadcast stations in the US and abroad.   I am trying to reverse-engineer the propagation of those freqs known to be available to the AE flight, and actually usable (that leaves 500 out, of course, since all the CW equip had been removed, including the trailing wire, and I am not sure if the Gurr modification with the humongous loading coil was still aboard, hooked up to the "V" antenna. I can't take into accounts the ventral antenna(s) due to the distinct possibility of their being torn off, along with one of the pitot heads during the takeoff from Lae.  Frankly, I have NEVER heard voice used on 500 KHZ, and I sat a LOT of 500 when I was stationed at NAVCOMMSTA Argentia, Nfld  (NWP) since the CW positions were co-located with the USCG Int'l; Ice Patrol Station (NIK/.NJN)  I was a CW fanatic (still am) (SOWP, VWOA, FISTS, QCWA, USNRMA (Us Naval Radioman's Assn).

OPNOTE: I will be happy to provide website and membership info for any of these organizations to any persons who may be interested in joining --hi--...

At any rate. we used to cover for one another, so I did get a great deal of experience in MF ops with merchant shipping, and was signed off for my speed key certificate (CLF-23) by RM1 Bob Finken, USCG.  I also feel lucky to have been probably one of the last to operate Air/Ground CW, from both the Aircraft end and the Ground end.

OK, enough long screeds about me, I will now cut to the chase and ask the questions for which I seek answers.

1. Is there any records of propagation conditions available from the period of the flight?  If there are, I would be very appreciative in knowing, for right now I am extrapolating back from today to 1937 using the solar cycles, in regression, to determine what state the sun was in at that time, and if there could have been a lot of sunspot and solar flare activity, or if the period happened during a quiet sun.  At that point, I want to plug values from similar periods for which data is available, both worst case and normal values.  into my propagation program, enter all the freqs available to AE, let the computer crunch the numbers, after entering the coordinates of the post-loss receiving stations, as well as the coordinates of both Nukumaru, the apparent DR fix given in the last transmission, a few other coordinates up and down the dawn sunline, and see what shakes out as to the reception ability of the post loss receiving stations.

2. Were the frequencies used by the flight widely reported?  If so, then there is always the possibility of some whacko nutcase to try and perform a hoax, for whatever reason. Just as one gets loads of :"psychic detectives" all vying with each other as to find missing persons.  OPNOTE: I am not proving or disproving this action.  I just want to know if the frequencies were known to the general public.

3. I would also appreciate any records of any reception post loss, especially the exact location of  the receiver, if known (It doesn't have to be Lat/Lon, the town will do just fine, as I can find the coordinates from that.

4. There has been some speculation on the forum as to the fact that a Bendix RDF-1 ADF unit may have been aboard during the flight, but this has been debated to death. I would like to know if, in fact, there was such equipment aboard.  If there was, the ventral antennas could have been the sense antennas for this unit, and the loss of them would have given 180 degree ambiguity.

OK, that's about it, my miniscule knowledge of newspapers, and my request for info.

Cheers,

Greg "GW" Moore  WA3IVX/ NNN0BVN
Tighar 2645
Upper Darby, PA
************************************************************************
From Ric

Greg,  I'll try to answer your questions:

>1. Is there any records of propagation conditions available from the
>period of the flight?

EPAC member Bob Brandenburg has tackled that problem using a computer program called ICEPAC (Ionospheric Communications Enhanced Profile Analysis and Circuit prediction program) developed by the Dept. of Commerce Institute for Telecommunications. Bob is a retired naval officer with an M.S. in Operations Research, a field that uses mathematical models and computer simulations to study systems of people, machines, and procedures.   He has extensive seagoing experience including command of a destroyer.  His shore assignments include duty on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations.   In his second career, after retirement from active duty, he was a Navy civilian scientist developing and using computer simulations for analysis of naval operations.  Bob is a charter member of the Institute for Operations Research and Management Science, a professional organization devoted to advancing theory and applications in those fields.

Once the post-loss study has been published in draft form you'll be able to reinvent that wheel if you want to.

>2. Were the frequencies used by the flight widely reported?

Not widely, no, but they were not secret either.  Very few people who were any significant distance from the search area claimed to hear anything on the primary frequencies.  Most of the shortwave listeners didn't mention what frequency they were listening to but those who did seem to have stumbled upon a harmonic.

>3. I would also appreciate any records of any reception post loss,
>especially the exact location of  the receiver,

That information will be in the draft version of the study that will be published on the website soon.

>4. There has been some speculation on the forum as to the fact that a
>Bendix RDF-1 ADF unit may have been aboard during the flight, but this
>has been debated to death. I would like to know if, in fact, there was
>such equipment aboard.

Wouldn't we all.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:49:11 -0500
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: triangulation

Ted Campbell wrote:

>It would be interesting to plot the "Post Loss" messages geographically
>1st by contemporaneous records e.g. Betty's Notebook & her town in
>Florida then by 2nd those anecdotal accounts which came along later
>but from the same general geographical area.


Ric: how abt having the map split in "TIME LAYERS" for ea one or 2-hours time period? Tighar moving into GIS, this should be rather simple. (Or at the very least, if there is only a single map, have the receiving locations which are in the same time slice shown with a line linking them together on the map).

Looking at these layers might show some patterns; for example propagation follows the sun around the earth in a 24hrs pattern. This could help sift tru the legitimate msg reports. Then, digging a bit more by the propag experts, could help point to probable areas of origin of the transmissions.

Cheers.

Christian D
************************************************************************
From Ric

First, as to Ted's suggestion.  There are no cases such as you describe.

As to Christian's suggestion, I think the graphs we're preparing will give you the information you describe.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:53:26 -0500
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Re: triangulation

Were there any indications to say that these radio messages could have been real and originated in the rough location to where u think AE had crashed...

P.S: i was watching dilbert last night and in one segment he was in an aviation museum of history and they had an exibit where you could replay the storm that made amelia crash on the island...(dilberts words) next thing there is amelai clutching ata palm tree screaming no more... dilbert makes some comment about her being in the display all these years and walks off...

amazing what pops up on late night tv here...a few months back it was ric on late night telly.
**********************************************************************************From Ric

Good Lord....

Yes, there are many indications that some of the post-loss messages were real and could have originated from Gardner Island.  We've known that for a long time.  Our hope is that the Post-Loss Study will help quantify that possibility.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:05:54 -0500
From:         Vernon Koenig
Subject:      inflight explosions

Ric:  You seem to be limited in scope as to potentail events that may or may not have happened to AE & FN's flight.  In flight explosions are instantaneous.  AE was over the Pacific ocean, not over Des Moines Iowa.  They were in an extremely remote area of the earth insofar as land and population are concerned.  There would be few, if any, witnesses to an inflight explosion.

The one thing I've notice about TIGHAR is that it tends to sink its' teeth into one piece of meat.  While it is totally possible that Earhart and Noonan may have ditched their bird at or near Nakumaroro Island, there nevertheless exists countless other possibilities.

Earhart was NOT the greatest pilot of her era.  In fact, she would be considered 'average'  by today's standards.  Her dependence on a radio direction finder during the flight, yet not knowing Morse code to identify the sending station, is an example of that.   Common sense would dictate her or Noonan to learn at least a modest amount of code prior to the flight.  So, if she tunes in a radio beacon but cannot understand the station identifier, then what good is the RDF unit?

I knew Pangalenan (my spelling) when I was on Guam.  We flew to Saipan in 1963 or 64 to pick up a load of sterile flies to bring back to Guam.  Pangalenan was dead sure that AE & FN had been brought to Saipan by the Japanese and later executed there.  In fact, his story was on the TV program 'In Search Of.' Everyone seems to have their own pet theory as to what happened to them.  I personally have none.  My thinking is to make a list of every possible  thing that might have occurred and then systematically eliminate them item by item.  As an example:

1.  Shot down by Japanese aircraft.  (Preposterous, isn't it?)
2.  Inflight explosion.
3.  Pilot fell asleep and aircraft wandered off course.
4.  Engine failure.
5.  Navigation error due to improper wind correction angle.
6.  Noonan was drunk.
7.  Nakumaroro was obscured by low undercast clouds.
8.  Fuel consumption was greater than anticipated.
9.  Improper engine power settings consumed too much fuel.
....and so on

So, to  sit and dwell on one theory without consideration of all other possibilities because your idea (or that of others) is more romantic than say, an inflight explosion, is ludicrous.   She may very well have ditched at Nikumaroro, perhaps unsuccessfully, who knows?  I personally think that the wreckage of her bird is somewhere and when found will clear up the mystery.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

My "scope", as you put it, is limited to testable hypotheses.  The hypothesis that she landed at Niku is testable.  Niku is a relatively small place when compared to, say, the Pacific Ocean.  Its history can be researched and its physical area can be searched.  Our researching and searching have, in fact, turned up indications that the hypothesis may be correct.

You say your  thinking is to make a list of every possible  thing that might have occurred and then systematically eliminate them item by item.  In other words, you intend to formulate various hypotheses and test them.  You have, so far, listed nine.  I'll be interested to hear how you intend to test any of them.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:09:34 -0500
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Rollin and the AES Challenge

What has happened to the I.B./A.E.  challenge of a couple of weeks ago?  Are the plans for that "historic" debate proceeding?

Don R. Jordan
Cal City, CA
************************************************************************
From Ric

They haven't uttered a peep since I accepted the challenge.  Draw your
own conclusions.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:52:02 -0500
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: inflight explosions

If you go back over the archives, you'll find that in flight explosions were looked at in great detail, along with a lot of other possibilities.

Check Tighar archives from around 1998 - 1999 through 2001 ish..

Th' WOMBAT..
************************************************************************
From Ron Bright,

In a way, one of Koenig's hypotheses has been tested, the "in-flight explosion". The ITASCA headed northwest about 10 am and searched the waters for a week.

Soon she was joined by the Lexington with aircraft and the Colorado, also the Swan,etc. Nothing. Not one single piece of the  Electra or equipment was found in the Pacific nor any oil slick. This suggests that she didn't blow up mid air. Yes they could have missed small parts, and the plane could have sunk immediately, but as far as testing goes, that was  as good as you could do back in July 37.

Where, Mr Koenig, do you think the wreckage is, which of course if found would help clarify the mystery?  If you believe in the Devine Theory, the Electra was burned to the ground on Saipan. Was Guamanian Pangilinian an "eyewitness"?

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:10:18 -0500
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: inflight explosions

I don't think we should pay too much attention to the theory of a possible explosion of Amelia Earhart's Electra. Airplanes normally do not explode in midair when tanks run dry... I have personally experienced a number of dead engines because a tank ran dry (the reason was a faulty fuel gauge for the rear tank which never got repaired; one had to calculate fuel consumption carefully to determine the time when to switch tanks). The procedure was to switch on the booster pump and switch tanks and the engine ran again. There has been one known example a few years ago when a TWA Boeing 747-100 exploded shortly after take off from New York J.F. Kennedy airport. This was an old aircraft (the -100 series was the first of the 747 generation). The explosion was indeed caused by a short-circuited fuel pump in the near empty central tank. The real cause was isolating material of the cabling had deteriorated with time, something which was thought to be impossible. Amelia Earhart's Lockheed 10E Electra on the other hand was a brand new aircraft. It is very unlikely that it would have exploded because of some short circuit caused by ageing of the aircraft.

LTM
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Sun, 4 Apr 2004 12:31:45 -0400
From:         Ric
Subject:      No Forum Mon & Tues.

I'll be out of town Monday and Tuesday (April 5 &6).  The forum will resume on Wednesday.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:27:30 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: inflight explosions

Ric: It is called 'probability.' The bottom line is simply that no one has ever found anything substantial insofar as the AE flight is concerned. Therefore, all bets are on. Her bird might be sitting in 10 fathoms of water off the NW coast of Nikumaroro. I don't know.
   
I have sat in on U S Naval aviation accident inquiries and needless to say, the board members investigate every reasonable possibility.
   
Earhart could have attempted to ditch in the water off the NW coast of the island and did something stupid, like put her landing gear down. Who knows? Pilots are creatures of habit, you know!

So far, I haven't read anything that supports a possible navigation error by Noonan. I have, however, read that AE was, at best, a mediocre pilot. I also believe that she was not fully aware of the risk exposure she was placing herself into. That is evidenced by her lackadaisical attitude towards learning basic Morse code.

She had to know 2 Morse code letters, e.g., A which is a ._ and an N which is a _. That would be required since she had to have flown 'A-N quadrants' also known as 'radio ranges.' Remember the old term, "coming in on the beam?" That was 1930's stuff.
   
When Joan Merriam-Smith and Jerrie Mock raced around the world, both ladies carried sextants with them. These were they days before GPS and computerized flight planners. Essentially what they were doing was taking a sighting on the sun to establish latitude. On say a 045 degree heading, they could determine an approximate longitude by plotting their latitude readings on their maps along their intended course line. In other words, if their course line crossed a line of latitude (which it will on that heading) in an absolute ZERO wind condition, the sun sighting latitude results will correspond directly to each planned crossing of a line of latitude positioned on the chart providing that they are maintaining their intended course (thereby deriving an approximation of longitude). 1 degree lf latitude or longitude is equal to 60 miles, so on that heading you'll cross many lines of latitude. Here is the meat of it: If she plans to cross a line of LONGITUDE at a certain time, and does so, she is on course. However, after X amount of time en route she has NOT reached the intended line of LATITUDE, she not only has a headwind, but also is to the RIGHT of her intended course. The reverse is true if she takes a sun sighting and is further north than expected - she has encountered headwinds from the right front quarter. Crossing the lines of latitude at the planned time is the key. Longitude is a total unknown and must be derived from knowns....latitude and time crossed. The old term is 'dead reckoning navigation' which was slang for the correct wording, 'deduction reckoning navigation.' Deduction as in to deduce.

AE had Noonan. From what little I know, Noonan was an experienced and competent navigator. Regardless of that, Earhart couldn't find Howland. Did she screw up? Did Noonan screw up? If Noonan was taking sightings every hour, they were covering a lot of territory during each 60 minute interval. 

At Lae, AE and FN were concerned about getting accurate time signals with which to set their chronometers. Accurate time information is ESSENTIAL in determining longitude. That was an absolute must for Noonan - Earhart probably used the 8-day clock on her instrument panel since Noonan was doing all the precise math work in the back of the plane. Noonan would have determined their position - not AE. Therein exists the remote possibility that Noonan made an error. 

Compass deviation could also have been a contributing factor. AE was flying on her compass - not an inertial guidance system. She could have had a miniscule problem with her gyro compass and not known it. Over the ocean in those days, a faulty gyro could lead you to a watery grave. She may not have been able to recognize the symptoms of a malfunctioning gyro. Noonan's navigation compartment might have had the faulty gyro and he inadvertantly passed on incorrect course information to AE. It too is a possibility. If someone placed an item near the magnetic compass, it could swing the device a few degrees. Compass deviation comes from the magnetism of the aircraft itself - electrical wires, steel screws on the instrument panel and so on. Did the mechanics put the plane on a compass rose and 'swing the compass' to determine deviation after installation of the fuel tanks and other hardware aboard the plane?

Instead of flying the 135 degree (as I recall) course line to the southeast, she might have turned northwest to 305 degrees until out of fuel and into the drink. There is one inescapable fact: they were LOST. And, that begs to be backtracked to either a navigation error, a pilot error, or both.

Vern Koenig
**********************************************************************************
From Ric

Vern, you have two problems.

1.  You're not familiar with the facts that have been established.  ("The bottom line is simply that no one has ever found anything substantial insofar as the AE flight is concerned.")

2.  You don't understand the methodology.  You advance a number of hypotheses but you don't seem to understand that they are untestable in any practical sense.  For example, you say that "There is one inescapable fact: they were LOST. And, that begs to be backtracked to either a navigation error, a pilot error, or both."  First of all, the known facts suggest a more complex situation than simply being "lost".  They had some, but not enough, information about where they were.  Obviously, there was some reason that they didn't have that information.  We can speculate about what the reason was.  We can make informed guesses.  But we can't know.

There are those who think they have puzzled out what mistakes were made and where the airplane "must" have come down at sea.  The folly of such speculation is measured in the millions of dollars wasted trying to test a fundamentally untestable hypothesis.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:31:51 -0400
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: inflight explosions

Vernon Koenig writes:

> You seem to be limited in scope as to potentail events that may
> or may not have happened to AE & FN's flight.
>
> ...
>
> The one thing I've notice about TIGHAR is that it tends to sink its'
> teeth into one piece of meat.  While it is totally possible that
> Earhart and Noonan may have ditched their bird at or near Nakumaroro
> Island, there nevertheless exists countless other possibilities.
>
> ...
>
> So, to  sit and dwell on one theory without consideration of all other
> possibilities because your idea (or that of others) is more romantic
> than say, an inflight explosion, is ludicrous.

You are completely and entirely wrong.  No offense.  :)

Trying to study every hypothesis is not how science works...in fact, it is the direct opposite of the scientific method.  There is no way that science could make any progress if it tried to tackle the entire subject in one bite.  Just imagine, for example, if you tried to determine how the universe worked, all at once, by ruling out every imaginable hypothesis.  It would have been impossible in Edwin Hubble's time, and it still would be impossible today.

Instead, how science works is to nibble at the edges.  Different scientists will have different ideas on how a problem is to be solved. They will pursue their own interpretation, taking the appropriate data to find the answer to the problem.  In the end, scientists will publish their results, and the combined data analysis will show the solution to the problem.  Thus, the field advances, bit by bit, with each scientist contributing their ideas to the whole.

TIGHAR is doing its best to attack the Earhart problem through the scientific method.  That means that they have created a hypothesis (Earhart landed on Nikumaroro), and now it is up to them to gather the data that will support, or refute, that hypothesis.  It is not up to TIGHAR to show that Earhart landed on Saipan, crashed and sank, was Irene Bolam or any of the other innumerable hypothesis out there.  It is up to TIGHAR to show if the Niku hypothesis is the correct one, by the weight of the evidence gathered.

Since the Earhart search isn't a scientific endeavor, there are plenty of shenanigans that occur, have occurred and will occur that have nothing to do with a scientific discovery and everything to do with someone trying to make a buck.  We should be wary of any group that seems uninterested in a scientific-type discussion of this project, or that is afraid to present their evidence for study and comment by the general community.  As far as I can see, that is every group aside from TIGHAR, which is a shame.

Dr. Reed Riddle, astronomer

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

Yeah....what he said.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:39:30 -0400
From:         Bill P.
Subject:      Re: triangulation

I was hoping you might be able to answer a question I've had for many years, and which has kind of percolated to the top because of all the mentons in recent weeks of the post-loss messages.

Since I was a young boy, I've read all the of the pulp bios on A.E., including books that purported to solve the mystery of the "Final Flight." In my adult years, I have focused quite naturally on the more scholarly work on this topic.

But in all of that reading, I've never really come across a single work that I felt really did justice to this post-loss message syndrome. Now, I know that such books have been been done; it's just a case of my not having come across them before.

For years, I've wished that I could ask a true Earhart expert to recommend a book or other published work that really details these messages. With you here, Ric, I've finally got that chance. Could you perhaps make some recommendations on this topic? I would truly be grateful!

Meanwhile, keep up the great work.

Yours truly;
Bill P.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Bill, the reason we set out on what has been a several-year project to examine the post-loss message phenomenon is because it has never before been done.  There have been a few selective and poorly referenced attempts, but never a comprehensive analysis.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:43:37 -0400
From:         Craig Knowles
Subject:      Mysteries

This may have been posted previously, but I came across the following "poll" in a magazine the other day (Mens Health), apparently conducted on readers (815):

Which mystery would you like to solve?

48.5% - Who assassinated President Kennedy?
13.5% - Who killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman?
11.0% - What happened to Amelia Earhart?
9.5%  - Where is Jimmy Hoffa?
8.5%  - Who was the "Deep Throat" source?
6.5%  - Was Marilyn Monroe murdered?
2.5%  - What happened between Clinton and Paula Jones?


Such esteemed company you keep!
Craig
************************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting.  And from a men's magazine, no less.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Apr 2004 19:57:32 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: triangulation

Dr. Reed:  This is not a scientific study.  It is a search for two flyers who disappeared nearly 70 years ago.  It is more a process of elimination.  At this juncture, any theory offers possibility.  As an astronomer and mathematician, you should have a good grasp of 'probability.'  That is what I am proposing, examine a list of potential scenarios and factor in probability.....AE and FN had a gunfight in the cockpit - probability = 0.  AE & FN were lost - probability = 90%....and so on.

By the same token with which you critique me, as an astronomer please explain exactly what interstellar space is, its' geometry, its' relationship to time and times' relationship to gravity.  In addition, please explain why light travels at 186,000 miles per second and not 192,300 miles per second.  You can't, simply because YOU DON"T KNOW. You've got the steady state theory of the universe, the expanding universe theory, dark matter theory, Einsteins aether, gravity as a manifestation of displacing interstellar space with matter, string  theory, superstring theory, ALL OF WHICH ARE THEORIES.  Many of which may never be proven, but are still candidates for factoring in probability.

By the way, I am an amateur astronomer.  It's a hobby, you know!

Vern Koenig
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:03:13 -0400
From:         Mike Van Holsbeck
Subject:      Smoking guns

I saw this in the news today about France's  "AE" equivalent. The 2nd to last paragraph really struck me as what it will be like when you get your smoking gun.

Link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/07/world/main610771.shtml

Story:

'Little Prince' Mystery Solved
PARIS, April 7, 2004

It was one of French aviation's enduring mysteries: Antoine de Saint-Exupery, the flying ace and author of the beloved tale "The Little Prince," took off on a World War II spy mission for the Allies and was never seen again.

After 60 years, the twisted wreckage of the aviation pioneer's Lockheed Lightning P-38 has turned up on the Mediterranean seabed, not far from the rugged cliffs of Provence, Air Force Capt. Frederic Solano said Wednesday. Tests show it's a match.

It was a stunning revelation: Teams have been searching up and down the coast for decades, and many experts believed the plane was probably too far out to sea to be recovered.

In France, the discovery is akin to solving the mystery of where Amelia Earhart's plane went down in the Pacific Ocean in 1937.

"This was our holy grail," said Philippe Castellano, president of an association of aviation buffs who helped authorities identify the debris. "We never even imagined this."

The plane, smashed into hundreds of pieces, lies 60-90 meters (100 to300 feet) below the surface, about three kilometers (1.86 miles) from the coast between Marseille and Cassis. The key find was a tail piece bearing a tiny serial number, 2734 L -- the same as Saint-Exupery's, Castellano said.

A piece of the puzzle remains unanswered: What caused the crash? Theories have ranged from hostile gunfire to suicide. The debris has so far yielded no clues.

"It's impossible to say if he was shot down, if he lost consciousness, or if he had a mechanical accident," said Patrick Grandjean of the national Department of Subaquatic and Submarine Archaeological Research.

Famous for his bravery, Saint-Exupery was selected for the dangerous mission of collecting data on German troop movement in the Rhone River Valley. His plane vanished in the night on July 31, 1944, when he was 44. He has become one of France's most admired figures, in part because of "The Little Prince," a tender fable about a prince from an asteroid who explores the planets and then falls to earth. Saint-Exupery's other works, which largely deal with his aviation experiences, include "Wind, Sand and Stars" and "Flight to Arras," about a doomed reconnaissance mission.

Until the euro currency was introduced in 2002, the novelist's image appeared on the nation's 50-franc note. In Lyon, Saint-Exupery's home town, the international airport is named after him.

Clues to the crash started coming together in 1998, when a bracelet bearing Saint-Exupery's name turned up in a fisherman's net near Marseille. Some reports denounced the find as a fake.

"For six years, people had their doubts," said the fisherman, Jean-Claude Bianco. "People claimed I made it myself."

But Bianco's discovery jogged the memory of a local scuba diver, who first saw the plane debris nestled in the ocean bed in the 1980s.

The diver, Luc Vanrell, pored over records of downed planes. By 2000,he was convinced he had found the right one. But it took time to get permission from France's Culture Ministry to have the pieces brought up for analysis.

Castellano, president of the Aero-ReL.I.C. organization that helped identify the plane, said some Saint-Exupery fans resisted the efforts. They wanted to keep the mystery alive.

"In the end, I think everyone is satisfied," he said. "We didn't find a body, so the myth surrounding his disappearance will live on."
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, interesting parallels.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:55:57 -0400
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: triangulation

Vern,

> Dr. Reed:  This is not a scientific study.  It is a search for two
> flyers who disappeared nearly 70 years ago.  It is more a process of
> elimination.

And exactly what do you think science is?  Scientific theories are not developed out of thin air, they are developed after a lot of data are gathered that supports or refutes different hypotheses.  Science completely is a process of elimination.

This search also has to be done in a scientific manner.  You have to gather the data (in this case, evidence of what happened before, during and after the flight), quantify its quality and determine which of the various hypotheses best fit the evidence.  If you do it in any other way, if you present evidence without support, then no one will ever believe it.

> At this juncture, any theory offers possibility.

A hypothesis is a suggestion of what the truth is.  A theory is our best determination of the truth, based on the current evidence.  A theory can always be revised or overturned based on new evidence that shows it is in error.  (Evidence in this case is presumed to be validated and accurate)

None of the current explanations of what happened to Earhart and Noonan have reached the theory stage, as none of them have enough evidence to support them as of yet.  Once enough evidence comes to light to show that one hypothesis overwhelmingly is supported over all others, then it will reach the level of theory (and be widely reported in the press).

Personally, I have a feeling that the radio message write up that Ric is finishing may be enough, given the tastes we have seen here.

> As an
> astronomer and mathematician, you should have a good grasp of
> 'probability.'  That is what I am proposing, examine a list of
> potential scenarios and factor in probability.....AE and FN had a
> gunfight in the cockpit - probability = 0.  AE & FN were lost -
> probability = 90%....and so on.

That is not the responsibility of TIGHAR.  TIGHAR has taken on the task of proving that Earhart and Noonan landed on Niku.  Other groups have taken on the task of proving that Earhart and Noonan had some other fate.  It's up to each of these groups to gather evidence that supports their position, and then present their case.  Once the evidence is in for each, then the collective whole can review and decide which fits the evidence best.  Unfortunately, this isn't peer reviewed (aside from TIGHAR, everyone seems to hide their evidence and methods), so the review can be difficult.

Additionally, what you're proposing to do inherently biases the study before it has even started.  Without evidence, you can't set any probability anyways...  For example, the most probable place they landed is the Pacific (by square footage), so why bother with anything else?

> By the same token with which you critique me, as an astronomer please
> explain exactly what interstellar space is, its' geometry, its'
> relationship to time and times' relationship to gravity.  In addition,
> please explain why light travels at 186,000 miles per second and not
> 192,300 miles per second.  You can't, simply because YOU DON"T KNOW.
> You've got the steady state theory of the universe, the expanding
> universe theory, dark matter theory, Einsteins aether, gravity as a
> manifestation of displacing interstellar space with matter, string
> theory, superstring theory, ALL OF WHICH ARE THEORIES.  Many of which
> may never be proven, but are still candidates for factoring in
> probability.

Er, yes we do, in many cases.  Einstein's theory of Relativity (not aether, that was Newton) explains most of the universe that we see, and the exceptions are more because we can't get good enough data on the other parts yet.  That includes the new dark energy phenomenon, by the way (though we're still looking for a physical reason, Einstein only explained the math).

The whole reason we keep studying the universe is so that we can get better data and make better theories; many of the theories that you're describing explain the same ideas with different math, or are exploring different regions of physics.  If we did astrophysics the way you want, then everyone would be attempting to measure if Newton's aether was really there; that was shown not to be the case over 100 years ago by Michelson and Morley, in an experiment that set the stage for relativity.

> By the way, I am an amateur astronomer.  It's a hobby, you know!

And a very good one, more people should do it.  :)

I'm not picking on you, by the way.  It's just that it's important everyone understand how science is done.  Scientists don't sit down beforehand and say "Hypothesis X has a 90% probability of being right, let's study that first!"  We say "I think this hypothesis has promise, I'll go get some data and see what I find."  After the data are gathered, THEN we sit down and see which of all the hypotheses matches the data best.  Once the scientific community agrees, then we move on to the next problem (or work on refining the theory).  We do this in bits, and eventually the tapestry of how things work is uncovered.

I hope that's clear...presuming you're still awake after all that.  ;)

Reed

--------------------------------------
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations
Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy
Homepage:  http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:31:45 -0400
From:         Steve G
Subject:      St. Exupery
Comments: To: listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com

Got a Google-alert today for an article in which some French researchers are about to publicly conclude they've found _the_ P-38 of famous (?) French writer/aviator Saint-Exupery off the coast of Marseille.

Article link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0409/p07s01-woeu.html

The article doesn't focus on wreck ownership or possible future salvage. Apparently Saint-Exupery was flying in an American squadron at the time of the crash, not a French squadron.  The article mentions that a local dive shop owner got government permission prior to bringing up parts of the plane that led to its positive identification, but it's unclear whether it was US or French gov't permission or both. A French Ministry of Culture marine archaeologist is involved to some extent, so maybe they're in the lead.

I think you've mentioned previously on the Forum that the US Navy lays claim to all USN a/c no matter where in the world they're found.  Do you know if it's the same for the AF regarding USAF and USAAF a/c?

For this P-38, it appears the "historic" significance lies with who was in the aircraft at the time of disappearance (e.g., Glenn Miller's Norseman), rather than with the surviving rarity or unique accomplishment of the particular aircraft (e.g., the Jaluit Devastator, Amelia's Lockheed, or the l'Oiseau Blanc).

Perhaps a Francophone member of Tighar's world-wide network can check if any additional details appear in this weekend's major French publications.

LTM, who enjoys finding any "historic" aircraft,

Steve G.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:35:25 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Probability

Vern K says: "AE & FN were lost - probability = 90%....and so on."

Strictly speaking, the probability of past events are 0 or 1. It doesn't make sense to speak of probabilities of historical events. It either happened or it didn't.

Now, if you were to argue that repeated attempts by aviators leaving from Lae to Howland in 1937 had a 90% chance of getting lost, then this is a valid use of probabilities. But we have no data so no one really knows what that probability might be, and in any event, that doesn't help us with the investigation. We don't care what repeated attempts by aviators leaving Lae for Howland in 1937 would have resulted in, we simply care what happened on the one specific attempt by aviators to fly from Lae to Howland.

By the way, Vern, if you were in charge of a research program, what testable hypothesis would YOU investigate?

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:38:13 -0400
From:         Rene
Subject:      Re: St. Exupery

Hi people, nice to could help a bit. It has been a long time since I had the opportunity to come back, but i've still my ears around... Nice to see that you're still there and active. Tighar has a very strong lead and very valuable help from members.

Here is what i've been able to make out:

Antoine de Saint Exupery was member of "escadron de reconnaissance 2/33" a free french recce unit under american command at Borgo, Corse island. His P38 (L?) was bearing the french cocardes. Following french law(code civil), the "treasure is half the property of the owner of the ground where it was found (ide french state) and half the property of the discoverer. The pieces of the planes were found south of Marseille, near the tiny island of Riou (will check on a map). it seems that the plane is well within the 12 miles limits of french waters.

He was flying a SODA mission ( high altitude reconnaissance) over Grenoble and Lyon, he was spotted by the american radars during is way in, but was never spotted in his way back.

The piece that was salvaged (the interesting part !) was the rear part of the left compressor casing (rear of the engine boom). the aluminium part was engraved with the factory number "L 2734" which was a Lockheed manufacturing code. And that is where, if confirmed, the investigators were lucky: Lockheed archives gave an identification to that number the P38 number 42-68223... St Ex's plane ! Unless that is an hoax (very unlikely) that is what we could call a "smoking gun" !

Only a few bits of the planes were salvaged. this, connected to hull deformations found on the main part, lead to conclude that the plane crashed at high speed, almost vertically in an high pitch descent.

Even if it is Petit Prince's father grave, the truth is not unwrapped yet. We still don't know why...

1) Flak damage,
2) pilot heart failure,
3) Air combat (we could delete this one since the victory claim by Hermann Korth proved to be an hoax)
4) Engine failure
5) Suicide.

The Lightning was a marvellous plane but not very gentle. High speed, high altitude, high rate of vertical speed. But not so manoeuvrable and relatively high speed of landing. St Ex had not the physical stamina to stand a dogfight in this bird.

Friendly, yours,
RENAUD DUDON
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:44:27 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: St. Exupery

It was in the papers. But the story I read said there was no sign of a body. A very good reason could have been, HYPOXIA, since it was a high altitude reece flight. Also I believe the P-38 had a strong tendency to tuck at high speed decent.

Jim Preston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:54:08 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re; Probability

Paige:  The simple fact of the matter is that they WERE lost.  They didn't find Howland.  AE supposedly begins flying a NW/SE course in order to find Howland.  She certainly wasn't looking for Nikumaroro.  I personally think that AE thought she was SE of Howland and turned NW. That would agree with the prevailing wind predictions she was given. In other words, she may have throught that she was south (to the right) of her course.  Winds may have been stronger than forecasted.  In those days, unless you could get an accurate radio fix with which to triangulate your position, about all you could do was to maintain your  course to the best of your ability.  It is entirely possible that one of them took a radio fix on the WRONG radio station.  Who knows?   If AE found Nikumaroro, and had sufficient fuel, she could have double tracked back to Howland.

Here is something else to think about.  There were no "MAYDAY's" from AE.  I've been a pilot for more than 45 years.  If my engine misses a single beat, I am immediately on the radio apprising the controlling authority of my situation.  I tell them who I am, where I'm at, and what I want.  But, there was not even a 'peep' from AE.  That points to either radio problems or a possible catastrophic situation beyond their control.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

You personally think that AE thought she was SE of Howland and turned NW.  Fine.  You have stated a hypothesis.  How do you intend to test it?

You feel that the lack of a mayday call points to either radio problems or a possible catastrophic situation beyond their control.  Fine.  You have stated two more hypotheses. How do you intend to test them?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:33:40 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Itasca and another missing pilot

Were you aware that Amelia's 1937 flight was not the first time Itasca was detailed to guide an aircaft in on an attempted Pacific crossing?

In December 1934, Charls Ulm (of Kingsford Smith/Southern Cross fame) along with George Littlejohn and Leon Skilling departed Oakland for Honolulu on a flight to Australia.

Plans were:  San Francisco - Honolulu - Fanning Island (on a specially prepared strip) - Suva -  Auckland - Sydney.  The main object was to prove the viability of trans Pacific services with aircraft available at the time.  The aircraft was a twin engined Airspeed Envoy, fitted with long range tanks giving an estimated 3800 miles range at 140miles per hour.  Normal cruise speed with 6 passengers was 160 miles per hour.

I have in my hand as I type this, a book on Ulm's life autographed by the widow of Charles Kingsford Smith, and also by Nancy Bird (Walton), an aviation pioneer in her own right - from the same period as Smith, Ulm and Earhart.

On page 116 is a photograph of Earhart farewelling Ulm on his 1934 (and unfortunately final) flight.

Quote excerpts from the book:

"... the Stella Australis left Oakland Airport for Honolulu at 3.41pm on Monday 3 December 1934.  The crew expected to land at Wheeler Field, Oahu about 7.30am the next day.

Radio messages were received from the aircraft en route.  Ulm was also in touch by radio with shore stations and ships at sea, including the liners SS Lurline and SS President Coolidge.

Around 6am Ulm asked for weather reports from Wheeler Field and Luke Army Airport, Oahu, and later continually asked for the radio beacon, which he apparently estimated he should be hearing, but either the plane's receiving set was out of order, or they were off course.

Weather over the area was heavily overcast.  Calls for the radio beacon continued to come in until at 8am Ulm indicated that he had only enough fuel left for 45 minutes flying and that he was trying to pick up land.

The US Navy immediately sent out three planes to circle Oahu, and (*** here's our old mate***) the COASTGUARD CUTTER ITASCA was instructed to proceed east of Oahu to aid in directing the plane.

Then the US Army radio picked up a message saying 'South of Honolulu But Heading Back'.  Many messages were received indicating that the plane had lost its bearings.  At 9.24am a message was received saying that the plane was going to land in the sea and with the appeal: Come and Get Us.  Will Float Couple of Days.

End of quote.

The US Navy immediately had 27 planes, 18 submarines as well as destroyers, mine-layers and coast guard cutters searching within a radius of 350 miles from Oahu as well as alerting all shipping in the area.

They kept the search up for a week.

Experts at Honolulu as well as in the US and also Kingsford Smith and P.G. Taylor all stated that the aircraft could float for several days with its empty tanks.

The Airspeed Envoy was not dissimilar to the Electra in some ways.  It was a twin engined low wing monoplane.

The interesting things about this tale for me were that for one thing, although just about every schoolboy knows what happened to Kingsford Smith, the fates of his companions on his famous adventure are less well known.

Another was that I had no idea the Itasca had been involved in the search, just as it would be 3 years later for Amelia. 

I didn't know Amelia and Ulm had met.

I had no idea I was in the possession of (albeit a loan) a book autographed by Kingsford Smith's widow.  (although I knew it had been signed by Nancy.  I now feel guilty about not returning it sooner).

Now to the nitty gritty.

Ulm and his companions had the latest radio gear available.  They were looking for an island a bit larger than Howland in area and also quite a few feet higher.  They were very experienced at trans ocean flight, and they still didn't find it. Ulm had in fact made the flight previously in a 3 engined Fokker Monoplane, the Southern Cross, with Kingsford Smith.  They flew from Oakland to Honolulu, from Honolulu to Suva and from Suva to Brisbane in June 1927, 10 years, one month and two days before Earhart went missing.

He had flown from London via the Med., the Middle east, India, Indonesia to Australia in the prevous year and had made a number of Trans Tasman crossings as well as pioneering flights in the rugged terrain of new Guinea and of course, many flights here in Australia.

The aircraft should have floated.  A huge number of ships and planes couldn't find a trace of them. Another interesting point is.  The US Government spared no effort or expense trying to locate these flyers.  The suggestion has been made over the last 4 years of my involvement with the forum, that perhaps the US Government was a little lax in its attitude to the search for Earhart.

We all know how protective the US Government is of US Citizens.  IT will pull out ALL STOPS to get them out of trouble. These guys were NOT US citizens.  They were a group of Aussie pioneers.  After discovering this little bit of history, I have all faith that the US would have exhausted all reasonable avenues to try to find Earhart and Noonan.

Th WOMBAT - with apologies for the long, but only slightly off topic post.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:35:32 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Schooner Lanakai

Was the schooner Lanakai mentioned as being used at some time in the search for Earhart?

It was used in the Ulm search.  I thought the name sounded familiar.

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

Doesn't ring a bell.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:38:26 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Probability and Hypotheses

Vern K says "The simple fact of the matter is that they WERE lost."

No one disagrees with that, Vern. I certainly don't. You did make a probability statement in an earlier post, that's what I was objecting to. But lets get back to evidence and testable hypotheses.

You say: "I  personally think that AE thought she was SE of Howland and turned NW. That would agree with the prevailing wind predictions she was given. In other words, she may have thought that she was south (to the right) of her course." What evidence leads you to believe this? Specifically, what wind predictions was she given? How would you test this hypothesis?

You say: "It is entirely possible that one of them took a radio fix on the WRONG radio station." What WRONG radio station was available in the vicinity of Howland that was broadcasting on Earhart's known frequencies? The only one I am aware of was Itasca. I'd be happy to listen to your evidence to support this statement. And how would you test this hypothesis?

You say: "If AE found Nikumaroro, and had sufficient fuel, she could have double tracked back to Howland." This implies she could again take off, and that she knew she was on Nikumaroro. Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just speculation? How would you test this?

You say "Here is something else to think about. There were no "MAYDAY's" from AE. I've been a pilot for more than 45 years. If my engine misses a single beat, I am immediately on the radio apprising the controlling authority of my situation. I tell them who I am, where I'm at, and what I want. But, there was not even a 'peep' from AE. That points to either radio problems or a possible catastrophic situation beyond their control."

Earhart's last transmission did say she was switching to 6210, although earlier in her flight people had trouble hearing her on 6210. There may have been something wrong with her radio, as you say. There is another possibility, that she was actually flying away from Itasca, which coupled with radio problems, also prevented further receptions. If AE was still in the air at her next scheduled broadcast time, 30 minutes later, she may have been too far away with bad equipment, and Itasca couldn't hear her clearly if at all. Anyway, the testable part of this is what TIGHAR is doing ... testing the hypothesis that she made it to Nikumaroro, by attempting to find evidence there and elsewhere to prove or disprove it. If TIGHAR succeeds in proving its hypothesis, we still won't know exactly why Itasca never heard AE again while AE was still in the air.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:44:52 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: Itasca and another missing pilot

Man, that was an interesting story.  It goes to demonstrate how dangerous transoceanic flights were in those days.  Three highly experienced aviators vanish without a trace.  I have personally experienced vertigo while flying at night over the ocean.  On a night without a moon, you can hardly tell up from down.  With a calm sea, you can look down at the water and see the reflection of the stars but any hint of the horizon is gone.  Thank God for gyro horizon indicators.

Vern Koenig
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:35:02 -0400
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Testable hypotheses

> Anyway, the testable part of this
> is what TIGHAR is doing ... testing the hypothesis that she made it to
> Nikumaroro, by attempting to find evidence there and elsewhere to prove
> or disprove it.

How is TIGHAR going to "disprove" that hypothesis?  I.E. when do they officially declare they haven't found any credible evidence?

Cam Warren

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

Let me walk you through it.

- We formulated a hypotheses, based upon navigational logic,  that she made it to Nikumaroro.  We reasoned that , if the hypothesis is correct - if such an unusual event occurred on the island - there should be indications in the island's history and there might be surviving physical evidence.

- We began testing the hypothesis by meticulously researching the island's known history and also by visiting the island, in both cases searching for evidence of highly unusual events that might be attributable to the arrival and demise of Earhart and Noonan.

- Fifteen years into the process we have found abundant documentary and physical evidence of highly unusual events that occurred at Nikumaroro.  So far, the evidence we have found appears to support the original basic hypothesis and our research has not turned up an alternative explanation for the facts we have established.  Perhaps more significantly, our critics (such as you) have not been able to formulate an alternative hypothesis that accounts for the facts we have established.  All you can do is complain that we haven't yet found anything that you consider to be "credible evidence".

To answer your question,  we are trying to disprove the Niku hypothesis by looking for alternative documented explanations for the unexplained events that we know happened at Nikumaroro.  Perhaps you can help.  Who was the castaway that Gallagher found?  How did civilian airplane parts end up on Nikumaroro?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:49:37 -0400
From:         Neil Barnett
Subject:      Re: Probability and Hypotheses

Paige Miller wrote:

> Vern K says "The simple fact of the matter is that they WERE lost."
> No one disagrees with that, Vern. I certainly don't.

I do not necessarily agree with the assumption that AE and FN were unsuccessful in finding Howland Island, nor do I necessarily accept that they were unaware of their whereabouts. Most contributors to this forum assume that AE flew toward the island with the intention of landing immediately after identifying it. If we assume that she flew more or less on course to Howland Island, located it and identified it, but did not immediately make a landing, then there is one hypothesis which answers most of the puzzling questions about the flight. And no, it doesn't involve flying off to rendezvous with a ship or to spy on the Japanese.

Neil in Auckland, N.Z.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay Neil, let's hear it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:54:49 -0400
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Fuel limitations

Don't all the gas consumption studies that have been done on this Forum clearly show that if AE reached Niku, she would not have had enough fuel to return to Howland? Why in the world would any sane pilot, running low on fuel, leave Niku where a landing on the reef was entirely possible, and go back towards Howland when she wasn't even sure of it's exact location?? Puzzling at best.

LTM,

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

You can construct a fuel scenario that allows her to go to Niku, turn around, and make it all the way back to Howland.  The same fuel scenario allows her to go back to the Gilberts or up to the Marshalls, but it requires her to achieve a level of fuel economy that approaches the ideal maximum for the airplane and is, in my opinion, highly unrealistic given Earhart's demonstrated ability .
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:00:01 -0400
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Testable hypotheses

Ric wrote:

>   So far, the evidence we have found appears to support the original
> basic hypothesis and our research has not turned up an alternative
> explanation for the facts we have established.  Perhaps more
> significantly, our critics (such as you) have not been able to
> formulate an alternative hypothesis that accounts for the facts we
> have established.  All you can do is complain that we haven't yet
> found anything that you consider to be "credible evidence".

Just how thoroughly has Niku been searched? I know that the some areas have proved difficult to penetrate due to excessive brush and with the limited time on the island we've chosen to visit specific sites. What begs this question is really just a matter of understanding the island itself. It would appear to me that, with the history of storms, that the most heavily overgrown areas may provide a very good location for some of the larger debris to get hung up.

I enjoyed Wombat's posting on the Itasca mission in Hawaii. I've never really believed in any conspiracy on the Earhart search. I think the limited number of rescue assets has a lot more to do with the remote location of the AE search area vs. the number of readily available assets around the Hawaiian islands

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

You are correct that understanding the island is crucial to knowing where to search.  Niku is far too large to search from end to end (anyone who has seen the "Niku Aerial Tour" video can vouch for that). We've searched specific areas for specific reasons, testing what might be called sub-hypotheses about just how and where things may have happened.  Some areas have not yielded positive results.  Others have yielded encouraging artifacts.  It has been a focusing process that has allowed us to zero-in on the places where the evidence suggests important events occurred.  The western reef where we think the plane was landed.  The old village where parts from the plane were cut up and used for local purposes.  The Seven site where the castaway(s) lived and died and where Gallagher searched for and found some of the bones.

Our intention is to continue that process.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:31:15 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Ulm and Earhart

I find it interesting, that both the Earhart flight and the Ulm flight went down near the end of their flights, but well into daylight.

Contemporary sources (Kingsford Smith among them) suggested Ulm was expecting to home in on a radio beacon, as would Earhart four years later.

Another little aside is that when the Clippers began flying the route they took around 14 days to cover almost the same route Ulm had earlier flown in 6 days.

Th' WOMBAT.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:45:46 -0400
From:         Adam
Subject:      castaway camp

>The Seven site where the castaway(s) lived
>and died and where Gallagher searched for and found some of the bones.

Knowing and having great respect for your careful methodology and choice of words, what evidence have you found at the Seven site that has pushed it from probability to certainty as the castaway site?  I'm just curious.

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

Short of smoking guns, there are no certainties in this investigation. I'm comfortable describing the Seven site as the place "where the castaway(s) lived and died and where Gallagher searched for and found some of the bones" because everything we learned about the place fits Gallagher's description and exhaustive efforts to find an alternative explanation for the aspects of the site that appear to be castaway-attributable have, so far, been unsuccessful.  At some point, if you're going to proceed with your investigation (which we are) you have to say, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck we going to assume it's a duck unless and until we find something that says goose."

It goes back to the idea that hypotheses are born to be disproved. Rarely do you find something that just flat proves a hypothesis correct (i.e. a smoking gun).  More often it's a case of finding things that support the hypothesis while trying your best to disprove it.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:03:46 -0400
From:         Neil Barnett
Subject:      Re: probability and hypotheses

> Most contributors to this forum assume that AE flew toward the
> island with the intention of landing immediately after identifying it.
> If we assume that she flew more or less on course to Howland
> Island, located it and identified it, but did not immediately make a
> landing, then there is one hypothesis which answers most of the
> puzzling questions about the flight.

>  From Ric
> Okay Neil, let's hear it.

If pressed, I will present my hypothesis, but I think that at this stage the aim of the forum will be better served if contributors debate the implications of what I wrote, and reason the hypothesis out among themselves. I still have unanswered questions, and perhaps some of the contributors will be able to shed light on them.

Neil in Auckland, N.Z.
************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you know how this forum feels about game-playing.

You want us to try to think of some reason (other than a secret mission) why Earhart would fly to Howland, find and  identify it (without being seen or heard by the Itasca and without telling them that she had seen the island), and then not immediately land but did something else that "answers most of the puzzling questions about the flight."

You seem to be suggesting that Earhart and Noonan intentionally flew to Gardner Island, landed, sent intentionally cryptic distress calls, got rid of the airplane, and, in short, faked their disappearance so as to escape to that tropical paradise.  Surely you jest.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:13:11 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Neil's hypothesis

Ric says, "Okay Neil, let's hear it."

Neil says, "If pressed, I will present my hypothesis . . ."

Neil, this arena here is the Forum. Here, we discuss these things. In the open.

Please present your hypothesis.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson, PE
TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583
************************************************************************
From Jdubb

Neil writes:

"If pressed, I will present my hypothesis, but I think that at this stage the aim of the forum will be better served if contributors debate the implications of what I wrote, and reason the hypothesis out among themselves. From Neil Barnett"

Neil, not to put too fine a point on it but...

Present your hypothesis, and be prepared to defend it. Don't waste the forum's time with games.

Jdubb, a long time lurker
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:09:00 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re; probability and hypotheses

I for one  can hardly wait until Neil provides us with the "one hypothesis" that "answers most of the questions about the flight". It has baffled hundreds of investigators , researchers and authors since July 2, 1937.  Even TIGHAR.

I have always tended to believe Amelia Earhart herself. At Lae,  Amelia wrote on 1 July 37  that as the Electra "[was] poised for our longest hop, the 2556 miles to Howland Island in the mid-Pacific" she meant exactly that: she intended to land there.  A couple of folks saw her takeoff from Lae and head east over the ocean for a least a couple of miles. Has she been seen since?

LTM,

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:53:43 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: probability and hypotheses

I don't have any particular favorite theory as to what happened to the AE flight.  What little I know has been gleaned from the TIGHAR website.  Now just hear me out on something:

Supposedly AE radios that she is now following a course line which is NW/SE in order to intercept Howland.  That simply tells me that for some reason, she did not know her latitude.  If she did in fact turn to the SE, she believed that that the line of latitude which Howland Island is on was south  of her position.  Had she turned NW, her assumption would have been that she was south of her course line.  If she had known her present latitude and that of Howland, she could have flown N or S to intercept that line (lat.) and once there could have flown E or W depending on the winds encountered during the flight. Noonan would have been able to calculate the winds aloft from his position checks and advise AE accordingly.   Turning SE says to me that the winds encountered enroute might have been stronger than anticipated, blowing her to the left of her course line.  Turning to the NW says that the winds might not have been as strong as anticipated and that she thought that she had overflown and was SE of Howland.

I think that the key element in all this is that she chose a NW/SE course line.  Instead of going N or S to intercept the line of latitude of Howland and then heading E or W to try to intercept Howland, the NW/SE course selection hints as to the dilemma that both fliers were in.

The fatal flaw in all this is that she NEVER said what direction she was heading.  My thinking is she would have chosen the SE leg if she had thought the winds were stronger than anticipated.  That would have possibly put her en route to Nikumaroro, if thought to be lighter, the turn to the NW would have been the correct action to have taken.  That is why the NW/SE course line hints that they had no latitude information and may have desperately been trying to calc it out.

Knowing their latitude at any given time along the course line would have given them some indication as to the wind direction and velocity. In other words, had they not reached a given line of latitude at a prescribed time enroute, would be indicative of the winds they were encountering.  In a zero wind condition, all AE would have to do is maintain course and speed.  However, factor in variable wind velocity and direction and the scenario changes dramatically.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

You need to do a whole lot more reading on the TIGHAR website.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:00:19 -0400
From:         Anne
Subject:      Re: castaway camp

Adam,

Have you looked at all the documents on the TIGHAR site? I know several of the documents talk about their findings and how they link at least very closely with AE. If you want me to look for you and get the specifics, let me know! I always am in need of something to do at work...

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

The U.S. Government's General Accounting Office has found that the productivity of the American workplace is inversely proportional to average number of daily postings on the Earhart Forum.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:12:40 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Earhart secret mission

AE wasn't on some secret mission for the government.  If that were the case, certainly the US government would have sent a more proficient pilot.  They would have been loaded up with camera equipment, special  radio gear, military technicians, the works.  The Lockheed Electra of that era was state-of-the-art hardware.  But, aviation was still in its' infancy along with many of the new types of systems aboard her bird.

If her directional gyro went awry, and she did not recognize the problem, she could have steered herself and Noonan into oblivion all the while thinking that she was completely on course.  She wouldn't  have recognized any problem until nearing the end of her flight when there was no Howland Is.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

You have drawn a firm conclusion based upon a guess.  You say "AE wasn't on some secret mission for the government." Your reasons for drawing that conclusion are sprinkled with "would haves".  Anytime you say you say " would have" you're guessing.  Otherwise you would say "did".

The Lockheed Electra was not a state-of-the-art airplane.  The type had been in service for three years and had already been  superceded by aircraft like the Douglas DC-3. Lockheed's own Model 14 - far superior to the Model 10 - would make its maiden flight on July 29, 1937.

Aviation was not in its infancy.  Adolescence perhaps, but certainly not its infancy.

Noonan's celestial navigation was not dependent upon Earhart's directional gyro.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:15:34 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Hypotheses

Neil Barnett says: "I do not necessarily agree with the assumption that AE and FN were unsuccessful in finding Howland Island, nor do I necessarily accept that they were unaware of their whereabouts."

Hmmm ... you have a double negative before the comma, and another double negative after the comma. But if I do my best to untangle this tortured sentence, I think you are saying: AE did know where she was relative to Howland. Is that what you are saying?

Neil: "Most contributors to this forum assume that AE flew toward the island with the intention of landing immediately after identifying it. If we assume that she flew more or less on course to Howland Island, located it and identified it, but did not immediately make a landing, then there is one hypothesis which answers most of the puzzling questions about the flight."

April 1st was a few weeks ago, Neil. Any other day, we demand evidence. So please spell out your hypothesis and the evidence in support of it. Thank you.

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

Everyone has to learn for themselves that this forum is a crucible.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:16:48 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: probability and hypotheses

Vern,

This whole thing was thrashed out on TIGHAR site in 1999/2000 and has come up again since.  If you are interested in the Earhart disappearance, and regardless of whether you believe the TIGHAR theory, it would be well worth going bacl over the earlier discussions to see exactly how deep the investigation went.

For this idea of yours, look for postings under LOP and Celestial Navigation as well as Celestial Choir.

It has been chased all over the place by members of the forum who are qualified and in some cases very, very experienced aerial navigators as well as a lot of the rest of us  suggesting things in this post.

It really IS a good read.

I've also noticed some of your other posts are asking about things that have already been covered in depth on the website.  The early forums were actually a whole lot more "exciting" than they are at the moment - and the posts or even the digests are great fun to get into.

Cheers,
Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:34:09 -0400
From:         Adam
Subject:      Re: castaway camp

Hi Anne...yes I have, thanks.  I think Ric's laid out a persuasive case, but knowing how cautious he is with facts whenever he states something as a certainty I wonder if I've missed something.

I've actually been here a long time and fully absorbed the TIGHAR research (at my own temp gig about a year ago!) but haven't posted because I'm not a member and I did not want to soak up Ric's time without being able to support the effort financially.

I have a full-time job now, though, and I have a little money for Ric earmarked from a paycheck in the near future.  :)

I wish you'd been around last weekend when I bored my date to death with an answer to the question, "oh? So what do these people think happened to Amelia Earhart?"

adam
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:38:08 -0400
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Double indemnity

After about five years on here I probably should know better than to get lured into what looks like an attention-seeker's game, but my guess is that Neil is suggesting suicide by Earhart - presumably in an insurance scam - and her thus murdering Noonan in the process. I propose Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray for the movie version.

LTM
Phil Tanner 2276
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, I wondered whether he might be reaching for the old murder/suicide schtick but that doesn't explain all the evidence that points to them landing at Niku.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:26:52 -0400
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      crucible

This is such fun.  I can hardly wait for the hypothesis to be out. That rasping noise you hear from far away is Ric sharpening his teeth...

> Everyone has to learn for themselves that this forum is a crucible.

Yeah, on an anvil...

ltm
jon
2266
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:52:40 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: probability and hypotheses

Ross:  I have never said that I believe or disbelieve the TIGHAR 'theory.'  Until the wreckage of AE's plane is found, ALL theories within reason are valid.  AE and FN had no real navigation problems for more than 75% of their flight.  But something went awry between Lae and Howland.  My strongest suspiscion has to do with a faulty directional gyro.

Liquid damped compasses are difficult to use as a navigational instrument.  You have the northerly and southerly turning error, compass card oscillation in rough skies, deviation and so on.  The  directional gyro (DG) is set to the compass heading when the compass card settles down.  The DG must be periodically reset to the compass reading.  Now, if there was a problem with the DG, it might possibly have steered AE off course.  Flying over water, she would never have known that.  If the air was rough, AE might have elected to keep flying the DG heading instead of trying to reset it to a shaky compass reading.

When I was learning to fly in the Navy, I remember one of the ground instructors giving a side lecture akin to the topic at hand.  He said, "Gentlemen, you will either live or you will die by the decisions you make."   The operative word here is 'decision.'  Somewhere along the route between Lae and Howland a decision was made.  It may have been predicated on faulty information or no information at all.  And, every decision thereafter was hung in the balance of whether or not that main decision was the correct one.  That, essentially is what my 'theory' is.

Even today, with our modern aircraft, GPS navigation and highly trained pilots, an aircraft on a cross-country flight is OFF-COURSE 90% OF THE FLIGHT.  A pilots job is to make constant altitude and course corrections.  Winds aloft aren't always as forecast.  True, jet airliners have auto pilots that hold altitude and course very accurately, but, even the autopilot is making constant altitude and course corrections during the flight.

Assuming that AE was getting position fixes from FN every hour, being off-course for an hour can take you many miles from your intended line of flight.  The next hour, you spend trying to get back on course.  With the next hourly position fix, will tell you if you were successful.  You could possibly over or under correct.  All this would be brought about by varying wind conditions enroute.  That is why I think that they were definitely off-course and believed that they were SE of Howland and elected to turn NW on the 337-157 LOP.  That course line (337-157) is indicative of where they thought they were.  And, if AE was conservative in her course corrections, they would have actually  flown N of Howland, thinking that they might have been south and slightly E.  A turn to 337 degrees would be the most logical 'decision.'   Howland would have been off AE's right wing and a turn to 337 would have put it on her tail.  She flew to fuel exhaustion and probably ditched hard into the ocean.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

So your "theory" is that somewhere along the way Earhart made a bad decision.  (Why didn't I think of that?)

Beyond that brilliant deduction you have constructed a hypothesis that she flew to fuel exhaustion and probably ditched hard in the ocean somewhere NW of Howland.  Maybe that's what happened, but how would you test that hypothesis?  Unless you can test a hypothesis it's just meaningless speculation.  Is that what you're offering this forum - meaningless speculation?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:00:58 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re; probability & hypotheses

Vern,

Like quite a number of people who participate in this forum, I am a pilot, albeit a very casual one.  Living in the tropics of Australia, I do however tend to fly long distances over barren landscapes when I go inland, and also as I live on the coast, I have plenty of opportunity to island hop.

I am therefore very aware of the nav problems - all I was trying to bring to your attention is that so far just about everything I've seen in your posts has been discussed previously at great length.

I wondered if you were aware of the conclusions and why they were reached.

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:02:19 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Splashed & Sank

Vern, what evidence supports your theory?

These phrases are direct from your posting: " . . . suspiscion, if there was a problem, might possibly, might have elected, may have been predicated, Assuming that AE was, You could possibly, if AE was conservative, they would have actually, would be the most logical, Howland would have been, a turn to 337 would have put it, probably ditched hard into the ocean . . . " and also: "I think that they were definitely off-course"

Ric says, "Anytime you say you say 'would have' you're guessing." To that, see also: if, might, possibly, may, assuming, I think, and probably.

Many folks find "splashed and sank" an attractive theory. If I read you right, you are among them. Problem is, there is no evidence to prove it, and plenty that conflicts with it. So tell me why you like "splashed and sank".

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson, PE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:05:07 -0400
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Paradise Redux?

Josh King and his family, winners of the TIGHAR Week in Paradise Raffle, are currently at Harbor Lights Villa in St. Thomas USVI.  From the brief report I got, they are having a very nice and relaxing time swimming in the pool, going to the beach, and taking in the view of the harbor.  I've asked him to send a brief report to the Forum upon his return.

I'm curious to know if there is interest in another fund raising raffle including another chance at a week at Harbor Lights Villa, and possibly other prizes donated by TIGHAR members or Forum Lurkers?

Is there anyone else out there who is willing to join me by donating a prize of significant value to another raffle?

Andrew McKenna

Harbor Lights Villa
A Special Place In the Caribbean
www.harborlights.vi
720-635-1166
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Andrew.  That's very generous.  How say ye forumites?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:42:25 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Paradise Redux

I think another raffle like that would be great for a week in Paradise at St. Thomas. Also that is close to St. Croix, where, allegedly Amelia spent time rehabbing herself after those awful years in Japanese captivity, with Msgr Kelley. This would offer researchers a splendid opportunity to for additional research.

I would offer a week in the Northwest Paradise, a Hood Canal waterfront home(Puget Sound), near Seattle, Washington, offering  dungeness crabs, oysters, clams and watersking just 20 feet away! About 3 miles from Bill Gates's villa.

Ron Bright
Bremerton, Wa
************************************************************************
From Ric

That's very generous of you Ron.  Thank you.  Is this a summer home that you own?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:09:30 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Radio Range of AE

In Loomis's book, p 33, he writes that Paul Mantz took up AE's Vega in Jan 1935 for testing because radios reportedly had a range of just  "300 miles". Mantz, he said , went to 12,000 feet over Diamond Head and "talked to KFI", a commercial station at Los Angeles, 2570 miles way. McMenamy, our old friend, helped align KFI receiving equipment to pick it up. Other stations some 3000 miles away also "heard him quite clearly".

The question is what kind of radio did AE have in the Vega? The Western Electric 50 watt type? That range certainly contradicts what we have read about the radio range.

Paul Rafford, who helped Loomis on radio matters, addressed this question and said that Mantz couldn't talk directly to KFI as it was a commercial station, unless someone patched him in. Additionally he said there was no information about the antenna length, trailing wire,  time of day, frequency used, and other variables that would affect the transmission.

Paul also questioned that other stations received it clearly 3000 miles away. He believed she would have to have had a trailing wire, a frequency of 6210 and the transmission would have to be at the peak of nighttime conditions. He gives it a poor chance.

AE was heard as I recall about 800 miles out from Lae, and barely at 600 miles out of Howland with the "cloudy and overcast", signal "1". At 1418 GMT.

So my question is do we know what radio this was or the accuracy of Loomis' cite of Paul Mantz.

It seems of this range were true, it would increase the probability of post loss transmissions, if she could generate enough power on land.

Radio experts??

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

Of course HF range is not at all like VHF range (which is line-of-sight).  When people talked about the reliable range of an HF aircraft radio I'm not sure what they were basing that on.  I'm sure our radio gurus can help us.

It should be easy to find out what kind of transmitter she had aboard the Vega.

By the way, the first logged reception by Itasca was at 0245 (1315 GMT).  The operator was sure it was Earhart but the content was unreadable due to static.  At 0345 (1415 GMT) AE was heard to say that she would listen for messages on the hour and half hour on 3105. Itasca sent the weather on 3105 at 0353 (1423 GMT) and Earhart replied with something about "partly cloudy".  The allegation that she said "overcast" was added by Commander Thompson in his later report and is not supported by the original log.  According to Chief Radioman Bellarts in a 1973 interview, these early receptions were heard only by the operator on duty using earphones.  Only later, when the signals were much stronger, were they put out over a speaker for everyone to hear.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:54:41 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Ric wrote:

> Unless you can test a hypothesis it's just
> meaningless speculation.  Is that what you're offering this forum -
> meaningless speculation?

Meaningless speculation, you say.  Well, so far, speculation is all that TIGHAR has put forth.  They haven't found one item of PROOF that AE & FN ever set foot on Nikumaroro.  I personally want to find out what happened to the duo.  I don't care where they landed, ditched, or broke up in the sky.  All I would like is to see the mystery solved once and for all.

Yes, I speculate.  And, my speculation is equal in value to that of TIGHAR's.  TIGHAR has made several trips to Nikumaroro and come up empty handed.  Thieir 'theory" almost borderlines on wishful thinking.  Another possibility is that AE turned to her 157 heading and saw Niku on the horizon but being short on fuel caused her to ditch NW of the island.  Some Japanese tuna boat might be trawling NW of Howland and snag the tail of her Electra in his fishing nets.  Who knows?

I built one of the largest scale models of the German airship Hindenburg back in 1996.  It is 1/48 scale (1/4" to the foot).  It was purchased by Ripley's Believe It or Not! and is now on world tour. Building the model was half the adventure.  Doing research on it was the other half.  I talked with people who were aboard the Hindenburg when it exploded as well as Mr. Harold G. Dick who was an engineer for Goodyear Zeppelin.  There was a lot of speculation as to the cause of the accident over the years.  Mr. Dick had made 32 flights aboard the DLZ-129 as well as the Graf Zeppelin.  I asked him what he thought the cause of the explosion had been.  Now he was an engineer with firsthand knowledge of the airship.  He thought that during the tight right hand turn to upwind at Lakehurst, one of the internal structural cables at frame number 13 (as I recall) broke and tore open one of the gas cells (they were made from cows intestines).  The gas tried to vent through stitching holes in the upper skin (affixed to the aluminum structure). The Hindenburg generated tremendous amounts of static and when the moist mooring ropes were dropped from the ship to the ground essentially formed formed a lightning rod.  The canvas had been painted with nitrite and pigmented with aluminum - it was extremely flammable in its' own right.  Yet, movies like "Hindenburg" hint at an ulterior motive of sabotage when in reality, it was little more than a simple explanation.  Note:  Her sister ship, the DLZ-130 Adolph Hitler, used special lacing cord dipped in graphite to bond the skin elecctricaly to the frame.  The Germans did that after the -129 went down.  They obviously had a 'theory' as to the 129's demise.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm somewhat familiar with the Hindenburg investigations.  Let's go ahead and use them as an example that may help you understand the point I've doing such a poor job of getting across to you.

As you note, over the years there have been a number of theories advanced about the cause of the LZ129's destruction.  As is so often the case with historical mysteries, the problem has always been finding a way to test the hypotheses.  The sabotage hypothesis has been tested by searching for documents that suggest a conspiracy.  Some interesting coincidences have turned up but no "smoking guns".  Mr. Dick's hypothesis is interesting but needlessly complex.  If the dropping of the mooring ropes caused a spark that ignited the highly-flammable skin there is no need for the theorized cable failure and gas leak.  Again, the problem is testability.

Independent studies by the UCLA Engineering School and a former NASA researcher have noted that:

- the way in which the skin was attached to the framing allowed for a buildup of electrostatic energy.

- witnesses said that when the ship ignited it looked "like a fireworks display".  The iron oxide, cellulous acetate and aluminum powder compound used on the fabric skin burns with a bright orange flame. Hydrogen burns with a colorless, almost invisible flame.

- newsreel footage shows that the flames burn downward.  Hydrogen would burn only upward.

The widely-accepted conclusion is that the Hindenburg disaster was caused by a static discharge which ignited the dirigible's outer covering.  The fact that the airship used hydrogen rather than helium was not a factor.  Note, however, that there is no "smoking gun" proof.

There are a number of established facts that provide clues which support a hypothesis and no facts have, so far, been found to support an alternative hypothesis.

Now let's go back to the Earhart case.  TIGHAR has established a number of facts that provide clues which support the hypothesis that the flight ended at Gardner Island and no facts. so far,  have been found to support an alternative hypothesis.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:56:49 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: Splashed & Sank

For Alfred Hendrickson

Al:  What "evidence" is that they 'landed and rolled out' on the pristine beaches of Nikumaroro?  None!  They were OBVIOUSLY LOST. Somewhere along the line one of them made a mistake.   It could have been a navigational error, a pilot error, nobody knows.

I've looked at photos of Nikumaroro and wondered to myself as to exactly where I would try and land a Lockheed Electra.  Possibly coming in from the NW doesn't offer up any obvious choices.  You could try to set it down on the beach and risk nosing over (gear down) or try to do it gear up.  There is also the area by the inlet that might offer some possibilities.  But, I've had the luxury of being able to take time to study the photos.  After careful consideration, I would have ditched inside the lagoon.  In my 40+ years of aviation experience, I have rode down 9 times without an engine.  I can tell you that tunnel vision sets in real quick and the faster you lose altitude, the faster you have to make decisions.  But, I can't tell you what I might have done  were I in the situation AE & FN were in. Fighting off tunnel vision, fear and trying to make sound decisions under that kind of pressure is a tall order.  Once the bird hits the ground or water, the flight is over.

 Vern Koenig
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:58:35 -0400
From:         Neil Barnett
Subject:      Neil's hypothesis

> If we assume that she flew more or less on course to Howland
> Island, located it and identified it, but did not immediately make a
> landing, then there is one hypothesis which answers most of the
> puzzling questions about the flight.

Here is the hypothesis:

Amelia Earhart was principally a record-setter/record-breaker. By 1937 the era of record-setting was nearly at an end, but as far as I can tell, no woman had ever made a 24 hour endurance flight over continuous ocean. She and Noonan set out from Lae on a flight expected to take 20 hours. They had 24 hours of fuel onboard, giving a 4 hour margin for safety reasons. By very carefully managing her fuel consumption, she could achieve the 24 hour record, while pretending that this was simply another leg of her around-the-world trip. She:

1. gets Johnson to calculate engine settings for minimum fuel consumption.

2. experiments with conservative takeoffs in early legs of the world flight, wrecking the plane on one occasion.

3. offloads a radio and the trailing wire antenna to minimize weight.

4. makes a very conservative takeoff at Lae, and stays at wave height for the entire leg to take advantage of the uplift from the ocean surface (it was noticed that she did not climb after the takeoff, but stayed at wave height until observers lost sight of the plane at the horizon). This lack of height would severely reduce radio comms effectiveness.

5. flies more or less on course to Howland Island, locates it and identifies it (sees the Itasca) but pretends not to see it, "we must be on you but cannot see you".

6. deliberately gives ambiguous radio channel information(6210) to create uncertainty about which channel she's using, and gives the impression that there are communication problems.

7. flies in a circling pattern out of sight of Itasca, while carefully managing fuel consumption to achieve the 24 hour record, and ignoring orders to land from the Itasca's captain, who becomes aware of whats happening.

At this point, we must ask whether Noonan was a party to the attempt on the record. My contention is that he was not, and that he protested when EA showed no inclination to make a landing.

If Earhart refused to heed his requests to land, then Noonan became effectively a kidnapping victim, under circumstances (low fuel) in which his life was in peril. I think that Noonan, protesting to Earhart, still had the presence of mind to keep plotting their position. He knew that, whatever the outcome, it was essential that their position be known at all times, in case they had to radio for assistance.

It is my contention that Earhart misjudged her fuel level, the fuel ran out, and the plane ditched, but floated for a while.  Earhart was able to radio the final position to the Itasca, which sped to the scene. The captain of the Itasca was justifiably furious that his orders to land had been ignored. It's possible that Noonan was trapped and went down with the plane. I have questions about whether Earhart stood trial for kidnapping, and what her fate was, bearing in mind that she was friendly with the Roosevelts. As for the radio transmissions which were reported long after the plane was overdue, it is not necessary that such transmissions were made. It is only necessary that reports be written and filed, and powerful people are involved in the Earhart story.

Neil in Auckland, N.Z.
************************************************************************
From Ric

I can see why you were hesitant to post it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:13:28 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: AE radio range

Earhart's Vega is on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.  While I wasn't able to climb into the cockpit, I did get a look at the cockpit, and the radio gear was still there.  It should be a piece of cake to contact someone (Dick Crouch?) at NASM and find that information.

Surprisingly, the two frequencies used on the Pacific crossing (Hawaii to California) used 3105 and 6210 kHz.

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

It's Tom Crouch and Lesson One in aviation historical research is never, ever trust a "restored" airplane to give you accurate historical information.  That Vega in the Smithsonian was given by Earhart to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia with a different engine than the one she used to cross the Atlantic (she had just had the engine overhauled and wasn't about to give away a good engine).  The airplane was later traded to the Smithsonian and they did an extensive rebuild. That airplane is a Vega 5 c/n 22, registered as NC7952.  As far as I know, it shouldn't have a radio in it at all. The airplane she used on the Honolulu/Oakland flight was Vega Special 5C c/n 171, registered as NR965Y.  Paul Mantz later had that airplane for a while but I'm not sure where it finally ended up.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:21:04 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: AE radio range

Ric wrote:

> By the way, the first logged reception by Itasca was at 0245 (1315
> GMT).

02 45 Itasca time was in fact 14 15 GMT as Itasca time was GMT -11:30 hrs

> The operator was sure it was Earhart but the content was
> unreadable due to static.
>
>At 0345 (1415 GMT)

You mean 15 15GMT

> AE was heard to say that
> she would listen for messages on the hour and half hour on 3105.
>
> Itasca sent the weather on 3105 at 0353 (1423 GMT) and Earhart replied
> with something about "partly cloudy".

It was at 04 53 (16 23 GMT) when "partly cloudy" was mentioned.

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

My mistake.  You're right.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:17:06 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Ric, you're wasting your breath.  Vern is going go his own way.  Let him go.  Bon voyage, Vern

Dennis
************************************************************************
From Ric

You're saying that my No Forum Member Left Behind program isn't working?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:22:13 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Paradise Redux

I have offered my home on several occasions for charity events and the like. It is a four bedroom home on Hood Canal, about 20 miles from Bremerton. It is easily accessible from Seattle, where one could visit the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field, I think that Earhart researcher George Carrington is a docent there and welcomes questions re Earhart. The value, summers, is about $1200 a week. I would like only Tighar members be eligible as I know they are all kind hearted responsible souls!!

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

Just to be clear...you're not talking about having folks stay with you as guests but rather offering the exclusive use of the property much as Andrew is doing with his villa in the Virgin Islands.  Right?

George Carrington ...what a treat.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:25:56 -0400
From:         Emmett Hoolihan
Subject:      Re: Paradise Redux

I'll be happy to donate a free Biennial Flight Review OR an Instrument Proficiency Check to the raffle prizes.

Emmett Hoolihan
Lurker (2405)
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Emmett.  From a practical standpoint, someone would need to be a pilot and live within a reasonable distance from you - but we'll be happy to add your offer to the pot.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:06:01 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Paradise Redux

The house would be available for guests themselves for a six days. Plenty of restaurants, and a world class resort Alderbrook, next to Gates, is now open. Olympic Mountain views, and at low tide, one can practice the Amelia Earhart Boston technique of opening clams and oysters. I prefer an oyster knife, and boiling the clams, and dipping them in butter. Bring your own butter.

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:07:11 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Hindenburg

In an obscure book published in 1942 "Wings Over America",  Harry Bruno, newscaster and glider aviator, writes extensively of the Hindenburg disaster as he was under the dirigible just as it exploded, ran and then broadcast some of the events. He theorizes it was sabatoge but admitted he has no proof. He also published a chart with all of the Hindenburg trips from Germany to America between May -Oct 36. I count 12 or 13.

The chart, he says, shows that he ship never approximated the same course and the courses ranged from way north  by Greenland to way south. He surmises that it was clear "that espionage rather than exploraton lay behind these varying routes."

The book has tons of great photos of all the early aviators, from Lindbergh (giving a Heil in Germany) to Amelia Earhart. He says that Harriet Quimby was the first woman to hold a pilots license, 1910, killed in a crash two years later.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:09:45 -0400
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

For Vern Koenig -

You wrote to Ric:

> Meaningless speculation, you say.  Well, so far, speculation is all
> that TIGHAR has put forth.  They haven't found one item of PROOF that
> AE & FN ever set foot on Nikumaroro.  I personally want to find out
> what happened to the duo.  I don't care where they landed, ditched, or
> broke up in the sky.  All I would like is to see the mystery solved
> once and for all.
>
> Yes, I speculate.  And, my speculation is equal in value to that of
> TIGHAR's.  TIGHAR has made several trips to Nikumaroro and come up
> empty handed.  Their 'theory" almost borderlines on wishful thinking.

One is led to believe that TIGHAR has expended a lot of effort - and Other People's Money - in attempting to solve the mystery of Earhart's disappearance.  Most of us "lurkers" (Ric's phrase) would also "like to see the mystery solved once and for all".

But Ric has stated - more than once - that TIGHAR's true function is to merely teach people how to apply that awe-inspiring "scientific method". (Understandable,  should the IRS ever question the organization's claim to "educational" non-profit status.)

Here's a transcription of just one of Ric's replies to a posting.

> I have no passion for finding Amelia but I am totally intrigued and
> captivated by the fact that by working together and using our brains
> we can develop and demonstrate ways of seeking out truth that can
> benefit everyone who cares to participate in the process. Maybe we'll
> find the Grail at the end of the quest and maybe we won't - but the
> real value is in the journey.

That was on the Forum July 25, 2001, and serves as yet another example of explaining why the most recent batch of "evidence" as of that date had zero value.

Having clarified the justification, I will concede that the Forum has made a contribution in the form of posting a good deal of research material from the various archives.  Unfortunately, alternate theories get short shrift (or no "shrift" at all), because of "a lack of evidence" as you so correctly point out.

Cam Warren
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:46:00 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re; probability & hypotheses

Ric:  Is your point of "getting across" to me the fact that you want me to believe your theory of Nikumaroro.  I believe it.  It too still remains a theory.  Having been a pilot for 40+ years, I've learned that there are hundreds, if not thousands of things that can go wrong with flying an airplane.  I used to teach fuzzy faced kids how to fly ultralights 20 years ago.  I went through Eipper dealer training in Phoenix.  We were ready to fly at 6:00 a.m., flew until lunch time, and then went back to the dealership to learn how to assemble airplanes. Eipper was paranoid about safety.  Everything you were taught emphasized 'safety.'  One early morning, after preflighting the two-seat U/L twice (once by me and once by my student), We took off from Turlock Airpark.  At about 500 feet on climb out, I noticed the control stick trying to move backward in my hand.  Control sticks simply don't do that - unless there is something wrong.  And, there was.  I only had 20 years experience as a pilot back then, but knew that there was a problem with the empennage.  I looked back and saw the entire tail/elevator group cocked at a 45 degree angle.  I immediately looked forward and down. We were crossing over the 99 Freeway at Lander Avenue - and all I could think of was "that is where we're going to hit."  We were then experiencing the onset of a major structural failure.  I swear that I heard the voices of every flight instructor I ever had telling me what to do....."Use throttle for pitch control, stay off the rudders, use the spoilerons only, get off the power, make a wide descending 360 degree turn to the right."

Needless to say, we got down OK.  And, as it turned out, a bolt on the horizontal stabilizer which connects the flying wires from the kingpost (upper) to the stabilizer and then to the tri-bar (lower) had sheared. The lower flying wire was dangling from the airplane and the upper wire was threatening to go into the prop arc.  Somehow, we made it.  It certainly wasn't piloting skill.  Had the upper wire been snagged by the prop, I wouldn't be writing you this email.

That airplane had gone through two preflight checks prior to our takeoff.  Damage to the sheared bolt probably occurred over the course of several student hops.  The damaged bolt was hidden from view. There was no visual indication that something was amiss.  In short, the consensus of opinion was that the airplane was ready to fly and in reality, it was not.

On another flight, the intercom system between instructor and student failed.  The intercom plug kept vibrating out of the jack.  So, I had to resort to giving my student hand signals.  I wanted him to fly a rectangular pattern around a vineyard bordered by walnut trees.  We were about 500 feet up.  So, as I am giving my hand signals, I accidently hit the kill switch to the Rotax engine (mounted on the tri-bar).  Oops!  Suddenly, there was a very LOUD 'BANG.'  The engine was a 2-stroke which ran at about 6000 rpm with a 2.1 : 1 reduction unit to keep the prop under 3000 revs.   I can tell you with absolute certainty that Rotax engines do not like to be shut off at 6000 rpm. Any hope of a restart vanished because the Mikuni carburetor had been blown off the engine.  My student made his first engine-out landing.

The only reason I relay these stories is to demonstrate that it is the little things that can kill you.  It is the little things that go wrong the most.  The engine failure was caused by my decision to wear a suede  jacket that cold morning.  The left sleeve actually caused the switch to be turned off and the engine to fail.  When it happened, I wasn't too concerned about cause....I had a new set of problems to solve.Later, on the ground, we figured out what had happened.  We spent the rest of the day in the vineyard looking for our carburetor.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

All of us who have done much flying have "there I was" stories and, trust me, you don't want to get this bunch going if you want to preserve your image of yourself as the wise old aviator.

What I'm trying to get across to you is not a belief in the Nikumaroro theory.  You're nowhere near ready to even consider that hypothesis. What I'm trying to get across to you is something your 9th grade science teacher should have taught you.  It's a way of thinking called the scientific method of inquiry.  It's what Cam Warren was denigrating in his recent posting.

Postings like yours and Cam's illustrate what I mean when I say that the discovery of what really happened to Amelia Earhart (which may or may not be possible)  is not nearly as important as demonstrating and developing the methods and standards by which we decide what is true and what is not.  Don't feel lonely or singled out.  You have lots of company. The consequences of failures to employ those methods and standards dominate the headlines every day.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:09:43 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

Dirigibles, if I remember correctly, are still at the mercy of winds for precise navigation, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to have their flight paths vary quite a bit over Atlantic crossings.  Yes, I know blimps can move in specific directions when needed, but for cross-Atlantic crossings, it probably was better to head West (or East) and not waste fuel trying to stay exactly on course.  In addition, there were probably detours around weather systems to keep the air vehicle out of trouble.  Espionage as a conclusion out of varying flight paths?  That's laughable.
************************************************************************
From Ric

It's not so much that they were "at the mercy of the winds" (LZ129 cruised at something like 80 knots as I recall) but they did have to avoid severe weather and often made wide detours.
*******************************************************************
From Herman De Wulf (#2406)

Ron Bright mentions a book by Harry Bruno which launched another espionage theory that never happened. The airship "Hindenburg" (officially LZ 129), like Amelia Earhart, has been a victim of secrecy theories. One of them has even been filmed, thus perpetuating the belief in a conspiracy theory which never took place. I'm not familiar with Harry Bruno's book but judging from what Ron Bright writes he mistook the "Hindenburg" for the "Graf Zeppelin II" (LZ 130) which was indeed used for secret espionage flights in 1938 and 1939. The "Hindenburg" and the "Graf Zeppelin II" were the last of a generation of dinosaurs. The "Hindenburg" airship, like "Titanic" ocean liner, remains famous mainly because it did not survive its first voyage. However, prior to this inaugural voyage in May 1937 it had successfully completed the 10 proving flights between Frankfurt and Lakehurst in 1936 required by the US authorities. In addition LZ 129 had made another seven flights to Rio de Janeiro in that year. It was therefore not really its first flight. I am sure today few Americans remember that the needle on top of the Empire State Building was initially designed to be a mooring mast for the "Hindenburg" and for two more of its sister ships the German DELAG company intended to use on ocean crossing flights from 1937 on. The Empire State Building was never used to that purpose. Instead the US government made available the Lakehurst naval station.

I had the privilege of meeting one of the survivors of the 1937 Lakehurst crash sometime in the Seventies. He was an employee of the DELAG company that operated the airship. The cause of the fire and subsequent crash was found to have been a spark caused by loose wire dangling near the hydrogen filled rear gas bag, the airship being charged with static electricity from having flown near a thunderstorm prior to landing. This storm had been the reason why the arrival of the airship had been postponed for several hours. To those who might consider visiting Germany these days I can recommend the Zeppelin Museum at Friedrichshafen, on Lake Constanz, which is really a museum of international airship development since 1852 and not exclusively dedicated to the Zeppelin company which made German airships famous. It is, as some may know, again building airships (now filled with helium and more sophisticated than the LZ 129). And yes, when you pay the fare you can fly around Lake Constance in it, but do book in advance... The main piece of the museum is a reconstruction of part of the "Hindenburg" (the one that  fits into the museum), including the passenger compartment with its A and B Decks, complete  with the cabins, showers, restaurant, smoking room and the panoramic sightseeing balcony. Interestingly part of the huge geodetic structure of the cigar shaped airship is also reconstructed. This was the part of the ship which contained the hydrogen bags. The reconstruction is very interesting from an engineering point of view. As said, it was "Graf Zeppelin II" (LZ 130) that was used by the Luftwaffe for espionage flights, not the "Hindenburg". The first flights took place along the Czech border in 1938 prior to the German invasion. Next came the east coast of Great Britain in August 1939. Packed with radio equipment the "Graf Zeppelin II" flew up and down the coast hidden in the clouds, its crew trying to find out about a secret new British weapon, radar. The British were aware of the flights and did not switch on their "Chain Home" radar system, leading the Luftwaffe to conclude that British radar wasn't operational yet. To remain invisible "Graf Zeppelin II" operated at night, staying in or above clouds and lowering an observer with a radio equipment packed gondola dangling under the cloud base to guide the ship very much the way the Germans used to do in WW I. When WW II broke out in September 1939 "Graf Zeppelin II" was broken up, as was the "Hindenburg" sister ship LZ 131. Both were judged useless in modern warfare by Hermann Goring, the commander in chief of the Luftwaffe.

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

You say, "The cause of the fire and subsequent crash was found to have been a spark caused by loose wire dangling near the hydrogen filled rear gas bag, the airship being charged with static electricity from having flown near a thunderstorm prior to landing."

Who found that to be the cause?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:16:57 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: Neil's hypothesis

While I am having some trouble with Neils' theory, he does make some good points.  One of which is that AE did not climb to a reasonable altitude when leaving Lae.  As Neil said, that could be one possible reason for her communications difficulties.  At low altitude in cloudy weather, Noonan might not be able to get a fix on the sun as often as he wanted.  That would leave AE flying by the seat of her pants.

Her attempting to set a 24 hour endurance record on an overwater flight doesn't sound too kosher.  There always exists the possibility that is exactly what she wanted to do....set a record within a record.  If so, it wasn't a very bright idea.  Had it been me, I would have attempted that on the last leg between Honolulu and Oakland.  That way, even if she had crash landed, she would have been over California.  But, who knows how or what a woman thinks?  I gave up on that crusade two weeks after getting married.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

I give up.  Dennis is right.  Somebody else is going to have to educate this guy, not to mention dragging him into the 21st century.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:25:20 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: probability a& hypotheses

Thank you, Cam.  Those were the first nice words I've received on this forum.  I love a mystery and the real life Earhart mystery tops the list.  This is probably the biggest mystery of them all.  I have never said that anyone is wrong.  It is my belief that all theories have merit and warrant some investigation.

One fellow put forth his own idea.  I don't agree with all of it, but he did say that AE flew close to the water to avoid eating up precious fuel during a prolonged climb.  That seems to make sense insofar as radio transmission difficulties are concerned.  I don't recall reading anywhere in the TIGHAR notes where AE was advised to fly at a prescribed altitude to enhance radio transmission distances.  I could be wrong about that.  However, if she decided to flathat over the waves, it would most certainly affect transmission distances.  It would also adversely affect the radio detection equipment she had onboard.

Let's assume that AE was flying very low over the water.  If she was cruising at 180 miles per hour, say 50 feet above the water, the Electra would be moving at 264 feet per second.  Three to four seconds of inattention or diversion could have put them right into the drink. They would have hit so hard and so fast that neither AE or FN would have known what happened.

My theory is:  anything might have happened and with certainty, it did! 

Thanks again for the nice words.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

"Anything might have happened and with certainty, it did!"

I'm speechless ...except to say that I think Vern and Cam make a great team.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:41:28 -0400
From:         Christy Creyts
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Round and round.  What would be sufficient proof?  I don't mean proof in the legal sense or even in the scientific sense.  Let me explain. In today's world, a world of ever increasing and already amazing scientific/technological sophistication, what proof can ever be offered, and offered in what manner, as to be completely without challenge? Conspiracy theorists tell us that events are not as they seem.  Proof can be fabricated or planted.

If biological remains, molars or a femur perhaps, are found on Niku and these remains can be DNA matched precisely to AE's (I know the premise is problematic...this would require a sample be available known to be AE's but let this slide for now), I submit to you that someone will say:

"Irene Bolem's remains were placed there for [who can imagine what purpose]" 

"Japanese soldiers buried her there in [insert your favorite post-flight year]"

"TIGHAR was getting too close to discovering the truth instead of confirming their pet theory so the US Gov't planted the remains."

Cam Warren:  What "recent batch of evidence" are you referring to?  What would you consider proof-positive?

On a different note, I've been inspired to renew my membership (I did the deed online).  May I have my old number back?  It could be under Pilkey instead of Creyts.

Many thanks
Christy Creyts
Once a member, then a lurker, reborn a member.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Born-again TIGHARs can get their old numbers back.  I'll ask Pat to make it so.

You raise an excellent question. In my opinion, the Earhart mystery is too well entrenched as folklore for any solution, no matter how conclusively proved, to be accepted by everyone.  In a practical sense, I think that a solution that was treated as conclusive by the mainstream media would be accepted by the majority of the general public.  That's about the most you can hope for.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:46:50 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Ric:  I fail to understand your reasoning that I am nowhere near being able to consider your Nikumaroro hypothesis.  I've considered the Nikumaror hypothesis and think it is a good one.  There is an outside chance that it may be 100% correct.  There is also the hypothesis that AE and FN were having a rough sex romp up in the cockpit, got lost and flew off to Neverneverland.  Until otherwise proven, virtually anything is possible, although likely improbable.

I think that they got lost.  If what one writer said was true, that she was flathatting to conserve fuel, there is little wonder why she didn't spot Howland or any other island for that matter.  When she radioed that she was flying a NW/SE line of position, in my stupid, humble  opinion is an admission by AE herself that they were LOST.  TIGHAR takes the position that AE turned SE and flew direct to Nikumaroro.  I think she turned NW and flew off into oblivion.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

"Until otherwise proven, virtually anything is possible, although likely improbable."

Keep 'em coming Vern.  These are priceless.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:47:50 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: radio range of AE

Ron, when I was in the Air Force 65-74 and CAl 68-85 we routinely listened to KFI,XTRA and I think KSFO on the ADF for long period at night as far away as PAGO PAGO and Johnson IS. but one couldn't talk. That was ADF not HF. HF was much different.

Jim Preston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:09:07 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

Ric wrote:

> It's not so much that they were "at the mercy of the winds" (LZ129
> cruised at something like 80 knots as I recall) but they did have to
> avoid severe weather and often made wide detours.

Not to mention the likelihood that they used different routes and altitudes so as to make use of favourable winds aloft to speed their passage.  80 knots into a 20 knot headwind vs 80 knots with a 20 knot tailwind is a huge difference in transit time.  Heck, I notice the difference even on the short hops of 150 miles or so between our nearest cities.

Excuse my typos in recent posts - i still haven't got full use of my hands back.

Th' WOMBAT
************************************************************************
From Herman De Wulf

Ric asked:

Who determined the cause of the disaster?

Dr. Hugo Eckener did. He was count Zeppelin's right hand in the Zeppelin Gesellschaft and had been the commanding officer of LZ 127 "Graf Zeppelin" during its 1929 round-the-world flight. He was in Germany when the accident happened and left for New York immediately on the steamer  "Europa" with other German airship experts to investigate the accident. Dr. Eckener stated before the Department of Commerce hearing committee in Lakehurst that he believed the accident to be the result of a number of coincidences. One was that there must have been a gas leak in the rear oxygen bag during the landing maneuver since the ship was tail-heavy during approach. This was confirmed by Captain Pruss who survived the crash. Pruss also said he had to apply hard-to-port during the approach. This, according to Dr. Eckener, might have caused a stringer to break in the rear of the ship. How static electricity had caused a spark, was explained Max Dieckmann, a German scientist and a member of the German delegation. He explained how the airship was charged with static electricity by flying between thunderstorm clouds. When the first rope was thrown down to moor the ship, it became a conductor. According to Dieckmann it took "a few minutes" for the airship to reach the same potential as the earth, causing a potential difference between the ship and the clouds, a situation in which St.-Elms fire can appear (actually four minutes elapsed between the throwing of the rope and the fire). The airship's fuselage being a poor conductor, the fatal spark eventually ignited as static electricity reached the duralumin girders of the "Hindenburg" inside, setting afire the leaking oxygen according to dr. Eckener's dangling wire theory. Dieckmann's St.-Elms fire explanation was confirmed some time later by a Princeton university professor (whose name unfortunately I do not remember). He had been a witness to the disaster and said he had indeed observed "a blue flame creeping over the top of the airship before the fire broke out". Hereby he proved Dieckmann was right. The Dr. Eckner/Dieckmann explanation was revealed to me by the former DELAG employee I mentioned in a previous posting. His name was Emil Stockle. He traveled on the "Hindenburg" to Lakehurst to become a DELAG sales agent in the USA. He survived the crash by sliding down the rising corridor, jumping out of an open window and running away as fast as he could. During WW II he served as an officer in the Luftwaffe. Actually we met twice. The first time was when we were introduced while crossing the Atlantic from Frankfurt to San Francisco in a Lufthansa 747 of all places... As I worked on a free lance basis for the Belgian state television BRT at the time making aviation programs, we agreed to meet again for a program on the "Hindenburg". It was recorded at Friedrichshafen, where he lived in retirement. Emil Stockle died a number of years ago. There is a lot of literature on airships, including the very comprehensive "Luftschiff HINDENBURG und die grosse Zeit der Zeppeline" by Rick Archbold, published by Bechtermunz Verlag. There must be an English version "HINDENBRUG, an illustrated history", published by Madison Press Books in Toronto, Canada. Hope this answers the question.

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

It sounds to me like Dr. Eckner advanced a theory that was partially supported by the testimony of one witness.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:15:50 -0400
From:         Jerry Geiger
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

How about this theory:

In May or June of 1937, a group of submarines surfaced off Nikumaroro and secretly landed some Japanese Marines and laborers drafted on Saipan. Their purpose was to build a secret submarine base.  In July, AE and FN, failing to find Howland,  stumble upon Niku.  They circle the island looking for a place to land ("overflight of Japanese bases"), and are fired on by the Japanese Marines ("shot by the Japanese").  The bullets pass through the fuel tanks, allowing precious fuel to drain out below, and dangerous fumes to spread above, within the aircraft.  One of the bullets hits the radio,  precluding a call for help.  The subsequent sparking of severed cables causes an explosion ("mid-air explosion").  The pieces of aircraft and the bodies of its passengers crash into the Pacific and sink ("crashed and sank").  The Japanese Marines later hear about AE and FN's loss, and during late night sake parties entertain themselves by making phony transmissions in falsetto voices claiming to be AE in distress.  These transmissions are picked up by people in the U.S. who believe they are real ("post-loss transmissions").

I think that has covered everybody's theory so far.  Anyone willing to bid on the book rights?

LTM (who loved a good story)
Jerry Geiger
************************************************************************
From Ric

You blew it Jerry.   As it says on the TIGHAR website:
"By submitting a written message to the Forum, the author assigns all copyright (if any) to TIGHAR."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:27:10 -0400
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

> From Jerry Geiger
>
> How about this theory:

[snip]

>     I think that has covered everybody's theory so far.  Anyone
> willing to bid on the book rights?
> LTM (who loved a good story)

I give up.  That was better than any of mine.

Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:31:22 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

I tend to agree with Harold Dick's theory regarding the Hindenburg disaster.  We will never know for certain what caused the explosion. In his book, he mentions flying over Morocco and that occasionally the passengers and crew could see the puff from a rifle fired by desert nomads far below.  There always exists the outside chance that a bullet hit the DLZ-129 and since the hydrogen lifting gas was not under any great pressure in the cells could have caused a slow leak.  Who knows?

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

Vern, what would you accept as proof of the fate of Amelia Earhart, given that anything could have happened and certainly did but is highly improbable.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:22:44 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: Neil's hypotheses

Ric:  You really are narrow in scope.  I have a mechanical engineering degree, former naval aviator, and membership in Mensa.  I own my own Nevada corporation and have contracts with two other corporations to build stratospheric telecommunications platforms at $32M a copy. Please tell me more about furthering my education.......I look forward to your expertise.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'd recommend some basic science and liberal arts courses.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:25:16 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

> From Ric
>
> "Anything might have happened and with certainty, it did!"
>
> I'm speechless ...except to say that I think Vern and Cam make a great
> team.

Ric:  You really are a stick in the mud.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:45:48 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

Ric:  I could tell you that I believe the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west and still get some snide comment from you.  You've got this fixation that an historical event happened only in the way you deem possible.  You are oblivious to other extenuating circumstances that may or may not have occurred.  You completely fail to consider other options.  So, how many times has TIGHAR visted Nikumaroro and come up empty handed?  Yet you cling to your theory much the same as a man dangling over a precipice.  So far, you're batting ZILCH POINT ZERO.  For some reason, I get the impression that you are some kind of 'know-it-all.'  I admitted from the get-go on this board that I simply don't know.  Nobody does - including YOU.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

No Vern, I don't know it all.  In fact, as the other subscribers to this forum can tell you, I don't know much.  But I do know that it is possible to discover answers by gathering information, formulating informed hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, formulating new hypotheses based on the information gained from testing the old ones, and repeating the process as many times as necessary so as to get as close as possible to the truth.  You throw up your hands and say anything is possible.  You look (if you have bothered to look) at the dozens of clues we've found and because none of them are inscribed "Left here by Amelia Earhart" you dismiss the entire process.  I, and others with far better credentials than my own, have tried to explain the concept of testable hypotheses to you and it has apparently gone right over your head.  I'm out of ideas.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:59:19 -0400
From:         Tom Hickcox
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

> From Herman De Wulf
>
> Ric asked:
> Who determined the cause of the disaster?
>
> Dr. Hugo Eckener did. He was count Zeppelin's right hand in the Zeppelin
> Gesellschaft and had been the commanding officer of LZ 127 "Graf Zeppelin"
> during its 1929 round-the-world flight. He was in Germany when the accident
> happened and left for New York immediately on the steamer  "Europa" with
> other German airship experts to investigate the accident. Dr. Eckener stated
> before the Department of Commerce hearing committee in Lakehurst that he
> believed the accident to be the result of a number of coincidences. One was
> that there must have been a gas leak in the rear oxygen bag during the
> landing maneuver since the ship was tail-heavy during approach. This was
> confirmed by Captain Pruss who survived the crash.

Oxygen bag?

[snip]

> conductor. According to Dieckmann it took "a few minutes" for the airship to
> reach the same potential as the earth, causing a potential difference
> between the ship and the clouds, a situation in which St.-Elms fire can
> appear (actually four minutes elapsed between the throwing of the rope and
> the fire). The airship's fuselage being a poor conductor, the fatal spark
> eventually ignited as static electricity reached the duralumin girders of
> the "Hindenburg" inside, setting afire the leaking oxygen according to dr.
> Eckener's dangling wire theory. Dieckmann's St.-Elms fire explanation was
> confirmed some time later by a Princeton university professor (whose name
> unfortunately I do not remember). He had been a witness to the disaster and
> said he had indeed observed "a blue flame creeping over the top of the
> airship before the fire broke out". Hereby he proved Dieckmann was right.

Would that be St. Elmo's fire?  If so, it would be the same color as a hydrogen fire.  St. Elmo's fire was considered a good omen by seafarers.  Not in this case, tho.

Tom Hickcox
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm sure he means St.Elmo's fire but it doesn't make any sense to me. Is it alleged that St. Elmo's fire or the static discharge ignited the putative leaking hydrogen?  Either way, there has to be a spark - a source of ignition.  Both the skin of the dirigible and the hydrogen gas in the bags was highly flammable, but the gas is contained and protected in the bags while the skin is exposed to any ignition source.  Why theorize a gas leak for which there is no evidence except Pruss's recollection that the ship was tail-heavy?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:06:58 -0400
From:         Jerry Geiger
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Now that TIGHAR has deprived me of my millions in royalties, how will I ever pay for my poor sickly daughter's operation?  She was playing happily in the back yard when a piece of Hindenburg debris fell on her.  I better stop this, or I'll find myself categorized with some of your more delusional contributors - if I'm not already.

LTM (who is not on drugs - really)
Jerry
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:22:24 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

Ric wrote :

>It sounds to me like Dr. Eckner advanced a theory that was partially
>supported by the testimony of one witness.

Most crash reports I've seen begin with "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause...". That includes the report on flight TWA 800 exploding in mid air after take off from J.F.K. on 17 July 1996. In the case of the "Hindenburg" Dr. Hugo Eckener was an authority, like Kelly Johnson was an authority at building the Lockheed 10 Electra. He was both in charge of building Zeppelin airships at the Friedrichhafen plant, including the "Hindenburg", and one of the most experienced airship pilots of his time.

In the case of the "Hindenburg" the investigators were greatly helped by reports from the surviving officers, including Captain Pruss. He told Dr. Eckener about the tail-heaviness (which anyone had seen and still can see when looking at the pictures). He was the one who mentioned the brutal maneuver which made Dr. Eckener suspect had caused a stringer to snap. It rarely happens in modern aircraft accident investigations to have the cockpit crew at hand to explain what happened, what they did, why they did it and how they did it.

If Ric chooses to think Dr. Eckener's is "a theory supported by one testimony", I'd like to know whether he agrees that the findings of the NTSB on the TWA 800 crash are also a theory, but one not supported by a single witness. In both cases the reports were based on investigation of the accident by experts who came to a conclusion everybody agreed to.

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

As you correctly note, NTSB investigations result in the determination of a "probable cause", not a "determined cause" or "established cause".

Those rulings are the product of exhaustive investigations which consider many kinds of evidence and the opinions of many "authorities" but they don't result in a pronouncement of what definitely happened. The y result in a report that says, in effect, "This is what we think probably happened."  The NTSB recognizes the fundamental paradox of all historical investigation - we have to try our best to figure out what happened but we can never really know for sure.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:25:22 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: Neil's hypothesis

What the hell does a course in science and liberal arts have to do with finding a lost airplane???
************************************************************************
From Ric

Congratulations Vern.  You've done it again.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:09:28 -0400
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Forum posts of late

Folks the AE Forum I thought was about Amelia Earhart and her sidekick Fred Noonan and their disappearance in July 1937, not about who is of more intelligence in 2004.

We need to make a course correction back to chasing Amelia and Fred.

Respectfully:

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

I agree, in part.  This is not Mensa and we shouldn't sit around talking about how smart we are and how dumb the other guy is. On the other hand, discussions and articulations of methodology seem to arise periodically on the forum - usually prompted by the appearance of a "gunslinger" - and that's not a bad thing.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:12:17 -0400
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Neil's hypothesis

Vern Koenig writes:

> What the hell does a course in science and liberal arts have to do
> with finding a lost airplane???
> *********************************************************************
>  From Ric
>
> Congratulations Vern.  You've done it again.

I can't resist.

As a (currently) unemployed, college dropout, perhaps I might take a shot at explaining this to our newest "MENSA" posterboy.

TIGHAR is not the Amelia Earhart Debating Society. Ric (and others) have designed TIGHAR to be a scientific investigative group. As such it uses a scientific method that I am sure you studied in high school.

You generate a hypothesis (that's the easy part) and then you go about to either prove or disprove that hypothesis with FACTS. Over the years (on this forum, in public view) TIGHAR has accepted evidence to modify their own hypothesis.

So, what's the deal? If you want to argue about what MAY have happened to AE and FN, this may not be the forum for that -- even though many of us surely enjoy that part of the mystery!

If you want to put forward an alternative hypothesis, Ric simply demands more than 'I think -- they might have' speculation.

These opinions are my own -- Ric hardly needs me as a spokesperson.

Bob (some of my best friends are MENSA members) Lee
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:31:42 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Ric:  I have never dismissed the process with which you base your theory.  My thinking is that there were hundreds of things that could have gone wrong during their flight.  One fellow mentioned that AE flew low after leaving Lae.  It sounds reasonable since they were quite heavy on fuel and probably at or near maximum gross weight.  That information apparently came from eyewitness observers.  While it may or may not have had any bearing on their disappearance, it should be considered.  The aircraft might not have been able to climb very well under those conditions.  Perhaps AE initiated a very shallow climb of say, 50 to 100 fpm.  It could be said that doing such would help conserve fuel.  Instead of flying at full rpm and manifold pressure, AE could have put her engines into their cruise power settings and slowly gained altitude as she followed her course.  It isn't such a bad idea because she would be exchanging a few miles per hour for a few feet of altitude per minute.  The engines would run cooler even in the hot, humid South Pacific air.

All I did was make comment on a certain observed fact regarding her flight from Lae.  I also commented on her 337/157 LOP transmission which hinted that she was lost.  The big question that no scientific study can answer is WHICH DIRECTION FROM HER 080 DEGREE HEADING DID SHE TURN?  In other words, SOMEWHERE along her 080 course line, she elected to make either a right turn to 157 degrees or left to 337 degrees. Which way did she turn?  There simply is NO way scientific reasoning can answer that question.  And that, Sir, is exactly where you will find the answer to this mystery.  So far, a supposed right turn leading to Nikumaroro has turned up nothing substantial.  It is now beginning to appear that she and Noonan elected to turn left to 337 and perhaps flew to their watery graves.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, at least we're now talking about Amelia Earhart.  Let me address the specific points you raise.

>One fellow mentioned that AE flew low after leaving Lae.

Several witnesses later described the aircraft as flying very low as it left Lae.  The film of the takeoff unfortunately stops shortly after the aircraft breaks ground but it does seem to be out of ground-effect and established in a positive rate of climb.  It therefore seems logical to conclude that if the witness reports are correct and the aircraft did not immediately continue its climb, then that was a voluntary decision on Earhart's part.  As you say, there are some good reasons for her to make have made that decision.  What we do know is that four and a quarter hours later she said she was at 7,000 feet, an hour after that she said she was at 10,000 feet, and when last heard from by Lae some seven and a quarter hours after departure she said she was at 8,000 feet.  So the available evidence suggests that she voluntarily stayed low for some time (no way to know exactly how long) after takeoff, then climbed to the altitudes where the airplane operated most efficiently (according to the earlier recommendations by Kelly Johnson), varying her altitude to some degree based upon factors we can only guess at.  We have considered all of this at length and in great detail and have found nothing that has any obvious bearing on the disappearance.

>I also commented on her 337/157 LOP transmission which hinted that
>she was lost.

Saying that she was "lost" is both true and not very helpful in trying to assess what seems most likely to have happened.  She was lost in the sense of not being able to find her intended destination but her 337/157 LOP transmission is a clear indication that she did have some information about her position and was following a procedure intended to get her unlost.

>The big question that no scientific study can answer is WHICH
>DIRECTION FROM HER 080 DEGREE HEADING DID SHE TURN?

I don't know what heading she was on and neither do you, but I disagree with the basic premise of your statement.  A scientific study that results in conclusive physical evidence of the plane and/or crew would answer the question of which way she turned, or at least in which direction she ended up.  You seem to think of a scientific study as a purely mental exercise, but it's not.  A scientific study (as we've said over and over and over) involves gathering facts, formulating a hypothesis, and testing the hypothesis.  The problem in the Earhart case is that very few hypotheses are testable.  The Japanese Capture hypothesis has been been tested and retested by searching for any hard evidence (documents, photos, artifacts, human remains) that it happened and so far nothing has been found.  The Splashed & Sank hypothesis is untestable in any practical sense but that has not stopped two separate deep-sea search operations from spending several million dollars trying.  The Reached An Island hypothesis is testable because islands have a definable area.  We tested the McKean Island hypothesis in 1989 and found nothing there to suggest that further attention to that island was warranted.  We tested the Gardner Island hypothesis that same year and found airplane parts that we could not match to any WWII aircraft.  That justified further research.  Since then we have returned to the island another six times.

>So far, a supposed right turn leading to Nikumaroro has turned up
>nothing substantial.

Perhaps you are familiar with what we have found and have good explanations for what happened at Nikumaroro if it was not the arrival, marooning, and eventual demise of Earhart and Noonan - but I doubt it. I think you're just repeating the mantra you've heard Cam Warren and others chant. We have repeatedly agreed that no single piece of evidence has been found that, as yet, has been shown to be conclusively linked to NR16020 or its crew but we maintain that the documents and artifacts that have been found represent substantial evidence that the hypothesis is correct.

I invite you to prove me wrong.  Tell me why the evidence we have found is not substantial - or is it your contention that there is no difference between evidence, clues, and conclusive proof?

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:33:20 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Wrong Forum

As a long time participant and member of Tighar, I think Vern Koenig has selected the wrong horse! We are all aware that various forums have very different approaches and basic theories. If the theory doesn't fit your research idealogy, you should probably acquit yourself of that forum.

One can argue that millions of things could conceivably happen during Aes flight, but in the end , a reasonable judgement of the available evidence has to be made where to look and dismiss the one in a million shots .  And look they do.  Some prefer the bottom of the ocean, some Mili, some Taroa, some at Saipan, and some at Jamesburg, N.J. Tighar has selected Niku.  Pick your poison.

Ron Bright
Bremerton,WA
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:39:25 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re; Hindenburg

Another theory as to the demise of the Hindenburg suggests that it flew directly into the wake turbulence from a P-26A which crossed the flight path of the Hindenburg twenty minutes earlier.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, and TWA 800 didn't stand a chance when it flew directly into the wake turbulence of a English sparrow that crossed its flight path an hour earlier.  Anything could have happened, and it certainly did.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:42:55 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Vern K proclaims: "And, my speculation is equal in value to that of TIGHAR's."

Then I proclaim my own pet theory, that AE crashed into the ocean, floated with her plane to the Pacific coast of Paraguay where she was picked up by the Paraguayan navy. Must be an equal speculation to yours, Vern, don't you think?

Then there's Neil Barnett's theory (greatly summarized for discussion purposes here) that she flew to Howland and then declined the opportunity to land. Also an equal speculation. And don't forget Darryl's 281 theory (I hope I remembered that number properly cause I didn't look it up; if its not 281, I apologize, Darryl)

Or the "AE was abducted by space aliens and beamed up to the mother ship, because the space aliens were alarmed that she was closing in on their secret base at McKean Island" theory. Definitely an equal among equals.

Yes there are a lot of theories out there.

Vern also says: "All I would like is to see the mystery solved once and for all." So I would like to know, Vern, since you would like to see the mystery solved, how you think the people who are going to solve this mystery should investigate these theories. How would we be able to tell that one theory might be correct, while the others are not? How would we be able to tell that one theory is absolutely true?

And please answer this question too, Vern. Let's suppose you had 10 million dollars to spend on finding AE, Vern, how would you, given all the theories out there, go ahead and pick the first one to investigate? Cause, you have to start somewhere. Inquiring minds want to know.

Now let me just make a point about what TIGHAR is doing. They have stated an hypothesis. (Yes "an" hypothesis, not "a" hypothesis.) It might be right, it might be wrong. We don't yet know. And at the time it was first stated, it was just an interesting idea that might have happened, but no evidence in support of it. And the folks at TIGHAR said, if it did happen, if AE did fly to Gardner, what potential evidence would there be? Perhaps a skeleton. Perhaps airline parts or an actual airplane. Perhaps other clues as well. So now TIGHAR has found civilian airliner parts on Nikumaroro. A skeleton was found there, before the island was inhabited. There are other pieces of evidence as well consistent with the Earhart hypothesis. Note, I said "consistent with", and I did not say PROOF. That's where TIGHAR is right now, trying to show that there are lots of pieces of evidence consistent with the Earhart hypothesis. They also try to show that all of these clues are unlikely to have come together, in their totality, from other explanations.

So I would say that a theory supported by evidence (but not yet proved) is superior to one that relies entirely on speculation. TIGHAR's theory, for that reason, is better supported than my Paraguay theory. And I claim it is better supported than the other theories mentioned above as well.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:45:29 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

For Tom Hickcox and Ric

Sorry about the "oxygen". That was a slip of the pen. What I meant was "hydrogen" of course. This was Murphy's Law at work while translating from German into English being a native Dutch speaker... The same goes for St.Elms fire for which I also apologize. It should have read St. Elmo's fire. I punished my computer spelling control program and promise I'll brush up my English...

As for St.- Elmo's fire, it didn't cause the airship to ignite but it was proof that static electricity was present as suggested by scientist Dieckmann. It wouldn't ignite a hydrogen leak but it certainly could have caused a spark if a dangling wire contacted the duralumin airship frame in an environment where hydrogen was leaking, as dr. Eckener suspected. Anyone having checked in in a hotel with wall to wall carpeting holding an old fashioned metal key will tell you sparks DO occur when introducing the key in the lock after having walked half a mile on the hotel's carpets...

One of the faults rectified in Air France Airbus Industrie A340 airliners after their introduction into service in 1992 (Paris-Johannesburg) was replacing aisle carpeting. Stewardesses waking up passengers for breakfast in the morning after a night's flight to Paris by touching their shoulder, caused an electric shock which DID wake up passengers! I can tell because it woke me up with a start! As for the tail-heaviness of the airship, this was not merely Captain Pruss' recollection as Ric suggests. It can be seen on 1937 pictures (go to Google and fill out "Luftschiff"). There could not have been the fire there has been if there hadn't been a hydrogen leak. Pictures show it began in the rear and progressed forward, eventually enveloping the whole airship. The very fact that the hydrogen took fire proves it was escaping. If it hadn't been escaping there wouldn't have been a fire. The fact that the airship was unexpectedly tail-heavy on the approach is not proof in itself. But it is an indication that hydrogen had indeed been escaping from a rear for some time. To prove this all one would have had to do was lighting a match...

Anyway, whether Ric believes the hydrogen leak theory or not, the fact that the German authorities believed it was sufficient reason for them to end commercial airship operations.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:08:36 -0400
From:         Mike Zuschlag
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

I don't know how much more time you want to spend discussing the Hindenburg on the Earhart Forum, but I've heard of this flammable-covering theory before on a PBS program, and I find some statements associated with it rather curious.

"Hydrogen burns colorless"

Actually, I think that only applies to hydrogen mixed at the proper ratio with oxygen, as in the space shuttle's engines. In high school chemistry, I recall burning off hydrogen as it escaped from of bottle (much like it would from an open gas bag). The flame was orange. Call it an anecdote, but I could scrounge in the basement to see if I have the materials to replicate the experiment.

I also recall from high school chemistry that a small amount of a substance heated in a flame will induce into the flame a color that reflects the constituents of the substance. We used natural gas, not hydrogen, but I'd guess it still applies. So even if pure hydrogen burns colorless, mixing in a little aluminum, carbon etc., will give color. Have I got this right?

So when you got a NASA researcher who doesn't seem to know high school chemistry, I've got to be more skeptical about other statements.

"Hydrogen would burn only upward"

Has this been conclusively demonstrated? I'm no combustion engineer, but I would think there might be conditions where air mixes with the hydrogen in a manner that the flame front can travel downward faster than the hydrogen can escape upward. Anyone on the forum know? For example, if you have a stream of hydrogen flowing up from a hose (like hydrogen escaping from a gas bag) and you hold a lit match a foot above it, will you get quickly get flames starting down at the end of the hose? Or will you only get flames from one foot above and higher?

Anyway, I think most of the burning of the Hindenburg *was* upward. As I recall the newsreel, the fire began towards the stern, the stern sank and the flames advanced upward along the top of the gas envelope. Anybody around who can watch the newsreel?

The PBS show claimed that the coating of the fabric covering was essentially equivalent to rocket propellant. I concede that aluminum powder and red iron oxide are the main ingredients of thermite, but you have to have a lot more iron oxide than aluminum, and, judging by its silver color, I'd guess the Hindenburg covering had a lot more aluminum than iron oxide. A chemist may want to comment.

The show has a scene that supposedly supported the theory: they took an actual surviving scrap of Hindenburg fabric and zapped it with an electric arc of unspecified current. It burned with all the enthusiasm of damp cardboard, not at all like the burning of rocket propellant, which I also witnessed in high school (not in chemistry, but during certain, um, extracurricular activities).

I'd need some answers to these questions before I believe that the hydrogen was not a factor in the Hindenburg disaster.

LTM, who, when a lass, had a normal, healthy interest in pyrotechnics.
--Mike Z. from Massachusetts.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Good questions Mike.  It seems to me that the central question is the flammability of the skin.  Regardless of how the surviving scrap of skin burned when tested, the films of the disaster show it burned that day.  If it really could be set off by a spark then, once the skin goes, the bags next to it will go and there'll be plenty of combustibles to burn up and down and all around in lots of colors. That there was a spark somewhere back in the stern seems beyond reasonable doubt.  That it was caused by a static discharge when the mooring lines were dropped seems reasonable.  The spark ignited something.  Was it hydrogen from a leaking bag or was it the skin?  The dropping of mooring lines was routine and did not routinely result in the immolation of the airship.  Similarly, it seems reasonable to assume that some degree of gas leakage was not uncommon.  Zeppelins had a remarkable safety record up to that time.  Something very unusual happened.  My suspicion is that the long landing delay in that particular environment resulted in an unprecedented electrostatic buildup that generated a much bigger spark than had ever before been encountered.

Sorry.  This is all admittedly way off-topic but I love these puzzles.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:12:39 -0400
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Heil not?

In reply to Ron Bright:

Ron Bright states:

> The book has tons of great photos of all the early aviators, from
> Lindbergh  (giving a Heil in Germany) to Amelia Earhart.

Ron - Use the scientific method - prior to World War II how did Americans salute the flag? Quite simply they did NOT put their hand over their heart - they raised their hand in salute. After the start of World War II, the method was changed and NOW we place our hand over our heart. THUS, Lindbergh was not giving a "Heil", but rather a standard American salute to the flag.

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

Whoa!  Is that right???  What a cool piece of trivia.  What's your source (scientific method)?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:45:16 -0700
From:         Richard Gillespie
Subject:      Forum delay

Our high-speed cable is down and until we get it fixed (tomorrow we hope) we're limping along on steam-powered email.

Thanks for you patience.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:42:09 -0400
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: probability & hypothesis

Paige Miller wrote:

> Let's suppose you had 10
> million dollars to spend on finding AE, Vern, how would you, given all
> the theories out there, go ahead and pick the first one to
> investigate?

This would be a good question to pose to every cowboy with a great idea.

LTM (who prefers direction with discipline)
Mike
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:49:55 -0400
From:         J. Thomas
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

Mike Zuschlag wrote:

> Anybody around who can watch the newsreel?

A colorized version of the newsreel (or part of it) may be viewed here:

http://www.vidicom-tv.com/tohiburg.htm

-J. Thomas

***************************************************************
From Mike Z.

Ric writes:

>Regardless of how the surviving scrap of skin burned when tested, the
>films of the disaster show it burned that day.  If it really could be
>set off by a spark then, once the skin
>goes, the bags next to it will go and there'll be plenty of
>combustibles to burn up and down and all around in lots of colors....
>Sorry. This is all admittedly way off-topic but I love these puzzles."

Well..., it might be semi-on-topic if this flammable skin explanation is getting wide acceptance without anyone seriously examining the underlying data. Many an Earhart myth has had similar genesis, so maybe there's a point about methodology worth reiterating.

I have no trouble with the suggestion that the skin was combustible. Being that it's mostly an organic fabric, I would expect that. Furthermore, I am intrigue by the possibility that the initial fire may have been caused by the skin being ignited by static discharge. I'm just saying that, from my limited knowledge, I'm not convinced that the color and path of the flames indicates the fire *must not* have been primarily fueled by hydrogen, or that the fire *must have* started as a skin fire. I wonder if this is another case of someone saying, "X could be true, therefore, X *is* true."

For those of you who are interested in more about this, Google for  Addison Bain and William Van Vorst, the authors of the flammable-skin explanation. I've only found press-release levels of details. A RealOne movie at http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/ safety_feature.html features a scrap of Hindenburg fabric being ignited by a match. I remain unimpressed: it takes over 10 seconds for the flame to travel about 3/4 of an inch. In 10 seconds, about 200 *feet* of the Hindenburg burned.

I've emailed Dr. Van Vorst to ask where I can get a complete write up of his research on this.

LTM, who occasionally drifts off topic too.

--Mike Z. from Massachusetts.
******************************************************************
From Angus Murray

> "Hydrogen burns colorless"

In fact it is almost colourless and from memory burns with an exceedingly pale blue flame.

> Actually, I think that only applies to hydrogen mixed at the proper
> ratio with oxygen, as in the space shuttle's engines. In high school
> chemistry, I recall burning off hydrogen as it escaped from of bottle
> (much like it would from an open gas bag). The flame was orange. Call
> it an anecdote, but I could scrounge in the basement to see if I have
> the materials to replicate the experiment.

The reason the flame was orange is contamination with sodium which is an ubiquitous contaminant.

> I also recall from high school chemistry that a small amount of a
> substance heated in a flame will induce into the flame a color that
> reflects the constituents of the substance. We used natural gas, not
> hydrogen, but I'd guess it still applies.

You earlier said you did use hydrogen so I don't know what you mean here. If you are implying that natural gas is largely hydrogen - it isn't. It's largely methane which will burn with an orange yellow flame due to incandescent soot particles.

> So even if pure hydrogen
> burns colorless, mixing in a little aluminum, carbon etc., will give
> color. Have I got this right?

Absolutely.

> So when you got a NASA researcher who doesn't seem to know high school
> chemistry, I've got to be more skeptical about other statements.

Ah but he does seem to know what he's talking about!

> "Hydrogen would burn only upward"
>
> Has this been conclusively demonstrated? I'm no combustion engineer,
> but I would think there might be conditions where air mixes with the
> hydrogen in a manner that the flame front can travel downward faster
> than the hydrogen can escape upward. Anyone on the forum know?

Remember that the hydrogen is lighter than air and any escaping unburnt gas is rising very quickly. Also remember that hydrogen cannot burn without oxygen and so the flame front can't in any case spread instantly downwards into pure hydrogen. Only when it is mixed with air will it burn and this occurs at the air-hydrogen boundary - which is rising as hydrogen displaces air. The volume of the hydrogen still inside the envelope is also denied the air it needs to burn by the enclosing envelope. Remember too that less dense, hot gas rises and the hot gas around the heated flame-front will tend to rise. Hydrogen also does not generate a lot of radiant heat when burning and so the spread of the flame front downwards by radiation is limited. Hydrogen is well known to burn upwards.

> example, if you have a stream of hydrogen flowing up from a hose (like
> hydrogen escaping from a gas bag) and you hold a lit match a foot above
> it, will you get quickly get flames starting down at the end of the
> hose? Or will you only get flames from one foot above and higher?

There is an air-gas boundary over the whole upward flowing column in this case but it will only allow the flame to burn downwards when the speed of the escaping gas is low enough. (You may have noticed you can light an oxyacetylene torch with the valves set well open, such that the flame will burn several inches away from the nozzle - but at low pressure this won't happen). Hydrogen flame fronts burn at low speed (ft/sec) but hydrogen rises at tens of metres per second.

> The PBS show claimed that the coating of the fabric covering was
> essentially equivalent to rocket propellant. I concede that aluminum
> powder and red iron oxide are the main ingredients of thermite, but you
> have to have a lot more iron oxide than aluminum, and, judging by its
> silver color, I'd guess the Hindenburg covering had a lot more aluminum
> than iron oxide. A chemist may want to comment.

The lacquer was, I believe, acetone based and so very inflammable. Finely divided aluminium will burn exceedingly well on its own.

> The show has a scene that supposedly supported the theory: they took an
> actual surviving scrap of Hindenburg fabric and zapped it with an
> electric arc of unspecified current. It burned with all the enthusiasm
> of damp cardboard, not at all like the burning of rocket propellant,
> which I also witnessed in high school (not in chemistry, but during
> certain, um, extracurricular activities).

Varnish 60 years old has lost a lot of its volatile components and it is not suprising it didn't burn as well as would when fresh. Nor does it need to initially burn well at a hydrogen-air interface for the temperature to quickly rise high enough to make adjacent unburnt fabric burn exceedingly well.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Dan Postellon

> I concede that aluminum
> powder and red iron oxide are the main ingredients of thermite, but you
> have to have a lot more iron oxide than aluminum, and, judging by its
> silver color, I'd guess the Hindenburg covering had a lot more aluminum
> than iron oxide. A chemist may want to comment.

I'm not a chemist, but aluminum is the fuel for a thermite or Goldschmidt reaction, as it is the substance which is oxidized.  Iron oxide is rust, and it is what makes barn paint red.  I'm not sure why you would put it in Hindenburg paint.  Aluminum powder is used in some fireworks and explosives, and is almost unobtainable now due to Homeland Security.

Dan Postellon
TIGHAR #2263  LTM (love those M-80's)
************************************************************************
From Jeff Lange

Okay Vern,

Let's have a reality check here. Do you REALLY think that a P-26A passing in front of something as large as the HIndenburg 20 minutes earlier would have any effect on it? I doubt that there would be any residual atmospheric disturbance that long after a planes passage, let alone enough to upset a dirigible.

"Know what I mean, Vern?" - The late Jim Varney

Jeff Lange
# 0748C
************************************************************************
From Adam

>Ric:  I could tell you that I believe the sun comes up in the east and
>sets in the west and still get some snide comment from you.

No you wouldn't, because this is a verified fact, as opposed to a blind hypothesis.

Point being, Ric has a theory and has produced a great deal of evidence that is consistent with his theory being correct.  That does not constitute proof, but it DOES raise his theory above the level of "I think this or that happened."  That's an important distinction that seems to fly right by a lot of folks (not just here but in the great wide world, I've noticed, where many folks put faith/opinion on an equal evidentiary basis with...well, evidence).

I'm consistently amazed at people who come on here, post speculation that is not only backed up by no facts but is frequently at odds with the known evidence, and yet get bent out of shape when Ric or the other forum folks aren't impressed.  It doesn't require a membership in MENSA to make this distinction. 

Sorry, Ric, I'm still a freeloader here and should refrain from posting, but this stuff just drives me nuts.

adam
************************************************************************
From Dave Porter in Detroit

What if TWA 800 crossed the wake turbulence of two African swallows which were gripping a coconut by the husk?

My dad has told me about the pre WW2 US Flag salute as well.  In his version, the right hand was placed over the heart, and then extended outward to the front, palm facing up, symbolically offering one's heart to the nation during the pledge of allegiance.  So that's an official piece of anecdotal hearsay to explain Lindy's "heil".  (unless the film clip shows him doing it palm facing down)

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288  (soon to be relocating to Fort Benning, GA, as my Army Reserve unit is being mobilized)
***************************************************
From Ric

They're not sending you to you-know-where, are they?
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:59:29 -0400
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Heil not?

> prior to World War II how did Americans
> salute the flag? Quite simply they did NOT
> put their hand over their heart - they raised
> their hand in salute. After the start of World
> War II, the method was changed and NOW
> we place our hand over our heart.

I just called my mother (born 1935).  She confirms that the at the outbreak of WWII the salute to the flag was changed from right hand raised to right hand over heart because "...the right hand raised looked too much like the gesture used by the Nazi's".

- Bill #2229
************************************************************************
From Ron Bright,

For Dave Bush,

In the interests of accuracy in journalism and reporting, I did make a sort of "interpretation" of Lindhberg's "salute". Pperhaps the Nazi context over influenced my choice of words.

It is a photo of him surronded by Germans at Munich, his native land, in which the right arm is raised , along with several others, pointing towards the sky. One cannot see what the arms are lifted for. It is a salute of some nature.

The caption says " Lindbergh returned to Munich with a Nazi medal in his jeans and a "head full of ideas ..." He made a radio speech after Germany invaded Poland in which he declared this was not our war. He decried the war as being a senseless affair between the "Saxons". He took to the America First speaking platforms-where he mouthed Nazi race theories and called for a negotiated peace with the Nazis. Pearl Harbor ended his speech making.'

This was writtten by a US Navy Officer, Harry Bruno, in 1942, in "Wings over America",

I hope this correction clarifies the post. I don't think we are talking about "scientific method " here, only more accurate reporting of the photo.

Ron Bright
************************************************************************
From Jeff Lange

Ok, this is hearsay, but I have frequently heard G. Gordon Liddy refer to this sort of flag saluting when he was in grade school prior to WWII. It was also written about in his book "Will" somewhere in the early chapters about his youth. (I''d have to dig out the book to find the exact page/quote.) I, too, thought that this was most unusual, but I could understand how the Americans would want to change that practice after WWII.

Jeff Lange
# 0748C
******************************************************************
From Doug Rainger

This is essentially correct, but there were differences in the salutes.

The Pledge of Allegiance began with the right hand over one's heart, but at the point where one said, "to the flag", the arm was extended, PALM UP, toward the flag.

The Nazi salute used a PALM DOWN gesture.

I have no idea which was used by Lindbergh.

My source is my own memory.

LTM (who raised her arm to me regularly)

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

I do, sort of, owe Ron Bright an apology. On reflection, his comment that Lindbergh gave a "heil" salute doesn't have any context, thus I jumped to a conclusion. Does it show him in front of a Nazi Flag or a US Flag? Does it just show him in a group of people or by himself?  I can only comment that it would NOT have been unusual to see any US Citizen giving the stiff arm salute prior to WWII because that was the accepted and traditional salute to the flag.

PS - "Under God" was also added to the pledge around the same time and that is why people sort of "hesitate" when reciting it. It really should be: "One nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." No comma comes  between nation and under God - it all runs together, but most people still say it the way they had to teach it when it was first added: "One nation - under God, with Liberty and Justice for all." Despite all the work of the Boy Scouts to educate the populace!

Also, in addition to the source I sent you, I have seen photos from Life Magazine showing school children giving the old style salute as well as many photos of various groups doing the same.

History of the American Flag and saluting.
http://www.historyofthepledge.com/
history.html#Flag%20Patriotism%20and%20Changes%20in%20the%20Pledge

1942
  Flag Code adopted by joint resolution of Congress, giving official government recognition to the Pledge of Allegiance; salute modified from raised stiff right arm to right hand over the heart

My notes:  This change was made because of refugees coming from Europe who had seen the rise of the Nazis and who's children had been traumatized by the Nazi "Sieg Heil"salute and were frightened at school when confronted with the same stiff arm salute.

Since I know that you always ask for sources, here it is in advance:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

... In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer....

I'm still trying to find a photo for you.

LTM,
Dave Bush
**********************************************************************
From Skeet Gifford

Dave is correct. If I may amplify the discussion....

In 1939-40 when I first entered Elementary School in Oklahoma City, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited with the right hand initially placed over the heart. At the phrase, "...to the flag..." the right arm was extended, palm up, pointing to the flag you were facing.

Sometime prior to December 7, 1941 (probably 1940, but war had already broken out in Europe), the salute was changed so that the right hand remained over the heart. The reason, it was explained, was to avoid any resemblance to the German "Hitler" salute.

Regarding the picture in question, if Lindbergh has his palm pointing upward, then he has been photographed during the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.

LTM (who knew that her advanced years would be good for something)
Skeet
************************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

Dave Bush is right.  Look at any picture or film in the early 30s and before of school children saluting the flag and they will be giving the "Nazi salute" rather than placing the hand over the chest. Also, the swastika was borrowed from other ancient cultures, Native American culture being one of them.  My aunt in Minneapolis lived in an apartment building built in the 1920s and the foyer floor was done is ceramic tile inlaid with small (3 inches??) black swastikas.  No one seemed to care or even notice because the floor was unchanged up to at least the late-70s when I last visited her.

LTM, who was floored when she saw this
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:18:14 -0400
From:         Colm O'Higgins
Subject:      Re: probability & hyotheses

This is my first post here.

Like many others I have followed the saga of AE's and FN's demise with great interest, puzzlement, along with a large dose of sadness.

Rather than have continued haranguing between posters should not TIGHAR be prioritizing the various hypotheses and having some categorization. Like "Top 3 Theories",  "Other Plausible Answers" , and my favorite: "Ridiculous & Eliminated Positions"

Sure, there is a dearth of evidence, an enormous amount of postulations, and the unknown of "WHICH WAY DID THEY TURN?"

However, if they can find the Titanic...are there not, these days, sophisticated methods of examining the depths of those waters...or am I dreaming?

What might the U.S. Government do in their interest to initiate such a search.  Or do those in Government just not care, have something to hide, or willing to let TIGHAR obsessed retirees blab on relentlessly?

Colm
************************************************************************
From Ric

Taking your points in order:

>...should not TIGHAR be prioritizing the various hypotheses and
>having some categorization. Like "Top 3 Theories", "Other Plausible Answers",
>and my favorite: "Ridiculous & Eliminated Positions"

We did that fifteen years ago.

Top 3 Theories:
- Crashed & Sank (Untestable hypothesis and no direct evidence that it happened.)
- Japanese Capture (Repeatedly tested and no supporting evidence found.)
- Landed at an Uninhabited Island (Testing in progress.  Abundant supporting evidence found.)

Many ridiculous theories have been advanced (some quite recently) but none have been eliminated.

>However, if they can find the Titanic...are there not, these days,
>sophisticated methods of examining the depths of those waters...or am I
>dreaming?

You're dreaming.  The Titanic was not lost.  It was known to be within defined and searchable geographical area.

>What might the U.S. Government do in their interest to initiate such a
>search.

Nothing, I hope.

>Or do those in Government just not care, have something to
>hide, or willing to let TIGHAR obsessed retirees blab on relentlessly?

It's not the Government's business and I'm not aware of any obsessed retirees at TIGHAR.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:25:57 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Forum posts of late

Ric wrote:

> ... discussions and articulations of methodology seem to arise
> periodically on the forum ... and that's not a bad thing.

If I understand it correctly, that fulfills the "educational purposes" of TIGHAR.

It's not just that we'd like to find out what happened to AE and FN, but we hope to illustrate good methods applicable to studying any historical event.

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

All very true, but let me dispel any misconception some (like Cam) may have that we make decisions based upon our need to "fulfill our educational purpose".  TIGHAR's nonprofit "tax-exempt purposes" are historical research and education.  We could drop the "education" part and still have our full exemption.  We do the education because we think its important.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:27:04 -0400
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Neil's hypothesis

Vern Koenig wrote:

> While I am having some trouble with Neils' theory, he does make some
> good points.  One of which is that AE did not climb to a reasonable
> altitude when leaving Lae.  As Neil said, that could be one possible
> reason for her communications difficulties.  At low altitude in cloudy
> weather, Noonan might not be able to get a fix on the sun as often as
> he wanted.  That would leave AE flying by the seat of her pants.

Neil and Vern: do you have any information regarding AE's selection of an initial cruise altitude following climbout at Lae? K.Johnson's recommendation was 4000 ft in his 1st telex,amended to 8000 ft in his 2nd message.Long asserts that her initial cruise altitude was 4000 ft. 

harvey, no.2387..
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:27:46 -0400
From:         Gary Fajack
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

It's interesting to watch these people pop up from time to time, they just seem to come and go. Maybe they're all Carol who's writing the AE play.

Gary
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:34:52 -0400
From:         Vern Koenig
Subject:      Re: forum posts of late

The only problem with this forum is that it is OK for contributors to be insulted because their thoughts are contrary to those of TIGHAR.  I now find it absolutely amazing that forrest search and rescue teams have failed to use the TIGHAR scientific approach to finding lost hikers.  The U. S. Coast Guard is equally guilty for not utilizing TIGHAR's tried and proven scientific methodology for locating boaters adrift on the ocean.  When Robert Ballard searched for the Titanic, there was no pure scientific reasoning employed in that endeavor.  They knew the approximate location of the RMS Titanic and went looking for it.  Then, to make matters worse, they repeated their ill-conceived feat by locating the Bismarck.  Too bad Ballard doesn't set his sights on finding Amelia Earhart.

Vern Koenig
************************************************************************
From Ric

I know you don't believe it, but this forum welcomes and applauds any well-reasoned hypothesis that is supported by good research.  You also don't seem to be aware that all of the searches you cite use precisely the same methodology used by TIGHAR.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:36:30 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia's Super Radio

I addressed in an earlier post that Mantz was able to transmit from Honolulu to KFI in LA at 12000 ft, a distance of about 2500 miles, from AE's Vega . This was just prior to AEs flight in Jan 1935 to Oakland. Further information is in Lovell's book, pp 210-212.

Not only could Mantz reach KFI in LA, but he talked with Kingman, Arizona. And AE also wrote her mom that prior to Mantz's broadcasts she was able to broadcast and talk with Kingman, Arizona, at midnight from the deck of the Lurline as they transported the Vega to Hawaii!

Amelia called the radio "miraculous", refering to the extraordinary range. She transmitted on 3105 and 6210 and used a long trailing antenna reeled out through a hole in the cabin floor.  "Throughout the night , her radio-telephone broadcasts had been heard on commericial radio stations..."

The make and model of the 50 watt transmitter was never identified, but it is too bad she didn't have that radio in the Electra. However it does seem to confirm that the discarding of the trailing antenna for her Western Electric radio was in the end a  major contributor to the fatal flight.

Of note here, is that she was able to broadcast from the Vega on the Lurline's deck, no altitude, and perhaps without the antenna reeled out, giving some hope to post loss transmissions with just the engine running.

I sure can't figure that range out with or without the wire antenna.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:38:14 -0400
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

where does Paraguay have a coast on the Pacific?? Are my maps in error?
Ron Berry
2640
**************************************************
From Ric

It was a joke.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:46:53 -0400
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Forum delay

> .....we're limping along on steam-powered email.

Huh, that's funny...I could have sworn the forum always ran on hot air.  :)

Reed
************************************************************************
From Ric

Whatever the fuel, the high-speed cable is now back up and running after the highly-paid expert technician from the cable company shrewdly identified the problem as being the fact that TIGHAR's non-MENSA executive director had quite deliberately disconnected and removed the cable connection (thinking it to be a disused TV cable connection) while re-arranging some furniture in the back office.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:50:39 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      The Patience of Job

Ric, I want to commend you for the work you've done in the past 2-3 weeks trying to explain to a certain "newbie" what TIGHAR is trying to do.  I mean, how many times do you have to explain to this guy what is going on? Why is it that newbies want us to do their work for them?  They come up with these wild ideas and then chastise TIGHAR for not following through on them, and actually get p.o.'d when we tell them to provide evidence supporting their theory.  Then TIGHAR explains the process of how it evaluates evidence, how it goes about collecting it, cataloging it, etc.  And that's when the newbie comes down with a terminal case of the "yeahbuts" -- one unsubstantiated claim after another, "Yeah, but . . . " Lack of patience is one of my great character defects (I'm working on it -- progress, not perfection!), but man, some of these newbies . . .WHAM!

LTM, who's occasionally rash
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Dennis, but I'm no different than you are.  I do hope that, over the years, moderating this forum has made me somewhat more - well - moderate.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:01:20 -0400
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Then too, the Titanic was only 2 1/2 miles down, in a relatively flat area.  The Pacific runs 4 or 5 miles deep over a lot of it, and is probably a whole lot more like the terrain just west of me (Rocky Mountains).

ltm
jon
2266
***********************************************************************
From Ric

We have discussed many times the comparison between searching for the Titanic and searching for Earhart's Electra.  There is no comparison.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:03:15 -0400
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Forum delay

Ric, you've just GOT to check with Pat before you go unplugging stuff....
;)

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

Funny...........that's exactly what SHE said.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:49:47 -0400
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: forum posts of late

Vern wrote:

"I now find it absolutely amazing that forrest search and rescue teams have failed to use the TIGHAR scientific approach to finding lost hikers."

Hey, Captain Mensa... the word is "forest"....

Oh, and as for the Nevada corporation, anyone with $500 can call an 800 number and get one. Nice try, though.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:21:40 -0400
From:         Hilary
Subject:      Re: Heil not?

To Dennis O. McGee, In Ketchikan Alaska the metal lampstandard bases are covered with the same  Native American Indian swastika designs...Hilary
**********************************************************************
From: Dave in Houston

In reply to Dennis McGee
...Also, the swastika was borrowed from other ancient cultures, Native American culture being one of them...

The "swastika" is actually a sun symbol. While it has been used in many ancient cultures, they often differ in the way it is made- some are a reverse of the Nazi swastika, others are rotated 45 degrees, and so on.

LTM who likes to see the sun shine,
Dave Bush
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:29:49 -0400
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Forum posts of late

I can't comment in detail, but from what I've read about them, with variations required only by circumstances, the Forest Service and Coast Guard use methods remarkably similar to the TIGHAR approach.  But, on this...

> When Robert Ballard searched for the Titanic,
> there was no pure scientific reasoning employed in
> that endeavor.  They knew the approximate location
> of the RMS Titanic and went looking for it.

I know more than a bit about this and can confim Ric's comment in detail.

Having been a Titanic enthusiast for years, since long before she was found, I can tell you that they used EXACTLY the same methods to find the Titanic. You have to actually look at what they did, as opposed to just read a few popular articles, but the research methods and search methodology was, except as modified by situation, the same.  Especially telling was their response to their failure to locate the wreck where they expected to find it.  That is, their hypothesis failed.  How they examined their hypothesis, re-examined witness comments on how the ship was oriented before it sank and developed a new theory (or range or theories, actually) on how it might have continued to turn after the collision and how it might have moved after sinking.

And yeah, found it.  Using the "research - hypothesis - test - repeat as necessary" approach.

> Then, to make matters worse, they repeated their ill-conceived
> feat by locating the Bismarck.

Same thing.

Related to this, look up sometime how they researched and found, and failed to find in some cases, the ships they went after from the Battle of Midway. Same thing.

And on someone else's comment:

> Hey, Captain Mensa... the word is "forest"....

Scoring within the upper 2% of a recognized intelligence test (the *only* requirement to enter Mensa) indicates a capability.  It's up to the individual to decide when and how to apply that capability.  That is, just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you're insightful, informed, wise, good at spelling, or anything else.

      - Bill #2229
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:33:45 -0400
From:         Mike Zuschlag
Subject:      Re: Hindenburg

Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

To clarify my first post, I was talking about two high school chemistry experiments, one where we generated hydrogen gas by dropping reactive metals into HCl (and later burned the H off with a smoldering stick), and another where we held various materials in the flame of a Bunsen burner and observed the color.

So, here's what I'm hear now and how I respond:

- Hydrogen burn colorless but the presence of other elements (e.g., sodium, soot) will give it color.

Well, the burning skin and gas bags, being largely organic, are a potential source of soot. I just held some aluminum in a propane flame, and it colored the flame orange too (the Hindenburg's frame was aluminum). Thus, my current inclination is to regard reports of orange flames to neither support nor refute the theory that the fire was primarily a skin fire, or necessarily started as skin fire.

- The skin lacquer contained acetone, a highly flammable substance.

I don't think Van Vorst and Bain claim the skin lacquer contained acetone, only cellulose acetate, which I don't think is nearly as flammable. Angus, you seem to be suggesting that residual volatile hydrocarbons (from the doping solvent?) were responsible for the alleged flammability of the skin, and that these would remain in significant quantities a year after the Hindenburg was completed. If so, this problem should not be limited to the Hindenburg. Are there cases of year-old fabric planes suddenly going up in smoke from, say, a careless cigarette making contact with the skin?

In any case, Van Vorst and Bain claim the iron oxide and aluminum mixture was responsible for the skin's alleged flammability. Bain in the video linked in my most recent post says the aluminum was laid on top of the iron oxide, ultimately resulting in bits of the skin having the right ratio for thermite, so that answers one of my questions. But thermite won't evaporate, so that suggests to me that today's burn rate is the same as would be observed 60 years ago.

BTW, in my last post I compared the burn rate of the small sample of the Hindenburg skin with the burn rate of the Hindenburg as a whole. On reflection, the two cases are probably not directly comparable. A wooden matchstick takes about 20 seconds to burn its two-inch length, but I've heard a forest fire under the right circumstances can advance faster than a person can run.

Nevertheless, that burning of the skin sample still looks to me like the burning of any old piece of fabric. When someone says something is "highly flammable," I expect it to go *foom!* when you put a match to it. That's what the hydrogen did in my chemistry class. That's what the solid rocket propellant I had did. I don't know. Maybe there's a technical difference between flammable and foomable.

- Hydrogen rises an order of magnitude faster than the flame front can travel downward.

This implies that if I let unpressurized hydrogen vent from a container and ignite it a foot above, the flame will never work its way down to the vent point. That's not what I remember from high school (I remember seeing the flame extend from above the smoldering stick down to the mouth of the bottle below), but, eh, you know memories. So the idea is that the escaping hydrogen may have burned but *above* the Hindenburg and not contributing to its destruction. So far, this is the most compelling argument in favor of the theory.

Hopefully, I'll get a response from Dr. Van Vorst. Then just watch me become a believer. Hey, I was skeptical about the Niku theory at first too, until I dug into the TIGHAR web site.

Ric, are you trying to tell me something by putting me in the same post with Vern? Oh, I think I'll just pretend it's a study of contrasts.

LTM, who's... say, what's that garlic smell?

--Mike Z. from Massachusetts.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:14:12 -0400
From:         Colm O'Higgins
Subject:      Re: Elucidation

Well, thank you for bringing me up to date.

I do, however, believe that is partially the Government's business since AE was an American citizen.  And a darned important one at that.

This Vern character, well meaning as he appears to be, may be one of the "obsessed retirees" that I alluded to.  He does, however, spark information, to the surface.  Apologies, Vern, if you are not yet retired.

It should certainly be possible to eliminate "ridiculous theories" and for TIGHAR to subsequently ignore them.

The LAI (landing, crash landing, on an island...surely that couldn't check beforehand with the travel agency whether or not it was inhabited at the time) or CAS (crashed and sank...surely if they crashed into the Pacific they didn't float for long) theories bear equal weight I'd suggest.  Think about the latter one for a minute:  sinking out there is not going to leave much evidence, though that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Japanese capture, I agree, seems remote, given that no evidence has come forth in all these years.

Keep going.

Colm
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks.  I will.  Let's see if I have any better luck with you than I did with Vern.

>I do, however, believe that is partially the Government's business
>since AE was an American citizen.  And a darned important one at that.

Famous and important are not necessarily the same thing.  The government made a rather extraordinary effort to find Earhart in 1937 and, frankly, I can think of other people I would prefer that the government concentrate on finding.

>It should certainly be possible to eliminate "ridiculous theories" and
>for TIGHAR to subsequently ignore them.

Who decides which theories are ridiculous? What criteria do you use? Some theories are more speculative than others (i.e. based upon fewer facts) and many are untestable, but I don't know of a way to eliminate a theory without proving a competing one.

>The LAI (landing...on an island)... or CAS (crashed and sank....)
>theories bear equal weight I'd suggest.

And why would you say that?  Many clues have been found to suggest that the aircraft landed on Nikumaroro.  No clues have been found to suggest that the aircraft crashed and sank at sea.  Is not a theory that is supported by evidence more promising than one that is not?

>Think about the latter one for a minute:  sinking out there is
>not going to leave much evidence, though that doesn't mean it didn't
>happen.

Yes, let's think about that.  You're right.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if we're going to establish a reasonable probability (the closest we can ever get to "proof" in an historical investigation) we have to do it with evidence, not lack of evidence. We have to start with the premise that nothing vanishes without a trace.  Earhart's Electra, or at least identifiable pieces of it, are out there somewhere.  If the Electra crashed and sank at sea there is almost no chance that it will be found.  If the Electra landed at an island there is a better chance that it will be found.  We began this project 15 years ago by identifying a limited number of islands where the Electra might reasonably have landed.  We have since found a variety of evidence associated with one of those islands that suggests that the Electra landed there.  That's why we keep going.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:22:16 -0400
From:         S. Wesley Smith
Subject:      Re; Heil not?

In reply to Dave Bush

The swastika is what it is.  For those living now and I daresay for all future generations, it will and must symbolize evil, hatred, bigotry, torture and sadism.  It is not now, nor never will be "actually a sun symbol".  In this case, anthropology be damned.

Can you kindly kill this obnoxious thread?  I'd love to see more analysis of Betty's notebook.

S. Wesley Smith
************************************************************************
From Ric

The swastika, the Hindenburg, and the pledge of allegiance are all off-topic for this forum.  Anthropology is not. I agree that Betty's notebook is more interesting.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:31:38 -0400
From:         Troy
Subject:      Re: Forum delay

I remember several years ago spending 20 minutes on the phone with my wife trying to help her get the computer on (I'm a techy, she's not). After 20 minutes, I realized she thought the monitor was the computer (the power button IS ON, Troy, she said).  She did not know that the "box" next to the desk was really the computer and the monitor was just the "television thingy".  "I always wondered what that box thingy was for!" she exclaimed.  Once she realized that the "box" had a power button, she could get the computer to turn on.  Though it was not as bad as her thinking the CD player was a coffee-cup holder, it was the only time in my life I (almost) wished I had bought her a Mac instead....

On another note, your problem was not uncommon.  Several years ago, the major online broker I worked for had a web site outage for almost the whole day.  The problem?  A techy had inadvertantly unplugged one wire and the entire web farm went down.  So you are in excellent company-- 

Daniel Troy Carmichael
************************************************************************
From Ric

My MAC has a cup holder.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:33:24 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Geography lesson

Ron Berry: where does Paraguay have a coast on the Pacific?? Are my maps in error?
Ric: It was a joke.

Au contraire ... maybe today Paraguay is landlocked, but in 1937 Paraguay had a Pacific coast and an actual Navy.

--
Paige Miller
#2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:34:02 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: probability & hypotheses

Vern K says:

>The only problem with this forum is that it is OK for contributors to
>be insulted because their thoughts are contrary to those of TIGHAR.

No, Vern, the problem is NOT that you have a different thoughts than TIGHAR. The problem is that you have been asked on several occasions to provide some evidence to support your claims, and you have not once responded with the evidence, but rather you prefer to live in the world of speculation. The problem is that you have been asked on several occasions to tell us how you would go about researching the various different hypotheses that exist, and you have failed to respond even once with the method you would use. The problem is that despite your unwillingness to state how you would go about researching what happened to Earhart, you have criticized the method TIGHAR uses (and your statements show that you understand TIGHAR's method).

Here's the type of dialog I would like to see from you, Vern (and by the way, I do see this from many others). One person makes a statement or asks a question, the second person specifically comments on that statement and addresses the question, the original person comments directly on the second person's statements, and so on. We haven't really seen that kind of dialog from you, Vern, but it sure would be nice.

--
Paige Miller #2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:18:02 -0400
From:         Patrick
Subject:      Re: Heil not?

Not that it's important but the Upward Palm Salute to the American flag must have changed after the start of WWII...

I was looking at a book today at the dentist office of WWII pictures...One section had pictures of the Japanese Internment camp....It showed all the Japanese Internees standing for the raising of the American Flag and giving the Upward Palm Salute with their right hand...I think the pictures were taken during the Spring/Summer of 1942...

It was interesting and strange considering the recent Forum messages...

Hope this helps...
Patrick (2239)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:18:53 -0400
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: geography lesson

Paige, please do give us a history lesson. Enlighten me what proof do you have to prove your statement? When did Paraguay loose it's Pacific coast?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:26:55 -0400
From:         Dave in Houston
Subject:      Re; Heil not?

Ric:  In answer to your statement: ...I agree that Betty's notebook is more
interesting....

DITTO!

LTM,
Dave Bush
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:23:38 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Vern's speculation

Paige, thanks for your post(s) responding to Vern. Well said.

I'll add:

Respectfully, Vern, you are (obviously) free to formulate any hypothesis or speculation you wish. No one is debating that, or denying your right to have opinions. Where I am having trouble is when you form such hypotheses, bring them to our attention, and then castigate us for not researching your hypotheses for you. (Parenthetically, let me state clearly that you have not convinced me yet that your hypothesis is as valid as ours.) I'm a member of this group because I believe that what this group is doing makes sense. Trust me, cool heads steer this group's effort. If our leadership dropped our current efforts, and started off in some other direction based on what you speculate, we'd be in a sorry mess indeed. And we would be obliged to, just as quickly, switch horses again when someone else came along who, for example, just KNEW that AE and Elvis were happily living out their days in Acapulco. I would not pay money to be a member of a group that did that sort of thing. Would you?

Turn this around. Form yourself a group of folks who are of the same mind as you, and allow me, or anyone, to tell you all what you should do with your funds and your resources, what you should research, and how you should conduct your research. How would you react? See?

No one is insulting you, Vern. There are many individuals on this Forum who KNOW a great deal about this mystery. You have twice as many ears as you do mouths, Vern. This is so you will listen more and talk less. I'd suggest you read carefully the well-researched information on the TIGHAR website. 

And I sincerely invite you, as others have, to tell us what you have that suggests, or otherwise supports, "Ditched NW of Howland". Put it up here, and let us discuss it. (Hold the war stories, please.) Fair is fair. Our work is on the TIGHAR website for you to see. Put yours up here, right here on this Forum. If AE ditched NW of Howland, we'd like to know about that, but we really need more than a hunch. Really.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson, PE
TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:36:52 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: geography lesson

Ron Berry wrote:

> Paige, please do give us a history lesson. Enlighten me what proof do you
> have to prove your statement? When did Paraguay loose it's Pacific
> coast?

I wonder if Paige is confused by the fact that Paraguay and Argentina were under joint rule until the early 1600's.  They might have been thought of as one country for a while.

On the other hand, it does have a navy and a naval air service.

Th' WOMBAT
************************************************************************
From Paige Miller

Ron Berry says: "Paige, please do give us a history lesson. Enlighten me what proof do you have to prove your statement? When did Paraguay loose it's Pacific coast?"

The event received little notice by historians in the United States because World War II was going on at the same time. Nevertheless, there was the Habichuela incident of 1943 when Chile and Argentina militarily evicted Paraguayan soldiers from two coastal provinces  ...

Okay, so I am making the entire thing up. I trot out my Paraguay theory whenever someone brings up and staunchly defends his or her own theory that has absolutely zero evidence and research behind it. I reserve the right to continue to use my Paraguay theory whenever I want, with apparent seriousness, because whenever someone presents such a theory that is entirely unsupported by evidence, I want it paired with other, even more ridiculous theories (like the Paraguay) theory. My point, of course, is that someone else's unsupported theory is equal to mine.

--
Paige Miller LTM (Who also made up history)
#2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:35:28 -0400
From:         Troy Carmichael
Subject:      Re: geography lesson

Paige said:"Okay, so I am making the entire thing up. ... My point, of course, is that someone else's unsupported theory is equal to mine."

I don't read all the forum stuff, having been a member for years and a lot of it is retread stuff from new forumites not reading the existing documentation or old forumites still pushing there untenable views (untenable because of lack of evidence).  That said, I usually read the rabbit trails and new info from Ric.  Reading Paige's recent response has me laughing out loud for the first time in a while.  This forum is great!   I was snookered, scratching my head on how Paraguay could have had a Pacific coast.  I'm gonna use this gag in the future.....thanks, Paige!!

Daniel Troy Carmichael
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:23:51 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Santa Fe in May

I'm going to be in Santa Fe, NM on May 19-25, so if any Forum folk would like to set up an Ameliaschpiel, I'd be happy to try to arrange it. I'll be teaching on the weekdays, but free in the evenings and on the weekends.

You can contact me at TFKing106@aol.com
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:25:28 -0400
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: geography lesson

Paige you sure lay a smoke screen it is very thick but I can still smell the Bull----.
Ron 2640
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:45:14 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Empty-handed not

Vern's question the other day about how many times TIGHAR had come home empty-handed from Niku got me thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to summarize just what positive results HAVE come from each expedition. Here's my initial formulation:

1989: Dados, other evidence of aircraft wreckage use by colonists.
1991: Aukaraime shoe remains, big airplane skin (2-2-V-1) from village.
1996: Identification of the Seven Site, plexiglass and other artifacts from village
1997: Intensive study in village gives us a handle on how airplane parts were processed and used by the colonists.
1999: Identification of landable area on reef flat coincident with reported 1940 location of aircraft wreckage.
2001: Survey and test excavations at Seven Site provide good basis for concluding that it is the castaway campsite inspected by Gallagher, provides data consistent with its use by someone other than the colonists.
2003: More dados.

This, of course, doesn't count all the negative data (learning where things AREN'T), general data on the character of the island, etc. etc. etc, all of which is important for understanding what we HAVE found.

Nor does it include the discoveries that looked good at the time but since have pretty definitively been found to be non-Earhart related(e.g. the Navigator's Bookcase). Nor does it include the results of non-fieldwork activities like the post-loss message study, tidal hindcasting, and archival research in England, New Zealand, Fiji, and Tarawa. But it does show, I think, that we've never come back from Niku empty-handed.

LTM (who likes results)
Tom King
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:13:32 -0400
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      New Shoes?

Is there another book in the works in the near future? I really enjoyed "Amelia Earhart's Shoes".

LTM,
Mike Haddock, #2438
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:35:00 -0400
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

I also wanted to voice my enjoyment of Tom's (and others) book.  It is a good way to learn the history of the search if you can't get onto the computer enough for the web page route.

jerry ellis # 2113
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:06:24 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Earhart search on Tinian

Status of Earhart search on Tinian

Forum followers may be interested in the current status of the effort to test the hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan were executed and buried on Tinian Island in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (next door to Saipan and famous as the Enola Gay's base). For background and the local media's take on the current situation, see

http://www.guampdn.com/news/stories/20031013/localnews/442241.html
http://www.guampdn.com/news/stories/20031014/localnews/445988.html

Apparently there's some difficulty over a permit for the group to conduct archeological excavations at the alleged grave site. The dispute seems to turn on the CNMI government's requirement that the fieldwork be monitored by CNMI historic preservation officials. While waiting, the group is apparently going to look for airplane parts. As you can imagine, there are quite a lot of airplane parts on Tinian.

LTM
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:09:52 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: New shoes

Thanks, Mike. What we're up to is a paperback second edition of"Shoes," with an addendum chapter bringing the story as much up to date as possible given production schedules. The text is done (subject to last-minute breaking news) and corrections are made in the original text; I'm now wrapping up illustrations. Hoping to get it out by next fall. I'm grateful to Ric and Pat, my co-authors Randy Jacobson and Kar Burns, and many members of the EPAC and Forum for help getting it done.

The publisher still has a few hundred copies of the first edition that they'd like to sell before the new edition hits the streets, so they're selling it VERY cheap -- about $7.50 through July 30. So now's the chance to get something that, when the smoking gun finally turns up, will be a true collector's item. Contact www.altamirapress.com to purchase.
   
End of Spam.

LTM (who actually loves Spam, and hunting Spamalopes)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:42:54 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Tinian

Tom King reported: "Apparently there's some difficulty over a permit for the group to conduct archeological excavations at the alleged grave site.  The dispute seems to turn on the CNMI government's requirement that the fieldwork be monitored by CNMI historic preservation officials.

Tom, thanks for the update.

Boy, I sure hope they don't discover the government's attempt to keep all of this secret.  Wow, that would be devastating, wouldn't it? :-)

LTM, a trusting soul
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:40:43 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Tinian Earhart search

From the article on the web...

"According to Naftel, the man told him that in 1937, only five days after his arrival, he had helped dig the graves for two people, who he said were still wearing their aviator's suits."

I don't recall a lot of pictures of Earhart and Noonan wearing aviator's suits....

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

We have, of course, pointed out this rather glaring problem with the anecdote.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:45:26 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Aviators' suits

> I don't recall a lot of pictures of Earhart and Noonan wearing
> aviator's suits....

Although there may be no pictures of AE and FN wearing such suits definitely ascribable to the world flight, there is no doubt that AE at least possessed such a suit. I attach a pic of AE suit and electra and perhaps Ric would care to comment on its origins or the date it was taken.

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

The photo Angus attached shows Earhart standing in front of the Electra in a set of flight coveralls.  It was taken during the World Flight in Carapito, Venezuela.  None of the available photos show her wearing the coveralls when flying.  They seem to have been used more to protect her clothes during servicing the aircraft.  I don't know of any photo showing Noonan wearing any type of coverall.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:38:05 -0400
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Flight from Lae

How much of the flight path from Lae to Howland has been verified to have actually occurred? We there any indications of contact with the aircraft from sources other than Itasca? Sounds like a really stupid question, but were there any radio contacts (non-military perhaps) on this leg? Were there any credible visual sightings? I don't recall this being asked in the forum previously. I do seem to remember some discussion about hearing "an aircraft" overhead -- but I think that report has been pretty well marginalized.

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

Nauru reported that they heard Earhart say "Ship in sight ahead" at a time consistent with when she should have been passing south of that island.  There were no visual sightings that we've heard of.  The report of people on Tabituea in the Gilberts hearing a plane overhead was collected in 1940 and must be considered anecdotal.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:51:14 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Aviator's suits

Ric said:  "The photo Angus attached shows Earhart standing in front of
the Electra in a set of flight coveralls."

I guess some people might confuse coveralls with an "aviator's suit," but I don't think anyone involved with aviation would.  An aviator's suit to me would more closely resemble the flying leathers regularly used in World War I and later.  The coveralls would more likely be associated with the mechanics, not the pilots, though many pilots in those days served in both rolls.

Anyways, it it's kind of a "no-where" thread because the person who said it is 1) now dead, and 2) wasn't really up to speed on the aviation business.

LTM, who is well-suited for her roll
Dennis O. McGee '#0149EC
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:47:25 -0400
From:         Angus McGee
Subject:      Re: aviator's suits

The pic in question is not merely of "coveralls" but specifically of "flight coveralls" as Ric mentioned. They have the patch pockets just above the knee which are peculiar to flight as opposed to mechanic's coveralls. I think there is no problem at all with describing this as an "aviator's suit".

> .........though many pilots in
> those days served in both rolls.

(Incidentally, rolls are what you eat, roles are what you play).
Regards Angus (ROTFL).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:29:24 -0400
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: aviator's suits

> From the article on the web...
> "According to Naftel, the man told him that in 1937, only five
> days after his
> arrival, he had helped dig the graves for two people, who he said were
> still wearing their aviator's suits."
>
> I don't recall a lot of pictures of Earhart and Noonan wearing
> aviator's suits....

This is an old Japanese custom: to bury the dead enemy is the proper combat outfit.  If the enemy does not have the proper kit at the death, the warrior who killed that enemy will provide their armor.    It started in the 1300s, of course, and Kusonoki Masahige was buried that way.

This has also been seen in the Americas, at archeological digs at burial sites on the Paraguayan coast.

(Next semester, I'll take more classes.  That'll keep me out of trouble.)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:08:04 -0400
From:         Anne
Subject:      Re: aviator's suits

I think that they took off from Lae with civilian clothes, then once in the air they changed into their aviators' outfits because they had to look appropriate for their spy mission.

Just kidding, tho this will probably refuel the spy theorists out there! I got a new job, so let's hope I keep busy!

Anne
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:59:05 -0400
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: aviator's suits

Flight suits?  Heck, I've never even seen a photo of Fred without that spiffy tie!  I'm betting he wore it to bed ...

Pat Gaston
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, now if somebody saw a body being buried wearing dark slacks, a dark shirt and a dark tie with little white polka dots we'd really have something.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:13:07 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Noonan and natty outfits

> . . . a body being buried wearing dark slacks, a dark shirt and a
>dark tie with little white polka dots" AND A CIGARETTE DANGLING FROM HIS
>LIPS ...

(I'll bet the polks dots were burn spots!)

LTM, who swore off Lucky Strikes a long time ago,

Alfred Hendrickson, PE
TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583
************************************************************************
From Jon Watson

You could only be sure if there was a Parker pen in the shirt pocket...

ltm
jon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:25:09 -0400
From:         Ric
Subject:      Forum Vacation

The Earhart Forum will be "on vacation" for the next two weeks or so. I'm off to the Marshall Islands on Sunday for our survey and filming of the aircraft on the bottom of Jaluit lagoon.  Assuming all goes as planned, I'll be back on May 15 and able to resume the forum on Monday, May 17.

I'll let you know if we come across any Electras.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:38:16 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Devastator Survey

Have a great trip, Ric. I'm looking forward to seeing photos upon your return.

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

Thanks.  Me too.  Should be spectacular.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:19:25 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Devastator Survey

Ric are you planning on any side trips ? Like Bikini to look at the planes in the hanger deck of the carrier , Saratoga?? there? There are/were some Jap Air Planes on some of the outlying islands in the Kwaj Lagoon.
Jim Preston
************************************************************************
From Ric

No side trips.  Our mission is very specific.  We're interested in the TBDs because of their rarity and, as long as we're right there, we'll take a look at the other aircraft in the lagoon and related features on shore (bombed Japanese buildings and seaplane ramps).